We are Not Listening to the Anthem Protests

“To Sin in Silence when We Should Protest makes Cowards Out of Men” Ella Wheeler Wilcox

There are many different issues that plague this country and there will always be problems that plague this country.  How can we expect anything less when we are trying to be a country that prides itself on its diversity and freedoms?  If we do not try to fix these issues, however, then we are only giving lip service to what this country really is versus what it could be.

In this country, we have the right to protest something as a way of trying to make real change.  This is a right for everyone, even for the people/groups that we may not believe should have the right.  Like anything, though, protests only bring about change when they are taken seriously and when people want to make the change.

A good example of this is people protesting our national anthem.  It all started with one quarterback who chose to not stand during the national anthem.  It wasn’t until he was actually noticed that someone asked why he was doing it.  He honestly said that he was protesting the oppression of black people in this country as well as police treatment towards black people.  As soon as this was made public, the new world of social media began.

Of course, as with the burning of the flag, anything related to the ‘patriotism’ of this country is deemed wrong.  The haters came out, calling names, saying they were spoiled athletes or taking away their endorsements.  In the end, we were happy when they were entertaining us but when they use their celebrity to call out the issues of the country, then they are bad people.

People joining the protest are doing so making the sacrifice for something they believe in.  They know there will be consequences, they know there will be haters but they believe in trying to get some action on the things they believe in.  It is a lot better than people sitting behind a computer ‘protesting’ on Facebook or Twitter or afraid to protest because it will cost them something.  If one is not willing to sacrifice themselves for the protest then it is just empty.

Would this protest be viewed differently if white people and the police joined in?  There are a lot of both that probably do believe the same thing but are they afraid to do anything because it would cause a problem?  I actually told someone that I was going to join this protest and their response was no you are not.  No asking me why, just no I was not.  If we are trying to get racism changed in this country, white people can’t always be the enemy and black people can’t always be the victim because both are needed to make the change.  We also can't be afraid to join in the protest just because we are white or with the police.

Is one of the reasons that this protest is so divided because they do not do a good job of communicating the agenda beyond the protest?  It is great to say the agenda at the beginning but one still has to create actions on it so that it does not get lost in the distractions.  As these protests continue, I do not see any of these athletes getting together with police officials to see what can be done to make things better.  I do not see police leader’s or black leader’s trying to fix this issue yet both sides have no problem complaining about the protest itself.  There comes a time when there has to be more done beyond putting up a fist in the name of solidarity.

What about empathizing with the people fighting against the protest or not joining the protest?  Has anyone bothered to ask why some athletes have not joined the protest even though they believe the same problem?  Why have we not seen one protestor say they do not feel they are disrespecting the people that have died for the flag, if anything it is the greatest respect to use the very freedom they died for to change things.  Being against a protest or not joining is as much of a right but it doesn’t mean those people can’t be brought together to help change the issue.

Another part of protesting is the images of the protests themselves.  Over the years different pictures from this country and the world have shown protests but how many inspired changes versus inspired violence.  If we showed more images that would inspire or question change, would that help get more people together?  How can we not be inspired from a single person standing in front of a tank in Tenemin square to help change why that tank is there in the first place?  How inspired are we when we see Muslims burning a flag in Iran?  Where we should be inspired with pictures of people not standing for the national anthem instead we seem to just show pictures of people looting for three days.

Protesting is something we should be proud of in this country and we should show the world how this freedom helps to get things changed.  Unfortunately, the reality of protesting is that we continue to let it divide us and create more hate.  The more this happens, the less we will protest to change anything.  This is exactly what the people we are protesting against want because then they can continue to do the things that are wrong.

Albert Einstein said “What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right”.  There is a severe race problem in this country one that has divided us so bad that now the police are one side of it.  We need to listen to these people who are doing something they know is not popular by using an event we hold sacred to protest because they feel what they are doing is right.

A Candidate of the People Will Never Get Elected

We do not see things as they are we see them as we are- Anais Nin

A house divided against itself that house cannot stand – Abraham Lincoln

A government of the people, for the people and by the people shall not perish from the earth – Abraham Lincoln

I think 2016 will mainly be known for the craziness of the elections that are happening.  It also seems that we will have another year where the candidates make sure we continue to be divided.  When the dust clears the most important question should be did we elect officials that will truly follow their true responsibility which is to represent ALL of the people that fall under them?  I think we can all agree that most likely will not happen.

So why will this country almost never elect people that are actually going to fight for the country/people:

Candidates are happy with only receiving support from less than half the people.

The problem with any kind of race is that there is a winner and a loser.  Most candidates only receive a portion of the votes, which means the people that did not vote for them, along with the people that didn’t vote at all, may not want this person in office.  If politicians only care about the people that voted for them, how can we really expect that elected officials are going to do their job for all of the people that will be effected by their actions?

The other side of the problem is that for the people that do not elect the politicians many of them spend most of their time creating hate towards that official to expand their agenda or because their candidate was not elected.  Are we really so self serving that we want these officials to fail simply because they are not who we wanted?  Are we really so arrogant that we think these officials will do no good for the people or the country?  How would we feel if we were hired for a job where half the people didn’t like us simply because we got the job?  Even worse, they wanted us to fail at the job and would do their best to get us fired?

Will we ever be ready for a candidate that runs a platform where they try to appeal to everyone that they will represent, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, black, white, gay, straight, rich, poor, voter, non voter?

Our beliefs should be your beliefs

Each individual has the own personal beliefs, it is what helps us create purpose in our lives.  Unfortunately, because of these beliefs, they can also create division and hate.  The reason for this is because we do not live by the understanding that everyone has a right to their beliefs and that not all beliefs are best for the country as a whole.  In their own way, that is what the Founding Fathers tried to start but since the foundation of the country excluded black people, women and Native Americans, it didn't quite happen.

