July 30, 1619
Rare, Emotionally Moving, Colorful, Historical, Well Done, and
Witty Spectacle Mostly Ignored by the World Media.
The Trump part is about one fifteenth or one tenth of the entire video, almost at the very end. If you don't want to see that part at all, the rest is worth watching by itself.
Advice: skip ahead to 0:14:14: or to 0:21:00. Another good speaker is introduced at 0:27:00 Using the cursor, click on the "timeline bar" at the bottom of the screen to move forward or backward in time.
All I was seeing using "internet media" about the 400th anniversary of democracy in the new world, was this short item about a Virginia Democrat protesting as Trump spoke, and saying, "Don't Try to Send Us Back!". Truth is, curiosity got the better of me, and I looked and looked until this gem came up. This is the entire original video from the Virginia legislature, and the conglomeration of organizations that put on this huge event. It's such a feast of genuine Americana.
Turns out, there's a ton of stuff worth seeing that has nothing to do with Trump's speech there, which occured only at the end. It's a huge theft of achievement and understanding to not see this celebration/commemoration from the start. Please skip over the blank spots. There's really a lot less than 4 hours of video.
I feel fortunate to have found this video: click here.
Perhaps the best part is seeing that Native American Chief at the very end expressing such sincere love for the current USA.
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 fenatyl (elephant tranquilizer) arrived on the scene for human usage. Therefore, fenatyl has now skewed the death rate from illicit opiates to a much higher rate than before.
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.)
Ever Heard of "Jack Herer", the Human Being?
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 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; not by taking the blood or inheritence of the culprits' heirs or children.
Likewise, the descendants of slave owners are likewise at least as innocent as those descendants of the defeated "tories" of the American Revolution.
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 in the year 2019. 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 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, proof of that warning manifested as the Tenure of Office Act was quietly ruled unconstitutional. In 1887, the Supreme Court of the USA ruled that the President of the USA is no longer serving as president unless he has the power to choose his own cabinet members.
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!
A MESSAGE TO THE GHOST OF(((NOTE: RODGER became a MASS MURDERER.)))
ELLIOT RODGER, R.I.P.
In 2014, President Obama issued a Presidential Proclamation
for National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.
NOTE: this generally falls under state and local law in the USA.
IF YOU ARE A VICTIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OR RAPE IN CANADA, CLICK HERE.
Apology: I took the Lady Gaga, Joe Biden tour against sexual violence at face value and had great trust in both of these celebrities. Sorry. I used to have links here to the Joe Biden Foundation, and to various links concerning the Biden/Lady Gaga tour and campaign against sexual violence. Well, the foundation was just liquidated (terminated) by Biden, and numerous women have come forward to criticize Biden's creepy moves, which aren't violent he says. Sexual violence also involves the creepy approach.
How to 1)get over insanity in relationships! 2)How to get hugged by hundreds, perhaps a thousand, women, free of charge, and 3)how lightening up a lot could help you immeasurably. FACT: having 1000 girlfriends, or more, is actually easier than having ONE girlfriend!
TRAPPED IN HIS CAR, A REFUGEE FROM AMERICA'S SUBURBS: this entire section is dedicated to the 2014 victims of an unfortunate kid from the suburbs named, Elliot Rodger, who shot dead a number of poeple in Isla Vista, California after getting extremely angry at not being able to interact harmoniously with women, college women in particular. He was definitely not in the "moment" in terms of being in bliss and happiness BEFORE going out. Never go out to meet up with women unless you're already somewhat happy.
Also, get out of your car for a change! In the end, he used his car as a weapon to kill innocent people with. There's a whole world out there of sidewalks, cafes, sidewalk cafes, bicycles, coffee shops, yoga studios, dance studios, bars, discos, exercise studios, walking paths, and nice shaded areas in parks, etc., etc. Talk to people somewhere, don't just drive around all day. I also notice a certain stressed look on his face in the selfies, and a strange angle of how his head and neck appear. I think the guy needed neck massage from all that driving around all the time.
