Democracy for the people or Oligarchy for the rich?

I have been reading and doing research on communes (I think I am more of a hermit) and came across the idea of "communism" versus socialism -> oligarchy.  The United States has long had the idea that we are the premier democracy in the world.  Truth is, we are really nothing more than an oligarchy that has an elected dictator that rotates every 4 years.  Think about it.  The Congress has 535 members, most of which have been there for years running unchallenged or challenged but seriously overspending their challenger.  Think of Congress as the elite upper-class (they are actually-more than 50% are worth more than $1million [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/politics/more-than-half-the-members-of-congress-are-millionaires-analysis-finds.html?_r=0] ) who are critically out of touch with their constituencies.  Think of the President as the elected dictator as he has as much power as all of congress, though in different ways.  The president can veto a law and make an executive order, while congress can pass a law, override a veto, and make a statement by doing nothing.  Effectively, we are an elected oligarchy.  So, seeing that we have this issue, how do we fix it?

If one were to really look at the Constitution, they would see that congress was not intended to be a lifetime career.  It was considered a civic duty.  Over time, congress has modified this intention into the mess it is today.  Many have served more than 50 years in congress.   This is too long.  The problem is that in the last 25 or so years, technology has created a differential in the populace.  There has been a dramatic shift  in cultural identity in that time that honestly changes the way things should be done.

I watched a recording of the SOTU that aired last night.  I am feeling particularly energized by POTUS and feel that the Congress needs to listen up.  Sure, there have been mistakes made...but POTUS has reached across the aisle again to say "let's work together".  Despite that hand across the aisle, I have a feeling that Congress will try to push their way through to try to invalidate the work done, but will ultimately fail.  POTUS has vowed to use the VETO to block any back pedaling attempted by Congress.  All we need to do now is to get out and vote in 2016 and show Congress that a government by the people, for the people means that we call the shots...

Sexual maturity and the foods we eat

Let me preface this post by putting in a disclaimer:  I am not a Doctor, nor am I a scientist.  I am nothing more than an individual who is talented at research and forming an educated opinion.  I don't know if the linkage is legitimate or imagined, but, I would think that it is a very strange coincidence if it is not linked.  

I have been doing a bit of reading today and have come across an interesting hypothesis.  All our lives we have been taught that you are what you eat.  The startling idea that formed with that thought and a conversation with a friend, led me to hypothesize that perhaps there is a definitive link between the food we are feeding our kids and sexual maturity.  I know it sounds a little crazy, but let me explain the link. 

The population of the world is creating a strong demand for meat to feed it.  When the population was moderate, there was not a strong demand.  Many families raised livestock--cows, pigs, and chickens--with the sole purpose of feeding their families.  During this time, it took the calendar, and patience to get the animals to the right size and weight to make them ready for slaughter.  There was no feeding growth hormones or force feeding (other than goose for  foie gras, but that is not what I am talking about) to induce a fattening effect.  Quite simply, a farmer (or hand, or kids) would let the cows, goats, and sheep feed off the grass that grew naturally, toss seed to chickens (or let them scratch their own), and feed the pig leftovers.  As a child I can remember doing all of those (except the cows, goats and sheep...townships frowned on having them).  We had a bucket that all of the plate scrapings and leftovers went into all day.  After it was full, we would "slop the hogs".  The chickens we would let scratch their own food and supplement that with egg shells and seed.  When they were large enough, we would take the pigs to the slaughter house and we would kill the chickens.

In today's world, things are a bit different.  The life of a livestock farmer has really gone by the wayside.  People still raise chickens, but they feed them engineered food that makes them grow faster than natural and give them an antibiotic solution with growth hormone to prevent illness and  get them to lay eggs faster.  Industrial chicken houses have sprouted up all over where many of the chickens are kept in cages that are one foot square or in large warehouses. The cocktail of growth hormones that are given to these birds, causes them to grow at two to three times their normal rate and often cause the animals to develop musculature that their body cannot support. [http://www.foodispower.org/chickens-raised-for-meat/] Cows and pigs are generally treated to the same type of cocktail resulting in animals aging faster than nature intended. 