If 320 million people all have their own beliefs are we ready to hear that not all of them are what is best for the country?  Are Christian voters ready to support a candidate who says homosexuals deserve to have the same rights as Christians?  Are Black voters ready to believe that there are white candidates who will support and fight for black rights?  Are we ready as a country to believe that we were not built to be a Christian nation if we allow freedom of religious expression?  Are we ready to believe that a President who has served for 8 years has actually done alot of good for the country?

Are we ready to elect a politician that is willing to say to us despite their own beliefs or our own, these beliefs may not be the best for the decisions made for the country and the people?

The golden rule applies

There are a lot of comments going around that there is too much money in politics and we have created an oligarchy that runs our country.  We believe that any candidate that receives money from what we believe is unreasonable sources, such as Super Pac's or Wall Street, they will only serve these sources.  Money has been part of politics since the beginning and each time we never ask the question about which is more of the problem, the character of the person or the money?  Corruption is corruption no matter where the money comes from.

If a candidate is to represent everyone, even people that do not donate, why should it matter where the money came from?  In theory it shouldn't but it doesn’t work that way, whether someone donates 2 million dollars or $27 they both believe their agenda should be the one that the candidate should represent.  Then the candidate feels obligated and their actions are not necessarily in the best interest of the country or the people.  Just because a Muslim donates money to a candidate doesn’t mean the person should implement Sharia Law.  Just because an unemployed person donates money doesn’t mean the candidate is going to be able to find them a job.  Just because the NRA donates money doesn’t mean the person should always work towards gun rights. 

Are we ready to elect someone who just thanks their donors but helps them to understand that they will do what is in the best interest of everyone they represent, not just their donors?

Political parties serve a purpose

Do political parties really do anything other than keep us divided?  We assume that Republicans are the only ones that will make this country better so we vote for them simply because they are Republicans.  We assume that Democrats are the only ones that will make this country better so we vote for them simply because they are Democrats.  Even Independents we think are the only ones that can make the country better so we vote for them simply because they are Independents.  So if we are all drawing these lines, candidates included, how can anyone think this country can solve its division?

A lot of politics comes from the parties fighting with each other simply because they belong to the other party.  So nothing of any value gets done and then they each blame the other party because the task was not done.  We then take sides because we do not ask any questions, we just incorretly assume we know and react accordingly.  If this is the case, then why should we keep political parties?

Imagine a candidate who only talks about the issues without once caring about their party or any other person’s party.

The Constitution is written in stone.

Many people defend their religion as if the world was trying to steal their most valued possession.  The same can be said of the Constitution.  When the constitution is useful for our own agenda, we dig our feet in for the fight.  If someone is trying to create gun laws then they are trying to take away our guns and our rights.  No one ever thinks that maybe people are just trying to save lives, because unless someone can give a good reason why semi assault or assault weapons exist other than killing people, there is no reason.  Then division is created, hate is created and more people continue to die.

If the founding fathers actually thought the country was not going to change and the Constitution had to change with it, then why would they create the process of amendments?  They knew people would probably need some guidance when morality came into play so they created the process of amendments.  Should we have had to have an amendment that says enslavement of people was wrong?  Obviously, from what ended up happening over the past 150 years, it seems that it was necessary.  Maybe if we all worked together to make this country better then amendments wouldn't be necessary but until that time, the Constitution was not meant to be written in stone.

Imagine a candidate who fights for the Constitution but tries to help people understand that there are more than one way to look at something and good communication needs to be done to come to a good compromise.

My vote deserves your opinion

Each person has a right to vote and be able to support a candidate without having to be attacked by the hate creators or social media.  We arrogantly think that we have a right to instill our voice in other people’s right, once again showing our agenda is more important.  Does anyone deserve to be called names or have violent acts upon them just because of their right?  As long as we attack people for this, the process is not for the people.

I have heard people say that people who do not vote should not complain about who is elected or that they are hurting one of the candidates.  How is not voting because you do not have a candidate you like worse than voting for someone you do not really want but you hate the other candidate?  Should we say that people whose candidate didn’t get elected not have a voice either since their candidate didn’t win?  Having a vote means everyone has the right to do with that vote what they want to better this country, even not voting for someone they do not believe in. 

Imagine a candidate who does not condone these types of attacks, helping people have communication on why we vote for candidates instead of just attacking those that have a different voice.  At the same time still helping people understand they represent everyone.

We are okay with hate creation

Social media has allowed people with agendas to create hate simply by writing tag lines for stories that have nothing to do with the tag lines.  It has made it easy for people that never thought they had a voice before to use that voice even if it is creating hate.  The really sad part of this is that we the people are okay with all this hatred because most of the time it falls in line with our own agenda or beliefs.

What really should be something we focus on is that in the midst of all the hate, the real messages get lost or even worse, make us not listen to someone that may have something good to say.

People may not like Obamacare or the way it was implemented but did we ever see the good that it really has done?  No because the hate creators have made sure that all the negativity towards it overwhelmed the good that has come from it.  So then all we think is that Obamacare is bad forgetting the fact that no one else has brought up a better plan for everyone.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a candidate that doesn't feel the need to blast us with negative ad's but instead let's us know what they are fighting for so we can make an informed decision.

The government will solve our problems

Why do we expect the candidates to solve all of the problems in this country?  When the harmony of our life is interrupted by some issue, we immediately start to ask the government why aren't they fixing it without giving any thought to how can we help fix it.  It isn't the government that thinks only lazy people use welfare.  It isn't the government that thinks illegal immigrants come here to take our jobs.  It isn't the government that thinks that the Muslim faith is all extremists.

The issue when we start depending on the government for everything is that candidates use it against us to get elected.  Instead of us looking within ourselves to find the solutions, they tell us what they will do to fix these things, even if it is not always the entire story.  Free health care is great for people that have no health care or can't afford it but why is the extra cost to others not discussed?  Everyone is promised a job but has anyone ever asked with our rise in population, are there enough jobs for everyone? 

