State of Residence is Ultimately the Citizen's Choice.
The "Federal" Legal Citizenship Reality
Should Be Better Known and Understood.
Question: if residency requirements were strictly enforced, would all the Presidents of the USA throughout history have lost their citizenship in their home state, and thus their U.S. citizenship as well, after living in the White House in the District of Columbia for about 6 months, and never having traveled back to their home state?
My opinion: if a U.S. citizen meets the residency requirements of numerous states and/or districts or U. S. territories, it is then their personal choice to choose of which state or territory or district they are a citizen. If a U. S. citizen is often traveling and staying in various states, districts, U. S. territories, or U.S. military bases in the USA or in foreign countries, etc., etc., for various reasons, it is ultimately the choice of the citizen himself or herself to choose of which one they are a citizen. Most use their long-term "home state" as their permanent residence. But that is not a requirement based upon any law.
If that determination were made by states or courts, citizenship domicile would change often and unnaturally without any such decision being made by the citizen himself (or herself).
In the case of Rahm Emanuel, former Mayor of Chicago, he was falsely and insanely accused in 2010 and 2011 of falsely claiming to be a citizen of Chicago in order to improperly run for Mayor of Chicago, while serving in the Obama administration in Washington, D.C. That accusation of not being a proper citizen of Chicago due to his living mostly in Washington, D.C. for a duration, was ultimately found to be a false accusation.
Note that the Presient, Vice Preisent, most or all U. S. Representatives and Senators, and most or all of their staff, would all be thrown out of office for the same reason if the fact of their physical residency in D.C. were used to invalidate their citizenship in their home states. (In other words, is the President no longer President since he no longer lives in his home state from where he was elected and where he used to vote?)
Ultimately, assuming residency rules are all met, it is the choice of the citizens themselves to choose of which state they are citizens; and only one state can be chosen at a time.
In the case of President and First Lady Trump, they moved from New York City to Florida after Donald became President, creating a short period when the Trumps were maybe not citizens of any U.S. state. But is that really a fair judgement? No. This whole line of argument is INSANE!
There are perhaps millions of American citizens who live every year in numerous states or territories within the USA, changing their physical residence often, but who have chosen one state among a few as their state of citizenship. There is nothing illegal about this, and this choice should not be an involuntary event.
U.S. citizens can freely go whereever they want to go within the USA without anyone's permission, without losing their chosen citizenship rights.
Whatever you do, don't choose to be a U.S. citizen from a U.S. territory or district since that will take away one's right to vote for U.S. Representive, Senator, President and Vice President.
Partisanship, in my opinion, is unnatural, insane, illegal and unconstitutional since it naturally creates unconstitutional and bizarre arguments that make idiocy the norm in the USA.
NOTE: this stupid and insane line of reasoning described above; the opposition to Rahm Emanuel's run for Mayor of Chicago by attempting to invalidate his Illinois citizenship without his knowledge or consent, occurred before marijuana was made legal again in Illinois. (No connection, just a coincidence.)
The point is that vacations, service, or sojourns away from home should not invalidate the basic citizenship rights of any U. S. citizen, from any state. Once residency has been established under the law, a citizen should be allowed to travel away to "foreign" lands or other states for years and months being away from home, without being secretly deprived of those citizenship rights while away.
The idea that some alien and distant arbitrary tyrant would control what we call "our home" is what is being discussed here.
Legal Mom and Pop
Marihuana Operations Common in Oregon.
From what I have heard (quite lately), Oregon may be the best bet for those with less wealth to open marihuana production businesses.
I'm surprised more states have not been more open to more smaller operations.
A Native American tribe legally opened a marijuana production and sales business near Olympia, Washington, ("Elevation") when I was in the area about 5 years ago. I like the "lofty" name. This tribe was already producing and selling their own tobacco products, operating a rock quarry, and also harvesting and selling oysters from Puget Sound, to name three other commercial things that I noticed there, besides the casino, hotel, and RV park.
There were some reports that some of the rioters in California, Oregon or Washington State were angry about the new pot dispensaries being funded by the super-rich.
One can expect that here and there, now and then, there will be openings and opportunities, even for former felons.
The state N.A.A.C.P. was one of the most important supporters of legalization in Colorado in 2012.
NPR Actually Airing News Stories About How to Deal
with Police Confrontations WITHOUT GETTING SHOT, etc.
((NPR) One in Three Americans
Shot By Police are WHITE!)
(July 5, 2020) Suicide by Cop: it's often been reported in the mainstream U.S. media that ONE WAY to kill yourself is to point something which looks like a gun at the police. They will usually shoot you. It is fairly common for people of all races to commit suicide by doing this.
(June 11 - 16, 2020) Wow. Some parts of the media are actually trying to reduce the deathrate of regular citizens and police, alike. Black Georgia (June 16, 2020) Sheriff Alfonzo Williams of Burke County, GA, says the shooting of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta, was totally justified. Williams said that the taser stolen by Brooks could easily have been used to incapacitate any of the law officers at the scene, resulting in their weapons being stolen and used against them or other innocent bystanders.
(June 11, 2020) According to the NPR radio program referenced below, regardless of what happened with George Floyd, there are thousands and thousands of white people also being shot or killed by the police every day around the USA. (NPR) About one in three people shot by the police in the USA, are white people. And I don't think it has much to do with race, wealth or poverty or communism or capitalism.
George Floyd may have not cooperated with the police. I don't know if he did or did not. But some day, I would like to find out if George Floyd was cooperative or not. That doesn't mean that I'm glad he was killed.
NPR series about "THE TALK": click here.
What I heard on the radio recently was an interview with Kenya Young, a black woman who actually works for N.P.R., and who was recommending that blacks and everyone else learn how to deal with police confrontations, such that the police don't shoot or kill anyone.
The general advice from this news item:
- (Point number 1 was not mentioned in "the Talk" NPR program.) Don't brandish a gun, or point a gun, or something which looks like a gun, at the police. This could trigger an immediate deadly response. If you're legally carrying a gun, don't remove it from the holster when confronted by law enforcement.
- Don't run from the police, especially if you have a gun. They are trained to shoot people doing that. Sorry.
- Cooperate. Say "yes sir", "no sir", when questioned (or "Yes Maam", "No Maam".) Be polite. Be VERY polite.
- Don't get in fights with the police. Instead, cooperate and communicate with them. You're much less likely to get arrested or shot dead.
- That's about it.
Basically, Kenya Young stated that she had often given "the talk" about this subject to her own children on numerous occasions; not just once, but many times. She warned them to cooperate so that the police don't have to use force. Force leads to struggles, and struggles lead to self-defense actions taken by the police. This is no different than someone in their vehicle who drives away after beng stopped by the police on the highway, without ever allowing the officers to communicate with them. That's illegal. Once that crime of fleeing after being stopped or confronted has been committed, the police then are required to chase after the "suspect" and catch them and arrest them, using force if necessary.
This sounded very familiar to me, actually.
NOTE: I'm a white guy. I was given "the talk" about this same subject by my parents many times as I was growing up. I was a bit puzzled as to why "the talk" was given to me so many times. I had never had any experience of being confronted by police in my entire life so far.
But now I know why. My parents didn't want me to get killed or shot or merely jailed!
After I grew up, I was ready.
But it is extremely unfortunate for anyone to be in a bad mood when confonted by the police. That is truely "bad luck". In such a situation, I suppose the person confronted by the police will have to assume an apologetic attitude concerning their own state of being "upset" or angry.
It's best to be in a good mood when confronted by the police. If not, apologize; then cooperate.
Why do the police kill or shoot people of all races so often in the USA?
Perhaps too many people of all races think it's good to argue with, or run from the police. My opinion is that all the police in the USA feel very vulnerable. When confronting suspects or others, they are nervous. Any lack of cooperation could lead to some sort of fight or struggle eventually. They are trained to protect themselves as their job is very dangerous. Shooting someone who shows agression is how they are trained. I also feel that when a suspect doesn't cooperate, this makes the police angry. So cooperate, don't make the police angry, and stay alive!
My small headline above about white people also being shot by the police, has not been taken up to any great extent in the media, that I have noticed. But this fact was mentioned on the NPR program titled "The Talk", which I heard, but there was no follow up or analysis.
The distortion and misinformation that only "people of color" are being shot by police, remains. Race baiting is the rule of the day, I suppose.
Cheer Up Everyone:
Louisiana Used to Have
Perhaps the Worst and Most Racist Pot
Laws in the USA. That Changed Big Time
a Few Months Ago.
If not for the covid19 pandemic, you probably would've heard more about this major change in the USA. Click here for more information.
Perhaps after full legality, New Orleans now has the potential to become the pot-capital of the USA. It used to be just that, more or less, just as it was the capital of Jazz music at one time.
Of course a lot of people would rather think about the days of slavery in Louisiana all the time. Louisiana today is not the Louisiana of 1850. New Orleans, like Houston, Texas today, used to be known as a major center for advanced modern medicine. Maybe that reputation will also return.
Dr. Scott Gottlieb Exonerates Trump Who Was Misled by Bad Data
in February 2020 When Experts Did Not Initially Detect that Covid-19 Was Spreading.
(Sept. 13, 2020)
NOTE: it does not appear to me that Dr. Gottlieb revealed this information for political reasons. He has usually not been a booster or "friend" of Trump, if we scan recent news items about "Gottlieb, Trump", at google.com, for example.
Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former head of the FDA, in interview on "Face the Nation": Click Here.
Funny how it took 7 months for the people of the U.S. to know the truth about why Trump delayed the "lock-down". I can't blame that entirely on the media, but I do recall that Trump repeatedly has denied doing anything in February or March that adversely affected the national outcome due to the pandemic.
It's good to know now that the elected President actually listened to the experts, and did his best to follow professional advice back in February, etc.
It's unfortunate for Trump and the USA that it took so long for Gottlieb or someone to come out with the truth. I estimate that 30% of all news items about Trump at this moment contain the assumption that Trump himself really screwed up in February and early March in terms of delaying the pandemic lockdown.
Even When the U.S. Was Actually Winningthe Media Reported the U.S. Was Losing:
"Let's March Onward to Ultimate Stalemate!!!!"
The U.S. lost the Vietnam War in many respects. When the U.S. was actually winning, such as with the Tet Offensive, the media reported it as if the U.S. were losing. But it was the Vietcong who lost during the Tet Offensive. This is what history actually reveals to us in the year 2020.
But no one in the media accurately reported that the U. S. won the Tet Offensive during 1968 or 1969. No one in the U.S. media reported that, for personal safety reasons, the remaining Viet Cong located in South Vietnam had to move into North Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos around mid-1968.
In fact, I think the first hint that the U.S. had won the Tet Offensive did not reach U.S. ears until very recently when some American journalists interviewed some retired Vietnamese (North Vietnamese) Generals who indicated that in their view, the North Vietnamese had lost horribly during the ill-fated Tet Offensive.
ALL AMERICANS: "WHAT??????"
Once the secret and formerly furtive Viet Cong were exposed, the U.S. and S. Vietnamese could just capture them even without torturing them into confessing.
But what did "winning" really mean during the Vietnam War? It never actually meant total defeat of North Vietnam, so to the American people, the entire war was a poorly thought out losing exercise in human sacrifice.
It is clear that fighting communism with the military has not worked as well as fighting communism idealogically and economically. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. never actually declared war on each other, but the U.S. is generally seen as the victor in the Cold War.
Now that victory in the middle east is occurring without any wars in which huge numbers of U.S. troops are heavily involved, is really good luck.
NOTE: if the U.S. had successfully propped up the S. Vietnamese regime, and established peace with North Vietnam, we would have in Vietnam today what we have in Korea: stalemate. If the media in early-mid 1968 had noticed the weakening of the Viet Cong due to their Tet Offensive, the U.S. could very well have won the entire war, and establshed a stalemate to permanently separate North Vietnam from South Vietnam.
Is the North Still Trying to Again Create
The Confederate States of America?
Click Here to see my views about how some are still trying to formally recognize the CSA, even in 2020, which means the North lost the Civil War. This is a bad idea. Let the CSA die, OK?
Other links about abolished and currently practiced slavery:
Boston Slavery Statue is ACCURATE, Can Slave Descendants Legally Seek Reparations? Abolish Slavery Everywhere, Abolish Slavery in the USA, Abolish "Slavery" in Mexico.
There have already been three periods of "reconstruction" in the southern USA: one the initial Lincoln reconstruction era which began in Dec. 1863 which was also adopted and continued by Andrew Johnson, and another the "radical Republican" reconstruction that began in Summer of 1867, more or less. The second period began gradually but should be identified as beginning when the elected legislatures were all thrown out in most southern states, some of which had ratified the 13th Amendment in 1865.
The third period of reconstruction in the southern USA was the 1940's-1960's civil rights era with Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Federal U. S. Judge Frank Johnson, as five of the most successful reconstructors from that era. (Judge Frank Johnson vs. Gov. George Wallace, etc.)
NOTE: as freed slaves exercised their new freedoms, they sometimes moved out of the southern states, and then north or west. If they were still enslaved, this would not have been possible. "Jim Crow laws" were also passed in northern and western states in response to this, just like in the south. This fact is often left out of the histories of the south after the war ended, pretending that only in the south were Jim Crow laws passed. This is not accurate history.
Plenty of non-southern states exacted "black codes" after the "war of the rebellion" had ended, even if they had momentarily rescinded earlier "black codes".
Trump is the President, Not a Doctor.
Why would the media report Trump's opinions regarding modern medicine? Maybe the media wants all of us to follow Dr. Trump's medical advice. This is not a good idea.
Landscapers, insurance salespeople, taxi drivers, plumbers, carpenters, and Presidents all have their opinions about any particular subjects such as modern medicine, but should the media be reporting such unimportant gossip, and should the population be following the medical advice of those untrained in medicine?
I wish to point out that what Trump says, and we hear, is due to a decision by the media to give us that information. I don't really care what Dr. Trump says about modern medicine that much, and would prefer that the media focus on things that actually matter, in terms of quoting Trump's various utterances.
I'm sure that every President has had opinions on all sorts of subjects, but most of this useless crap was never reported publicly.
The media who stupidly decided to report it are the ones responsible for the deaths of those who follow "Dr. Trump's" medical opinions.
(I voted third party in the 2016 general election.)
CNN Skips This Item about
BLACK LIVES MATTER.
I could not find this item at the CNN website on August 15th and 16th, 2020. It's actually a fairly "stale" news item, having occurred on Wednesday, August 12. No one in the media seems to have posted it until at least Aug. 14th. That's strange.
On the other hand, nothing is stale that has not yet been published.
GIVES US BACK OUR HOMES!!! click here.
There does seem to be reluctance to post it. That reluctance is probably caused by being embarrassed.
Also Tried to Build an Atomic Bomb
NOTE: turns out that Hitler was so publicly scornful of "Jewish nuclear physicists" well before World War II had even started, that the non-Jewish atomic scientists remaining in Germany were very keen to never, if possible, never get involved in any "super-bomb" projects with Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler's erratic, impulsive, and extreme behavior was already well known among them, and they seemed to loathe any close association with the Nazis. (Bundy) Perhaps, they also missed their Jewish associates now mostly all living in the USA, and resented the upsurge in anti-semitism.
Both Japan and Germany also tried to develop an atomic bomb during WWII. But according to McGeorge Bundy, German scientists never tried very hard due to their disdain for Hitler, etc. When asked by the Nazis about nuclear bomb possibilities, the remaining nuclear physicists such as Werner Heisenberg replied that such things were theoretically possible, but perhaps decades and decades away from actuality. So the Nazis agreed to fund the ongoing research, and that was the end of the discussion.
Article about new discovery of information about Japanese nuclear bomb program. I'm not sure how accurate this is.
(Nov. 11, 1988) Analysis by McGeorge Bundy of all information available about Germany's possible world war II nuclear bomb project.
But no allies knew during the period 1941-1945 that the Germans were not succeeding with their atomic bomb project which had only reached the most theoretical stages of development.
The Japanese did have two such very similar projects, however. The fact that a shipment of uranium from Germany being sent by submarine to Japan was captured by the Americans in mid-1945 in interesting, but no one has ever proven that this uranium was intended for nuclear bomb purposes in Japan.
But many, if not most, of the scientists in the USA who succeeded with the Manhattan Project, were actually recent Jewish refugees from Nazi dominated Europe.
Although Einstein himself was not allowed to work for the U.S. government due to having too many pacificist beliefs, some of his closest physicist friends who were involved with the Einstein-Szilard Letter written to President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, were eventually employed by the U.S. government, and worked on "the bomb" within the Manhattan Project.
The Einstein-Szilard-Teller-Wigner letter is usually cited as one of the main factors that prompted the U.S. government to start up the research and planning which eventually became the Manhattan Project, which built the first atomic bombs.
But before WWII ended, Einstein and Szilard both began opposing nuclear weapon development. And after the war ended, when they found out the Germans and Japanese had not advanced very far with their atomic bomb projects, they both greatly regretted their involvement with helping persuade Roosevelt to start up the U.S. nuclear research projects which soon became the Manhattan Project.
But Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner never seemed to have any such regrets.
Iraq War Vet with Medical Marijuana Card,
Facing Long Prison Term in Alabama
for Simple Possession.
GoFundme page for legal expenses, etc.
U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Mis-reported with Deceptive Headlines, as Usual:
(July 6, 2020) RE: U.S. Supreme Court case regarding states' rights and the electoral college system, specifically regarding electoral college delegates' rights in Colorado and Washington state to not follow the popular vote, if they so choose, contrary to then-current state laws.
The case actually means that each state can pass laws to allow, or not allow, the E. C. delegates in exceptional cases, to not follow the popular vote if that's what the delegates want to do. The particular two cases in question were Washington state, and Colorado.
This U.S. Supreme Court decision actually threw the issue for both states back into the state court scenario, as the Federal government does not totally dictate to each state how to regulate their Electoral College delegates' decisions to follow, or not to follow, the popular vote.
In these two cases, the E.C. delegates were rebelling against current state law that nominally forced them to strictly adhere to the popular vote when casting their electoral college votes. Now, unless overturned in state courts in a new case, they must follow the state laws as written, about this issue.