Most or all of his "selfies" were from inside of his car. I feel like he just drove around all day getting angrier and angrier, not knowing where to just "be" and interact in society. He should not have been in the car so often in the first place.
From the basis of anger and frustration, there is no way any relationship or meeting up with women is going to happen.
Relationship Light: don't be so HEAVY about it! It makes no sense to go ballistic when things don't go as planned. Over-planning relationships could be the problem.
The advice I give here may not solve ONE situation of a guy falling in love with one girl unsuccessfully, but it could result in that confused guy getting many girlfriends instead of just that one who could not honestly reciprocate, and to no longer fall into such foolish situations.
- Don't Chase Women. Be with lots of women, but don't chase them in your mind, or... just don't chase women. Let them chase you, if they want to. Heterosexual women love to chase men, look at men, and so forth. For them to chase you, you have to first be around heterosexual (or bisexual) women, however.
Letting women choose who they wish to chase or approach ends any doubt about their intentions, and eliminates all and any accusations which could be leveled at the chasee, the one chased. If that's you, then enjoy the sunshine. Anybody with any endeavors can benefit from the support of teams of cheerleaders. We all need that.
Something in world culture has been unbalanced in this regard for a long time. I know I was previously "hypnotized" by modern media culture, and perhaps, not really understanding how the universe works until around 1990. But so many movies and books have helped create the idea that a guy is supposed to chase women, mentally and physically.
The problem with "chasing women" is that it quickly becomes similar to the predator-prey scenario. Women actually despise being treated as "prey".
They do want to be appreciated, maybe even worshipped, so definitely appreciate them in all their beauty and charm, but don't chase them.
Ironically, if you stop chasing women, mentally and physically, you will find yourself immediately with thousands and thousands of girl-friends. Trust me. It works.
- Reciprocity. (Surprise!) In terms of non-Platonic relationships, heterosexual and bi women find your body as interesting as you find hers. If not, then you could still pursue a Platonic relationship. There should be appropriate physical reciprocity if a proper "full" relationship is to occur. Atheletes and Tarzan types do have an advantage with this aspect, but women like small or frail guys sometimes just because they don't intimidate them.
- Parents and Relatives On YOUR Side? Doesn't matter. Even if everyone in the world thinks you two should be together, if she still doesn't feel so inclined to go with you, then it's "no dice".
In fact, I'm inclined to speculate that many girls often like guys whom their parents DESPISE!!! This is in harmony with the concept that girls often like "rebels" whom parents often don't like.
I suppose this varies from culture to culture.
- Don't assume you are ugly to women. Women often like ugly guys. What women like in the opposite sex is totally mysterious.
- Virtually every athelete in the entire world knows that what I am saying here is TRUE. I first read about these concepts, outside religous belief concerning "celibacy", from reading interviews with famous American atheletes in Playboy magazine. In those interviews in Playboy, Mohammed Ali has stated that he practiced abstinence before fights. Michael Jordan - same thing. But these atheletes were not as adept as Mantak Chia, who is a MASTER and who has many more important secrets to impart to those who are listening and reading, other than mere momentary abstinence.
- Master of Love, Sex, & Spirituality, Mantak Chia:
This great book, Tao Secrets of Love, by Mantak Chia, is a must-read for all women and men. Biography of Mantak Chia: click here. He also teaches "higher" spiritual things in a Buddhist tradition. (NOTE: in earlier versions of the Wikipedia biography, it states that his parents were Baptists in Hong Kong.)
Also, Taoist Secrets of Love; Cultivating Female Sexual Energy (advice for women, but a good read for everyone) is another good book. Biography of Mantak Chia: click here.