I discuss all of that to get to the point.  If we are feeding our children these animals that have been treated with all of these growth hormone and muscle building materials, could it really be that far of a stretch to assume that these same chemicals could be effecting our children?  Since the 1800's the age for sexual maturity (described as menarche for females and ejaculatory capability in males) has been declining.  In the 1800's girls were not having their first periods until an average of 17.  Today that number has dropped considerably to 12 years.  Boys in the 1800's usually did not gain ejaculatory capability until 16, but today 14 is typical.  At first glance, better medical care, better nutrition, and genetics play a role, but the growth hormones do also have an affect on human growth and development. [http://www.livestrong.com/article/98816-effects-growth-hormones/] 

As a result of the younger sexual maturity, teen pregnancies become a problem.  It is true that in today's world, condoms and sexual education, have both slowed the problem, but it does still exist.    [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db89.pdf]  In the referenced document, it shows first an increase in teen pregnancies followed by a gradual decline.  This increase coincides with the use of growth hormones in food animals as well as a shift in cultural norms.  In the 1940's to about the 1960's, many families were very strict with regard to discussion about sexuality.  Often the only sex education one would get was on their wedding night.  In the 1960's many of the taboos were lifted with the idea of sexual liberation.  Many people were experimenting with sex in that time period.  On to the 1980's when HIV/AIDS made it's debut.  This ushered in a new era of sexual awareness which extends into today. 

I remember as a teen, we had a sex ed class that in retrospect was a laughable attempt at trying to make kids that had already become sexually mature, to understand the changes in their bodies.  When I was in high school, most of the boys had all the physical characteristics of sexually mature adults, some had some characteristics and very few (including me) had none at all.  Along with the stigma of being a "late bloomer", those of us that were late would often have to deal with bullying.  Our bodies still retained a good deal of the feminine quality that disappears when a boy enters puberty.  (Bullying is another topic for another post)

I believe that with the kids maturing sooner, it becomes imperative that a clinical sex ed class should be taught in the first year of middle school (the 6th grade).  With clinical education, ready availability of condoms and birth control pills, and parental involvement, we can teach our kids sexual responsibility and consequences before it becomes too late. 

Are we people or SHEEPLE?

I know I have been down his road before but, I cannot help but to revisit the topic.  Today, I was having a conversation with my sister about technology.  Very broad topic with some very interesting possibilities, and very scary possibilities.  Starting at the beginning of my memories, I have always had a major fascination for how things work.  Not just gadgets, but living things.  One Christmas, my parents (really my mom, because dad really did not do a lot of the family stuff...that's another story for another day) got me a science set.  This set had a real microscope, jars of formaldehyde (yup...formaldehyde), implements for dissecting, tweezing, slide preparation, various dying chemicals (methylene blue, phenolphthalein, and some others), a real Bunsen burner, and test tubes.  I thought I had died and gone to heaven.  If I had only had the internet back then, who knows what kind of mad scientist I could have become.  I often would take frogs (toads actually) and dissect them to watch how the heart worked...how long it would take to die, etc...That was real intellectual curiosity (as well as a marker for sociopathy [http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/early-signs]--and I have more than a few of them).  Early on I knew that I was nothing like any of the kids I knew.  They could not understand my thirst for knowledge.  If I had a curiosity about a topic, it was not unusual for me to sit in a library (keep in mind this was pre-internet) and read everything I could get my hands on.  Typically I would start at one topic and end up at some other seemingly unrelated topic.  It really is no surprise that I fell into the wonder of the internet.  Now instead of having to go to the library, I could literally read anything I wanted to from my own house (when computers and internet were new, they were very expensive and very slow, so most homes did not have one, and those that did could rarely afford more than one).  As computers became affordable, I would come to acquire more than one.  I would often take old antiquated (3-4 years old) computers and disassemble them and reassemble them just to understand how they worked.  I was enthralled by them (a trait that has endured the years [20 to be exact]).  Which brings me to the topic I meant to write about.