In other words, all states now are affirmed to have the right to be able to regulate their Electoral College delegates according to how each state wishes, generally speaking.
The media has often erroneosly reported on July 6, 2020, that the U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of forcing the Electoral College delegates of these two states into strictly, robotically, following the popular vote.
That is not what was decided.
NOTE: it seems that any issues regarding wins for "states rights" in the USA are simply not reported. The media's prevailing presumption is always that the U.S. Federal Government is "all powerful", no matter what. This mis-reporting of a win for Federal power versus "states rights" is just another deception that U.S. states are identical to "provinces", such as Canadian or French provinces.
FACT: the U.S. Constitution has delegated only certain powers to the federal government; the remaining powers not delegated to the federal government, are retained by the states, or the people themselves in cases where the states have not adopted the exercise of those powers. This decision simply threw this issue back into the two states' own courts.
But the decision on July 6, 2020 affirmed that such issues in the future will always be a matter for each state to determine for itself, in that the Constitution of the USA only generally describes the Electoral College system, and affirms that each state can fine-tune their own E.C. system as they so choose.
What was not reported: U.S. states that allow E.C. delegates to "go rogue", can continue to allow "rogue delegates". States that do not allow rogue delegates, such as Washington state and Colorado, can continue to ban and/or regulate them.
But there has always been a presumption that most of the time, there will not be rogue delegates to the E.C. The idea that the election of the President and Vice President of the USA is always somewhat vague and controlled by rogue delegates to the E.C., is simply not true. In practice, "rogue delegates" are rare, and have always been rarities.
TRIVIA: who was the first presidential candidate to complain about the E.C.? Answer: probably Andrew Jackson who lost in 1824 to John Quincy Adams. Although Jackson's loss in 1824 had little to do with the E.C., he still complained about the E.C. often, even after winnning the Presidential election twice: 1828 and 1832.
The main reason for choosing to use the electoral college for presidential (national) elections, had nothing to do with slavery. It had to do with fact that 13 separate states combined to form the USA, and these 13 separate states had very different quantities of citizens. Those with very few citizens, or very small states such as Rhode Island, did not wish for their votes counted for national elections to be nearly ignored in favor of those larger or more populous states. The electoral college system brilliantly gives electoral power to geograpical areas, not just to areas with very large populations. This means that states such as North Dakota, Alaska, and Rhode Island are still substantially powerful in national elections, despite having relatively few citizens.
The states with much larger populations are still more powerful in national elections than the sparsely populated, or very small states, but not so much if there were no electoral college, and the popular vote alone were used as the basis of the national election.
If the popular vote alone were used to determine the one U.S. national election of President and Vice President, the states would have probably already dissolved into a unified state many years ago, and what had once been called "state", would be called, "province".
RE: corona-virus and Trump.
Now that Trump has mostly delegated power to the 50 state governors regarding each state's policies in fighting the virus, the media seems to still blame the President even more than ever before for any continuing problems with it, but not the 50 state governors who are actually in control.
Note that if Trump had actually taken control of the situation and overpowered the 50 state governors, the media would all be shouting that he should let each state governor decide for his or her own self what to to with the virus, and to stop trampling the rights of the state governors.
In other words, most of the media seem to really hate Trump no matter what he does, more than good reportage, and this hate crime will be committed no matter what.
A Commonly Known FACT:
"Gone with the Wind"
is the Favorite Movie
of the Founder of CNN, etc.,
FACT: Turner wanted to have a tourist attraction conerning the Civil War in Atlanta. Is this now considered a crime? In the late 1980's, there were virtually none there, other than Stone Mountain, which is technically not inside Atlanta.
The notion that Turner, a Yankee native of Ohio, is not loyal to the USA due to his promotion of this old film is absurd. I don't think Ted Turner was or is planning on re-starting the Confederate States of America. CALM DOWN EVERYONE!!!!!!!
A hate crime emerges..... Turner was so obsessed with this movie that he started up "Turner Classic Movies" just to make sure Gone with the Wind was promoted and preserved. Turner, as CEO of CNN, purchased the MGM film library and renamed it "Turner Classic Movies", which included this classic film. Then he also purchased a large number of movie theatres in Atlanta, and one of those theatres began showing Gone with the Wind continuously in Atlanta, every day for about 20 years. This was a way to attract tourists, OK? This is not about secession of any states, OK? Relax General Mattis!!!!!
Google search for "Ted Turner, Gone with the Wind".
Does Ted Turner own a Confederate flag? I have no idea.
But back in 1987, there was no perception that this act was in anyway related to "hate crimes" until 2020. Extreme narrow minded idiocy is pervading the USA at the moment. This is a mental illness that is spreading throughout the world's media.
The Nazi party is re-born: we can expect book burning, film burning, perhaps the burning of libraries and museums as these Nazi like clowns try to destroy the world.
FACT: there are many blacks, whites, and hispanics in Atlanta and elsewhere who fly the Confederate flag just because they like the way it looks, and for no other reason. Many young people there think it's a "cool looking" flag, and have no political reason or such for flying it.
I find it frightening that some people today consider this flag of Dixie to automatically mean things, which it does not mean.
The inability to deal with ancient history is driving some people "mad" these days. I have had conversations with people, for example, that cannot handle the Romans. They become livid with anger if the subject comes up.
The ancient Greeks were often enslaved by the Romans. But let's not get upset about it, OK? Should we fear World War III in Europe between Greece and Italy if this fact is even mentioned? Should we burn all the books and historical records concerning this fact?
I don't think so.
Media Wants Suspects
to be Allowed to Shoot at Police First.
(June 20, 2020) I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes: click here.
So we want the suspects allowed to open fire before the sheriff or police are allowed to respond? That seems a bit suicidal to me, in terms of what will happen to the police and other law enforcement.
The main rule I've noticed over many years regarding law enforcement around the USA, is that they don't want to be injured or killed by gunfire from suspects; so they do have a tendency in the USA to shoot first, and ask questions later. Self-protection is part of their training.
Here we have an "alleged security guard" running away from police with a high powered weapon. Security guards are often off-duty police themselves. In this case, it doesn't seem so. Why is he running away?
A security guard should normally approach and talk with the police; that's what I would expect in this situation. But this guy runs away with a visible gun. The police give chase and wind up shooting him dead.
Thomas Jefferson Was Essentially an Abolitionist.
The Desire for a "Bill of Rights" is mostly what created
the Impetus for the American Revolution (1776-1783)
The current and previous Constitution of the United States, and the contents of the Declaration of Independence, are still clear records of the causes of the Revolution, plain and simple.
I do not agree that defending slavery from the British abolitionists is what spurred the deep south into joining the American revolution. The American Revolution was part of the European "age of enlightenment", which primarily also consisted of the French revolution and Napolean's attempt to modernize and take over all of Europe. The USA began as colonies of Europe.
Slavery was not abolished in Britain until the 1830's, nearly sixty years after the American Revolution. There were many free blacks in the deep south of the USA even before the Revolution; many free blacks owned their own black slaves.
This was a period of consolidation of freedoms and rights now held by "regular people", aka the "middle class", previously enjoyed only by the so-called nobility or upper class of Europe. But the new middle class was not to be an exact copy of the "nobility"; and remained obviously somewhat antagonistic to the traditional "landed aristocracy" and nobility. Most people don't know how primitive life in Europe remained for many or most Europeans until the age of Napoleon. The "new world" of the Americas was to be a "playground", and incubator for much of these qualities of normal modern life.
Note that the "Jews of Europe" will someday be seen as providing many of the leaders of the new "middle class" that rules the world today. Their general characteristics are 1)well educated, 2)little or modest amounts of inherited wealth usually, 3)not limited or bound to any ancestral lands, or geographical areas, country, or nation, and 4)not enslaved or bound to anyone, i.e., not serfs. There were no Jewish "serfs" in Europe. Someday, this fact will be seen as being so obvious. Many others such as many Arabs and other ethnic groups are also not traditionally "peasants". (But there are supposedly no serfs in Europe today.)
In this context, Hitler seems more like a serf or peasant than anything else.
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Simon Bolivar, Francisco de Miranda, and the Marquis de Lafayette, were all well known revolutionaries and "founding fathers" in the context of the American and European "Age of Enlightenment", that among other things, seeked to abolish slavery, serfdom, and feudalism and invigorate the new and prosperous "middle class" (sometimes very prosperous), and establish equal rights for everyone, or a level playing field for all. The fact that chattel slavery of blacks persisted in the USA until 1865, should be seen as an anomaly, not a planned or desired event.
Note that slavery (of blacks mostly) also persisted in South America well after Simon Bolivar and Franciso de Miranda were long dead. But no historian would seriously call this early group of political movers and shakers and "founding fathers", anything other than "abolitionists".
Note that Francisco de Miranda met most or all of the American founding fathers, and fought 1)in the American Revolution, 2)in the French Revolution, and 3)in many of the various Revolutions in South and Central America that led to their independence from Spain. Miranda is truly an international "Founding Father", who died in a Spanish prison after an unsuccessful attempt at revolution against the Spanish in Venezuela.
Later U. S. leaders like John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, Millard Fillmore, and Franklin Pierce, actually promoted (or allowed) slavery and expansion of it into the Western USA. But I would not group Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Washington with the latter-day slavery expansionists.
Non-black Person Picking Cotton by Hand
in Asia, Around the Year 2020
The need for an industrial revolution is evident in this analysis, a revolution that would "free the slaves and serfs for eternity".
Note that cotton was primarily still harvested by hand worldwide until after World War II (1945). Why? Because a mechanical cotton picker machine was not perfected until the 1930's and 1940's, and was not widely available for sale until after World War II (1945). The "great migration" of blacks from southern cotton fields, to northern factories continued until the 1970's.
The slant of the article about "cotton picking" at Wikipedia implies this whole scheme to make cloth from cotton is a criminal conspiracy. This was not a conspiracy to force people to work in the fields. Wikipedia in the year 2020 has an image of a white person picking cotton in Uzbekistan.
Jack Herer pointed out that cotton was traditionally the most desirable and expensive material for cloth before the cotton gin was invented, (conversation overheard between Jack Herer and Pieter Domela Nieuwenhuis 1996), and was more expensive than silk before the invention of the cotton gin (1793) by Ely Whitney soono lowered the price of cotton cloth. The cotton gin, according to Herer, 1)persuaded farmers to switch to growing cotton rather than hemp, and 2)allowed cotton cloth prices to fall and fall until the era of the American Civil War, until nearly everyone on earth could afford cotton clothing. Before cotton's price fall, most people around the world wore "homespun" hemp clothing.
Napoleon and the French Revolution that were inspired by, and which followed the American Revolution, definitely helped put an end to what had been called, "serfdom" in Europe and in "European colonies". The USA began as colonies of European nations, mostly Britain. The American revolution likewise helped end the last vestiges of "serfdom" in the New World. Serfdom is considered a form of slavery or land-bondage, by most people.
The beginning of "surnames" for some white people in Europe. Napoleon, one of the main characters leading France during the revolutionary period, had imposed the "last-name" rule on the Dutch as part of his revolutionary program of laws. (See "Netherlands under Napoleon") The common "Van XXXXXXX" as a last name ("van" means "from" in English) came into use in French controlled Holland under Napoleon's new law by many Dutch-people, people often using their village's name as their last name. Before that, the Dutch were mostly all "serfs" or peasants who did not have last names. (Conversation with Dutch friend 1992-2000) This was probably the case in many other European countries around 1800. Iceland and other Nordic countries still today have a tradition of last names created by using "first-name+son-or-daughter", such as "Erics+son", or "Erics-daughter". Serfdom still predominated until the age of Napoleon, and is considered very similar to slavery, but not quite as bad.
Many European immigrants arrived in the USA with new last names before the modern Ellis Island era.
There were some free blacks fighting FOR the American Revolution, such as a few black privateers with their own ships. All Americans should know this fact that is virtually unknown today. The current Daughters of the American Revolution organization also include people of color in their ranks. This also should be more well known. The USA was never alabaster white.
The political movement in North Carolina about 15 years before the Revolution, called the "regulator revolt", was one of the main causes that blew up into the American revolution. At this time, most of the American colonists were treated by their British overlords similar to how serfs had been treated in Europe: guilty until proven innocent, and no presumption of any rights. One can watch some old movies about Daniel Boone that reveal some of this antagonism between the frontier people in the west, and the British rulers in the east before the American revolution.
The regulator revolt was primarily a revolt against big British banks and companies and foreclosures on those in debt. The British did not allow any banks to function inside their colonies, so debts were owed to banks or colonial-companies in England.
Could current "liberal" bankruptcy laws and rules in the USA be a positive outcome of the "regulator" movement from the colonial Carolinas? Did debtors have to flee to the frontier areas back then in order to escape the slavery of permanent debt? The right to file bankruptcy in the "new world" would've been a "privilege" not held by the "lower" class until latter days.
Thomas Jefferson never promoted slavery. He apologized for it and actually tried to end it as a Virginia legislator. Could an actual slavery promoter have looked Lafayette, Simon Bolivar or Francisco de Miranda in the eye? Jefferson's slave mistress, Sally Hemmings, never attempted to flee from his side, even when they toured France. She probably could've obtained actual freedom from slavery at any moment during their travels through Europe.
But she remained at his side. Is there any record or ancestral memory that Sally Hemmings ever attempted to flee from Thomas Jefferson?
I don't think any early American leaders ever really seriously promoted slavery before or after the Revolution. It was already considered an obsolete, but "necessary evil" at the time. It was known to be evil, advertised as evil, but it was considered an economic necessity at the time, by many.
In the long run, in my opinion, slavery was never found to be an economically viable system. The attempt at creating a slavery promoting "Confederate States of America" was not based upon surplus liquid wealth, but rather upon credit offered from abroad and domestically.
The general financial weakness of "higher education" in the old south is a sign of this overall strained economic condition that pervaded the antebellum south until its demise. This is rarely discussed. Most of the "wealth" in the antebellum south seems to have consisted of land ownership, not in liquid assets. Tuition cannot be paid in land itself.
If only the cotton picker machine could've come sooner.
Oklahoma is Also a SOUTHERN STATE.
(June 20, 2020 ) Trump Campaign Begins
Social Distancing in Tulsa Which The Media Condemns.
I couldn't resist posting this angle. I am an undecided voter, but the hatred for Trump, the President of the United States, is so great, the media would rather destroy the United States than admit Trump did anything right.
Genuine journalists are supposed to be neutral, not full of hatred and bias. That's "partisan", not American.
Trump messed up in Tulsa by having the rally much too late in the day, when it was horribly hot. It would've worked better around 10 in the morning, if at all. Plus, how many people are attracted to a possible race riot event?
Trump threatened protesters way ahead of time, setting the event up for a big fall all along. I think it was a doomed event about a week before. People in Oklahoma stayed home and watched it on TV!
The south has been a "suburban reality" dominated by TV watchers in the suburbs for DECADES. They just stayed at home to avoid the race-war that was advertised and promoted by both Trump and the Democrats.
1960-1965: AIR CONDITIONING ARRIVES IN THE HOT-HEADED SOUTH: this is not the first time that suburban comforts led political events. Air conditioning was "suddenly" becoming prevalent in the southern USA between 1960 and 1965, and gradually cooled off the political extremism, in simple physical terms. Both whites and blacks decided that they were no longer so angry, and the prosperity was increasing as well for everyone.
NOTE: it was more likely the availablity of ample (excuse the pun) and cheap electricity that made air conditioning become more widespread during these years.
When the Beatles visited and performed at a de-segregated concert in Jacksonville, Florida in 1964, they were absolutely amazed and SURPRISED at the wealth and prospoerity of the NEW SOUTH. They were expecting to see chain gangs of black workers everywhere. Instead, they walked into modern American suburbia where everyone (blacks and whites both) had a brand new Chevrolet with air conditioning, and brand new homes with central or window air conditioners, and brand new color TV's, etc., etc., etc. They demanded that their concert be DESEGREGATED, and it was.
But hardly anyone knows today that they even performed in Jacksonville, Florida in 1964.
George Wallace stood aside and allowed change to take place. What the media are leaving out is that George Wallace had never really stood firm in any of his public political stunts. He stood aside every single time in favor of progress and change and blacks' rights.
What's never reported: when he stood aside to allow the first black students at the Univ. of Alabama, when the demands of the blacks in Montgomery to not be forced to the back of the bus were actually met, when he stood aside to allow the public schools to all be integrated, when LBJ's war on poverty provided needed immediate "first aid" to the impoverished, all these things were salve for the wounds that had been inflamed for decades. The changes that actually took place in the deep south in the early-mid-1960's until 2020 are rarely reported today. Instead, even in the year 2020, all we have are negative reportage of RACISM IN THE SOUTH, ETC.
CORRECTION: there used to be racism in the deep south. But reconciliation is what is actually occurring there 1960-2020. But does the media report it? No. Hardly at all.
Mere materialism enjoyed by blacks and whites both subdued and short-circuited the extreme emotional and iconic political extremisms from the late 1950's such that the war on racism was actually won through desegregation and increased prosperity of the work force, etc.
But today, all everyone does is watch the negative news items about the past. Living in the past leads only to sorrow.
Do What Dr. Fauci Says!!!!
Binary Logic Supports Continued Extreme Social Distancing, REGARDLESS!!!
(NOTE: (added July 15, 2020) I haven't seen any mention lately from anyone in the media about the inaccuracy of testing for the coronavirus. I've heard that there's a 30 percent chance the virus test will give false positive (or maybe negative) results.
Doing what the Chinese just did, which is what Dr. Fauci tells us to do, would be the best policy if we're to reach "the end of the tunnel" which is in sight already.
The act of EVERYONE who is able, pretty much self-isolating is wise, until the virus threat passes. Those who have not tested positive, should, if possible, continue self-isolation until Dr. Fauci says it's time to come out.
The idea that there are large groups of "Spring Breakers" who aren't sick, and aren't going to get sick, is wishful thinking to some extent since the virus is so contagious. Self-sacrificing now should lead to success later on - the American way of life.