Are we ready for a candidate that shows us the people that in order for any success we have to be willing to hear the truth and to use our power for the common good?

We need it done now

Immediate satisfaction has created its own problems within this country as we expect everything to be fixed immediately.  In doing so, the candidates are able to tell us again what we want to hear knowing full well we probably will forget about it when they are in office.  We have elections every 2,4 and 6 years so even if something is started doesn’t mean it will be implemented or won't be reversed.  Since we never ask our officials why they vote for something or why they didn’t vote for something, do we really understand how many initiatives do not get started?

Even if fixes are put into place they are not always taken to their fulfillment.  Slavery wasn't fixed as part of the original founding fathers documents because they knew that it would delay the moving forward of this country so they left it to the future generations.  It took another hundred years and a full division of this country before it was bad enough to be addressed.  Even though it ended with a huge loss of life the main problem was it was ended with everyone still not thinking black people were equal.  It wasn’t fixed with figuring out how black people were now going to be integrated into society.  It was not fixed with figuring out how slave owners were going to handle losing 2 billion dollars worth of property.  So even 150 years later there is still lingering results.

How would we react to a candidate who told us that yes we can fix some things but it will not be fixed tomorrow because big problems usually do not take a short time to fix.

They should know everything

Why have we created such a picture of our candidates that we think they should know everything or be part of some group otherwise we think they are weak.  Just because a person has not served in the military doesn't mean they cannot lead the military.  Just because a candidate is gay doesn't mean they cannot do what is best for people of Christian values.  Just because a person is single doesn't mean they can't do what is best for people with families.  Just because a person is white doesn't mean they cannot do what is best for people of color.

Imagine a candidate strong enough to admit they do not know everything but they do not let that stop them from using good communication to get things done.

What are we willing to do?

So will we the people ever be willing to change or adapt to what is necessary to get the type of candidates that will help us make this country what it should be.  I am sure that people will say the candidate or how people react above can never exist.  My response would be that Socialism works because the people have signed off on it and given that power to the government, that is the only way it could work.  I would say that maybe if we change our culture, we wouldn't get candidates that want to build a wall around our country, blame the rich for our problems or who want to hide all of the things they did wrong.

The people in this country are still the power, whether people want to believe it or not is up to them.  How do I know this?  Politicians every election pimp themselves for our vote because they know if they do not get it, they cannot get into office.  Companies spend millions of dollars to get us to continue to buy their product.  If we had no power why would this even be necessary?

The more we choose to keep ourselves divided, the more our country will continue to be laughed at with these pitiful excuses for elections.  We will then continue to have a government despite the people, against the people and without the people.

Social Media: Creating Hate in the 21st Century

Kike, wop, chink, slope, spic, nigger, raghead, redneck, faggot, honkey, asshole.  Do these words create hate and anger as one reads them?  Will people believe that I am a racist because I choose to start my article with these words?


What about an article with the following headlines:  "How the Elite Exploit Orlando","Hillary's State Dept. Blocked Investigation into Orlando's Killer's Mosque","Obama: Powerful Firearms too Easy to Get in America".  Would I create hate by sharing, posting or replying on these articles?
http://www.infowars.com/hillarys-state-dept-blocked-investigation-into-orlando-killers-mosque/
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/obama-powerful-firearms-too-easy-to-get-in-america-704549443961
http://www.infowars.com/how-the-elite-exploit-orlando/


In today's society these words do not even have to be said anymore to create hatred or for people to become more divided.  In fact, people do not even have to face each other anymore in order to communicate their anger and hatred.  We have now the greatest hatred creating tool of all time: social media.


Alot of criticism has come about the mass television media being biased and not reporting objectively when it comes to people and situations.  I have rarely heard anyone say that social media has caused biased and no objectivity.  In today's world, social media is a greater source of communication than television media.  Where television may only reach 22 million local viewers, social media can reach hundreds of million global viewers.


The best things about social media are also the worst things about social media.  Everyone has a voice and that voice can be shared not only instantly but around the world.  If people are seeking attention by doing some outrageous act, it can be shared around the world and that person can become famous.  If terrorists want their actions to be public, which is their goal because it spreads fear, then social media was the best thing invented in their world.


Just look at the current issue with the Orlando shootings.  An unknown person of Afghan heritage who was a US citizen and obtained guns legally.  He pledges loyalty to ISIS walks into a nightclub and kills 50 Americans.  Immediately the social media went crazy from the moment the news broke into the next day.  Within an hour, his name was known and his father was already talking to the world.


In searching social media, the hatred had already been spread.  There were at least 10 different variations of hate that was being communicated.  Hatred against gays.  Hatred against guns.  Hatred against the President.  Hatred against Hillary Clinton.  Hatred against Donald Trump.  Hatred against Isis.  Hatred against Muslims.  Hatred against the government.  Hatred against Bernie Sanders.  Hatred against the FBI.  This hatred came from people, pages, blogs and the national media.  In the end, 50 people are dead, another 53 are injured and we have a divided country.


This is how things work in the Social Media world of the 21st century.  It is no longer just an incident, it is now a religion issue, it is an immigration issue and it might have well just elected a president.  We start blaming guns for the crime, we start blaming the President for not saying the right words, we start blaming religions because they belonged to them and we even blamed political parties because he belonged to it.  You have the hatred coming from comments and shares of ordinary people.


People actually went on social media sites and congratulated Trump for being right about ISIS, so in reality they congratulated him for people dying.  No longer do we have to justify to ourselves whether the actions we do are ok as human beings.  There were people that made comments that this is okay killing homosexuals because they deserve to die for being gay, maybe this will have them stop killing Christians.  No longer are we thinking of the victims as human beings who lost their life but now they are just part of a group that we hate.