Help Stop Genital Mutilation and/or suicide. Just reading and understanding this book by Chia could help men and women become happier with themselves, and the world. In that sense, I believe it could actually help prevent genital mutilation, suicide, or other extreme acts or outcomes. (Physical damage can occur for those who overdo sexual restraint. One study mentioned by Mantak Chia indicates that priests who practice celibacy have an extremely high rate of death from prostate cancer. This indicates a lack of the precise knowledge which Mantak Chia is trying to teach. Celibacy is OK as long as you do it right. Chia teaches precise massage and other exercises of the affected areas so that injury does not occur.)
NOTE: I am against any practices which increase disease, such as the current insane mania against circumcision for males. Reducing urinary tract infections of many many types is a GOOD THING. It would be FANTASTIC if women could also be saved from the horrible misery of urinary tract infections. Maybe the French really are more knowledgeable about this subject. Do a google search for "urinary tract infection france", and you might be surprised at what you find.
The Pill? Mantak Chia discusses only briefly the issue of committment, marriage, pregnancy, and having children in the book, so I recommend that birth-control pills, and contraception methods be utilized to avoid unwanted pregnancies for those with a girl-friend. Actually, I'm fairly certain that Chia would not have recommended to any couples to try his techniques unless the woman was already using "the pill", but he never confesses to that at any point in this book that I recall, though oddly, he mentions many times that beginners will often not succeed with his techniques at first. However, unwanted pregnancies are never mentioned at all, so he must believe in extremely good luck for his readers!
Or the unmentioned "pill". The ancient Tao tradition from whom Chia claims he obtained the knowledge did not have "the pill", so I find it extremely odd that Chia never mentions it.
Chia and his wife are a normal heterosexual couple, but gives support to gays or bisexual persons with no condemnation. He places everything in a basic yin/yang male/female energy polarity, but acknowledges universal truths for everyone. He also notes that aging and disease affect this basic male/female energy polarity.
I really feel that discussing the subject matter of Chia's book is essential, and that many problems with a physical or psychological origin, will simply disappear for the reader after studying Chia's books on human sexual health.
In an elaborate spiritual way, Chia explains how men are to avoid premature ejaculation (PE) during love-making, one of the most common sexual problems encountered by men and their frustrated girlfriends. He provides actual exercises which strengthen the male and female bodies, and which he refers to as sexual kung fu. He also teaches women to help men avoid PE, rather than hurrying up with it as some paid partners usually do.
Avoid partial sex, or 1/2 sex. Chia points out that once the guy has climaxed, generally speaking, love-making ceases with the women perhaps left out of any sexual experience that occurred briefly for only 1/2 of the pair. This leads to divorce or splitting up, and the woman turning to sex-toys and each other for sexual fulfillment.
Chia speculates that more marriages and relationships have failed due to incompetence in love-making, than any other reason.
Why should sex with boyfriend-husbands lead to frustration for the women involved? No wonder lesbianism is so popular among women, which could make lots of sense for the women!
Mantak's Chia's knowledge of sex and spirituality is so important to the world.
If pregnancy is not the goal, then be careful!!! Planned Parenthood.
- Reciprocity and ACTUAL Heterosexuality! Real sex consists of both partners willingly/passionately having mutual attraction in an approved context and way, not just one of them. Otherwise, you are a pervert!
- Women in groups or pairs are more confident, and less nervous usually, than when alone. Sometimes it's easier to meet people when a guy alone, or with other guys in a group, are meeting women in groups. One on one can be too intense sometimes.
- Nudity vs. Clothed, Full Body vs. Body Parts: most people, male and female both, look better with some clothes on. We all know how nice women look wearing the right swimsuit or two piece; similar situation with guys in the eyes of women. Also, the whole body with the right clothes on looks sexier than looking at one, two, or three body parts.
The other mistake is that some people wear what feels good rather than what looks good. Look in the mirror more before going out, and adjust things accordingly.
- Sex workers, mistresses. In my opinion, a guy's "need" for a mistress occurs in situations of one-way, non-reciprocated love for someone other than the mistress, or when some other lack of fulfillment occurs in marriage or relationships.
Better to have not gone down that one-way street in the first place.