But social distancing has ALWAYS been the norm at the beach. Complete strangers do not, and have never, mingled closely at the beach except in exceptional and rare circumstances. So those individuals, couples, and pre-existing groups who rush down to the beach are not in any large danger, probably. Those pre-existing groups, couples, families, and individuals keep apart there, usually. The sunshine kills germs, viruses and bacteria. Keep your distance from other groups, couples or individuals, however.
Self-isolation now leads to ultimate success when the storm is found to have passed over, during the dark nights ahead, etc., etc.
REPEAT: do what Dr. Anthony Fauci says to do.
FACT: Healthy Humans and Animals All
Have Some Cancerous Cells in Their Bodies.
In healthy people, the body destroys and recycles these "bad" cells every day. When a person or animal gets "cancer", this means the daily process by which the bad cells are eliminated has broken down, and the cancer begins to spread abnormally. If this process of daily healing continues to be weak, the human or animal eventually dies from the proliferation of cancerous cells.
So nobody is totally free from cancer, actually.
Finding a Beautiful Pearl in a Smelly Place:
Surprise!!!! "Jawage" Washington was a bad man. It's true. He did a lot of bad things that would not be acceptable in the year 2020 in most places on earth. But the same could be said of nearly everyone else in every nation on earth who lived back before the industrial age, when slavery was finally abolished somewhere on planet earth. But not everywhere.
But rather than dwell on such horrible things from the past, why not worry more about the slavery still being practiced in 2020??? Even if you could travel back in time and shoot Washington in the head, when you got back to the year 2020, you would still find that slavery is still being practiced somewhere on planet earth.
But I find that it's also quite incredible that slave owners, like Jefferson and Washington, could actually conceive of a freedom loving USA without slavery.
The abolitionist aspect of our 1787 U.S. Constitution: their (Jefferson's, Madison's, Franklin's, and Washington's) U.S. constitution of 1787 does in fact enable the future congressional prohibition of the international slave trade to take place in the year 1808.
I also feel that most of what our founding fathers spoke and wrote about, was freedom, not slavery. Slavery was a shameful neccesity since they had no robots to do the hard work while they had fun in the library as others toiled away under the hot sun.
Let's thank Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and so forth for helping reduce human enslavement a little more every day.
Is London (England) the Most Popular Place
on Earth for International Students?
(2020) According to numerous rankings by numerous rankers, with or without Brexit, London is usually cited as being the top destination for international students at the moment. And I would also speculate that the students in London are usually speaking English.
This also implies that colonialism also included some positive and attractive aspects that remain after the more negative aspects were filtered out and removed from the mix.
BACK WHEN SONIC BOOMS WERE FAIRLY COMMON IN THE USA ....
May 31, 1968: Air Force Lt. Colonel Jim Matthews Causes Sonic Booms
to be mostly Banned Over the USA After He Accidentally Caused Hundreds of Windows
to be Shattered at/near the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, CO.
Another web mention: click here.
Shortly after U. S. Air Force Lt. Col. James “Black Matt” Matthews accidentally exeeded the "sound barrier" while flying only 250 feet above the Air Force Academy, breaking many, if not most, of the windows at the Academy and nearby which actually injured 12 persons, the FAA and U.S. military shortly afterwards began a decades long ban or discouragement of faster-than-sound flight conducted above populated areas of the USA, other than in remote military jet practice areas or over the ocean, for the most part.
It makes no sense that there's almost nothing online about this well known incident.
Before this incident in Colorado happened, it was common in the USA to hear the occasional "sonic boom" occurring as military jets flying at high altitude often exceeded the sound barrier over the USA.
I feel like there's an "internet knowledge gap" that's growing worse every year in terms of gaining knowledge about past events in U.S. history. Distortions of all sorts are cropping up as ignorance prevails in the USA about well known incidents from the past.
The "morgue" is now in the morgue itself. (Definition: the morgue. in journalism refers to old articles pertaining to any particular subject. The reporter goes to "the morgue" to find the old articles.)
It's also true that most of the people in the usa today have probably never even heard a sonic boom, other than those who live in remote areas near a military aviation practice area for Air Force or Naval jet pilots, or near the ocean where such things take place.
Are "Dead" Virus's in Control of Our Bodies?
VIRUS: a stray scrap of dead protein found inside the human body which is mistaken by the body for its own DNA or RNA, sometimes resulting in disease or malfunction of the bodily functions of the host organism.
NOTE: normally the body obliterates (digests) and utilizes such stray scraps of "dead" protein floating around inside our bodies.
The problem is that as of late, the human race has tended to institutionalize this confused bodily behavior by giving motive powers to the scraps of dead protein over the host organism. Such "demonic" scraps of dead protein are called "viruses" by some people who confuse themselves that the protein molecules called "virus" are controlling the host organism.
(NOTE: Despite slavers having won at the U.S. Supreme Court with the Dred Scott decision which presumed to invigorate continued Federal protection of the institution of slavery from abolitionists and the underground railroad, just 4 years later, southern slavery assets inexplicably started the "War of the Rebellion" at Fort Sumpter waged against the U.S. system which had just rubber stamped slavery. Four years later after their defeat, slavery enthusiasts killed their best friend - President Lincoln. Lincoln's friendship toward the former slavers was not offered unconditionally. He mainly required that the former Confederate "pretenders" abolish slavery in their defeated states as a prerequisite for this friendship and re-admittance to the U.S.
But there had also been many northern slavers and northern investors in slavery-based institutions, businesses, and plantations as well, which is mostly forgotten.
FACT: a substantial percentage of the Confederate troops were from northern states, and a substantial percentage of Union soldiers were actually from the south. This was true not only with the border states, but everywhere else as well.
According to John Jay Knox, former Comptroller of the Currency in his book, "United States Notes", in terms of high finance, many large banks in the USA were largely reluctant to underwrite the northern cause at the start of the war, and Lincoln's government had trouble selling Treasury bonds with moderate yields as the war started.)
Dec. 8, 1863: Abraham Lincoln's(It Makes No Sense At All That You've Probably Never Heard of It. In practice, under President Johnson, later modified into the "North Carolina Proclamation".)
'Louisiana Plan' for Reconstruction.
Rape and Plunder of the Defeated South?
Over Lincoln's DEAD BODY:
Note that Lincoln's Plans for Re-integration of the "South" Will Someday
Be Seen as Forshadowing the Novel Concepts of the Future United Nations,
etc., in terms of War and Its Obsolete, Perverted and Horrible Traditions.
Lincoln's note to Louisiana Gov. George Foster Shepley: "... To
send a parcel of Northern men as Representatives, elected, as would
be understood, (and perhaps really so) at the point of the bayonet,
would be disgraceful and outrageous. ..."
NOTE: the USA abolished the Department of War, renaming it the "Department of Defense" on Sept. 18, 1947, a bit late I think.
RE: History of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, (published 1896) by former U. S. Senator Edumud G. Ross. Click Here to read the e-book.
Ross also reminds us that Lincoln and Johnson and their political machine in 1864 distanced itself from both the Republican and Democratic and other Parties, instead creating a new centrist party called "the Union Party", which was concerned nearly exclusively with finishing the war and re-uniting the USA with the former Confederacy. Lincoln and Johnson were totally obsessed with keeping the USA whole, rather than splintered by stubborn partisans.
"... It must be frankly admitted," says Mr. Blaine in reciting this record in his 'Thirty Years of Congress,' that Mr. Lincoln's course was in some of its respects extraordinary. It met with almost unanimous dissent on the part of the Republican members, and violent criticism from the more radical members of both Houses. * * * Fortunately, the Senators and Representatives had returned to their States and Districts before the Reconstruction Proclamation was issued, and found the people united and enthusiastic in Mr. Lincoln's support. ..."
(1863-1868) I thought I knew something about "reconstruction". But I had never even heard of President Abraham Lincoln's so-called "Louisiana Reconstruction" plan given out Dec. 8, 1863 along with his annual "State of the Union" address, which when modified by Pres. Johnson after the end of the war, was later called "the North Carolina Proclamation".
Being from the South, I had, of course, heard of "reconstruction", but we all knew that Andrew Johnson's plan, supposedly very similar or identical to Lincoln's, had floundered after being overridden by the so-called "Radical Republicans" who had impeached him, and taken over the affairs of government nearly totally from about 1867/1868 until it ended around 1877 with the South regaining constitutional political control of itself from then on.
But hardly anyone ever discusses what Lincoln's original reconstruction plans were. As the most popular President in all of U.S. history, this is the most shocking ignorance.
Today, nearly all supposed "histories" of the reconstruction era claim erroneously that Lincoln's plans were the same as those of the Radical Republicans who had taken over the federal government after impeaching and sidelining Johnson. But in the South, without a shred of details, we were taught that Johnson was trying to implement the Lincoln plan until he was sidelined by extremist Congress.
The Confederates had lost New Orleans very early in the war, and the Mississippi River, and later much of the rest of Louisiana by 1863, so this state became the prototype for Lincoln's plans (and later those of Andrew Johnson) for the rest of the former Confederacy. For public consumption, the "Louisiana Plan" later was called the "North Carolina Proclamation" since that state was the first to be picked for Johnson's reconstruction efforts as evidenced by the May 29th, 1865 executive order (proclamation) very soon after Lincoln's murder in mid-April.
Note that the extreme criticism of Ross due to his aggressive seeking of favors and patronage from President Andrew Johnson, is usually used as an example to show that he was very corrupt.
But this accusation totally ignores the fact that all politicians at the time operated the same way. "Patronage" was how the Federal government used to work. Otherwise, these Federal job positions would not be filled. It wasn't until the Civil Service System under President Chestor Arther was created which replaced patronage as the method used to eventually appoint most all Federal bosses, managers, and employees.
But even in 2020, there are many Federal positions still filled using the "patronage" system.
I read about Senator Edmund Ross from a news item about V. P. Pence's quote about the 1956 book, Profiles in Courage, written by Senator John F. Kennedy and Ted Sorenson. The book was very popular just before Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
Bandwidth Requirements for the World Wide Web
HAVE GONE INSANE!!!!! (Nov. 26, 2019)
Without anybody much noticing, the bandwidth requirements for the world wide web have skyrocketed, overnight; especially for wireless internet over mobile phones, for example. Some mobile phone ISP's (providers) in the USA are now routinely giving out 20 to 100 gigabytes per month on their unlimited plans. Others such as Verizon are still stuck at 7 or 8 gigabytes. For my humble Tracfone service and phone, 100 gigabytes per month would cost about $1000 per month!!!!!
The main problem, in my opinion, are in two categories: auto-play videos, and just plain "too-large" images in web pages. The software which generates all these webpages needs to be written to prohibit images which are larger than, say, 200 kilobytes. Do we really need to be able to see the individual atoms in an image of someone's face online????
WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS OTHER THAN TO TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF EVERYBODY'S POCKET EVERY TIME THEY VIEW A SIMPLE WEB PAGE????
At least in the good-ole-days of dial-up speed, the web page designers had a bit more compassion not to use such INSANELY LARGE IMAGES!!!!!
For my own humble website (www.nintharticle.com), I individually upload every single graphic image that you can see. For years, I've kept the images well under 500 kilobytes each, or even smaller, so NO, you can't see the individual atoms in a person's face at THIS website, but at least you don't throw your money away here (except for the automatic streaming music from DFM-Radio Amsterdam which I just stopped today, Nov. 26, 2019. Now you have to CLICK HERE to get that).
The videos at www.nintharticle.com are all at YouTube and out of my control, other than the ones I still host from www.nintharticle.com (and the sizes of these videos are clearly shown before you try to download and watch them).
So I have been aware of this problem since the dial-up days of 57KB per second. As of today, Nov. 26, 2019, I have stopped the background music auto-play from DFM Amsterdam simply because I'm not sure if hitting pause on the radio device really stops the streaming music making your bill go up.
Is It Really the Fault of All the Billionaires
that the U.S. Healthcare Insurance System
Often Bankrupts Middle Class People Who ARE INSURED?
Do Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Hunter Biden, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Tim Cook all sit around all day fantasizing about middle class Americans not being properly medically insured, such as when someone has a bicycle accident, gets taken to the wrong hospital (out-of-network), and therefore, goes bankrupt because the care they receive will not be paid for by their own policy???? I mean, do Elon Musk and Bill Gates become more wealthy or happier when that happens? And if we take away Bill Gate's billions, will our healthcare insurance system suddenly stop bankrupting middle class persons?????
I would love to know the answer to the above question.
A few weeks ago I signed a ballot petition for a ballot initiative which would put the question on the ballot for the next election in my state, for all the medical insurance companies that operate here, to start honoring each others' policies such that everyone is still covered for emergency room care, and perhaps other sorts of care, regardless of which ambulance or hospital are utilized after their bicycle accidents, etc., etc., etc.
This ballot initiative, I don't think, has anything to do with attacking billionaries, but rather trying to manage better the in-state insurance companies' behaviors toward all their customers, regardless of whose customers. I assume there would be put into place some inter-company system that would reimburse company A if company B has to set my bones after they break, assuming I was taken to a hospital run by company B rather than A (assuming I am insured by company A). Does Bill Gates want this not to happen? Does Tim Cook want this not to happen? Does Elon Musk want this not to happen?
NPR should investigate. CBS should investigate. Etc., Etc., Etc. Then I will know for sure if the billionaires are really the badies out there, rather than some idiot lawmakers and insurance company execs.
I would be more inclined to blame Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, and Hillary (actually is a state issue, not Federal) than Bill Gates, personally. After all, the state politicians are the ones who regulate the insurance companies, aren't they???? But it's nice to see Obama speaking out against "revolution" for the USA at the moment.
There Are a Lot of NUTS Out There!
There are people out there who see the character "Tarzan" to be an example of a female character. I'm not kidding. Some people perceive "Tarzan the Ape Man", to be a womanly being. Personally, I've never felt that way. He looks more "ultra masculine" than feminine to me. But maybe I'm insane.
There are people out there, like Bette O'Rourke, who think those who want to shoot at groups of people, for no apparent reason, as being sane. Trump, myself, and others consider such behavior to be "insane", and we also think that these nuts should be identified before they shoot anymore random groups of people. I'm glad Bette O'Rourke withdrew from his quest to become President. I agree with him that pot should be legal, but I don't agree with him that those who commit mass shootings randomly are sane persons. They are not sane!!!!!
There are those who consider the U.S. Constitution itself to be a bit nutty. For example, these people ("those" in the previous sentence) think those who have sworn to uphold the U. S. Constitution to be a threat to law and order. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Yet sometimes, all those who register to vote do, in fact, swear to uphold the U. S. Constituion, since that is a requirement for voters in many places. Obama had to do that to be president, but had he already sworn to uphold the U.S. (and Illinois) constitutions already, well before he became President of the USA? But he looked as if he didn't want to, when he did that.
There are those people who consider anyone who wants to plead "not-guiilty" for any particular crime for which they have been accused, to be nuts. I consider "those people" in the previous sentence to be the nuts in this paragraph. There are other groups such as actual "defense attorneys" who would starve to death if everybody pleaded guilty. But not all attorneys are actual "defense attorneys".
I think, personally, that those attorneys are "nuts". (The ones who advertise as if they want to defend you in court, but in reality, they are FRAUDS in that respect.) They don't defend anyone in court, not even themselves.
THE GREAT DECISION MAKER?
Does THC make decisions? The U.S. Government believes this, especially the Secret Service, probably.
I don't. Nor do most people in Michigan, Colorado and California to name just three U.S. states where most people no longer give THC such amazing powers over human decision making.
Our ancestors did not have any major mental qualms concerning the usage of cannabis as medicine or intoxicant until the "reefer madness era" which began in the early 20th century. Before that racist anti-pot era, it was considered as valid as any other medicines or intoxicants.
I feel sorry for all the kids (and adults) that think pot and THC are controlling their lives. This is pure superstition and myth, which can be very powerful influences. I'm glad there are rational people on earth, however, who don't give such power to benign substances.
With alcohol and hard drugs, this is a different story. It's difficult or impossible to overcome the acute effects on our bodies and minds from injesting large amounts of hard drugs or alcohol in terms of the effects on our own decision making processes caused by the substances.
We also should distinguish between "addiction" and "insubordination" in this context. Anyone who is not an adult may be coerced by parental authorities to stop using various substances in certain contexts. The state and federal courts will have to decide who is in control of minors in this context. But those 18-21 are not minors.
And medicines are not generally considered age-controlled, historically speaking. This could be an unprecedented and really cruel crackdown taking place against younger users of cannabis as medicine.
Another point is this: if the culprit is the Vitamin E acetate entering the lungs as vapor, and not the cannabis ingredients so much, then why do some want to attack the cannabis?
Smart Roads and Smart Vehicles Can Work Together.
People naturally spread out and live over a wide area. Think Chicago, L.A., San Diego, Wichita, Atlanta, etc. Mass transit tends to bunch people up into narrow un-natural and crowded corridors which don't correspond to desired reality (the American dream, etc.). Better to have the transit system correspond to how people actually want to live. Otherwise, we are all having to live on top of and under each other, sandwiched above and below, which is too expensive.
I think Tesla has the right idea up to a point with the automated car. But the automated and intelligent safety oriented and actively managed road system is really yet to be promoted very much. We should not use 5G, but rather fibre optics mostly for the intelligent road system to communicate with itself, the various sorts of roadway-safety monitors, safety robots, and the intelligent vehicles as well as all the old manually operated vehicles, to make the system work. How the cars communicate with a vast intelligent roadway system should not be so high power radio oriented; fibre-optic communications would work along with low power wifi for the moving vehicles.
Transient vehicle information versus total roadway information: the amount of total information available to any transient vehicle(s) is so much less than the total information available at each point added to the total information along an intelligent and connected roadway system, that it isn't even reasonable to compare the two. The moment the "autonomous" vehicle is connected to a widespread system, it's no longer really autonomous.
With this system, which would have to alternately for certain time periods, keep out pedestrians, bicycles, and all manually operated cars and other manually operated vehicles for short periods, we don't need stop signs or traffic lights at intersections during automatic time periods. Proper computer timing would allow all auto-mode-vehicles to cross intersections without collisions, etc. The intelligent roadway working with all the intelligent vehicles could plan and predict arrivals and departures of all participating vehicles. Like data in our computer, everything would flow as fast as possible. The occupants would simply type in where they want to go, and the system would take over and do the rest as quickly as possible. Estimated times of arrival and departure at every point would be known in advance, etc., and could be changed dynamically as the trip progresses.