The media starts with the first communication, most notably the heading.  Many people will not look past the heading so it has become important for the heading to grab people.  Some people will look further into the media, some will just look at the heading or a picture and move forward from there with their response.  If this is all we have to go forward, is it really that important to us to know the truth?


If an article is posted that says "Hillary Clinton Wants to Stop Americans from Dying' and it is an article saying we need to look at changing our gun laws to save people, it may not get too many people to read it.  However, if the same article has the title "Hillary Clinton Wants to Take Your Guns”, some may not even get past the headline thus automatically starting to create the hate.  Suddenly, Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns instead of trying to save people.  Another result of this is that the same story may have different headers because it comes from different sources with different agendas.  So it may not just create hate in one place, it may create hate in several.


Then it is onto the next part which is people commenting on the posting or sharing it with others that may believe the same thing they do, which may cause even more anger.  For years, we have internalized our frustration with things, not used our voice because we were afraid of getting into some kind of trouble or simply got mad without a way to express it.  Now we can say whatever is on our mind related to the posting or against the posting.  We sit behind our computers, yelling, screaming and antagonizing as much as we want without repercussions.  We can be as rude and nasty as we want because who is going to stop us.


In the end, the group that uses the hatred tool the most is the one that is most effected by it: We the People.  Is this the most ironic tool in history?


So how does the hate progress in social media?


I think the best example of this is during our current Presidential election cycle.  The candidates may each have several pages or articles out there that show both sides of their campaign.  They may use this to spread the hatred faster than what would happen on television because now the supporters are involved in it.


Bernie Sanders is not attacked by Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump but is attacked by supporters of both as wanting to spend all of our money to give people ‘free’ things.  Not only that but also being attacked by the DNC for not dropping out of the race.  Where the campaign has not seen the bad parts of Bernie Sanders, social media has made sure that his weaknesses and any bad history has come to light to fuel the fire.


Hatred for Hillary Clinton was nothing new, it had been happening since social media had started.  There has been nothing out of bounds, even calling her Killary and even going to the depths of saying she drove a friend to suicide.  The truth or the issues is not important, when people have in their mind to hate someone, it allows them to justify commenting and trolling their hateful rhetoric.


The candidate that probably understands social media the most and has used it to his advantage has been Donald Trump.  He knows that the minute he makes an outlandish comment, it is going viral and it will spring both support and hatred.  He knows this is free advertising, where before you had to pay to show on television.  The hatred caused by his social media has gone one step further to cause violence.


It doesn’t even stop at the presidential candidates, hatred has been thrown at our current president like no other.  No matter what he does, good or bad, he is going to be attacked.  If he says the wrong thing or nothing at all where people think he should, he will be attacked.  If people do not like him because he is black, he will be attacked.  No other president in history has had to endure the social media onslaught that our current president has and all future presidents will have to deal with it as well.  Can you imagine if FDR in his wheelchair had to deal with social media or Washington with his wooden false teeth?


Terrorism thrives on getting attention for their cause and having their actions made public to instill fear.  Have we noticed that terrorism in the new age has actually increased or is it that we just hear about it faster?  Isn't social media the perfect outlet for terrorists?  Think about it, they want to see that their cause all over the place and now it is instantly broadcast throughout the world.  To make it worse, they can now see the fear and division of everyone on line.  They can see our comments, they can see our anger and they can see when we are fighting with each other.  How does this not help terrorists?


Even groups are trying to use social media to get their cause known but many times it actually turns around into hatred.  For example, Black Lives Matter is something that was created because they felt there was no voice about the deaths of black people at the hands of police officers.  Some people took it as offensive that only black lives should matter, some police took it as blue lives do not matter and when BLM spoke alot of people took it as blacks trying to be militant again.  Instead of looking at what they were trying to do or for BLM looking at how it was going to be perceived, everyone took their own view of it and even though some things have been done, people are still dying and people are still hating.


An interesting question is if many of those using social media are using us as hate creators because we have made it so easy for them.  It used to be that incidents would bring people together, now it divides us because all sides get to express their voice about the issue.  Once that voice is spread people take sides and then the issue really doesn't get fixed.  Take the bathroom issue in NC.  First some famous athlete changes gender and makes the entire thing public.  Instead of this being a good thing for others, next thing we know the government is banning people from bathrooms.  Then celebrities are cancelling shows, taking money out of people's pockets.  Politicians are saying these people should not be allowed in the same place as little girls, even though they have been doing it for years.  On the other side, people are saying it discriminating because it has never been proven that people are molested in bathrooms.  In the end, has anything really been resolved on the issue other than hatred?


I saw a comment recently where someone asked how are we suppose to fix these issues if the people are their own worst enemy?  I thought about it and I could only say that the answer lies in each of us as human beings.  If we think that our religion is more important than treatment of human beings nothing can be fixed.  If we think our social status is more important than treatment of human beings nothing can be fixed.  If we think trying to stop our fear is more important than treatment of human beings nothing can be fixed.


Social media is only going to increase over the years and with it, the hatred.  I wouldn’t be surprised if this article provoked its amount of hate simply from the words in it.  If that happens, there really is nothing I can do about it.  That is social media in the 21^st century and we may finally be at that point where everything we say will keep us so divided we cannot come together to find the real solutions of the world.

When I Figured Out that I was Wrong

During an election cycle alot of people have opinions and loyalties to the candidates or parties they support.  What also comes about from these is frustration that can result in using social media as a tool to berate people, call them names for supporting the wrong candidate and even be blinded to what point they really want to make.


I built America Lost in Delusion with the hope to never become one of these places that would fall prey to this frustration.  We try to inspire people to look outside the box and be objective.  Maybe this was not realistic because everyone can fall and unfortunately, I became the one thing that I was trying to fight.


I recently realized as I was looking at some of the replies that I received on comments I made that I was falling in the wrong direction.  I reviewed some of the comments that I made and some of the comments that I shared, realizing that they were starting to be biased and not the objectivity that I wanted to achieve.  Because I believe that Hillary Clinton was the best candidate of the three remaining and that Bernie Sanders was an illusion of a candidate, I was letting that biased having me attack Bernie in a way that I shouldn't have.