We have too much access to information today.  There, I said it.  It is true if you think about it.  If there is a minor earthquake in equatorial Brazil (read that as rainforests), the entire world knows about the event in less than 5 minutes.  Soon after that the news stations (the talking heads) are all talking about the potential repercussions of that quake.  Seriously, it is that quick, and that is where the problem lies.  When the internet was new, pages were static and informational.  There was no commenting on a topic...no satirical websites.  Nearly all of the information was factual and not subject to questioning (as they were mostly written by collegiate professors or students experienced in documenting references).  Most people did not have an opportunity to create webpages because it was not yet possible.  Soon after came the interactive web.  This meant that people could comment on pages though still most still could not create their own, so the integrity of the internet was still, for the most part, intact.  Then came the immersive net.  This is the internet we know today.  Anybody can now create webpages or effect the populace by making posts on blog sites, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and the myriad of other instant publishing services.

The history is there for anyone that cares to research it.  The point of my post is to bring light to the idea that we, as citizens of the 21st century, have too much access to information.  If one steps back and looks at trending information, it is possible to predict what might happen in the future.  For example, the incident in Ferguson.  It started with a few [black] people crying of the indignity that poor young kid that was killed by a [white] police officer.  A few prominent people (that we made prominent BTW) started making accusations and offering sound bytes to the masses (via internet and television) which flamed that little spark of indignation into this huge media meltdown over racial iniquity.  One or two lonely voices brought up that the "poor kid" was known to be a troublemaker that had a lengthy criminal record.  Those few were drowned by the rest of the media hype.  One only needed to log into Facebook or some other social network to see the result of the media fanning the fire.  Many folks bough into the hype without looking at all the facts and instead jumped on their virtual surfboards to ride the wave.  One only need type any news story into a search engine to see how it works.

This is our problem.  The internet [and other communication venues] have grown so fast that we have had no time to develop ways to teach our kids not to believe everything they read on the internet.  I think that all kids from preschool should be taught that the internet is a great way to learn just about anything, but that they need to be cautious about stories purported to be FACT.  They should all be taught how to think critically and to look at all sides of an argument [or story] before deciding to believe what is written.  A very powerful demonstration might be the creation of a webpage by the instructor to show the kids that not everything on the net is not true.  One of my college instructors early in my academic career taught us that before reading anything in print, listening to anything recorded, or getting an opinion from anyone, to put on your "SKEPTICALS" and really examine what you are consuming.  Just because "everyone knows", does not make it a fact.  As a result, I rarely take any opinion as fact until I have researched it and know all sides.  Then and only then, will I make a judgement as to the validity of an argument.

Another way I think we (as people of the 21st century) can help mitigate this problem, is to have students learn cause and effect.  When the sun goes down, the temperature drops causing a chill in the air.  If A happens, then B might happen, unless C causes D which will result in E.  I know it seems complicated, but if we were to think through all of the decisions made on bad information, then we might have decided that the risks outweighed the potential benefits.  If G W Bush had been made to prove that WMD were indeed there, we might not have gone to war with Iraq (this time).  If the FBI had shared intelligence with CIA and NSA then perhaps, 9/11 might not have happened and we would not have gone to war with Afghanistan.  If we (people of the UN countries) had not gone to war, then perhaps the economy would not have collapsed (worldwide).  Many ways to see in retrospect, that decisions we make on minimal or incomplete data, can result in catastrophic consequences.

In closing, I would stress to the parents and educators of the world, to please, please, teach critical thinking and practice cause and effect scenarios with your students and children.  By arming our progeny with tools to be skeptical and investigate, we can give them the power to make good decisions and not fall into the "SHEEPLE" and "LEMMINGS" we are today.  Good information makes good choices.

