Category: Politics

Not too long ago, I wrote an article in which I covered the subject of self sacrifice.

In that piece, I didn’t really delve into what I meant, when I used that term.

Here’s the thing, the concept of giving yourself for others, can seem like an extremely weighty one—and to be sure, sometimes that’s entirely true.

At others though, the reality is, we can actually be talking about considerations, at various degrees of difficulty, for the person opting to give of him or her self.

One of my harder decisions by way of example, was to continue to be a part of the U.S. Air Force, past the time I was well and truly ready to leave, in order to try and keep my marriage of the time, alive.

I’ve had various other times, I felt the need to give of myself, and as I say, the level of toughness for each, was different.

One example I use, was that there came a time when I was in a relationship, and found one of the involved persons, decided they were going to listen to music of sorts I couldn’t abide.

I was a strong Christian by that point in my life (a thing which is still the case), and I had zero desire, to listen to, or even be around, what’s termed secular music.

I realized that I was being hypocritical in my behavior, because of my expectation, the person in question listen to what I wanted. In the end, I basically chose to forgo listening to music at all, while allowing them to tune the radio to whatever they wanted to hear.

It grieved me greatly to have the music they chose playing, but I stuck to my guns, and tried hard to be as cheerful as I was able, when doing so.

The next mildly serious situation I want to discuss, is one in which I started arising at 4:00AM, and going to the gym.

Both the act of waking up at the hour in question, and going to the gym, were designed to be sacrificial in nature.

Don’t get me wrong, I liked getting a workout. Truth is though, my reason for continuing to do so, was to be in good health, for the sake of my family. I’m not getting any younger, and I know for most folks, they experience health issues, as they get older.

Getting up at such a time, was to make it so I minimized the impact on the family, in my timing.

Unfortunately, it was made clear to me, I had failed in keeping things from affecting people. At that point, I made a choice to stop going to the gym, in order to try to keep the peace. This too, was an act of self sacrifice.

Sometimes, the changes I’ve made, seem a great deal less significant.

As an example, when I came to a place where I didn’t have a job, and was essentially the primary (read here, “only”) breadwinner for my family, I concluded some adjustments were in order, to my spending habits.

As I say more than I thought I ever would in my writings, I have a Moderately (Level 2) Autistic son. He’s much pickier in what he’ll eat, than I am. As a result, I came to a place where, I would allow him to eat restaurant food, but would buy food only for him, and make food for myself at home.

That’s true even though I enjoy restaurant food, every bit as much as many folks do.

I also came to a place where I was very close to dead broke during that time. When that happened, I decided to make another concession.

I’m prone to buy certain things for myself, when I go grocery shopping. One such thing, is bottled coffee drinks.

When it became obvious I was going to have to curtail my expenditures, instead of asking my son to eat less, or not have the things he wanted, the coffee drinks, among other items, ended up leaving the cart.

During that same time period, I also limited my leisure travel, which for me was a small thing, since I don’t tend to do a lot of extra miles, for my own sake.

I did a similar thing with my older children, where I would pay for them to do things like ice skate, even though I would stand on the sidelines and watch, because I wasn’t able to afford for all of us to be involved in that activity.

One interesting thing we don’t really think about is, the effect of not being able to do various things is often cumulative. We end up paring down our own activities, purchases, and luxuries, in order to support the well being of others, sometimes in rather major ways.

Those people may be family, friends, workmates, or any number of others—even folks we don’t even know. Much of the time, the point is, to make things better, for those around us. That may be true in ways we don’t necessarily realize or understand.

On top of all of this, I see a need in myself, to have a good attitude—in some senses, this is part of the sacrifice made. Having a bad outlook, when you do things for others in a sacrificial manner, is something that will sour, even the most selfless of acts.

Part of that process, can be biting one’s tongue. There are times when I’ve wanted to say things, but stopped myself before doing so. I was so happy when I did that at various times, realizing later, that what I would have said, was not only not reasonable, it was often horribly incorrect.

I want a couple of things, to be well understood. I’m not telling you what I am, in order to brag. My desire is to give people ideas of the simple, and not so simple sacrifices they and others can make. I’m not seeking sympathy for what I’ve been through, either.

I hope this little article, has helped you to understand what I mean when I talk about self sacrifice. Obviously, there are substantially more extreme examples as well.

Thanks for reading, and may your time be good.

If there’s one truth about life it’s this. You will be expected to compete for various things along the way.

In many instances, that competition will supposedly be against others. The reality is, that’s actually pretty much never the case.

It’s not that there aren’t others involved in many competitions, just that you’re not really up against them.