Parallel roadways alternating in both manual and auto-mode, would reduce narrow crowded corridors, etc. People naturally think like this anyway. When the road ahead is fully clogged up, we naturally want to try an alternative and parallel route to reach our destination since "piling on" to the clog doesn't work anyway.
Pedestrian, animal, and bicycle walkways would have to be above and below the roadways. Desired modifications to trips could be input, and the system would dynamically adjust to desired changes in trips, etc. The roadway would have to monitor dogs, cats, deer, other animals, and pedestrian intrusions. "Roadway monitor" would be a new job created to keep the road clear, taking orders from local and central control, etc. Perhaps robots could help keep the areas near the roads clear of animals, etc. The automated roadway system itself would have to actively and dynamically respond and protect wildlife and humans who stray onto the road. It would have to protect life, just as the automated cars have to.
Areas like metro St. Paul/Minneapolis, Atlanta, Chicago, L.A., or Orlando, would all work very well with this sort of intelligent system with multiple and parallel paths that vehicles could follow. There would no longer be the need to bunch everyone into narrow, crowded, and expensive 10 lane stacked freeways or central train or bus corridors.
Regular one or two lane limited access road systems, built very cheaply, could be used even in the most crowded environments. No need for stacked cloverleaf intersections, etc., etc. Timing would do the rest at simple X intersections. Metro New York City could de-centralize a bit and spread out making housing less extremely verticle as in the 19th century model we're all still living in. The constant threat of overloading the crowded central corridors, like arteries about to burst all the time, is over for good.
Within the street grid of any town or city or area, alternate streets could be manual and then automatic, manual and then automatic, manual and then automatic, and would also change modes regularly over time to reduce the trend toward crowded central travel corridors, and to preserve our manually operated prerogatives, and for old cars and other old manually operated vehicles, motorcycles, etc.
Once the nearby automated mode roads are clear of travelers, the lights would all turn green for the manually operated traffic to flow through as well. Each manual vehicle would have to have a "safety transponder" with a green and red light. When red, the manual vehicles would have to all pull over or move to designated areas until the "safety transponder" light turns green again. By having all streets in every town and city and area alternate with parallel traffic (auto and manual) next to each other, the existing system could continue parallel with the new one, right next to each other at every point, or alternating usage perhaps. Let's say 4 minutes of fully automatic operation followed by 12 minutes for manually operated vehicles and motorcycles using the same roadways alternately.
But the system would be dynamic and would change with the peoples' inclinations and plans. Central corridors are also sometimes natural things, just as rivers are natural things. Things which people want such as central schools, universities, shopping malls, beach access, swimming pools, could actually come back into vogue a bit. But the drudgery of commuting and travel would be gone forever.
People could sleep or rest in their vehicles as the system does the rest, and watch TV. Auto and manual can co-exist by using time-intervals alloted to each group. Auto-mode could be for shorter time periods since that system is optimized for faster more efficient operation. Existing traffic lights and a new "safety transponder" system would allow manually operated vehicles to continue using the same roadways.
Mixing automatic and manual traffic at the same time on the same roads seems impossible to me. Maybe dynamically allocated "auto-corridors" could be implemented. Maybe "travel-cells" of many automatically controlled vehicles could travel on existing roads in managed "caravans-cells", along with manually operated vehicles at the same time. There are so many options with a dynamically allocated roadway system for each group: automatic and manual vehicles.
The Federal Bankruptcy Court
Is Now Running
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Inc.
Ever since P. G. and E. filed for chapter 11 backruptcy protection, and their request for bankruptcy protection was accepted and approved by the Federal bankruptcy court which has jurisdiction in San Francisco, they have been under the control of this Federal court, probably in San Francisco, CA.
We must remember that the corporate management of P. G. and E. is essentially no longer running this company any longer ever since they were put into what is called "receivership". When a corporation is in receivership, the former management of the company is essentially no longer in ultimate control of the company; instead, the bankruptcy court is the real boss. In some cases, the actual former managers leave the premises and allow new "trustees" to actually run the day to day affairs. In other cases, the former managers stay on, but are under the control of the court.
The fact that the media in the U.S.A is erroneously still blaming the former management of P. G. and E for various alleged errors, rather than the actual court which is currently in control of this company now, should be noted.
Is there any greater quantity of waste heat than all the geothermal energy we are not yet exploiting?
I'm for the development of alternative energy sources, but I'm not for the extreme and hysterical incrimination of the oil companies.
Turns out that Chevron is one of the world's leaders in geothermal energy. Chevron used to be the major mover in the world in geothermal energy research.
Extreme idiocy is the problem, not oil. Even if we shift more and more into alternative energy sources, oil will still be an essential part of our economy. All this extreme polarization is what is insane. The world would collapse without oil, right now.
I know that some of the oil companies made some mistakes in terms of claims concerning global warming, etc.
But the main problem is the continued reliance on huge obsolete power plants which have massive steam boilers, such as all nuclear plants, nearly all coal plants, and many other sorts of large power plants. This has nearly nothing to do with oil companies.
For about every megawatt of energy from these plants that enters the electric grid for us to use, about two megawatts of heat are wasted at the power plant, radiated into the environment unless some form of waste heat recovery is utilized, which is very difficult to do in most cases.
There are much smaller power plants in wide use which generally use natural gas that don't have boilers at all, and therefore, contribute much less "waste heat" to global warming. "Waste heat" from boilers is likely one of the main cause of global warming.
In the long term, geothermal energy exploitation knows no bounds, theoretically. I can't think of any.
Is there any greater measure of "wate heat" than all the potential geothermal energy we are not yet exploiting? me jan. 12, 2020.
According to the media records, Exxon-Mobil used to be a world leader in solar energy research and development with the Mobil-Tyco silicon-solar-cell research project, which was widely reported in the media at every stage until total disaster resulted to the program at what later became Exxon. They were attempting the "edge-defined-silicon-wafer crystalline development method". What went wrong with alternative energy at Exxon and Chevron?
Cool Off Planet Earth:
For every watt of geothermal energy exploited, the planet cools off by one watt. In other words, using geothermal energy cools off the planet.
How Sleeping Without Clothes
Could Actually Save Lives:
NOTE: different figures come up concerning the percentage of Americans who do their main sleep at night without wearing any clothes. Let's say from 8% to 67%. Perhaps it's so personal and intimate that some would rather not reveal the truth about themselves.
The idea for this item came to me after a massage therapy session. The therapist told me she had recently fallen asleep on her sofa at home wearing her jeans and top, but had woken up with an arm or leg fallen asleep due to her clothing becoming accidentally too tight. I then remembered that a similar situation had occurred recently for myself at home with the same result. I then realized/remembered that this had never occurred for me when I slept without clothes on.
Ever woken up and found an arm or a leg has "fallen asleep", and the blood circulation has been cut off??? For me, the culprit has been the clothing I was wearing in the bed getting too tight here or there, and since I'm asleep, I can't do anything about it. Until after I wake up.
I just did a web-search about this issue, and all that came up on the front page were articles about infant deaths (800/year) from getting tangled in bed-sheets while sleeping, etc. But what about adults dying from the same thing???
This is scary. Ever wondered what would happen if your head were to fall asleep like that? Don't go there, please! Your shirt gets too tight around the throat and neck area, and it's taa taa planet earth!
To tell you the truth, since I decided to start sleeping without any clothes on, I don't recall waking up with a limb semi-paralyzed or limp due to the circulation getting cut off by my pajamas or other clothes or sheets.
So I don't have to worry too much about the blood circulation to my head getting cut off anymore. I sleep much better also. It makes no sense to continue fighting with your own clothes (or sheets) after falling asleep.
Dead People Pick More Cotton?
Recently, I hear in the media that the European colonziers to the new world were actually trying to kill all the "native Americans". This is similar to the line of thought that the slave owners from the 19th century and before, were trying to kill all the enslaved.
In terms of the original Europeans in the Western Hemisphere, (Spanish, Portugese, Dutch, and English), the numbers of mostly white colonizers from Europe were not sufficient yet to create armies large enough to militarily defeat the "unfriendly" native groups without the help of friendly native allies. Not until the mid 1800's were ships built large enough to transport extremely large numbers of soldiers.
Therefore, the "armies" which defeated the antagonistic natives usually consisted of quite small numbers of white guys allied with much larger groups of friendly natives who were enemies of the other native tribes. Otherwise, the Europeans could not have defeated anyone on this side of the Atlantic. Even today, the native tribes are often antagonistic toward each other. The white colonizers exploited these tribes and set them against each other for their own benefit (and for the winning side of the natives).
Until the early 20th century, European origin peoples were also dying in very large numbers in the Western Hemisphere from various disease epidemics. The last mega-epidemic was probably the flu epidemic that occurred toward the end of WWI, but this was a world-wide epidemic that affected nearly everyone on earth.
The idea that the Europeans came to these shores to kill the natives is not true. Only those stubbornly "heathen" natives who did not convert to Christianity were generally scorned and attacked (or defended from), but only after they refused to convert. Those who converted often wed Europeans, resulting in the current "mestizo" culture of most of South and Central America and Mexico, as well as often in the USA and Canada. (Elizabeth Warren, for example.)
The Trail of Tears Led to Better Lands: note that the native tribes in the deep south east USA who were involved in various conflicts with whites, both civil and military, and which eventually resulted in most moving to what later became Oklahoma during the 1830's, obtained lands in "Indian Territory" which today are generally considered more valuable and more fertile than the lands they left behind. The weather in Oklahoma is generally less humid and hot than their former lands in the deep south. These are general statements, but this is easily proven by examining land values in both areas in 2019. Also, they discovered oil in Oklahoma, although the native groups often did not benefit from oil revenue, but sometimes they did. Both areas have many tornadoes. Also, not all the natives were banished to Oklahoma.
As Alabama territory and Florida territory were two of the last remaining territorial areas in the "deep south", most tribal natives remaining in the deep south moved into these two areas before they became settled states. This is why so many current and long term families there claim to be part Native. It's obvious that quite a few tribal members left their tribes altogether to marry whites and blacks, and became merged into non-tribal individuated and mostly Christian American society. Many tribes also chose to move West to greener pastures without being coerced.
Here's a rare, complex, and comprehensive analysis of how "Indian Removal" actually occurred in terms of the State of Alabama: click here. It's obvious that the process was not as cut and dried as many claim, and at least one intact tribe (loyal to the USA) remained in Alabama. Note that Indian removal in Florida took much longer, and also never actually finished, as European/Americans mostly stayed out until the 20th century. But the Seminole Tribe is still there as Florida is very difficult to "patrol".
Mainstream media today generally only acknowledges the contributions to the U.S. Army, to name only one country, of the tribal Navajos during World War II. In reality, native Americans took part in every war fought by the USA from its beginning, and before that allied with and against the early European colonizers. Some tribes allied with the British, some with the French, some with the Spaniards, and later, some with the USA, some with the Confederacy, some remained independent of course.
If the USA is an imperialistic country, why were the Phillipines suddenly given full independence in 1945-1946 when the armed forces of the USA were at or near their historical peak in terms of numbers in our military? (I realize that these numbers were plummeting downward faster than ever before during those years after WWII ended). The "imperialistic" adjective makes no sense in terms of the nominal history of this U.S.
Question: What Was the Largest Defeat in World History?
Answer: probably the defeat of Napoleon B. in Moscow.
Question: so the Russians really defeated Napoleon?
Answer: not exactly. It's much simpler than that. The Russians were not even in Moscow when Napoleon arrived there with his huge army. The city was empty of people and provisions.
I'm thinking how it doesn't make sense that there's so much praise for Napoleon in history class. Or for people who think like him.
So many politicans in history have had "Napoleonic aspirations" which is a really bad sign. Maduro of Venezeula, for example. Elected, then he becomes a dictator. Pretty soon everyone is starving. Napoleon's troops were soon eating dead bodies from their own army.
Napoleon's 1812 defeat in Russia was the largest defeat in the western world's history up to that moment.
1987: Judge Robert Bork's Views on "Privacy" Under the Constitution.Did Robert Bork's Dissing of "Privacy" Rights Doom His Supreme Court Nomination by Frightening The Left and Right Both?
In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork to be the next new Supreme Court Justice, but Bork's confirmation in the U.S. Senate failed. So then Reagan chose Ginsburg which also failed due to college pot usage revelations, so then Judge Anthony Kennedy was chosen and confirmed.
But why did the Bork nomination fail? The media back in the late 1980's dropped the ball and mostly never discussed why Bork was rejected. After all these years, I found one good article from the Chicago Tribune discussing the failed nomination of Bork (see below).
I thought that by now, the media, academia, and Hollywood would've all jumped on the "pro-privacy" bandwagon in terms of historically filtering out just why Robert Bork failed to be confirmed as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. As the "anti-privacy" U.S.S.R., the so-called "evil empire", was soon to be no more, why has the Robert Bork saga never been told, especially his refusal to endorse "privacy rights" under the U. S. Constitution?
The term "privacy rights" has a nice All-American sound to it, like mom, apple pie and baseball, so why all the silence about Bork and "privacy", and what did he mean with his refusal to endorse "privacy rights", and what did this mean for ordinary Americans in 1987 and 1988?
Here's what search engine "a" comes up with: click here.
Robert Bork/privacy issue in Chicago Tribune: click here. I personally don't recall this issue getting much airtime in the media in 1987-1988. My views at the time were nearly identical to those of the writer of this item.
Note that whoever is "controlling" the Wikipedia.org article about Robert Bork, doesn't even mention privacy rights as having been an issue during the nomination process! A lot of political resentment was expressed by many that Bork was "screwed" by the system.
What about the people of the USA? Were we screwed when Bork was not confirmed or visa versa?
Does the U.S. Have an
Opiate Usage Epidemic, or an
Opiate Overdose Death Epidemic?
If the usage rate of opiates among the U.S. population has increased since the year 1990 by 400%, and the rate of opiate overdose death among the U.S. population has also increased 400% since the year 1990, then the rate of death from opiate overdose has remained constant in the U.S. population. That's not precisely what I found online. It's hard to find the precise statistics to answer this question.
The entire population should know the risk of death from using opiates and other "hard drugs".
It doses not appear that Americans know these risks.
However, if the death rate from opiate usage is someday found to be constant, we don't have an opiate overdose epidemic after all.
We have an epidemic of inherently dangerous opiate usage. That's why opiates (other than perhaps crude opium), are always called "hard drugs".
Recognize Israel Diplomatically
It makes no sense to talk about being fair in terms of the Middle East when extreme inequality has always dominated the discussions, in that Israel has never been recognized diplomatically as a country by quite a few other countries in the world. Border issues are irrelevant; many countries with border disputes have fully recognized each other, diplomatically.
In this context, most Palestinians and many Arab Muslims do not recognize the state of Israel as a valid country. And nothing has changed for the anti-Israelis since about 1948. I personally do not see even a shred of hope for the Palestinian cause unless Israel is first recognized as a country.
In a discussion about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict many years ago, I said that I would try to be equally fair to both parties. The Jewish guy in this argument scolded me. At the time, I didn't know that so many countries had not even recognized the right of Israel to exist. I eventually realized that the odds are already horribly stacked against Israel. Being superficially fair for two parties which are not equal means being unfair. Now I understand what this Jewish person meant.
However, I personally do not see Israel as the only place on earth where Jewish people should live, as they should have the right to live anywhere on earth that they choose.
Adult Women Are Not Minors.
If we look at the U.S. Constitution, I fail to understand why women are not treated equally. It would seem that after the 19th Amendment, American women would enjoy the same degree of sovereignty as men, especially in terms of their specialty - being able to get pregnant (with the help of men).
Let's give women the full right to control their bodies at anytime, even up to 9 months after becoming pregnant. I think all guys should just recuse ourselves from this debate and leave it up to the women.
True of False?
The USA was attempting to defeat North Vietnam in the Vietnam War?
Answer: False. The USA never attempted to invade nor defeat N. Vietnam, and were only defending S. Vietnam from North Vietnamese "invaders", similar to how the U.S. has been defending S. Korea from N. Korea since 1953 without ever actually defeating N. Korea in a new escalated war. However, it's true that U.S. bombs and missiles mostly fired by the U.S. Air Force "invaded" N. Vietnam which killed many people and did much damage. But few if any U.S. troops actually set foot on N. Vietnamese territory during the war. This was no accident; there was never a plan to invade N. Vietnam that I've ever heard of.
Welcome to the Crowd, Sri Lanka!!!!
We've had mysterious terrorist attacks as well since and including the 9-11-2001 attack, and are not satisfied with the investigations or explanations. Why were the attacks in the USA allowed to occur, when there were plenty of advance information?
The media always cuts to the event itself (the terrorist attack), rather the planning that went into the attacks. The PLANNING of the attacks is what should be investigated primarily. Showing videos and photos of the buildings falling down, over and over again, does NOTHING in terms of explaining the incidents.
All I can say is that the official 9-11 Commission stated in their report that they believed that more attacks were going to occur. They were right.
But why were they so fatalistic about it???? What is needed is a PLAN to stop the attacks from occurring again.
(Jan. 25, 2019)
U. S. Office of National Drug Kamakazi Attack?
Violence and Psychiatric Drugs
Violence and Recreational Drugs:
U.S. Drug Czar Jim Jones - Circa 1978. (The term "drug czar"
in U.S. culture first appeared in print in 1982, only 4 years after
Jim Jones commanded his followers to commit mass murder/suicide.)
(from Wikipedia 3/2/2019) "Drug czar" is an informal name for the person who directs drug-control policies in various areas. The term follows the informal use of the term czar in U.S. politics. The 'drug czar' title first appeared in a 1982 news story by United Press International that reported that, "[United States] Senators ... voted 62–34 to establish a 'drug czar' who would have overall responsibility for U.S. drug policy." Since then, several ad hoc executive positions established in both the United States and United Kingdom have subsequently been referred to in this manner.