Technology or Bust

Recently, I have been lurking on FB and Craigslist, just for something to do...I have discovered a great travesty (or is it shame) that there are hundreds of thousands of people craving the attention of another person, no matter how remote.  Let that sink in for a minute...

Our greatest achievement (our, meaning the human race) is also our greatest downfall.  I was born in the late 60's.  We had 3 channels on TV, a long distance call cost a fortune, video games had not been invented yet, and the calculator was called and adding machine and was huge.  In the last 30 years, humans have created the largest, most extensive information and communication system that we could have ever dreamed of.  Television has expanded and created niche channels that number in the thousands.  Music, movies, and TV shows are now streamed to any number of devices.  Communication is virtually instantaneous.  If something tragic happens overseas, the world knows every detail of the situation within a few minutes, and the talking heads will argue about the significance of it within an hour. 

Yet, despite this massive information exchange system, there are more people than ever before suffering from depression, anxiety and isolationism.  Why is that?  My guess is that people have gotten used to the anonymity and freedom to express their innermost opinions without repercussion.  We have lost the ability to communicate on a personal level.  Many times have I wondered what would happen if all of a sudden, the web, cable systems, satellite systems, and electrical grid had a catastrophic failure.  What would it be like to the folks that have had instant information and communication all of their lives, to suddenly have nothing but the printed word, candle light, and wood fires to cook and warm with?  I believe that in placing all of our information completely on silicone chips and digital hard disks, that we might be setting ourselves up for a mighty failure.  Think of a time when you went to a grocery store.  Your order came to $10.56.  You gave the cashier $11.01 but she forgot to put in the $.01 and had absolutely no clue how much change she is supposed to give you.  In another vein, you write a page of instructions in script and hand it to your teenager expecting them to complete the tasks listed.  The teenager looks at you like you handed over a page of hieroglyphs.  As a concerned parent, you look at your kid's chat log to see what they are talking about.  All you can see is a bunch of letters assembled in such a way that you cannot understand what they are saying. 

As I write this, one might think that I am wholly against technology.  Quite the contrary actually.  I am very about technology.  I have 2 different college degrees, both firmly entrenched in technology and lack just 4 classes from a masters.  My concern is that we have let our children (grandchildren) to get lazy.  Instead of teaching them in school how to multiply, divide, add, or subtract, they teach how to use a calculator.  Gone are the days of parents quizzing kids in unexpected places--What is 9x6?  Instead we have zombies that stare at a screen, type "21st century hieroglyphs", and have these odd things hanging from their ears. 

Instead of teaching script, keyboarding is now taught.  My nephews and kids can all touchtype without looking at their hands, but they cannot read cursive nor sign their name in cursive.  I am not saying that script is absolutely necessary to human development, but it does teach our kids variation and creativity.  My cursive looks nothing like my siblings, yet we can still read it.  We learned individuality, creativity, and variational thinking at the same time we learned to write cursive.  It is a shame that art is being lost to the ages.

As parents of "21st century technogeeks", we are falling behind our kids in tech, while we retain our creative and innovative thinking.  This leads to a very large gap in understanding between generations.  It really is no wonder that kids roll their eyes when you ask a tech question or have a hard time understanding how to use that stupid phone--which incidentally is many times more powerful than the orbiter that landed on the moon. 

I guess my point is to move forward technologically, but also scream to the masses that we should not allow ourselves or our progeny to forget/never learn how to do math, read cursive, and write cursive.  The irony is that I cannot remember the last time I had to write anything longhand, but I absolutely know that I can should the need arise.  I also know, without thinking that $.45 is the change. 

Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas??