As hokey as it sounds, the person you’re consistently challenged to best, is yourself.

You may or may not, manage to outdo others in that contest as well. If you’re not doing the best you can manage, the chances of that happening, are slim.

I was inspired to talk about this as a result of issues I see in the modern day, here in the United States.

In my mind, there’s a concern with the general tenor of folks, when dealing with others, as well as within themselves.

This is certainly a result of what’s going on inside a lot of individuals, as such, that’s somewhat the place to start, where it’s concerned.

I’m not silly enough to think a video, podcast, or article, is going to change that in people, and I’m not at all interested in trying to shame them, either.

What am I trying to accomplish then? I would love to get others to examine where they are, figure out whether changes are called for, and determine exactly how to go about affecting them.

A large part of what I believe to be driving folks, can be counted to be external influence.

Whether that’s parents, siblings, friends, teachers, mentors, or whoever, is pretty much bside the point.

The important thing to remember is, you’re responsible for you. Others may be able to help you to make yourself, into who and what you want to be. Though that’s true, in the end, it’s on you to decide what’s good, desirable, and correct.

There’s nothing at all wrong, with working hard when you compete, unless your reason for vieing for success, is bad. If it’s not, the old expression, “Leave it all out on the field,” is entirely valid.

Here’s the rub. If you try, you will fail in all likelihood. There are those who rarely ever fail. For the most part though, I wouldn’t count on being one of them—not that it’s not a good thing to aim for, mind you.

That said, you’ll note the expression above, “rarely ever.” Even the most successful folks, have lost or will do so, at some point. From there, the question is whether or not they pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and move on.

If they do, the chances are good they’ll live to fight another day, in most cases. If not, well, I think you get the gist.

The simple reality is, you didn’t learn to walk, by not trying and failing, likely multiple times.

Put succinctly, if you continue to try, so long as your goal is reasonable, you may not succeed. Then again, you just might.

As I’ve stated, in not trying, you may not lose per se (though, technically, by default, you sort of do just that), but you shan’t win either most of the time.

Nobody likes to fail. It’s not as satisfying a thing, as succeeding, or winning. That said, it is something you must assume is going to occur.

In some things you do, there will be actual competition with others, obviously, in those situations, you can win, or lose.

Where you can count it winning, when you’re in competition only with yourself, you might just as easily refer to it as success.

The obvious point is, the words success and winning are not quite synonymous, thought they’re rather close to being so.

When competing agaist others, remember, it’s about you doing the best you can. Looking back doesn’t help when you’re not out front. It doesn’t really help when you are.

It doesn’t matter if the contest you’re in, is a track meet, a math test, a spelling bee, or just getting the job done first and most correctly, remember that it’s about doing your best, and not worrying about others.

You might be able to use the acts of your fellows, to help egg you on, or spirit you ahead, but that’s really the best that can generally be hoped for. That said, if you’re not “out front” in races against others, you’re not winning.

If you are ahead, run and run hard.

I have a bad tendency in the heat of things and after, to gloat. Thankfullly, I’ve mostly overcome it these days. I hope you can do likewise, if that’s an issue for you.

These days, I work hard to be humble—to realize rubbing people’s noses in things, is a bad idea.

On another topic, my Moderately Autistic son, tends to throw fits, when he loses (as well as gloat, on winning). Considering his Autism, he’s going to melt down at times. As well, he doesn’t always understand the result of his reactions.

As for me, and I think for most folks, we really have no such excuse. If we do behave in such ways, we need to learn to deal with the world in better, more proper manners, just like my son does.

When you gloat, or throw fits, you just make things worse, both for yourself, and for others.

I think the tendency to do such things is a sign of a larger problem, that being that folks are prone to react in emotional or empassioned ways; this seems particularly true for younger folks.

More often than not, this will only cause more or greater problems, since others are likely to respond badly as a result, and argue or disagree. Instead, it pays to be logical and understanding.

Remember too, what comes out is a sign of what’s within. As such we should be looking to “fix” those issues that are internal to us. This is what’ll result in a better outlook and response.

I say some other things in the video, but I want to try to keep this piece relatively short, so I’ll let you check it out, if you want to hear them.

Remember this, though. Healthy competition is a good thing. Responding badly to winning or losing? Not so much. If you’re a Christian, you need to work on giving things to God, and reacting humbly when you win, or succeed. If you’re not, you probably ought to work to root out frustrations, and learn how to release them in constructive ways. In the end, it’s about having peace inside.

Thanks for reading, and may your time be good.

If you haven’t heard the term, “the administrative state,” I’d have to wonder from what source, you get your information on government.