NOTE: there were no mass shootings or similar violence at the Woodstock Rock Festival in 1969.
The entire hippie drug culture was about voluntary choosing, not being commanded by any Czar or Dictator. In my opinion, the original U.S. Drug Czar was named, "Jim Jones", and died with his followers in a remote village in "Jonestown", Guyana, S. America after COMMANDING everyone to commit suicide by drinking a cyanide laced Kool-Aid mixture. Those who refused to drink the Kool-Aid were shot dead on the spot. A "drug czar" is someone who issues commands to everyone under his control in terms of drugs. NOTE: this is meant to be a political joke or parody. I know that Jim Jones was not really the original U. S. drug czar! NOTE: this is meant to be a political joke or parody.
The apparent similarity of that event to the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test events is canceled if we realize that no one was commanded or required by Ken Keasey, Jerry Garcia, or the Merry Pranksters to take part in the San Franciso Kool-Aid acid tests which sometimes occurred at the Avalon Ballroom, and I've never heard of anyone dying from that Kool-Aid/LSD mixture. (Or maybe we should blame it all on Grace Slick who did command everyone to "feed your head".)
Then back in the 1980's, many noticed the sudden uptick in strange episodes of insanely violent persons occurring, mass shootings if you will, soon after the widespread introduction of Prozac, a psychiatric drug. Many journalists speculated, "Could it be the Prozac?"
Click here to see what google.com unearths about this disturbing theory: psychiatric drugs and violence.
A rather large group of researchers has concluded that one of the main problems for psychiatric patients being prescribed medications, versus persons voluntarily using recreational drugs on their own, is that the patients under the care of a physician are not generally empowered to critically evaluate the effect on themselves from their medications, while those using alcohol, marihuana, or other recreational drugs are expected to be critically aware of, and responsible for the results of using drugs on their own.
This is similar to a situation where a "patient" is advised to drink alcohol for medical reasons, by a doctor. In this case, the patient may not be taking as much personal care in making the decision to drink, or to not drink, since the doctor advised him to drink, regardless.
Likewise, if a medical patient is advised to use marihuana medically, I have to wonder if the responsibility feed-back loop is still in place??? Perhaps, we should shift ASAP into a recreational drug usage scenario wherein the "patients" are now taking full personal responsibility for their use of the herbs in question, such as cannabis (marihuana).
About 20 years ago, the available crude statistics concerning drug overdose death rates for illicit opiates, versus medically prescribed opiate overdose death rates, showed roughly that the death-rate for medically prescribed opiates was about 10 times worse, or more, than the illicit opiate overdose death rate! Perhaps, prescribed drugs give us a false sense of security and safety. However, the stats referred to here were coming from different sources and systems of analysis, like comparing apples to oranges, so it was hard to determine what exactly was going on from looking at the easily available crude stats.
And this was before fentanyl (elephant tranquilizer) arrived on the scene for human usage. There is no such thing in the USA as legal human usage of fentanyl. Therefore, illicit human usage of fentanyl has now skewed the death rate from illicit opiates to a much higher rate than before. NOTE: There is no such thing as "legal" fentanyl for human consumption. There is only illegal fentanyl usage for humans in the USA.
If you ignore the vague web-based stats currently being broadcast, and return to the books in your local library, you will likely find that what I'm saying is true. There were about 10,000 deaths per year from illicit drugs around the year 2000, and about 100,000 to 300,000 deaths per year from prescription drugs of all types about that year, according to the stats then available.
But the idea that self-chosen drug usage is inherently safer than doctor prescribed drug usage, since an additional personal feed-back loop is in place for the "recreational drug usage", but not enough of that for the doctor controlled scenario, should be considered before more insanity manifests in our society. Perhaps, "hard-drugs" and psychiatric drugs both should also be used such that the patient has final choice rather than being only used due to professional compulsion?
Empowering, requiring, all drug users to take personal responsibility for themselves makes sense, but our society is not generally doing that, and mass shootings are also out of control. Not all Americans are taking orders from superior officers or fanatical religious preachers in a military setting, so why do we project that scenario onto civilian life with our "Drug Czar"? No wonder so many are dying from opiates.
Mass shootings committed for religious/military reasons (ISIS) is also now a bizarre factor which has been added to the mix. Just as after World War II, it might be good for the USA and the entire world to return to normal civilian life and responsibilities, for a change, and leave the kamakazi culture behind.
Why does the USA have a "Drug Czar"? Why would any sane society follow any third party's commands concerning personal/private drug usage, drug usage which is inherently personal?
The fact that the U.S. media adopted the informal term, "drug czar" in 1982, not long after the Jim Jones tragedy, merely indicates that most Americans were fully aware then that the Office of National Drug Czar (sic) is an absurd and inherently unAmerican manifestation, or perhaps a joke or parody based on the Jim Jones massacre.
The fact that superstar United States Congressman Leo Ryan of California was one of the victims of the Jim Jones massacre in Guyana is also evidence that our own government (and our own country) was at least receiving some bad karma for some reason. All congress-people should read about this excellent representative who died bravely in Guyana.
Today's opiate death epidemic is definitely a horrible parody of the Gyuana massacre/suicide. The fact that the U.S. Office of National Drug Czar (sic) is not taking responsibility for this genocidal disaster is a red flag for current U.S. national drug policy itself.
Syphilis Epidemic Worse Lately.According to the CDC, It's Mostly Homosexually Sourced Syphilis, but Not Entirely!
Helping homosexuals prone to getting syphilis and/or AIDS not do that, is not conversion therapy.
A few years ago before Trump became President, the media reported that a syphilis epidemic was sweeping the U.S.A. On Aprl 24, 2019, I decided to check the media reports to see if it had gotten better or worse. Unfortunately for Trump, it seems that sexually transmitted diseases are more prevalent now than before he became President, and it appears that rural areas (red states?) have the largest increases lately.
Syphilis is not a disease that should go untreated or undetected. Syphilis, opiate addiction, and prostitution often go hand in hand. Helping homosexuals prone to getting syphilis is not conversion therapy anymore than helping prevent AIDS.
With Trump warning of reductions in public health care, I hate to think of just how horrible this epidemic could become. The need for better healthcare, public and private, is obvious.
Special U.S. Commissions to Investigate Organized Crime:
- Truman - Estes Kefauver Hearings, etc. It appears that the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover did not cooperate with the Committee, dooming it.
- Kennedy - John and Bobby Kennedy had waged "a crusade" against organized crime which began before JFK became President, and which likely was one cause of both of their assassinations. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. Again, J. Edgar Hoover did not help much.
- Lyndon Johnson - various initiatives to combat crime such as the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, and the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice.
Click Here to see what google.com can find about LBJ's war on organized crime.
Personally, I think Oliver Stone greatly hurt LBJ's reputation by theorizing that Johnson was part of the plot to kill Kennedy in Stone's movie, "JFK".
Attorney Mark Lane, probably the most knowledgeable researcher into the truth concerning the Kennedy assassination, did not agree with Oliver Stone that LBJ was involved.
Lane, a personal friend of JFK and a former New York State legislator representing a part of New York City, successfully defeated Watergate burgler and C.I.A. employee E. Howard Hunt in court regarding Hunt's attempt to sue a certain small newspaper (the Spotlight) for libel regarding that newspaper's publishing of an article written by Victor Marchetti, a former CIA operative, which stated that E. Howard Hunt was in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, and was himself involved in the plot to murder Kennedy. Mark Lane successfully represented the Spotlight newspapaper in the lawsuit with E. Howard Hunt. (NOTE: quite a lot of the "facts" in Oliver Stone's movie JFK were actually discovered by Mark Lane.)
Although both Lane and Stone used information provided by retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty, (Mr. "X" in the movie JFK) we can find the same evidence against LBJ regarding Vietnam in a video about former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who also stated that JFK had issued Executive Orders which mandated the withdrawal of 1000 more U.S. military advisors from Vietnam in early November 1963, 1000 had been ordered out in Sept. 1963. The plan was to bring all Americans there home in a few months. LBJ was guilty of canceling those Executive Orders issued by Kennedy. At that time there were still no regular U.S. troops in Vietnam, only advisors to the S. Vietnamese military.
Lane's first creative and investigative work regarding the death of JFK was a 1966 black and white film titled, Rush to Judgement, which is a great film to watch.
- Ronald Reagan - President's Commission on Organized Crime - 1984 - 1986.
Here's a long masterpiece of an article published in the New York Times Magazine on Jan. 12, 1986, written by President Ronald Reagan about his personal war with various organized crime groups, including but not limited to communism.
I did not realize until reading this the extent to which Reagan was on a PERSONAL mission to defeat those who threatened to kill him! I had always thought before that Reagan was a "standard" sort of Republican idealogue.
That war on organized crime began well before Reagan became Governor of California, and appears to have been an act of self-defense on his part, according to this article. In the 1930's into the early 1950's, like many Americans, Reagan was somewhat left-leaning. This left-leaning attitude probably ended when he was confronted by mob bosses and communist criminals which both tried to infiltrate and take over various Hollywood unions, and later the Screen Actors Guild of which Reagan was now the elected president, and who tried to kill Reagan and others if they didn't cooperate.
After that brush with death, Reagan considered communism in the USA virtually the same as organized crime.
In terms of the timeline, it appears that Reagan's crime commission expired about the time that the Iran-Contra Affair was beginning to damage his reputation. His commission was not renewed by soon-to-be President George Bush, who was Vice President under Reagan.
Note that President Hoover, formerly the world's greatest mining engineer, helped doom his own administration by attacking Al Capone for tax evasion (probably using bank records) without first stabilizing the nation's financial system with huge extra amounts of gold and silver currency. The bank runs began at exactly that point when the vast nationwide network of bootleggers began withdrawing their funds in paper, gold and silver from all the banks in the country, prompting many others to do the same until FDR came into office and stabilized the banking system. Before that, the bank runs destroyed about 12,000 banks before FDR took office. However, the state constitutional conventions were meeting during this period also, ratifying the 21st Amendment outside the territory of the illicit alcohol cabal.
Rudy Guliani, the attorney to President Donald Trump, is one expert on fighting organized crime today.
This morning (April 26, 2019), I just spoke with a former employee of the U.S. Government District Attorney's office in San Diego, who worked there for about ten years! Funny how "nature" sets these things up. After a short conversation with this guy, I know now for a fact that organized crime is under great threat from the U.S. government at this very moment, regardless of whether or not there's some special commission in place.
How To Sleep Like a Rock Every Night:It makes no sense to suffer from insomnia.
For a long time, I suffered from insomnia. I'm glad those days are over.
Most of this advice is my own fine tuning of ayurvedic doctor advice.
My advice for those suffering from insomnia: eat mainly carbohydrates with cooked vegetables and a salad for the evening meal with very little or no oily or protein foods, unless you're extremely hungry. Salad can also help digestion at night.
For the evening meal, eat enough food to satisfy your hunger, especially carbs, but don't over do it. But If you don't eat enough carbohydrates, this will keep you awake, so eat enough food.
Most insomnia (with heartburn) occurs as the body is digesting proteins and fat. At night or late afternoon, stick to carbs and vegetables with salad - no milk, no ice cream, no cheese, no meat, no protein, very little if any beans or legumes in the evening - no protein at night - no fat at night. Make sure to eat fatty and protein foods in the morning and at lunch.
One of my favorite "night or late afternoon meals" is to make a tossed salad (with no added salad dressing), then cook some pasta, drain the water in colander, put a little olive oil in the empty cooking pot, put drained pasta back in the cooking pot which now contains only a little olive oil, mix well, let cool a little, then add to the salad without any salad dressing.
By eating light like this later in the day, you will sleep much better through the night. And when you wake up the next day, your appetite will be much stronger early in the day, so don't make the mistake of waiting too late to eat your largest meals of the day.
I wish to also thank the Ayurvedic doctors for their basic advice to me; however, they never advised me specifically as above. (Ayurveda does not usually advise to eat any western foods; they usually advise traditional Indian food items.)
Other sleep advice:
- Take magnesium supplement with, or soon after, your mid-day meal, or with your largest meal of the day. Be careful not to take too much, as that will give you "the runs". Try about 100 mg. of magnesium oxide, such as sold very cheaply at Wal-Mart of CVS Pharmacy, or from your local pharmacy.
I have tried expensive magnesium supplements, but never noticed any difference. Most people on earth at the moment are deficient in magnesium. Magnesium is also extremely good for the heart, and is essential for calcium metabolism. Magnesium is necessary for the human body to RELAX; magnesium allows the muscles to RELAX. Calcium is necessary for the muscles to CONTRACT or tense up.
If you are very sensitive to noise, you are probably deficient in magnesium. Extreme sensitivity to noise is a sign of magnesium deficiency.
- Drink warm water rather than cold when you are thirsty.
- Have the room where you sleep cool - about 65-75 degrees. Rather than turning up the heat, utilize another blanket. Don't be cold in bed, but make sure the room is cool. Make sure there is fresh air in your sleeping room.
- Smoking pot can help insomnia.
- Drinking kava-kava tea can help insomnia.
- Cleaning your teeth before going to bed can improve sleep.
- Buy and use ear plugs made of soft foam, such as EAR brand ear plugs which can be cleaned in the laundry and re-used. (Put dirty and used ear-plugs in a sock, tie the sock so the plugs don't fall out, and wash in hot water with your laundry.)
Ever Heard of "Jack Herer", the Human Being?
Interview with Jack Herer, Nov. 1996.A Ninth Article Productions video.
Interview conducted by Pieter Domela Nieuwenhuis,
produced by Michael Moran.
It's so odd today that Jack Herer, the human being who died in 2010, is actually less well known today than the strain of marihuana named after him. This is not the fault of the cannabis seed breeders who wished to honor Jack Herer by naming a famous strain of weed after him. But Jack had all sorts of opinions and feelings about the world that are not that well known.
Everybody knows he was the most passionate and perhaps, the most capable, person on earth regarding legalizing weed. But other than that, few know much about his beliefs and opinions. I know very little of this. He died without ever experiencing fully legal marihuana in California, a real tragedy.
I never had any private conversations with Jack Herer. In November 1996, I was asked by Michael Moran to give Jack a ride to the Amsterdam train station on two occasions with my rental car; once in early November before Prop. 215 was voted on in California, and once again in late November when he returned to Amsterdam to celebrate its victory, but there were always people with us traveling with Jack.
There was always an entourage with Jack.
He never really forgave the U.S. Government for prohibiting marihuana. Perhaps that's why most know so little about his opinions and beliefs. The censorship system has become very powerful in the USA these days.
There used to be a very popular media event every year in the USA when a list of "the most censored news stories in the USA for this year", was broadcast every year. Here it is. The main media generally doesn't point to this item anymore, much. I haven't seen it for years at major news sites.
At the moment at Wikipedia, the main thing I notice missing there is knowledge about the history of regulating air pollution in California, especially that pollution produced by automobiles. This legal precedent began in 1961 under California state laws.
One would think Californians would have reacted to this omission at Wikipedia by creating some good Wikipedia articles about it.
CAVEAT EMPTOR for those buying
U.S. Southern State Bonds 1837-1877.
Why the Descendants of Slaves will Likely
Never Collect any More Reparations.
POSSIBLE CORPORATE EXCEPTIONS, POSSIBLE CORPORATE EXCEPTIONS
The Financial Crimes of the Former Confederates and Carpetbaggers Are BOTH Illuminated Here.
U. S. Constitution Article III, Section 3, paragraph 2:
2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.
The incrimination of the direct descendants of British royalists who had taken up arms against the American revolutionaries during the war (corruption of blood), was deemed to be improper and unconstitutional by the founding fathers who were writing the new constitution beginning in 1787. Why should innocent children be incriminated or penalized due to the crimes or political leanings of their parents, grand-parents, or great-grand-parents, etc., etc., etc.?
Children in the USA are generally not bound to follow their parents' political leanings; therefore, how can we incriminate any children of any actual traitor or criminal due solely to the child's presumed guilt for having parents or grand-parents who expounded and held unpopular or illegal political opinions, or who were just criminals?
In general under U.S. law, only the criminal himself, not their children, are incriminated or held liable for damages. We don't generally pass a presumption of guilt or liability down to the off-spring here in the USA. When a criminal dies, so does our ability to incriminate or obtain relief from damages. The estate of a deceased criminal is where it is handled.
Likewise, the descendants of slave owners are likewise at least as innocent as those descendants of the defeated "tories" of the American Revolution.
I feel that "blood feuds" are unconstitutional in the U.S. legal system, generally speaking. Note that when the U.S. Congress under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan sought to compensate Japanese-American (and Japanese) survivors of the U.S. internment camps from World War II, they did not compensate their children; only those still living who had personally stayed in the camps were compensated. Reagan sought to endow the actual victims before they died. There was no "passing down" of this obligation to heirs or extended families if the actual victims had died before the compensation act was signed into law. Furthermore, to pass down such things to coming generations would create a new "blood feud", which I feel is totally unconstitutional under U.S law.
Even if the U.S. Government is the party which would pay the reparations to descendants of former slaves, there is this implicit incrimination in that scenario of the descendants of a very large percentage of all the early American citizens. I feel like the prohibition in the U.S. constitution of "corruption of blood" style attacks upon current generations due to some ancestors' errors, errors which were not generally recognized as such at the time the errors were committed, is instructive.
If ancient revenge intended for guilty ghosts, but inflicted upon the living, becomes more popular and accepted, civil order will continually erode, generation after generation. The founding fathers just after the successful revolution against the U.K. wanted the USA to move forward, not to grovel in blood feuds. The sooner we are no longer looking backward, the sooner real progress can take place. If current generations are continually assaulted by those concentrating on the past, there is no limit to the hatred, revenge, and so forth which can be visisted upon all future and current children in the USA.
Let's stop the incrimination of people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the institution of slavery practiced hundreds of years ago, and let's try a little harder to free the slaves who are still living in our society at the moment. For Massachussetts, it's been just under 240 years since slavery was abolished in that early state. That's a very long time. Slaves were being freed from the very beginning of the USA, but that fact is often overlooked in 2019. If we concentrate on ancient blood feuds from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries concerning ancient slavery, we may lose sight of current victims of human trafficking in the 21st century.