I keep seeing this all over the net...every year the same thing...well I take offense.  Why?  Because I am not Christian...and I believe in equality for all...not that I disrespect your God or your beliefs, quite the opposite...I say happy holidays because I believe you have the right to believe what you choose.  I will never force my goddess or god or faith on anyone...saying Merry Christmas to me is the equivalent of saying you MUST believe in my version of the holiday Christmas and no other...truth is that there are many different holidays from thanksgiving to Christmas...for some it is Kwanzaa, Hannakuh, or in my case, Yule.  They are all equally important to the people that believe...I will never exclude your holiday because I don't believe...if you say to me Merry Christmas, I will respond Happy Holidays though I don't celebrate "Christmas", because I validate all religions and their belief structure...people are letting things go out of control with Christianity...the Christmas that most folks celebrate bears no resemblance whatsoever with the actual event.  Christmas is actually a pagan festival celebrating the end of the dark and renewal of the new...by bringing in a fir tree, we celebrate life renewal and the coming of the light as well as the end of the dark season...the evergreen is a symbol that life will begin anew...days start to get longer and though the cold intensifies, it is a reminder that warmth will return...Gift swapping is actually way out of proportion as well...it used to be a token symbol that reminds the person receiving the gift, that I think of you and recognize that thought with a simple gift...this year and all years hence will be celebrated by me with the bringing in of a fir branch, burning it in the fireplace with my Yule log as a symbol that I recognize the coming warmth and I will pass to those I care about a simple, probably home made gift that says, I love you and think of you in this renewing of life...may you prosper in the coming light...

That being said, please take no offense at me saying Happy Holidays, because I do care about what you believe and I cherish that right...but I also demand that same respect...

To all that give a damn, Happy Holidays...all of them...

Stop Wasting Taxpayer Money

I am sick of the GOP wasting taxpayer money to sue, impeach, or repeal Obama.  The simple truth is that Mr. Obama has done more for the minorities (Gays, Blacks, All Manner of Aliens) than any other president.  By passing "Obamacare", he has made sure that millions of people that would have never qualified for health insurance due to pre-existing conditions, can get an affordable health insurance.  By standing up to Congress (read that as Teabagging Republicans), he has eased the fear of 4 million individuals that they would be deported leaving their children (American Citizens) to the welfare and foster care systems by allowing them to apply for work cards and SS numbers so that they could stay here, pay their taxes and keep their children at home, where they belong.  The Repubs, again, are threatening to sue or impeach our president for doing the right thing by saving money on deportation (of aliens in the country for more than 10 years), welfare/foster care costs, and increasing the coffers with 4 million new tax paying individuals.  How can they even justify the thought of suing the President (which I believe they cannot until he is out of office) or wasting millions of American Taxpayer money to impeach him?  Every President, both Democrat and Republican, have exercised their Executive Order Privilege while in office, and yet, none of them were sued or impeached (Except President Clinton, who ironically had the highest favorability rating of any...ANY President in the history of America, and still enjoys a very high popularity).  How can they sit in their offices, saying "no" to any Democratic Party Initiative that would benefit the people for which they were elected to represent?  Incidentally, has anyone noticed the makeup of the Congress??  A majority of middle-aged white men...name one state where the population is made up of a majority of middle-aged white men (other than Washington, D.C.). 

I have a solution for Congress (Dems and Repubs).

1.  Drop their retirement fund into the national coffers and make them all pay into the same Social Security  system as the rest of us do.
2.  Lose their lifetime health insurance and put them in the same healthcare system as the rest of us.
3.  Pay them a small stipend ONLY while they are in Washington performing their elected duty, otherwise, they work a regular job like the rest of us.
4.  Set term limits of 8 years, just like the President.  Congress was never meant to be a full time occupation, but a civic duty.
5.  When they are done in Congress, they no longer get paid as Congress-persons. additionally, the President/V. President also would receive no pay after their presidencies are completed though they would still have Secret Service protection for 20 years.  Any information they might have had would be obsolete in that time.
6.  Guarantee a college education to anyone (citizens/tax payers) that wants one-FREE

The result of these actions would kill the deficit, fix Social Security, fix healthcare, make Congress functional again, make Congress actually mirror their constituencies (demographically) and make the USA a strong fighting economy again.  We cannot afford to continue like we are.  The rich are getting richer, the poor, poorer and the middle class is all but gone.  Young people today are saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt from schooling.  That doesn't make sense.  The situation is that there are not enough high paying jobs to allow college grads to pay their debt, which puts them into default.  Their defaulting only adds to the deficit and creates more national debt and hinders the economic growth by limiting spending. 