I was responding to replies in the wrong way to the very people who used their voice to respond to my comments.  Instead of appreciating their opinion, I was making comments that continued in my frustration.


Even though my articles/blogs were being objective some of the information in the articles was not giving all of the objectivity that it should have.  I gave information about single payer health care but only gave from the view of a single person instead of giving for everyone.  This would have changed some of the view of the article in a huge way.


I feel ashamed of myself that I have brought this upon the website and those that had the courage to use their voice.  However, at the same time, I hope that by writing this I can show when we know we made a mistake, we can take a step back and make the action to go back to the original intention.


So I apologize to the supporters of America Lost in Delusion and any disappointment that might have come about from this going in the wrong direction.  I cannot promise that this will not happen again but I will promise to continue to do the best job we can to give people the voice they deserve.


Our voice is necessary more than ever to change the people, the politcians and the country itself.

The Uselessness of Polls

There are alot of things to learn during an election year, both about people and the country that we live in.  One of the things that is very visible is how the use of polls really does effect the decisions that are not only made by our government but by the people that live in it.


All we hear in these polls is that this candidate leads this candidate or this candidate is polling better so they will be winning everything.  We hear that this is what people in the country think or want.  Some of the polls bring out good and some bring out bad.  What I wonder about polls is why we actually listen to them when they do not answer alot of questions.


Something that is so illogical about polls, is that they only take the opinion of anywhere between 1,000 and 2,000 people.  The number of people who will be part of the poll is determined by the people who are running the poll.  In a country of 320 million people, 2000 people make up .00000625 percent of the country.  A crazy small sample yet it is used as if it was one of the most important things in the country.


Another issue is how do we really know what questions were asked?  If a poll says 3 out of 10 women do not have an orgasm during sex, how do we know the exact question they asked?  Sex can be made of many different acts and some women do not orgasms during the physical penetration but may during the oral part.  So if you ask them generally about sex and they think only the physical act, they may say no.


What about the real emotions and feelings of people during the poll?  For example, if one's daughter was just murdered by a person of color, would they say they were in favor of the death penalty where maybe they were not before?  Would they then agree that people of color are justly incarcerated versus white's?  I think people forget that sometimes it is hard to be objective when your emotions and feelings are in different places at the time the question is asked.


What about the part of the country that we live in.  If you ask more people in Texas about abortion than in Colorado, you might get more answers in one direction over another.  Is that really a reasonable response if it is isolated to one area over another?


What about race, gender, sexual oreintation, etc.  All of these are going to get different responses but it doesn't mean that these responses represent all of these groups as a whole.


Let's look at some examples of polls that are currently being used.


Death Penalty


In a poll last year on the death penalty, they got a response of 1,015 people.  The only question they asked is do you agree with the death penalty for murder?  The poll said 61% favored, 37% did not and 2% had no opinion.  Is this really what the country thinks of the death penalty?


What also can't be determined here is what kind of murder do they favor.  Is manslaughter included in that, what about accidental homicide?  What about someone that kill someone while drunk driving?


What about circumstances such as Ted Bundy or Charles Manson?  Does having them in the poll change the thinking of the death penalty?


http://www.gallup.com/poll/186218/solid-majority-continue-support-death-penalty.aspx?


Socialism v Capitalism


A subject of this election year was the subject of socialism versus capitalism.  Surprisingly a poll done in May 2016 says 60% people have a positive view of Capitalism while 35% have a positive view of Socialism.


The sample was 1,544 people.  What is interesting about it is that even though 60% say they favored capitalism, 85% actually said they favor free enterprise.  How many realize that capitalism is based on the prospect of free enterprise?


Also what was funny is that 53% said they were favorable towards corporations while 96% said they were favorable about small businesses.  Small business thrive on capitalism just as much as corporations but it is the corporations that are always called evil.


When taking ages into consideration, even the younger generation that is favoring all of the 'free' government stuff only 55% still said they favor socialism in the 18-29 and 30-49 was at 27%.  This is a small amount considering the amount of people fighting for this in the election.  The final ironic part of this poll is this same group of 18-29 had a 57% approval of capitalism.  Doesn't this say something about the validity of polls?


http://www.gallup.com/poll/191354/americans-views-socialism-capitalism-little-changed.aspx?


Marijuana


A huge debate in the country is the legalization of marijuana.  Since some states have started legalizing it and are bringing in tons of money, I am sure this will be polled to death for a long time.


So the most recent poll was how many support the legalization of marijuana.  It was 58% supporting in a sample of 855.


Not surprising people 18-34 approve at 71% while people over 65+ represent only 35%.
The one question that is interesting to me that really no one asks is why do you want it legalized?  Is it so it can be used more medically, is it to decriminalize people or is it the simple fact that people want to be high all the time to forget their problems?


http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx?


Politics


There is no place where polls are used more than in politics.  The really amazing thing is that it is not just used to determine who will get elected but pretty much how politicians judge the mood of the people.  So when politicians say 58% of people want legalized marijuana, they are telling you how you should think based on the response of 855 people.


Politicians are even using polls to tell you why you should vote for them.  Bernie Sanders is using a poll to try to get people to vote for him that says he is stronger to run against Donalad Trump.  If you use the You/Gov poll that says Sanders is at 48% v 37% for Trump.  This is based on 1,635 registered voters.  Meanwhile Rasmussen has Clinton at 42% to 38% for Trump out of 1,000 likely voters.


What questions were asked to determine this, was it just who would you vote for?  What about why are you voting for this person?  What about the issues that this person stands for, are they important?


What is interesting about this poll is that only 85% and 80% were even saying they would vote for these candidates.  That leaves 15% and 20% undecided, not voting or going to vote for someone else or could even vote for Trump which would put him over the top.