In certain quarters, the term is used all but mockingly. Among that group, there’s tendency to argue that either there’s nothing wrong with the vast amount of power being vested in bureaucrats, or that things aren’t as some (read here, “people like me”) would have you believe.

Others maintain, that at present, the control held by unelected individuals, is so great, that short of a good deal of dismantling, the chances of wresting it from them, are almost nonexistent.

This is an argument that will, I’m sure, continue to rage, for a long time to come.

That said, I wanted to take a moment to discuss my personal dealings, with what amounts to the long arm of the administrative state.

To begin with, let’s talk about my time working as a subcontractor, to an organization that contracted to provide certain services, to my local Department of Health and Human Services.

I worked as someone who helped to keep their various web applications running, make enhancements on existing ones, and help create new ones.

One of the projects I was involved in, was a system called Coding Validation Tables or CVT. We were working to modernize that site, so that it looked and felt as a newer application ought to.

I learned from my time working on that system, that typically more than fifty percent of state funding, wasn’t from the people of the state directly, but from the U. S. federal government.

You can be quite certain those monies, did not come to the state with no strings attached.

It turns out, that’s just one of many ways, the national government, keeps its hooks into state and local entities.

Another example, is the Medicaid system.

Anybody who’s worked on either Medicare or Medicaid, is well aware there’s an oversight body, known by the acronym CMS

The funny part? That abbreviation expanded is, “The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.” In case you think I’m making that up, go to the CMS website, and check out the expansion of the letters under the words “CMS.gov,” at the top of any given page.

And to be sure, if you were confused into believing the federal entity supposedly providing oversight to Medicaid (supposedly ostensibly a state agency, for each state), doesn’t have an iron grip on that program, just ask anybody who works in things related to it—if you can get them to converse honestly with you.

Because the federal government decides how a large part of Medicaid is funded (since much of the largess in question originates with that entity), all it has to do, is threaten to withhold those funds, if a given state won’t play ball.

But my favorite example of government at a high level, reaching down into the daily lives of others, is related to my experience, with having my children in daycare facilities.

As it is, I’m not at all happy with such an arrangement. Having my choice, my children would never find, or have found themselves, in either public schools, or daycare.

That said, I’ve been in circumstances, where I couldn’t easily see another way to do business, and still provide a home for them that was anything like reasonable.

The simple result is, my children go and have gone to, both school and daycare.

One of the more interesting things you find in daycare facilities in my area—and I doubt very much, my region is alone in this—is notices informing you, the business in question is essentially prohibited from discriminating, on the basis of race.

You might expect to find such an admonition in many businesses, but the interesting thing about this particular warning, is its source.

You see, it actually says on it whence it originates. You may not be surprised to hear, it wasn’t the idea of the company itself.

It may come to your mind, that local, or even state government, required its placement.

If so, you’d be incorrect.

So who did cause it to be posted?

“Surely it wasn’t the federal government?” you might be tempted to inquire. Yes, in fact it was.

“What agency could possibly have done such a thing?” might be your next question.

The answer? The United States Department of Agriculture.

That’s right, the USDA.

You may next ask, “How on Earth can they have implemented such a requirement?”

The answer is, some time in the distant past, the USDA convinced a sufficient number of such enterprises, to take food given via their programs.

If other such businesses wish to compete in that market, they must either buy food very cheaply, or partake of those same “giveaways.”

For daycare facilities that make small amounts of money, and are required to have a certain number of workers on staff, the obvious choice, is to use the programs in question.

Of course, as usual, they must meet certain standards, to obtain the items they receive. One such requirement, is a non-discrimination dictate, including the aforementioned placards.

This is just one of many such things, folks performing daycare services, must have in place, just in order to succeed in their chosen business.

You can bet other such strictures (based, of course, on benefits of some sort given), are as or more onerous, than the one mentioned.

It may seem like a small thing, to have to maintain such items in your place of business, whether or not you agree with what’s required. That said, it’s just one more thing they must do, if they wish to survive.

So on top of the more nebulous aspects of the nanny or administrative state, there are some examples I can give, that’re far more concrete, as you can see.

You may not have a problem with a constantly growing and expanding group of bureaucrats, implementing requirements at ever lower levels, from on high. As for me, you can rest assured I consider such things, a major concern. Perhaps it’s already too late to do anything about them. By the time many conclude they’re problematic, it will almost certainly be so. Make your choice now or later, but remember, choices have consequences; as does kicking the can down the proverbial road.

Thanks for reading, and may your time be good.

Most everything is connected to about any other thing, in some way. As a result you can be sure some part of what I say in this article, will essentially be what you’ve heard before.