We cannot continue to expect our economy to recover with Congress doing nothing but fighting the President and wasting taxpayer money.  We cannot continue to expect our college graduates to pay their debt and grow the economy by spending.  We cannot expect our Social Security system or Health Care system to be overhauled while the Congress has no stake in it being fixed. 

amazing world we live in

Tonight I was on FB (surprise there), chatting with friends.  During the course of the conversation, a couple of topics came up--sex in a relationship, and artistic talent.  Very odd conversations but I have very strong views about both topics.  The original question about sex was "why is sex important in a relationship?"  The answer is quite complex, though I gave it a quick and dirty answer--it is FB after all and we wouldn't want me to get in trouble, right?  The answer I gave is that sex is supposed to be the physical representation of an emotional bond...but the answer is much more complex than that.  When you are having sex, at no other time in a relationship are you more vulnerable and open to your partner.  You are not only open physically, but you also leave yourself open to judgement, criticism, and comparison.  Yes, we do tend to compare sex with A vs. sex with B--it is in our nature.  Unless you are really drunk (and shouldn't be having sex anyway), are a prostitute (very dangerous!!), or are just a hit 'em and quit 'em kind of person, sex can be the most intimate thing you can share with another person.  Personally, I do not think sex and emotions should go together.  Emotions are messy and squishy and...aw hell...even someone as jaded as me has felt the love while having sex...it happens.  I still think sex should be anonymous and free of emotion and Love should be only for the person you care about deeply...if you happen to have sex with that person, then you have hit the holy grail of relationships.  But honestly, sex can get mechanical and repetitive unless there is a variety or you are really creative, even if you love the person. 

OK, OK...I hear you...I am not saying that one should not strive for love and sex together, I am just saying that it should not be an expectation.  I have loved many people and had sex with many (oh god) but have only loved one that I happen to have had sex with.  I am open to it occurring again, but still not expecting anything.

The second topic was about artistic talent...I don't think of myself as especially talented.  I know others that can create rings around me, yet, many say that I am very talented.  Sure I have the penchant for having the right word at the right time and am kind of a Nazi with certain words (NU-clear and AUNT -as opposed to ant).  I have been known to paint a picture without a drop of paint, just plain ordinary words organized on paper (please sub whatever media you like here--paper, napkin, computer screen, etc...).  Is that a talent?  I really do not think so...I learned it the same way that everyone else did (or should have, as it were), in school.  I feel like the word talent means something that is a natural ability.  There are folks out there that can hear a piece of music and can play it back by ear without ever having had musical training.  That is talent.  Artists that have never gotten formal training (think college-we all finger-painted) but can create a portrait in one minute and a half or 3D street art that is really terrifying to walk on (you really feel like you will fall off the precipice)--those folks have talent.  I feel that any person, if they really slow down and think about what they want to say, can write.  Anyone.  A thing that I tend to do (or try to anyway) is to explain a feeling/mood/color/item/place without naming it directly, to a person that has never seen/felt/touched/been there.  Using this method one can say that they love a person without ever uttering the word love...his presence ignites a fire in my body that no water can ever quench, but should he walk away unrequited, I shall fall to ash...it really is quite simple...

The next time someone asks you a question like the ones above, step back, think about it, and then speak.  If you wish to have debate on any topic, please feel free to email me, and we will do just that...until the next time my brain itches, bye!