Let's celebrate the abolishment of slavery that was already modestly in process from 1776. I also invite anyone to read the aspects of our newer 1787 constitution and other documents that indicate that our Founding Fathers were, in fact, nearly in favor of total abolishment of slavery even in the 18th century. The Virginia House of Burgesses discussed abolishing slavery 1831-1832, with a Quaker dominated group the strongest proponent of total emancipation.
The issue is also handled by the 4th section of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which makes it specifically unconstitutional for the U.S Government to assume any of the debts of any rebellious states, debts created by rebellion itself. Any wealth taken from the defeated southern slave owners was already done so during the period generally called, "Reconstruction". Further confiscations are generally blocked by the 14th Amendment, and by the general prohibition against "corruption of blood".
But the current method of pursuing damages against ante-bellum corporations which still exist may yield fruit. On the other hand, the corporations may use the "corruption of blood" defense in their own favor.
Another HUGE error is the absurd perception by many that the institution of slavery had created vast amounts of wealth for the slave owners and their descendants as a whole. Nothing could be further from the truth. British and French credit probably mostly financed the Southern secessionist movement, not vast southern slave-owner wealth. In reality, slavery gradually bankrupted the southern states, both governmentally, and privately.
Google search for "repudiated southern state bonds u.s.a.".
The debts of Florida and Mississippi were practically unpayable over 20 years before the Civil War had even begun, according to a prominent historian and Sir Winston Churchill. The failure to pay southern state debts had begun with the crash of 1837, but the debt situation never improved for most southern states until the 14th Amendment's fourth section made it unconstitutional for those debts to be assumed by the U.S. government after the Civil War and Reconstruction ended (1877).
Note that the "Dunning School of history" is just as condemnatory of genuine Confederate money management, as of the "carpet baggers'" money management!!! I can find no statements of fact whatsoever in the above article which exonerates the former Confederates financially!
Criticizing the early "civil rights" movement is not the totality of this historical analysis; in fact, the racist criticism of the "civil rights" movement for former slaves seems to be a fairly minor aspect to the facts presented.
Bottom line: slavery in the USA was a bankrupt and financially failed institution even 20 years before the Civil War erupted. George Washington had also stated that slavery was fatally flawed in that most slave owners were unable financially to care for their old and retired slaves, those unable to work any longer.
Final Word: around 1900, most Southern states re-wrote their state constitutions such that most Southern states today are in excellent financial condition due to the financial rules created by these new constitutions, some of which (Alabama's) prohibit any Alabama governments (local, county, state) from even going into debt. A particular government or governmental agency within Alabama can seek an exemption to this constitutional prohibition from all the voters in the state in order to issue bonds. At each election in Alabama there are always numerous such items to be voted on which would grant (or not grant) these exemptions allowing various governments to issue bonds. However, most of these measures fail.
Clean Air Should Not Be a Crime.
As long as the USA depends on foreign oil, we are no longer functioning as a sovereign nation. Reducing pollution is not the only reason to develop alternative sources of energy.
Note that California was regulating automotive emissions since the early 1960's, a number of years before the Federal government started doing that.
Air pollution in Southern California was so extreme during the early 1960's that the paint on brand new cars would start peeling off or corroding. I saw this with my own eyes in 1965 when my family visited relatives in California that year. Our eyes burned horribly when we visited Anaheim and L.A. that year. Also, the chemical and plastics industry in the USA was largely located in Southern California at that time, which also created horrible air pollution there.
The State of California in 1965 had been requiring that new cars sold there be outfitted with pollution control devices for a number of years already, since 1961.
Trump's attempt to roll back pollution regulations in the USA will likely fail in court. There are so many good reasons to achieve energy independence and better air and environmental quality both.
Personally as a voter, I would agree with any morotoriums placed on air pollution control requirements for the aviation industry if all other polluters are more heavily regulated. However, there are cleaner fuels than petroleum based aviation fuels, such as various forms of alcohol based fuels.
Germany has been building a "clean technology" infrastructure for many years. The USA should get onboard that train as soon as possible.
Why Body Shaming, Attacks on Yoga Pants, Are Attacks on God's Temples.
I personally have never considered "western women" who dress in clothing which makes them more attractive, to be a problem in anyway. But I understand the idea that women should not be provocative with their clothing if married. But in my opinion, everybody should be able to stay in control of themselves when confronted by beauty, which is ubiquitious. Why should humans be unable to look at human bodies? This is stupid and embarrassing behavior for the entire species of human beings, who should be able to coexist with mirrors and with other humans dressed as they like.
And according to the Judeo-Christian "Old Testament" (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), the human body is actually the temple in which the holy spirit dwells, and our bodies are not our own, but belong to God, etc. Therefore, the body is not evil and shameful anymore than holy temples are evil and shameful.
Therefore, keeping the body healthy, limber, and fit seems like the holiest sorts of habits. Therefore, I don't see how yoga postures which help the body function better, could be in conflict with God's will, etc.
Likewise, body shaming is wrong. The body (the temple) should be respected. Making the body more attractive seems like a holy habit, if you ask me. This would imply that women who spend so much time making themselves pretty, are simply following God's will in terms of taking care of their "temples".
I'm actually very surprised that this attitude is not from India.
Louis A. Johnson, a Founder of the American Legion.
America's 2nd Secretary of Defense,
Serving when N. Korea Invaded S. Korea in 1950.
Truman soon fired Johnson, a new national skapegoat.
Is Real "Nationalism" Even Possible in the Current USA?
According to many historians, the European Union was created largely to avert the historically recognized destructive nationalism based upon various aggressor-states' cultures such as German, French, Spanish, etc., etc. nationalism, why do so many fear the so-called "nationalism" of the 50 state USA, which was formerly 12 or 13 separate state/colonies with their own somewhat different religious sects, histories, origins, and cultures? (I realize that our original states were mostly English/U.K. in origin, but were ethnically about 49 percent German ourselves around 1800.)
Since the current USA actually consists of 50 states joined together under a mutually agreed constitution which reserves most government powers to the individual states, I find the argument that the USA could become dangerously "nationalistic", to be totally false when compared to our conception of the European problem which manifested too often in creating world wars.
USA Dangerously Nationalistic? On Dec. 6, 1941, the armed forces of the USA were actually smaller than those of Portugal. The people of the USA before Dec. 7, 1941, had no desire to take part in another world war. And on Dec. 6, 1941, the ethnic culture of the USA was actually less diverse than it is today in 2019.
FACT: the current USA with our powerful armed forces (and the United Nations organization as well) is a largely unplanned response to extremely aggressive German/Italian and Japanese nationalism from WWII. Or we could blame North Korea's invasion of South Korea in 1950 for our huge military today. (Link to Wikipedia article about Louis Johnson, the second Secretary of Defense of the USA. The cabinet position of Secretary of War had just been abolished a few years previous. The USA was again planning for peace, not war, just before the Korean conflict started up.)
FACT: the tremendous wealth held by the USA just before WWII was largely obtained by avoiding war, decade after decade. War is the most expensive thing any country can engage in. For most countries, avoiding war equals wealth creation usually (case in point: Switzerland).
Switzerland has not taken part in any wars since 1847, and that last war was a small and quickly finished Civil War between protestants and catholics costing 86 lives.
How to Avoid Flatulence, Indigestion, and Abdominal Pain.
Most all humans when young are able to digest lactose, and can therefore consume most or all dairy products without discomfort. But as humans age, many eventually lose the ability to handle lactose, especially if they have deliberately stopped using milk and milk products. After people lose the ability to digest lactose, it is unlikely that they can regain that ability.
Better to never stop using dairy products, so that the ability to do so does not terminate.
It makes no sense at all that so many dietary advisors recommend that older teens or young adults stop using dairy products. It would seem better to advise everyone to keep using dairy products daily, so that we don't lose that ability.
About 70,000 PREVENTABLE Deaths
from Opiates per Year in 2017 and 2018.
OUR MEDIA TOO OFTEN SCREAMED OUT: "MARIHUANA OVERDOSES!!!!"
Fraudulent synthetic marijuana: There is also fraudulent "synthetic marihuana" being marketed around the USA that is in no way similar or related to actual synthetic marihuana, nor to natural marijuana. When people die from this fake synthetic marihuana, the media is erroneously going along with the fraud by calling it "synthetic marijuana", when it's not the real thing.
There is also currently a horrible overdose epidemic from opiates taking place in the USA.
There has been very little direction given by our politicians and media that those who are using deadly opiates, don't really have to risk their lives by continuing that idiotic and dangerous habit.
I'm thinking of the careful preparation created by the media concerning the creation of more and more opiate deaths. This appears to have been carefully orchestrated by erroneously reporting that marihuana was causing "overdoses" soon after the legalization of marihuana in 2012 in a few states such as Washington state and Colorado. Although opiate deaths were being reported, so were talking heads shouting out the term "MARIHUANA OVERDOSES", at the exact same moments, creating perfect confusion in American minds.
I wish to point out that before about 2012, no such thing as a "cannabis overdose" had ever been recorded in all of history, so that angle effectively created confusion in many people's minds conerning the dangers of using the "new" really strong marihuana, when the real danger was still from opiates and other dangerous drugs. Likewise, the fact that inexperienced persons who had panic attacks or stomach trouble, or whatever it was, after using marihuana the first time, were calling for ambulances and/or going to the hospital emergency room, also created confusion in many people's minds such that people became more afraid of cannabis, than of deadly opiates. (In late 2018, people are still going to the hospital in the USA for "marihuana overdose"!!!! DON'T LAUGH! You should be crying about this WASTE of emergency room resources!)
The experienced users of weed, that is those who have used it for more than 1 day, know that even the strongest weed creates tolerance the first time it's used, and is not dangerous. So the argument that today's weed is as strong as heroin is false and misleading, misleading right to the grave for tens of thousands of American residents and citizens.
In the Netherlands where weed is sold over-the-counter to adults in "coffee shops" regulated by the local governments, no one calls for an ambulance if someone feels dizzy or sick after using pot there, generally speaking. They have known for decades that "hard drugs" kill, "soft drugs" don't. ("Soft drug" means marihuana and hashish, even very strong marihuana and hashish.)
I also wish to point out that some of this idiocy also spread to Holland where some there also warned of the "dangers" of very strong cannabis; dangers that don't really exist for soft drugs. The truth: the novice users of cannabis are as likely to have a bad experience from weak cannabis, as from strong! Makes no difference!
Creating confusion in people's minds by lying is the real culprit of this horrible disaster unfolding in the USA. People deserve accurate information about the actual dangers of various drugs, not bullshit crammed down their throats.
Gang Slaughter in Mexico - Same as in Chicago.
The gang-slaughter currently going on in Mexico is similar to what has been going on in Chicago, yet our media wants us to ignore what has already been happening inside the USA in places such as Chicago. I mention Chicago since that was also well known, but now forgotten.
Trump is also directing us to look south, when we should look also inside our own "slaughter-villes".
Back when Obama was president, the media dutifully reported the Chicago chaos and gang warfare, but it's probably going on everywhere in the USA. That's what gangs do.
Characteristics of the "STONED EFFECT" produced by cannabis on humans:
The USA is MENTALLY ILL to use precious and expensive resources to treat "marihuana addiction", or to take inexperienced persons using weed to the hospital for an "overdose" of cannabis, regardless of the potency of the marihuana and marihuana concentrates available today.
- The number of endo-cannabinoid receptors in our own bodies is constant, so the degree to which we feel the effect from using cannabis, regardless of potency, is the same, up to a point, regardless of the potency of the cannabis being consumed. Of course if extremely weak cannabis is being used, then no effect may be felt.
- The user of cannabis will generally use it until most or all the endo-cannabinoid receptors are activated regardless of the potency of the cannabis being used.
- If the weed or hashish or concentrate or edibles is of low potency, more will be used.
- If it's high potency, less will be used.
- Exceeding the mininum dosage for activating all the endo-cannabinoid receptors in our body, does not produce a greater "stoned" effect. It just wastes the excess cannabis. In terms of dosage, the body reacts to cannabis differently than it does to alcohol.
- Unfortunately, the political term, "REGULATING MARIJUANA LIKE ALCOHOL" misses the essential point that the human body does not respond to cannabis in the same way it responds to alcohol. Alcohol does not bind to a finite number of receptors in our bodies to give us its "high" or "stoned" effect.
Alcohol is actually a solvent, and intoxicates us like any other solvent, or similar to how some glue inhalation produces a "high" effect. Cannabis contains no solvents and is not a glue ingredient either. Sorry!
Alcohol can be used as cleaning fluid, like most other solvents. Alcohol of high purity can also be used as a fuel for internal combustion engines. Not so for cannabis, except for using hempseed oil as a form of diesel fuel.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE "STONED" EFFECT IN TERMS OF THE ENDO-CANNABINOID RECEPTORS:
- A person can over consume strong cannabis all day and all night long without becoming more stoned if they have already been using cannabis recently. Frequent usage of cannabis reduces the "stoned" effect!
- Cannabis is actually stronger in producing the "stoned effect" if we abstain from using it for long durations before using it again since the endo-cannabinoid receptors have to be cleared or reset to "off" again in order to feel stoned again in the future.
- No one is dying or injured from marihuana, even from very strong marihuana.
- Only very recently has anyone claimed that weed is dependency-producing or addictive. This is the ignorant yelping coming from the addiction treatment industry. They have their "control" agenda and profit problems, but apparently don't understand cannabis.
If cannabis is being used medically to treat certain symptoms of illnesses or medical conditions, the elimination of those symptoms of illnesses due to the usage of cannabis as medicine, may appear to be a description of addiction to cannabis.
However, if the medical symptoms being erroneously described as "withdrawal symptoms" were already manifesting in the life of the patient before cannabis use was ever initiated, I fail to understand how this describes an addiction scenario.
For example, the statement that, "The usage of band-aids is addicting to those who cut their fingers often", is simply an absurd and false statement. In other words, bleeding fingers caused by accidents with knives or tools are not withdrawal symptoms of band-aid addiction.
- The poly-drug scenario is confusing everyone: those who become frustrated from NOT being able to feel stoned when over consuming cannabis are probably turning to alcohol or other drugs in order to feel "high". The solution is to simply reduce cannabis consumption so that the "high" effect in increased.
This poly-drug scenario is being glossed over by nearly everyone, even those in the legalization industry.
There is nothing the cannabis industry can do about this other than educate people about the characteristics of cannabis being used by itself, and how the endo-cannabinoid system actually works in terms of producing the "high" effect.
- The recent involvement of the alcohol beverage industry in the cannabis production industry will probably muddle the facts about cannabis dosage, potency, and poly-drug usage scenarios leading to the erroneous classification for cannabis marihuana consumption as being another "vice".
This is unfortunate and tragic, and I hope the general Dutch treatment tradition of separating cannabis (not a vice) from alcohol (vice) is given more treatment in the U.S. media and political scene.
Before 1963, Hemp and Marihuana were Exactly the Same Plant.
Before the discovery of the primary active ingredient of "marihuana", THC, (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), there was no way for anyone, even scientists, to distinguish between hemp and marihuana since measuring the amount of THC is how this has been determined since about 1964
So before 1964, when THC was discovered by Dr. Raphael Mechoulam, hemp and marihuana were exactly the same plant.
In fact, even in 2018, there is a certain degree of arbitrariness in making that determination.
This means that our ancestors who were alive before 1964 didn't really make any distinction between hemp and marihuana. If they were to smoke some cannabis back then, sometimes it got them high; sometimes it didn't. But no one knew why this experience from smoking hashish or cannabis varied from time to time since no one knew how to measure the potency of hashish or marihuana back then.
(Dec. 7, 2018) According to This Bizarre Article, No One is Actually
Related to Their Own Great-Great-Great Grandmothers; Especially
Not Elizabeth Warren. An Obvious Hate Piece.
The article also implies that all the so called Native Americans which are recognized by the U.S. government due to presumed "genetic ancestry", have all been falsely classified as valid tribes. The same logic that "disqualifies" Elizabeth Warren, disqualifies ALL presumed "native Americans" as well!
Since the line of succession of every "royal" lineage on planet earth depends 100% on everyone still being kin to each other, I guess this is also a veiled threat against the "pretenders" currently claiming to be "royal" in Britain, Europe, and other places.
It also means that just because your last name is the same as your ancestors, that's just a "strange coincidence" that has no real meaning whatsoever, I suppose.
FACT: Abraham Lincoln was Still Dead when the 13th Amendment was Ratified.
Andrew Johnson was President When Slavery was Partially Abolished.
FACT: President Abraham Lincoln was murdered on April 15, 1865. On that same day, Vice President Andrew Johnson became President of the USA.
FACT: the 13th Amendment was ratified by the required number of states on Dec. 6, 1865.
FACT: President Lincoln was President when the 13th Amendment ratification process started. But that process was not finished when Lincoln was murdered. President Johnson finished the process of state by state ratification which is required to amend the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Senate proposed the amendment on April 8, 1864. On Jan. 31st, 1865, the House of Representatives then approved the amendment, now to be sent to the states to be considered for ratification. The states then either ratified the amendment, or not.
Sufficient states had ratified the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, except as a punishment for crimes, on December 6, 1865 with the Secretary of State proclaiming its adoption on December 18, 1865. President Andrew Johnson had been president since April 15th, 1865, since Lincoln was still dead.
Did Saudi Arabia Threaten to Attack Toronto Skyscrapers
with Jet Planes, like happened in New York City on 9-11-2001?
I recall that during the first "Persian Gulf War" in 1990-1991 against Saddam Hussein, that the Iraqis were firing scud missles into Israel and Saudi Arabia. The USA has some military bases in Saudi Arabia, and those bases came under missle attack by Iraq. But it appeared during that war that Saudi Arabia was an ally of the USA. But I heard a few days ago (Nov. 20ish, 2018) from listening to NPR radio that the U.S. government does NOT today consider Saudi Arabia to be an ally, regardless of what history indicates to the contrary.
(Aug. 2018) I never thought that the Saudi Government was involved in the 9-11-2001 attacks. For one thing, Saudi Arabia is supposedly an ally of the USA, and allies don't attack or invade the territory of their allies. That's what enemies do, and I didn't know until a few days ago in August 2018 that maybe the Saudis at the top were involved in the 9-11 attacks.