- Grooming. Trim, clean your nails regularly. Shave or trim your beard or moustache; clean your teeth, use mouthwash, and floss. Wear properly matched clothes. But wear only clothes you're personally comfortable with.
- Hair Color: nearly every horror movie ever made has at least one scene where a gray-haired person suddenly appears full-screen, scaring everyone in the theatre out of their wits. Note that in the American Civil War, the South dug their own grave when they chose gray as their color - a BAD CHOICE, and a bad omen of what was to come: LOSING.
Some people look OK with gray hair, but pure white hair is a very lucky and attractive color as with the bald eagle.
Just as we paint our houses decade after decade to keep them pristine looking, so should we color our hair to keep the gray away to help prevent scary outcomes and so forth, unless you're lucky enough to have white hair instead of gray.
FRANCE: All Women on Earth, More or Less, Wish to Visit France. Isn't it interesting that statistics show clearly that nearly all women on planet earth are highly attracted to visiting France? Paris is the most popular travel destination on earth! Why is this? The French are supposed to be cleaner all over, and have placed art, music, romance, and love very high in their society! Could that be the reason?
Toilet is a French word: be clean all over! The French also invented a washing basin device called the bidet, just for cleaning the lower areas of the body after using the W.C., toilet, commode, and for cleaning the lower areas of the body. Other areas of the world have also adopted that tradition. Or maybe France adopted this tradition from elsewhere.
If a bidet is not available, improvise.
Don't take a small or large residue of yesterday's dinner around with you in your pants! That's not very romantic. (Yes, I know that some women find it cute if their baby poops in his pants. Maybe I'm wrong about this one!)
- Keep Your "Spheres of Influence" Cooler: medical research has shown us that the male "spheres" should not be overheated by wearing excessive or too-tight clothing in that area, or by being immersed in hot water at any time for long. While the body is generally said to be at 98.6 degrees F., the "spheres of influence" are about 90 degrees F. normally as they are located outside the main structure of the male body in order to keep them cooler.
When bathing, after washing and rinsing, keep them out of the warm water. Your energy level will be higher if you do that. When sleeping, keep the covers mostly off of that area of the body. You'll sleep better also.
Staying cool means staying so clean "down there", that you don't need to wear underwear, especially in hot weather. (If you have to wear underwear, you need to take a bath, etc.)
- Beards: personally, I think most women want to see a guy's face, and prefer the unshaven face, especially during love-making, kissing, or hugging. Beards tickle, attract crumbs, and .... never mind.
Beards are OK as long as it doesn't give you the appearance of a "billy-goat". If having a beard makes a guy happy, then girls do prefer happy guys. But if you're angry with a beard? No way. Shave the beard.
Some guys look better with a beard or moustache.
- I recommend that guys who tend to fall in love too much or too often, to go ahead and love all women in your heart, not just one! Loving one women is impossible anyway! Loving all women will protect you from a delusional one-way relationship without reciprocity from the other person. And you're also being honest, aren't you? God and nature both always reward appropriate honesty!
- Women like men who are already happy. No matter how poignant your heart is feeling about "her", she probably thinks you're crazy. Women like happy men who are happy nearly all the time, not crazy ones who fall into "love", and are otherwise very very sad and lonely without "her". Find happiness in your life first before looking for happiness in relationships.
- Note that unrequitted love is the exact same thing as STALKING! Let women chase you. The problem here isn't who's chasing who, but what the women and men are actually thinking about when they meet, and what their attitude is about each other. Most guys are chasing women in their minds already. That's where the error begins - in the mind.
The more attractive women are more likely the types who prefer to chase men. I don't know why that is, but that's just how the world is.
Therefore, when you stop chasing women in your mind, this is the actual point that they begin to chase you. You should notice a "change in the entire universe" when you reach this point in understanding yourself.
- Communicate first by LISTENING AND WATCHING, rather than speaking loudly and ignoring them. Women send us signals if they are interested in us. If you're the extreme extrovert type, you may never notice the signals being sent. If you get a positive signal from women, that doesn't mean they want to marry you, or screw you. I mean, don't over-react if you get a positive signal from women!