It also says one poll uses registered voters and one uses likely voters.  So in one poll, people who may be thinking of registering are not taken into consideration.  In the other poll, we do not even know if anyone is even going to vote.


I think when we see these polls, we really do not see how this will effect people when others take these polls seriously.  If a poll of 1,200 people ask what is the most important issue facing this country and the Economy is first and racism is 5th, which one do we believe will be taken more seriously?  Racism is killing people, putting people in jail and having people actually considering putting up walls between countries, yet it is only 5th most important.  Is that logical?
Polling to me is the most useless piece of information out there.  The right questions are not being asked, it doesn't take everyone into consideration and it is based on a one time question.  There has to be a better way of getting to know what people in this country really want.


These are the numbers that are used to determine elections, the future of the country and the people in it.  It is sad when candidates start using the polling of elections against their opponent but what is even more sad is how we the people would take the advice of 1,100 instead of our own will.


I have more to say on the subject but I am hungry and need to go ask 800 people what to have for dinner.

Bernie the Grand Illusion: Why I Would Not Vote for Him

When I look at what kind of candidate I want to vote for, there are three questions that I ask more than anything.  1)  Do they run a negative campaign?  2)  Do they run a campaign where they are doing what is best for the entire country and all of the people. 3) Is the person real or just saying stuff to get elected?  This is what true politicians need to do and understand when running.  I know people say I am dreaming but no one is going to tell me that this person is not our there.

When the campaign started for the 2016 election, the one thing I made sure I did that I had never done before was to become more informed about what was happening.  Not only about the candidates but about the agenda that was being pushed down our throats.

I knew Hillary Clinton was going to get attacked like she has been for 25 years and say the things she needed to for election.  I knew Trump was going to win because people do not listen to what his supporters are saying and some people like craziness.  Then came Bernie Sanders out of nowhere.  I knew from the beginning that he was going to create some havoc because this is what the country always looks for when the younger generation is seeing things for the first time.  We are thirsty for someone that we believe will fight for our country, the same thing happened with President Obama.

When Mr. Sanders started I figured maybe this was a candidate that I could get behind.  He was an underdog, he was fighting for things others were not talking about and he was inspiring people to rise up this electoral season.

However, as he talked he kept saying how much the rich were to blame for the issues of this country and how we don’t do enough for the poor.  He was trying to put more emphasis on the government giving us all of these benefits and basically telling us it was our duty to pay for it.

Then as each speech happened, I just kept hearing the same thing over and over, finally realizing that he is not thinking about the effects on the people he is suppose to be caring about.  I finally realized he was not talking about anything that was helping the type of person that I am.  I have been working for over 30 years, I have a degree that I worked for, I am a veteran of the Gulf War, I own my home, I make a good living, etc.  So by doing most of the things that Mr. Sanders wants to do, my paycheck will decrease by at least $650 per month with really no benefit to myself.  So why would I vote for this type of person?

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

I want to help people as much as the next person but the more I found out about Sanders and listed to him, the more I realized that he is not the holy candidate everyone thinks he is.  He is an illusion of the candidate that we seem to want and even though behind the scenes he is not, we want to believe that he is.  He is using all of the tricks, Politics 101 while making himself look non establishment which to me is the worst kind of politician.

One could see the real Mr. Sanders come out with each primary/caucus that he lost.  Of course, it couldn’t be that people didn’t want to vote for him, it had to be voter fraud therefore the blame game.  Did anyone notice that in the states where he got his ass kicked he didn’t complain, mostly the South.  It didn’t dawn on people to check BEFORE the election to see what the rules were or even worse, that not everyone was a Bernie fan.

Already I was starting to stay away from Bernie but then I said maybe the agenda he is saying will still make me vote for him despite the fact that I see through the persona.  The more I listened to it, the more I realized it was not an agenda that was best for this country and ALL of the people in it.  It was an agenda that was best for Bernie and his supporters.

Let's start with the simple fact of using European countries as a blueprint for our country.  Why should we be a country that follows others?  For years, we have been the innovators of the world and now we need to follow other countries as a way of fixing our issues.  I am not saying that something’s other countries do isn’t good but not as a blueprint.

Besides most of these countries are only 1 tenth the size of the US in both mass and people and no one talked about the extreme and expensive task of making it happen here without talking about taxing the rich.  One thing that was also not brought up is the failure of these systems in other countries such as Venezuela.  If you are going to tell Americans to follow other countries you better be ready to be attacked by the ones that didn’t work.  He failed that one.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6124/bernie-wont-answer-questions-about-venezuela-here-aaron-bandler

The real hot topic of single payer health system is also part of the fight.  The first issue I have is Bernie is spouting all of this but in 1993 he refused to vote for Hillary’s health care plan because it was not his.  We could have had affordable health care over 20 years ago and yet the one person who supposedly cares did not vote for it.

We are told that this will have to be paid for with a tax on companies and a tax on employees but that it will be minimal because premiums currently being paid for will be reduced.  This creates a problem with someone who is working without insurance they are now going to have to have their paycheck reduced when they did not before.  Of course, they will have health care but have less money.  The company also will have fewer profits.

Let’s look at how it will effect me.  I currently pay 25% of the health care premium offered which comes out to $124 per month.  That means my employer pays $372 per month.  Under the new program, I will pay $165 per month and my employer will pay $465 per month.  So that is $492 less I will get per year even before any other taxes take effect.  Then the company I work for will have $5,586 more in expense per year.  Now this may not sound like a lot but multiply that by only 10 employees, that is $55,000 less per year of profit or 1 person’s salary.

Some people say an advantage of single payer is that will be less expenses at hospitals because of overhead and inflated salaries.  However, those same people then become unemployed and since there will be no jobs available at other hospitals, they have to potentially find a different career.  Also what happens if people coming out of school do not want to become government employees and stop becoming doctors, won’t that create a shortage?