Or is this some sort of bizarre joke? Am I missing something here?
Yes, I've heard these theories for decades, but allies don't kill allies. Enemies kill enemies.
I thought an independent group of insane extremists led by Mohommad Atta planned and carried out the 9-11 attacks, but that the Saudi government had nothing to do with it other than perhaps having given money to charities which may have been linked to the Muslim sects which the 9-11 group was associated with. That's like giving money to a church, which then supports someone charitibly who then commits a crime. That is not a close connection to the evil acts.
But now we have this weird drama in August 2018 where the Saudi crown prince, or a public relations company his government paid, is making this veiled threat against Canada. I wish I knew what was going on. If the Saudi government at the top were involved in the planning of the 9-11 attacks, why? And why are they making threats against Canada now?
Imagine if after the Pearl Harbor attack on Dec. 7, 1941, the USA just filed a lawsuit against Japan?
This is a weak situation for the USA at this moment, to say the least.
State Number One.
Delaware "Colonial" History:
It is impossible at the moment to read online about U.S. history that occurred in Delaware at the very beginning of the American Revolution by searching for "Delaware history". There's essentially nothing there at the moment online easily findable.
Here are the names of people that must be researched in order to know how Delaware became so important in U.S. history, and the first state of the USA to ratify the new constitution of 1787:
Thomas McKean, President (of the Congress) of the USA when Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown.
From reading about this small group of major Delawarian influences in the Revolution, anyone should be able to piece together the history of this part of the USA 1775-1783.
Since the 12 original colonies all became 12 states plus Delaware and Vermont after sometime in 1776 or 1775, the point that Delaware was never itself a separate colony of the U.K. is good to know, finally.
Contrary to Wikepedia, the Delaware counties of Pennsylvania declared independence from Pennsylvania and the U.K. at the same instant, but there was never any seriously ill feelings between Pennsylvania and the former "Delaware counties" of Pennsylvania. (OK - I just learned in 2018 that Delaware was never a colony of the U.K., which means there were only 12 original colonies of the USA.)
But there was tremendous ill feeling toward certain institutions and persons loyal to the U.K. at this moment in time. That history is being suppressed. The lie broadcast by Wikipedia at the moment that Delaware and Pennsylvania during the Revolution were as much at war as the U.K. and the USA, is simply not true.
From reading the "Delaware history" or such at Wikipedia, one gets the false impression that Delaware was virtually a pro-monarchy state during the Revolution. Then how did the legislature unanimously ratify the new U.S. Constitution from 1787?
However, we should all be glad that the loyalists were not all driven back to England or hung by the neck, since peace time was a much better time for all. The American Revolution also changed Britain forever, politically. In 2018, however, there seems to be an organized effort to suppress essential American history.
MURPHY'S LAW PREDICTS
HUGE DISASTERS AHEAD FOR THE USA.
LET'S BUILD DIRTYEnergy secretary gambles on America's energy future
BOMBS ALL OVER THE WORLD!
by promoting nuclear energy over much better options.
The U.S.S.R. did that and BANKRUPTED their nation.
NOTE: when East Germany fell and the Berlin Wall came down, East Germany merged soon with West Germany, and the border between them was no more. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Germans from both countries moved into the other one, for a while if not permanently. Freedom is always attractive, and that which had been forbidden in the past was even more attractive once the wall came down.
(April 26, 2019) The "Iron Curtain" Fell, (which was another wall between nations) and People Moved to New, Formerly Forbidden Places. If the above article and the one below (from oil prices website) is correct about Chernobyl bankrupting the old U.S.S.R., we should also consider that about 20 to 30 million citizens of current Russia, no longer live in Russia. As soon as they could leave after Russia became a relatively free and non-Communist country, they left for "greener pastures" after the disintegration of the U.S.S.R., which exodus process began Dec. 25, 1991, and are now scattered all over the world.
NOTE(2): I have no idea how many Ukrainians left the Ukraine after the Chernobyl accident and the termination of the U.S.S.R. about 5 years later, but there are likely a lot of Ukrainians that also left their country nore or less permanently (except to visit) due to the Chernobyl accident and the termination of the URRR. . How many of these 20 - 30 million Russians and so many Ukrainians who left their countries when the U.S.S.R. ended, were among the Chernobyl Liquidators, and were no longer present in the USSR or the Ukraine or in any territory of the former USSR, in order to take part in those studies which supposedly debunk the "myth" that X number of people died in the Chernobyl accident?
NOTE(3): it was illegal and very difficult to leave the U.S.S.R. at anytime before this country terminated, without permission from the Communist totalitarian country, and very few left this country before the demise of the U.S.S.R. Generally, they had to escape. It was very rare for Soviet citizens to depart the USSR before this nation crumbled into Russia plus the other new nations formed after the end of the USSR.
Just so you know, here is a list of the nations that became separate after the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) destroyed itself voluntarily under Mikhail Gorbachev, generally separating into independent republics with their citizens having much greater freedoms than under the USSR, including the freedom to leave their new countries, in general:
- Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic
- Moldavia (current name), formerly Moldavian Socialist Republic, part of the USSR.
This list only became valid as a list of separate countries soon after December 25, 1991.
From this long list of independent countries, how many of the Chernobyl Liquidators were from this list of countries, but who left these places as soon as they could after they were allowed to do so after the USSR broke apart into this list of countries shown above? How many have already died while living outside the territory of the former USSR from radiation from the Chernobyl accident, and were therefore not part of any of the studies conducted to prove that very few died from the accident?
Note that the Chernobyl Liquidators consisted of people from ALL OVER THE U.S.S.R., not just from Russia and/or the Ukraine (where Chernobyl is located). How many of these Chernobyl Liquidators left the former territory that used to be called the USSR, and could therefore not be used for the research being broadcast today as proving that this nuclear accident did not harm very many people? How many of those Chernobyl Liquidators who no longer lived in the territory of the former USSR died already from cancer or other radiation related diseases outside the territory of the former USSR?
The pro-nuclear group who are trying to discredit the anti-nuclear "alarmists" are probably very smug knowing that no accurate study can be accomplished with so many Chernobyl Liquidators no longer having lived in the areas where study participants were utilized for the cited studies?
Let us hope that Japanese investigators are able to more accurately study the effects from the Fukushima accident. I think I would trust the Japanese more than former citizens of the USSR who are being paid to say what they say about the dangers of nuclear energy gone awry.
Afghanistan: the U.S. media has reported that another cause of the collapse of the old U.S.S.R. was the Soviet attempt to invade and subdue Afghanistan, wherein the USSR suffered horrible losses, and was unable ultimately to defeat the more rural forces of the "mujahideen". At the time, it was well known that overall demoralization and much heroin addiction, of Soviet troops, supplied by the other side, resulted in the ultimate defeat of the USSR. This is what is happening to the USA at the moment where I have heard that "crude opium" is becoming popular, just as in the former USSR just before it fell apart into this "list of countries".
An article which blames Chernobyl on the demise of the USSR. The Japanese did that and now have a nearly infinitely long lasting problem. I think nuclear energy is the most stupid choice and a horrible gamble. Here's a google search for articles about the real death toll from Chernobyl: click here.
Note that much of the world has to pay for the former U.S.S.R.'s one major nuclear mistake. Japan was rich enough to take care of their problems at Fukushima, so far.
A socialist-communist-totalitarian dream for the surviving workers! The best thing about nuclear energy is the amount of work everyone will have to do when things go wrong, which, according to Murphy's Law, always happens eventually.
The DC-10/MD-11 eventually had catastrophic engine failures that destroyed all the hydraulic systems, resulting in fatal crashes. This also happened eventually to a 747. The experts said it was very unlikely to ever happen, but it did.
Get ready for a lot of death, exitement, and never ending problems and new work opportunities when things go wrong, especially. Chernobyl and Fukushima were both perfectly constructed "dirty bombs" that exploded.
Here's a list of the 8 dirty bombs most likey to explode sometime soon.
Here's another list of future work opportunities for the unemployed.
NOTE: the Soviet Union made the "final sacrifice" with the Chernobyl disaster. Many Soviet citizens died cleaning up the after effects, or trying to do so. These are the Chernobyl Liquidators.
Private vs. Public Health Insurance.
Should all Americans be deprived of the benefits they have paid for under the terms of their insurance policies? Private or public - makes no difference. But the policies should be funded adequately to meet the demands of those who qualify.
There are those who believe strongly that all Americans should be ripped off by both private and public insurance companies. Makes no difference - rip off the American! Don't let any American collect a single benefit from any insurance policies, no matter what.
1968: Neither Democrat Nor Republican Opposed the Vietnam War.
If a third party uniquely sponsors really good ideas, such as ending slavery, then such a third party has a good chance of becoming a new and victorious factor in American politics, such as the Republican Party.
If Americans had followed the advice, "never vote third party", then we would not have the Republican Party today which was originally a fringe third party.
Another thing which third parties have accomplished throughout history is the promotion of really good ideas, such as ending U.S. involvement in the Vietnam civil war, which was not promoted by either the Democrat nor Republican chosen candidate in the 1968 presidential election. Only independent candidates supported ending U.S. involvement in the Vietnam civil war in 1968: George Wallace and various other fringe candidates wanted to end the insanity.
NOTE: I didn't know Wallace opposed the Vietnam War until I saw this video after the year 2005. I was personally a hawk as a teenager during that era, but I did not passionately support the war. I just didn't see the point in spending so much time and energy to do nothing there, except kill and get killed there. If we fight the war, let's at least defeat the enemy, was my attitude. Now I realize I was wrong, but I never studied the purpose of the war.
So third parties are definitely an important part of American politics, but are rarely given credit where credit is due.
(2013?) Recently, I spoke with a New Yorker from an area not far from the Vermont border. I asked him, "Was Vermont one of the 13 original colonies?"
The New Yorker said, "Yes. Vermont is one of the 13 original colonies," in a tone that implied everyone knows that. (That's what he said. But there were really only 12 original colonies, and 14 original states.)
(((However, as you suppress your laughter, note that Vermont was state number 14; therefore, it cannot possibly be one of the original 12 colonies! Don't laugh out loud, however. HOLD YOUR SNICKERING!!!!)))
And decendents of the autonomous region in 1775 when the Revolution began, that region very soon to call itself, "Vermont", are accepted members of the Daughters of the American Revolution. There is also a state park in Vermont today which the DAR bought and donated to the State of Vermont, and which sits on land related to events related to that war. People from this area later to be called "Vermont" were very involved in the entire Revolution from 1775 to 1783, and were also as much, or more able to control their territory than other more vulnerable, more civilized parts of the new USA.
Check for Revolutionary War activity along the shores of Lake Champlain: lots of activity for the entire war on both sides (New York and the region later to be called "Vermont").
I also think it's perhaps more unique than imagined that Vermont joined the USA in 1791 with a $30,000 surplus, apparently, that was paid to the USA. How unique was this situation? I wish I knew. I do know that Texas (the state government) did not have any money or credit when they joined the USA, as Texas had gone totally broke mostly by financing their own small but formidable Texas Navy which became part of the military of the Republic of the Yucatan, by treaty.
Here's an item written by the mother of a former U.S. Army Sergeant charged and convicted of murder in Iowa. The person murdered was trying to rape someone, according to the convicted murderer of the alleged rapist, who claims the person murdered had asked him to help with the rape the afternoon preceding the murder, according to his mom.
His mother admits that her son went too far, but argues he was suffering from PTSD. Tyler Webster was ultimately convicted of murder, and is currently in prison in Iowa.
When the USA had No Real Presidents: 1867-1887.
It was President Andrew Johnson who warned the people of the USA repeatedly that constitutional integrity ended around 1867 when the Office of President of the USA was virtually eliminated in favor of party dictatorship with the enactment of the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson was impeached for attempting to exercise the powers of his own office; powers that every other president of the USA had routinely exercised until 1867, and after 1887.
About 20 years later in 1887, the Tenure of Office Act was quietly repealed by Congress. In 1926, the Supreme Court of the USA ruled that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional.
Most Americans don't know this: the virtual coup d'etat and military occupation of most Southern states actually began about 2 full years after the War of the Rebellion had ended. For two full years, the defeated South was free to operate constitutionally again.
Historians today are mostly taking part in intellectual crimes against their own students with the current status of knowledge concerning the period 1865-1877 in the USA. Most accounts lump the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments together, which is an extremely perverse distortion. Most accounts ignore the fact the military occupation occurred so long after the war ended. Most accounts ignore the illegal and unconstitutional methods used before about 1877 by the Republicans.
It is difficult to say which side had loyal historians who distorted history more: the Democrat redeemers or the radical Republicans? Both sides leave out important facts embraced by the other side. For this issue, everyone should read accounts from both side's biased historians, as both sides seem to still be horribly biased.
In terms of U.S. constitutional norms, the Southerners were more right than wrong, however.
Was Christopher Columbus Actually Catalan royalty?
Very interesting speculations.
The Superior Half (Women) of the Human Race is Obtaining
College Degrees More Often than the Inferior Half (Men).
For the past 25 years or so, I have occasionally had technical troubles with my computer(s). When that happens, I have had to seek technical assistance from manufacturers by telephone.
When this has occurred, about 60% of the time the tech. worker who is helping me by phone has been a woman, and I don't recall any problems with their skills.
In fact, my impression has been for some time that women are better communicators than men in these scenarios. I am shocked that anyone at google would think that women were inferior to men in the computer tech. workplace.
Fortunately, America is currently blessed by the fact that 57% of all U.S. college students in 2017 are women. This means that more and more tech workers in the US computer industry are likely going to be women, unless guys start going to college more often.
Pumped Storage Hydro-electric: The USA could do more of the same thing with new artificial lakes built at higher altitudes flowing downhill through turbines to create electric energy. There are no negatives other than the threat of more floods from broken dams, etc., etc. Someone in the Republic of Ireland has already done this.
Wikipedia article about pumped storage hydroelectric power: click here. According to this article, currently 95% of all energy storage in the world is accomplished using this method.
The alleged world-wide shortage of water is more a measurement of perception and planning as this method of energy storage may also produce an increased supply of water for all other purposes as well.
Also, I would not use energy produced from fossil fuels or nuclear for this sort of storage scheme.
Bill Maher Condemned for CALLING HIMSELF the "N" Word?
Does This Mean He Hates Himself? I don't get it. Steve Martin also did that in the movie, "The Jerk" (as "Navin Johnson") but no one complained about Steve Martin playing that part.
The Greatest Enemy of the Nazis were the Nazis.
The young German who single handedly defeated the Soviet Union, some say. Youtube Video from Britain. It seems a miracle that his plane didn't hit any telephone or power cables.
Did the Nazi Party ACCIDENTALLY Sabatoge German Success in World War II?
Book Review: Warplanes of The Third Reich, by William Green.
Excerpt from introduction: few military aircraft in the history of aerial warfare have suffered such misrepresentation as have those of Germany evolved during the life of the Third Reich.
We all know that the Germans lost the war, but few have taken stock of the real causes of this loss. This book provides some of the essential facts from the story of the greatest military loss yet in world history.
We all know that Germany was in the midst of developing numerous advanced aircraft such as V1 and V2 guided missles, ME-262 jet fighter/bombers, Arado 234 jet bombers, and numerous others. But why didn't these advanced planes and rockets substantially help Germany to win the war? (There weren't enough of them, and they were not fully finished as far as research and development - that's why.)
In other words, Germany was not prepared for a huge extended world war around 1938, nor afterwards.
About 2 years before the USA invaded Morocco and Northern Africa creating two fronts for the Axis powers, the Nazis reduced funding for most of the advanced designs in favor of shifting resources to building more of the older conventional planes, because the Nazis perceived a much greater need for vast numbers of conventional planes for the war with the USSR at this point. Although the Nazis didn't fully appreciate the value of the new jet and rocket technology, nearly all the advanced designs remained very popular in the minds of the developers and managers of Germany's aviation industry, so research and development continued but at a greatly reduced rate after the war escalated until too late in 1944.
Does anyone realize that nearly all of Germany's front-line air force equipment was nearly precisely the same in 1945 as in 1938?
Regarding the world's first operational fighter jet, the Messerschmitt ME-262, William Green wrote, "But instead of operational exploits, the ME-262 was to be remembered foremost as a symbol of the vacillation and irresolution that plagued aircraft manufacturing programmes as the Third Reich died." Note that no substantial development for this plane occurred until 1944.
It's amazing that this plane has such a good reputation today, probably due to its good looks mostly, and the fact that ME-262's were actually visible to the Allies toward the end of World War II.
Regarding the world's first successful prototype jet fighter, the Heinkel He-280 which preceded the Messerschmitt jet by a few years, and was known to be superior to it in dog-fights, Green wrote, "Thus, although the first jet fighter, the HE-280, had flown successfully on April 2, 1941, and had soon displayed a superiority over conventional fighters in several respects, official apathy and personal prejudice against Ernst Heinkel on the part of certain factions within the RLM's Technischen Amt combined to result in the neglect and eventual discarding of what, at the time of its debut, was unquestionably the most advanced warplane extant, little real impetus being placed behind (jet) fighter development until 1944."
It is also argued sometimes that the Junkers Jumo and/or BMW jet engines were not really ready until 1944, so nothing could have been done to speed up development of jet planes until 1944 according to that line of thought. In reality, the jet engines were still not ready in 1944, nor 1945. For the ME-262 and other jet planes from this era, the throttles could not be adjusted much after take-off, otherwise the engines would often flame-out. Therefore, formation flying of WWII era German jet planes was performed in an unorthodox manner.
Note that the technical expert within the Nazi management overseeing German aviation companies who made the decision to not develop the jet fighters substantially during the early 1940's, and who personally believed that jet planes were not needed by Germany, was Ernst Udet who committed suicide in November 1941, to be replaced by Erhard Milch who had almost identical negative opinions of turbojet powered aircraft.
Hitler and Goering also did not overrule Udet and Milch.