I used to have NO awareness of these signals, and was so obsessed with my own feelings, I ignored the signals being sent. When a guy enters a room or area with women around, he should initially be quiet and watch for signals. Don't be an extrovert at this point - be a receiver of signals.
- Note that the actual process of establishing meaningful communication with women in general, is itself seen by those women as a major BREAKTHROUGH for them! Women in general are so sick of being IGNORED in terms of what they are actually trying to communicate to MEN, that when a guy comes along who consciously receives and responds to those signals, they will actually mob that guy! This is a major secret in terms of relationships. Many guys think they are communicating with women, but they aren't.
For example, research has shown that women always like to sit and face the person they are communicating with, while men, in general, like to face the same direction as the person they are talking with. Change your ways when meeting women!
- Physical damage can occur for those who haven't read Chia's book. One study mentioned by Mantak Chia indicates that priests who practice celibacy have a high rate of death from prostate cancer. This indicates a lack of the precise knowledge which Mantak Chia is trying to teach. Celibacy is OK as long as you do it right. Chia teaches precise massage and other exercises of the affected areas so that injury does not occur.
Like the battery in your mobile phone, stay charged. Women can tell if you've been doing that. Read Mantak Chia's book: click here.
- Hug-back. At most, ask her for a hug. Women love to hug. Hug back if hugged. Reciprocate, don't initiate in general.
- In terms of actual sex, let women make the physical moves, preceded by signals, and be prepared to stop at any moment. Turn over your body to her as a tool to be used as if she owns it, if and when she wants it, so to speak, but give her control and confidence. She sees you as a possibly reliable sex-toy anyway. She hates being raped. Hugging comes before kissing. Kissing before love-making. Rape leads only to jail.
Although men are supposed to lead in most dance; in sex, she leads as she's the one who can get pregnant. Many men have realized eventually that all their sexual experiences with women had been physically initiated by the women.
- Foreigners!!! Nowhere in the USA, not even in marriage, do you have the right to rape your wife, or anybody else's. Nor single women.
- Sincerity! NEVER tell big lies to, go out with, or patronize women you have no strong sincere feelings for. But be nice and honorable to all women. Do favors for all women, but don't over-do it in terms of love and dating with women you don't have strong feelings for.
However, they have to have strong feelings for you also!
- Don't assume anything, or take women for granted. Better to ask first no matter what happened in the past. Be in the moment, the NOW. That's where ALL women actually are. They are not in the past or the future as guys often are, they are NOW! But that doesn't mean they want to make love NOW! Perhaps later. Women call that shot.
No human beings should be pressured to destroy, subvert, or desensitize their own personal love and sex-life! If you seek one-way love and sex, then get an inflatable doll! Otherwise, you have to take part in the mutual sexual attraction leading to interesting sexual experiences that your partner deserves. Your partner deserves the same rights and experiences that you want for yourself, and all women and men should also all know how to avoid the women getting pregnant, especially if there is not enough affection for family building. I mean, kissing and hugging don't get women pregnant, but those are part of normal love and heterosexual relations. I believe that without the romance part, the sex is not really worth the time, energy, or trouble. If you disagree with that, you're clinically an idiot and a threat to civilization, both past and present. (The word actual was added to distinguish real-heterosexuality from "missionary-style" one-way sex, which most consider to be rape, actually.)
- Therefore, we heterosexuals have to realize the historical errors from pseudo-heterosexuality, or one-way "missionary" style sex. One way heterosexuality is not really heterosexual.
Make sure she's into you physically before investing your life with her unless you want only a Platonic relationship.
If a girl wants only sex, then advise her to get counseling. That sort of thing (one-night-stands) often destroys a guy's heart eventually. (On the other hand, real passion is also the validity "key" if a couple wants to have sex.)