I should also point out, when there have been ancillary discussions, relating to what’s spoken about in this piece, you probably should expect me to say the same, or at least very similar things, to what I express here.

Having made those disclaimers, allow me to get on with things.

Very few people would be surprised to hear me couch myself as a right leaning person. Some would be somewhat interested to hear me say that I’m not heavily to the right, in my perspectives and positions.

Being clear though, in my view, people who are strongly on that side of things, tend to advocate for at least anarcho-capitalism, if not straight anarchy.

I’ve said before and maintain now, that Socialism is a leftist philosophy, but Communism is an almost completely right wing one.

This confuses a lot of folks, so let me clarify. In my view, the closer something comes to anarchy, the more to the right, I consider it to be. Strong Socialism—including Nazism—tends to very much seek heavy government control, as such, it’s a leftist position.

At least in theory, true Communism expects people to come to a place, where they can all but self govern. That makes it so it’s a good deal closer to anarchy, than even many on the right, have any interest in.

For my part, I support the idea of a central government for a very limited set of things, with a more diffuse set of government bodies, for again, as limited a set of things, as possible.

The remainder of societal interaction should be left in the trust, of the population at large.

Though I very much consider myself moderate-right in my leanings, I have zero problem, with folks having both more right, and left based positions, holding forth on their beliefs.

This applies to the “standard,” and social, media.

That said, it’s an expectation on the part of many, that the media complex (read here, “Newspapers, television and radio news reports, and the like”), be impartial in their reporting.

I’ve said before, and maintain now, I have absolutely no illusion, that will be the case.

Even if the lines between editorial and unbiased news reporting weren’t totally blurred, I’m of a mind that people will be biased, on the simple basis, that they have particular beliefs.

This can be reduced in some measure, by having multiple hands involved in what’s reported and how.

It’s an ongoing problem though, that most news organizations operate within a culture. That culture—as with most any enterprise—has a tendency to be biased, in a given direction.

Want folks who’ll not spend their days rubbing their coworkers the wrong way? Hire individuals who have similar belief sets, to those already in place.

All considered, the media, whether news entities, or various types of editorial components, is considered by many (incorrectly), to be unbiased.

And I don’t by any means, give a pass to media outlets on the right, either. If they’re not as biased as the mainstream, it’s because they’re typically more so.

In fact, there’s a tendency on the part of rightist media, to—if it were possible—be more editorial in their point of view.

Social media is another matter. For those in that sphere, there’s an expectation of a true lack of bias on the part of the platforms, that exist.

That’s not to say the people who work in such companies, have no bias. Neither is it true, that from a content perspective, various social media entities, will not have a potential tilt, in one direction or the other.

The truth is, where it’s allowed, there tend to be raucous voices in both directions, as well as some who’re more centrist in their outlooks.

The problem though is, the people who both own and more importantly run many social media platforms, have a tendency towards bias, which creeps into their management philosophies.

Equally important, is the fact that many who work for the businesses in question, either institute of their own accord, or in deference to their tech overlords, policies for various types of filtering, bans, and censorship, that generate a distinct bias, in the direction of the ownership or management of such entities.

Considering the businesses in question are literally protected by law, from being counted as content providers, such a tendency is untenable to say the least.

Simply put, it should be the mantra of social media entities, to provide a platform, and to do so without political bias.

If filtering, censorship, or bans of any kind occur, it should be on the basis of legality.

As I’ve said before, I’m in complete support of people being able to say (and even do, where there’s no illegality involved), things I consider entirely repugnant in nature.

That works for what’s put on various platforms that supposedly purvey social content, just as much as anywhere else.

In my mind, you should literally be allowed to publish outright falsehoods.

It should be the task of those consuming what makes its way out there, to work to decide what’s true, and what’s not.

None of that activity ought to be undertaken by the platform owners.

You saw that Jennifer Lopez, had a baby with a martian dad? To begin with, I think you maybe should take that with a grain (maybe a barrel) of salt.

At that point, it’s on you, whether or not you do the research to determine the veracity of the claim, or claims made.

Social media not only shouldn’t have to fact check for you, they really have no reason to assume they ought to take such actions.

So I don’t consider the media nor social media, to present perfect fact, in all instances. Of the two, it’s hard to say which is less prone to do so. In the case of social media though, the source is not the platform. As such, it should be possible to make determinations, on likely validity of that presented, if you’re able to readily determine who’s saying what. It’s not the job of social media platforms to determine correctness of information, nor to fact-check in any way. That’s my two cents. Take it for what it’s worth.

Thanks for reading, and may your time be good.