The final nail in this coffin for me is who will run this program.  We have seen already where the Affordable Health Care process has not been run well and now we are adding more government red tape to the process.  Not to mention how much power the government will now hold over the citizens which is something we are going to have to decide if we can live with.  Funny I never hear about this in any speeches or interviews.

http://www.medcohlth.com/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-single-payer-health-care/

How about the idea of free tuition?  I am all for people having an opportunity to better themselves by getting an education especially in a time when this is necessary for most jobs.  At the same time why should I have to pay for people to party at college?  I see no parameters for people that do not graduate or even worse do not get jobs in the field they got a degree in.  So I am paying taxes for someone to better their life but what happens if it does not?

It is said that this will be paid for by Wall Street but how can anyone think the middle class will not be effected by it?  Wall Street drives the economy whether we like it or not.  If taxes are applied on transactions, there will be less investment and this will cause things such as 401K’s to go down.  401K are used by the middle class.

Part of Bernie's plan also will make schools keep tenured professors at a 75% level so that means non tenured will be let go or even worse have a harder time finding a job.  Also, the federal government only takes 67% of the cost at the beginning with states taking the rest but after 6 years states are responsible for 100%.  This means states will now have to come up with billions of dollars as part of their budget to cover something they didn’t before.  I do not see that part of this plan being highlighted on social media or on signs when people are protesting.

http://www.americalostindelusion.com/past-discussions/archived-articles/2015/78-details-and-analysis-of-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan.html

The way Bernie really hits people is when he talks about helping the poor, saying the same thing everyone says that the poor need to have a livable wage.  I agree with this completely with people needing to make enough to not have to starve each night.  Where I have an issue is when was the last time a candidate actually went out and saw who the poor really was and why they were in the situation they were in.  Just throwing money at a problem really doesn’t solve it.

Poverty is defined by the government based on income level that will allow people to acquire the basics of life.  So a statistic is suppose to tell us a person’s real situation and how to fix it.

The government’s definition of poverty at its lowest level for a single person, it is $12,331 which equates to 5.92 per hour, this is below the minimum wage of $7.25.  So that means the minimum wage brings them above the poverty level by the government’s definition.  For a family of 3 with one person working, it is $19,078 which comes out to 9.00 an hour.  In this case the minimum wage is below the poverty level.

So the solution has been said to raise the minimum wage to $15 and people are actually out there fighting for this solution.  But in reality it does not help the people it is intended to help.  The livable wage in one county is different than in another county so $15 an hour will be different in those 2 counties.

Take one of the poorest counties in America, Rolette County in North Dakota:

                  1 Person Livable Wage 9.72 per hour                  
                                Poverty Wage  5.00 per hour
                      So it would only take $10.00 an hour for a livable wage.

                  Family of 3 (1 working person)  Livable Wage  18.31 per hour
                                                                     Poverty Wage  9.00 per hour
                      So the $15 an hour wage would not create a livable wage.

                 Single mother of 2  Livable Wage  $24.08 per hour
                                                Poverty Wage $9.00 per hour
                      So the $15 hour wage would not even close to a livable wage.

 This is one of the poorest counties in the country so you can imagine what one of the richest like Los Angeles is going to be.  There is more involved in a livable wage, like the high cost of rent, the high cost of taxes, the high cost of necessities, the high cost of life.  Where is the protesting of all of this?

http://livingwage.mit.edu/pages/about

Why would I vote for a candidate who honeymooned in Communist Russia and shouted ‘Death to the Yankees’ in Nicaragua?  Sounds like someone who doesn’t like this country so why should he be running it.

What about someone who says he fights against the military industrial complex but votes for the War in Afghanistan and NATO occupation in Serbia where tons of people died for ethnic cleansing.  A protest supporter who had war protestors arrested in his office.  One who was okay with the complex when the pentagon brought an F-35 project to his home state of Vermont.  Since Congress approves the budget, how many budgets were approved that raised the budget for the military?

How does an environmentalist supporter justify moving low level nuclear waste from his state of Vermont, then dumping it in Latino based Sierra Blanca Texas.  This has created all kinds of environmental issues.  When activists came to discuss he said he didn’t have time for them.  Guess there was no camera on him to spout his rhetoric.

He visited the border fence in Mexico saying we have to have reform to not divide families.  However, in 2007 and 2015 he voted against immigration reform based on the premise that it would lead to low level wages.

Even though he was a civil rights activist in the 60’s, there is no record of him having done anything in the area over the past 50 years.

He says we should do more for Native Americans, even visiting them during the campaign but there is no record of doing anything in his terms in Congress.

Mr. Sanders says he does not accept money from Super Pac’s yet the National Nurses United has donated over $1 million dollars to his campaign.  Now both Sanders and the United will say they do not think of themselves as a Super Pac but sorry to say that is how they are registered with the FEC.

How does a man who says he cares for the less fortunate ignore a major speaker of the handicapped?

https://shiksappeal.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/berned-by-bernie-sanders/

I am all for helping people in the country, in fact it is our duty as part of living here.  I am not trying to say that Mr. Sanders is a terrible person because people do things for different reasons and they make mistakes.

The issue I have is when someone who has built an illusion of being this great savior is in reality nothing but a person who has built his career doing the things opposite of what he is fighting for.  This makes the person non genuine even if others think he is.

https://www.quora.com/What-dirt-is-there-on-Bernie-Sanders/answer/Mark-Hughes-1?ref=fb

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/19/this-ends-now-the-bernie-sanders-opposition-research-the-media-refuses-to-release#.V0D-j9Zd6_0.facebook

I may come off here as sounding selfish and maybe I am, part of all of us are selfish that is why we do many of the things we do.  However, I worked hard to be where I am today and if I am going to support others with that hard work, I want to know that it is going to help all people not just the ones we are told it will help.  Myself and the people like me should be included in that conversation, not just forgotten because we are no longer young and we haven’t reached Social Security yet.