- REJECTION, PLAYING THE FIELD: You have to be prepared, and to expect lots of rejection if you are very "forward" with women. Most men also reject lots of women. If you're sensitive to signals she is sending, the overt rejection may never take place.
I find it interesting that modern dating in the USA is mostly in line with high-Vedic concepts about marriage and dating in terms of choice: the swayamvara is considered the highest form of marriage in India. The same concepts can easily be applied to dating, although the involvement of the parents would probably not take place as often in the USA. Perhaps, friends could do the same things that parents did (or still do) in ancient India in terms of organizing the swamyamvara. But ordinary traditional dating in the USA has always had most of the characteristics of the swayamvara, anyway.
- Ego: some Hindus believe that the female exists to destroy the male-ego. If you don't believe this, just wait!
- Many fools would conjecture that many women chasing a certain guy might be violent when they catch up with him. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women are basically gentle people, and are nearly always like that, 99.9 percent of the time.
But men or women who have been abused their entire lives might not be so gentle. Some people do have psychological problems that need solving. However, until their problems are solved, they can be problems for everyone else. Men or women who allow themselves to be abused sexually, for money or whatever other reasons, are not healthy or normal.
- Charity and Relationships: first of all, if you're not being sincere, that is a red flag. Also, if people are well matched, no one is condenscending to help the other one out. Better for well matched couples to work together.
- Attitude is so important, that once a guy has the right attitude, women will immediately take notice and reward such men with unbelievable attention and love. Intuitively, over thousands and thousands of years, women have developed a keen sense of intuition.
When a guy comes along with the right attitude, they are so overjoyed, they mob that guy with attention since it's much too rare.
That's my theory of why things happen the way they do.
Every class in every school always has one, two, or three guys (but unfortunately, never more than that) that easily seem to always attract many women. (Or at least it appears that way.) Why? Mostly attitude. I wasn't one of those guys, figuring things out at about age 35 or 36. However, it still resulted in an incredible change in my "ability" to attract and meet many women beginning at around age 35-36 or so.
- Do You Actually Have a Relationship? If you haven't had the conversation, and there is no committment, then there is no relationship. Society used to use the word "dating" and "marriage" and "going steady", etc., to define various levels of committment, and should continue to do so. Without that explicit gradation and progress toward committment, perhaps in letters exchanged, I would not live in such a fantasy world for long if I were you. If you have not given yourself to someone, then there is no relationship.
Without that explicit agreement and committment, there is no agreement, unless agreed to. There should be a conversation between the parties to define the sort of relationship that both want to have. If either do not want a relationship and committment, then none exists until agreed to.
- The real problem today is too many not enjoying single life first with lots of contact with single women, etc., which has traditionally been the norm before committment, etc. Some may never leave that state of bliss in comparision to the various forms of slavery imposed by many in society. However, voluntary slavery is an accurate definition of marriage. Otherwise, no sane people want to be enslaved.
- What is a "goddess"? (What is a "Goddess"?) What is a "ghost"?
If we read certain parts of The Urantia Book, we find that all women are, according to this book, endowed with some extra "divinity" in comparison to men. This "divinity" is caused by the female association with the "divine mother spirit", aka, "The Holy Spirit".
In terms of the Holy Trinity of Christianity, that means it's really the Father, the Son, and the Daughter, rather than "the holy ghost". The Holy Trinity in reality never left out the women, but the church still thinks like that.
Instead, the church wants us to worship or be associated with, "the Holy Ghost".
How modern society has treated women for a long time is very strange and ghostly.
NOTE: if scars or wounds, are part of relationships, I don't think that makes much sense.
Apology: I took the Lady Gaga, Joe Biden tour against sexual violence at face value and had great trust in both of these celebrities. Sorry. I used to have links here to the Joe Biden Foundation, and to various links concerning the Biden/Lady Gaga tour and campaign against sexual violence. Well, the foundation was just liquidated (terminated) by Biden, and numerous women have come forward to criticize Biden's creepy moves, which aren't violent he says. Sexual violence also involves the creepy approach.
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.