If not for the enthusiasm of the personnel at Heinkel, Messerschmitt, BMW, Junkers, Arado, and other German aviation companies, there would likely not have been any jet aircraft at all produced by Germany during WWII.
Truth is, the development of new technologies itself in Germany was greatly hampered for the Nazis by waiting until they had already started the war to try and ramp up research and development of new technologies in an abnormal emergency scenario with little free flow of vital technical and scientific information from remote non-Nazi controlled regions. And expelling most of their best scientists due to not being of the "correct" ethnic groups, was suicide for the regime.
During more than twenty years of research in Germany and elsewhere, William Green sought out and found the still living executives, CEO's, designers, and others from most of the German aviation companies from World War II, and personally interviewed them before their natural deaths. (Green's book is not concerned with any aviation develpments other than from Germany, but he did travel to other places to interview industry survivors from WWII.)
But Hitler's final gunshot to his own cranium underlines the clown-like incompetence of the Nazi Party and Germany's political system at that time. In WWII, Germany suffered the self-defeating consequences of its infant and undeveloped democracy that allowed a group of maniacs to take office, mis-manage valuable resources, run amok, and ultimately commit national suicide.
Who Built the First "Successful" Jet Airliner?
(Click above on either the British, French or the USSR Plane.)
Note that if Adolph Hitler and the Nazis and so forth had not come to power, Germany would very likely have been the first country to host the building of the first successful jet airliner, if not Japan. Only the Nazis and Japanese were foolish enough to start WWII, which meant no first jet airliner for the Axis.
Whether that hypothetical German or Japanese jet powered airliner would've been ultimately successful or not, I don't know.
(1951) Austrian Auto Engineer Patents Crumple Zone Concept, later for Daimler-Benz:
Videos of Mercedes Bends: click here. Early BMW crash test. Early Volvo crash test, but there were earlier crash tests I think. Crash test of Chevrolet Traverse, etc. Cars need not be coffins for passengers in serious accidents, but can be protective instead.
Bankruptcy and Student Debt: now I see an article today which indicates students in some cases do have the right to include such student debt in their bankruptcies, and to obtain relief from such debt. Amazing.
The Roots of Rock and Roll; "Holy Roller Music"; Southern Gospel Music. With this sort of music, a person can listen to and enjoy all sorts of gospel music that is not depressing. This more lively form of gospel music is not slow and depressing at all.
This is not a waste of time and money.
Federal Land Ownership Within U. S. States.
- Someone in Alabama put this up: click here. Seems well researched, but I have no idea.
- New Jersey Judge Andrew Napolitano: click here.
- Regardless of anything else you may find about this subject, I am nearly 100% certain that the U.S. military under certain conditions (i.e., THE U. S. CONSTITUTION of 1787) can easily acquire land in a U.S. state from any party without their consent after paying for it at fair market value, for creation of, or expansion of U.S. domestic military bases. I've heard this from a two different well informed civilian sources whose land was purchased unilaterally by the U.S. government. It's also in the original and current U.S. constitution, and this has not been amended or altered in any way.
Having domestic military bases here and there is part of the original plan for the USA.
I'm no lawyer or legal expert, but it's obvious that the U.S. government mostly had to have owned nearly the entire USA territorially at one time, other than the land owned by citizens of the original 14 states, and that still owned by native Americans. I'm thinking that the sovereign 14 original states did not wish for their territory to be seized by the new central government. Nearly all of that land in the original 14 states was owned by private land owners, not the 14 state governments. The threat of King George or President George Washington seizing their land was a real fear of all the founding fathers and all the earliest American citizens.
MY OPINION: at some point in U.S. history the word got out that the Feds had illegally "seized" vast amounts of land within the USA within U.S. states. I think this FALSE rumor began to circulate in classrooms in our schools, about the time that Teddy Roosevelt began to set aside vast tracts of land, already owned by our central government, as National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and so forth. But further investigation reveals that all that land was already owned by the U.S. central govenment, from the territorial period, before the states were created.
Turns out that MOST territory in the eastern part of the USA was already settled by settlers (i.e., U. S citizens) just before and just after the states there were created. Out west, only some of the land there was transferred to private ownership and settled due to the generally mountainous and inaccessible terrain. This meant that vast tracts were still "in limbo", or still owned by the U.S. Government out west when the states came into being there.
What the government under Teddy Roosevelt, President Grant, and others did was to set aside vast amounts of federally owned land "permanently" which they decided should not be sold or otherwise transferred into private ownership, unlike nearly the entire Eastern part of the USA.
I think the issue of Federal land ownership anywhere is a legitimate issue. However, I don't think that vast amounts of federally owned land should necessarily be transferred to individual state ownership since the state cannot collect property taxes from itself!
Better for the Fed. to continue to sell Federal lands to those private parties who want to buy it, just as they always have done here and there, to private owners who then pay property taxes to the counties located in those states. Without taxes to support state and county services, I don't see how states can practically own such vast tracts of land without private enterprise flourishing there first.
New York State has never once elected an anti-business Governor, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was the most pro-business President the USA has ever had. I know most people think of FDR as being virtually a communist, but it isn't really true.
FDR SAVED THE BANKING SYSTEM LONG TERM! Without banks, businesses of all sorts have great difficulty operating. Since FDR was president, and since FDR reformed (improved) the banking system which Hoover had totally bungled, bank commercial and checking account losses are virtually unknown today, and bank failures are much less today than in the entire history of the USA.
At the beginning of the Great Depression, Hoover 1)was unable to rally the unionized miners to get back to work mining gold after they went on strike, and 2)allowed the banking system to nearly totally collapse when a huge nationwide bank-run occurred, and 3)allowed the Federal Reserve to continue to be unable to respond adequately to the situation at hand.
FDR turned the funny money machine on for the first time in a major way, and started the FDIC to restore the public's confidence in the banks, instead of ultimately relying on gold and silver currency for domestic bank reserves, and then gets historical credit for a lot of Hoover's program that did not work well without a functional domestic banking system. Once the banks were OK, FDR did very well with Hoover's other programs. Most of FDR's more extreme and left-wing programs were ultimately ruled unconstitutional before World War II had even started, thus leaving mostly the Hoover plan in place that Roosevelt had inherited.
Beginning the nuclear age, defeating the Nazis, starting up Social Security, ending alcohol prohibition, and saving the banks, were just five of FDR's main accomplishments. Allowing Stalin to dominate Eastern Europe was one screwy thing he also is mostly disliked for.
It isn't really fair to compare FDR to any other president other than Washington, perhaps. The fact that many Americans think of him as being a Stalinist communist is what is unfortunate. I think he was a radical centrist, perhaps. He seems more connected to the business community than many presidents who are not even considered left-wing at all.
NOTE: the idea that FDR deliberately induced Japan to attack the USA is moronic. The USA was not prepared for war, and had armed forces about the size of Romania's around 1940. It would have been insane for the USA to deliberately induce some country to attack us. There was no absolute certainty that Japan was headed for Pearl Harbor to attack the USA. Conspiracy theorists today believe that F.D.R. was fully aware of the impending attack.
American ships were already being sunk by the Germans in the Atlantic Ocean well before Pearl Harbor, but Congress and the President did not want war, even after direct attacks by Germany. Charles Lindbergh with the America First movement was probably one of the most popular people in the USA at that moment, who led public opinion in the USA away from war.
Historically speaking, WWII was a suicide mission by desperate Japan against the USA and other nations, that failed. Japan was insanely involved in war due to having suffered probably the worse economic downturn in the world during the Great Depression which steered them away from commerce and into war. This is why I blame Hoover for WWII - it was his fault due to the Great Depression his policies created.
Contrary to the assumptions of so many who believe the crap written by conspiracy theorists, the USA and Japan before WWII were actually quite close, diplomatically and even culturally speaking, with Hawaii and the mainland being the new home of thousands of Japanese immigrants to the USA.
Japan donated thousands of Japanese cherry blossom trees to the USA in 1912, and these trees have become one of the most popular attractions which tourists seek out in Washington, D.C., even today in 2016.
It could be argued that more tourists visit Washington, D.C. to see the Japanese cherry blossom trees there, than go to Japan for the same reason.
If Americans from that era hated Japanese and Chinese people to such an extreme extent, then why were so many allowed into the USA in the first place?
(Nov. 15, 2018) Here's a CNN article about an early Walt Disney animated cartoon from 1928 recently being discovered in Japan, having been bought over 70 years ago by a Japanese student of animation technique. All copies of this cartoon were lost in the USA.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon
Notices Anti-Israeli Slant at U.N.
U.N. General Assembly condemns Israel 223 times versus only 8 times for Syrian atrocities.
John Lennon/Yoko Ono Explored
It makes no sense at all to blame Lennon, assuming he was the "trouble-maker", for the split-up of the Beatles. If the other three had wanted the Beatles to continue, I don't see how Lennon could've "vetoed" that. Plenty of groups kick out the "trouble-maker", and continue as before. The remaining three could've done that if they wanted to, but they didn't. The other three Beatles were also very interested in their own solo careers at this point. As I recall, it was actually Paul and Linda McCartney vs. the other three in court. Lennon was actually the one who tried to save the Beatles, it appears from the historical record. But in the long run, Paul and Linda were right: Klein turned out to be a crook.
Paul and Linda were being blamed for the break-up at the time, incidentally, so this argument is more like "musical chairs": Blame the Beatle.
Lennon and Klein were in contact, and Klein was hired to manage the Beatles' affairs toward the end. Paul and Linda did not like Klein, and went to court over it. This entire conflict was what the media was reporting at the time as having split the group.
I can't think of any logical reason for anyone to have murdered John Lennon! The death of Lennon, and even the current inexplicable "noveau-hatred" of him currently being planted in the media, are also odd. It's bad form to be so hateful of someone who is not around to defend themselves from attack.
I never considered Lennon to be perfect; nor was his first marriage perfect. It was probably better to get a divorce rather than live in misery and "slavery" to someone that was not his perfect match. His first marriage was probably more harmonious at the beginning, but it fizzled. Lennon has stated for the record that his first marriage was created in a somewhat alcohol induced state.
Just like millions of others who married and mated initially too quickly, Lennon learned that good marriage should be pursued slowly and carefully. He should be congratulated for his successful second marriage and last album - Double Fantasy.
Extremists? Today, many youth think of John and Yoko as having been so extreme in their own time that in today's world, we have to HATE THEM NOW. That is absolutely not the case in terms of the extremism of John and Yoko.
John Lennon, Yoko Ono, and Richard Nixon all actually agreed about ending the Vietnam War, though Nixon did not wish to "retreat" from the war suddenly.
Even at their most extreme, I don't think John Lennon and Yoko Ono were anywhere near as extreme as many are today, politically. In fact, to call today's extremism, "political extremism", is not accurate.
Today's extremists don't care a bit about politics - they care far more about terrorism and street violence. At least John and Yoko protested in a context that did not involve the murder or beating of their opponents. However, their opponents, those who hated John and Yoko even by 1980, were far more extreme than John and Yoko had ever been.
In context, John Lennon and Yoko Ono put down the anti-war banner immediately after the Vietnam war ended, and his main opponent, Richard Nixon, became a confused has-been well before 1980, the year Lennon died. More like 1974 - Nixon was already finished. There was no reason to murder John Lennon in 1980 unless you really truely had wanted Vietnam to have been the 51st state? In that case, you were the only person in America who felt like that.
It's not that I dislike Vietnam - I don't. I just want to point out that there was never any plan at anytime to make Vietnam part of the USA during the Vietnam War that I can recall.
I.E., no imperialism. If the USA was actually planning on inviting the people of Vietnam to vote "YES" in order to become America's 51st state, I don't recall that ever happening in U.S. history. (As a short-wave listener in the late 1960's/early 1970's, I used to listen occasionally to what was once called, "Radio Peking", even by the Chinese. Radio Peking and Radio Tirana (Albania) were nearly identical at that time. Albania at that time was a surrogate of Communist China. Radio Moscow, Radio Tirana Albania, and Radio Peking (China) were all continuously accusing the USA of being "IMPERIALISTS" in Vietnam. Note that the other "Soviet bloc" countries were not so critical of the USA then, and their short-wave radio outlets concerned themselves mostly with music and art. For example, Radio Prague was not so critical of the USA.)
The true IMPERIALIST in the USA who visited very recently, is named PRINCE CHARLES. This is a fact, not an opinion. The word IMPERIAL should be used accurately. Only a judge, king, prince, or queen, or such, can be IMPERIAL or act imperially. It is not possible for a democracy to be IMPERIAL.
The last IMPERIAL in the USA was named RICHARD NIXON, unless you're talking about the CHRYSLER IMPERIAL car.
CHANGING THE SUBJECT:
My opinion: Imagine is Lennon's worst album. He himself stated that Imagine was a somewhat fake, or "sugar-coated" version of Working Man's Hero. Why not listen to the real thing? Lennon was the son of a sailor, a working man. I don't understand why so many deny this today.
My favorite album of John Lennon? Double Fantasy. It's a very coherent Rock and Roll album with a message to the world, "We're back together" (John and Yoko).
In other words, in 1980, the world was so peaceful, more or less, that Lennon was ignoring it, other than his wife, now again his girlfriend. Note that in that sense, Lennon was returning to the music roots of the Beatles - songs about new or returning romance. (I can easily imagine that the other three Beatles might've rallied around Lennon at this point in time, and the Beatles could've spontaneously re-formed around Lennon's new Rock and Roll/romancing songs.)
I still don't understand why anyone would want to shoot John Lennon at this point during his life. He seems to have left another life totally behind at this point in time when he returned to Yoko and released the album. I don't know much about the precise chronology of his life. This is just a feeling I got from listening to the new album before Lennon was shot.
Throughout the Double Fantasy album, there's this feeling of long-overdue victory over something. What is that something? I wish I knew. There was an electric feeling that permeated this album, just like the original Beatles albums, before it became blood spattered.
That feeling of victory has been largely lost by everyone since Lennon was shot. But especially those of us who heard the album before the death, and felt the victory. I wish I knew what Lennon had conquered before his death. What was it?
Changing the Subject:
Save American English: the American adjective (adjectivial?) and adverb (adverbial?) values of the words, "royal", "kingly", "queenly", and "royally"; as opposed to being nouns, as in "The King", or "The Queen", should be respected by English grammatists. American English usage of those words without capitals is quite common here: "royal", "queenly", "kingly", and so forth. But it doesn't mean here what it means in Europe or in the U.K. (Or in England vs. Scotland vs. Wales vs. Ireland (N. and S.), for example.)
I found out the hard way that "royal" or "Royal" as an adjective or adverb in Europe does not necessarily mean, "good", or "great" in the usual way used by Americans just quoted. It just means, "government", as in "Royal Post and Telegraph". A large number of European countries still call their post office and telephone/telegraph service, the "Royal Mail and Post".
To an Englishman you might meet somewhere in England, if you say, "Act royally" to such a person, (or "Act Royally") most Englishmen would not understand what you are saying at all. Literally, that would mean to them, "to act governmentally", or to "act like the government".
Americans would think "acting royally" means to "act right", or "don't act poorly, or like louts." That's actually not the traditional usage of those words. "Royal Pain in the Ass", is far more American than "Royal Post Office", or "Royal Train Service".
That's not what "acting royally" or "acting Royally" means to an Englishman. To them, it might mean to deliver the mail, or to act cruelly, or to act in a horribly bloody, errrrrr, royal manner. Such as cutting someone's head off, or seizing their property for back-taxes owed "the Crown". Those are "Royal Acts" to an Englishman.
We Americans use those same words in an extremely different manner. We use them in the fantasy manner of Dungeons and Dragons stories, not in the reality TV mode of the IRS stealing too much of your wages every month, or conscripting you to go into the army for a war not your own (drafting you), or shooting some innocent person. That's "Prince Charles", or Government, shooting the innocent person.
That's Prince Charles taking your wages as the Royal Tax Department. That's Prince Charles, the Crown Prosecutor putting you in jail. That's Queen Elizabeth, the cops! We don't call the cops Royal usually in the USA, but they are Royal in the U.K., Always.
All government in the U.K. is Royal by Definition.
If we appreciate the cops in the USA for doing some great deed, we might call that "royal" without realizing how silly that might seem to some Englishmen whose mail wasn't delivered right, or whose Royal Train ride ended badly.
Abolish Slavery in the USA.
Slavery was practiced to a great extent all over the world until the industrial revolution of the 19th century made it obsolete, except as punishment for crimes. That aspect of slavery continues into the 21st century in the USA, as well as human trafficking and other forms of slavery such as the virtual incarceration of servants from foreign countries who live under constant threat of deportation.
The 13th Amendment changed a portion of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
(Nov. 14, 2013) "Telus" is the name of one of the largest phone and internet companies in Canada since the late 1990's. Might be a good time to sell their stock. Does this make sense? The webmaintainer swore to uphold the U.S. constitution at least once, under sworn oath. I think it was the 1988-1991 period when I did that in order to register to vote in the USA.
Master of Love, Sex, & Spirituality, Mantak Chia: these great books, Taoist Secrets of Love; Cultivating Male Sexual Energy (physical advice for men, but good advice for everyone), by Mantak Chia; also, Taoist Secrets of Love; Cultivating Female Sexual Energy (advice for women, but a good read for everyone) are must-reads for all people. Biography of Mantak Chia: click here. (An earlier Wikipedia biography of Chia states that his parents were Baptists.)
Chia's book indicates that the Taoist techniques he expounds help prevent the health problems that many "celibate priests and monks" sometimes experience from extreme sexual abstinence. His advice and techniques are intended also to help regular married or unmarried people enjoy much better sexual relationships, whether wishing to have children or not, etc.
He also teaches mental and physical techniques that help heal certain common sexual health problems other than STD's. Chia recommends that those with STD's get those healed first before using his techniques.
About three decades ago, I had suffered for about 15 years with a medical problem that remained stubbornly uncured until I read and followed Mantak Chia's advice from the above book. I have not suffered from that condition for many decades now. Thank you!
Most of this is from Wikipedia references, which do change all the time. However, research this yourself if you doubt any of this!
OK, so the term "slaver-13" was erroneous except before 1780. This was before both constitutions. Sorry about that! Mass. banned slavery in 1780.