This is obviously a personal opinion when it comes to this candidate and I would never push this agenda onto anyone else.  We all have our reasons for wanting to elect someone into office and we should stand by those reasons, I do.

In my reasoning, I want some reality, even if it is kind of hard to swallow sometimes.  Someone giving me an illusion of what he will be means that eventually that illusion goes away which usually brings more issues.  In the end, I believe the person I want is out there and definitely know it is not Mr. Sanders.

The Absurdity of an Email Server

So here we go as all anyone can talk about is an email server and the guilt of the person who used it.  I read all 86 pages of the State Department's IG report on the security of their emails or at least tried to read the best I could on a department that was trying to make itself look good with alot of meaningless words.


https://www.scribd.com/doc/313803323/State-Dept-inspector-general-report-sharply-criticizes-Clinton-s-email-practices


So what have I found since the reading of this report.  I have found how absurd this thing really is and how so much hatred of a person can create such hypocrisy that blinds us to anything else.  This issue was created by the media and only then did the IG think anything of it.  However, we the people ate it up as we had all these visions about Hillary Clinton doing all of this secret stuff and lying to us.  No one even asked whether it is something that is worth even putting ahead of the real issues of this country.


            The Federal Records Act was created in 1950 and the Act has been updated to change with times but that change happens slowly.  In 1997 emails were added to the Act but only saying they should be printed and filed.  It wasn't until 2009 that the Act was updated about private emails but even that did not say it was incorrect to use as long as the record keeping system was in line with government regulations.  This report has even shown that the State Department has many holes in its regulations about document preservation and has never gone after anyone for not following the so called rules.


             So really the only thing that Hillary Clinton was guilty of was not providing the documents on that server when she left office.  Oh my god what a capital crime.  At the same time, no one even bothered to see that when asked for the emails off the server, Hillary Clinton handed over 55,000 pages of emails.  Yea she must have really been guilty of hiding something when she turned over truck loads of paper.


            Hillary must have created that email server to hide secrets when she was in the State Department.  Oh wait, she had been using it for years and so maybe it was something she felt comfortable with.  Interesting that the State Department knew she was using it during that time and yet even though they say they told her she should stop, they did not push because she wasn't doing anything against the rules.  We should string her up for doing something that was not against the rules.


            Hillary must go to jail for this because this was a vicious crime against the government.  Wait, Colin Powell used his personal email and didn't hand over the records, but that is okay we don't have to persecute him for 2 years because he is Colin Powell.  Hillary must be burned at the stake.


            Wait a minute, Edward Snowden and Wikileaks hacked and stole sensitive documents from the government that showed all of these bad things the government was doing.  These people are heroes to the people because they told the truth.  Well, good thing that they didn't use a private email server because they would be crucified.  Oh wait, they probably did use one so we should need to see their emails.


           I am sure Donald Trump will use this against Hillary Clinton but we know Bernie Sanders won't probably because he doesn't know how to use email.  I am sure that both supporters will continue to attack Clinton for the simple issue of using a private email server.  Forget the fact that most of us spend our days looking through personal emails or Facebook at work when it is usually against company policy.  Hillary must be shot.


         Hillary has lied about this from the beginning.  Yes because talking about such an absurd subject for 2 years and even if the truth would have been told, it probably would have been ignored or said to be covering up something.  Hillary must be tortured.


        I have said from the beginning that this subject was stupid because it deferred away from the real issues of this country.  Now that I read what really happened, it has become ridiculous.  It has also shown what this election has shown since the beginning, how hypocritical this country really is.  When we have a focus on bringing someone down that stands in the way of own selfish beliefs, it does not matter what is right, only that we get what we want out of it.


       In the end, this country just got a little worse because of the absurdity of an email server.             


 

The Generation Battle That No One Wins

As a person of Generation X, the lost generation between Baby Boomers and Millenials, I find this battle interesting. The reason why is because it is a matter of not understanding anything about any generations.

The baby boomers do not understand that they created the Millenials with their technological revolution, baby seating, privelaged life.

The Millenials do not understand some of the hardhsips that Baby Boomers had to go through to try to create a better life for their children such as 20% interest rates and the Vietnam War.

All generations try to create a better life for the future generations no matter what anyone wants to complain about, if one does not believe that then you do not know your history.

At the same time, everything in life is a choice, what you choose to do with your life is a choice, yes your parents have a say in it but the voice that is created is your own. If you do not want to go to college because you do not want to end up in debt, then you do not want to go to college that bad.

If you think people are lazy now, then we shouldn't have created video games and IPads while working 60 hour work weeks instead of spending more time teaching people the values you need.

If people of any generation think they are lacking in morals then that is our own issue. If you are more concerned with whether the Bachelor gets the choice of 1 of 12 women versus the homeless person that you stepped over, that is your choice.

In the end, it is about responsibility and if we think anyone is really concerned about making your life better without you doing anything we are delusional. Even the Bern is not interested in helping you, he is only interested in keeping you blaming others because that is how he is able to get things done. By the way, it is interesting that Millenials blame Baby Boomers yet they are trying to get one elected as President.

There are people that live in this country from the age of 2 minutes to 100 years old and yet we always seem to focus on certain groups as being the 'power' in this country. Always putting people in groups is how we stay divided and in that case no one has power, even the ones you think have power, it is only perceived.

We need to stop having conversations at a table on our phones and see what is happening in the world. We need to understand that even though racism still exists, it is better than it was 50 years ago. We have to understand that as we want to be online more, businesses will suffer because of it. We need to understand that as we try to put the country in a fog of marijuana, people aren't going to be very motivated to do things.

This country has always had problems, we have fixed some but the ones that really matter we let ourselves be more concerned with how Prince died.

That is how every generation fails.

A Ironic Country: Did the 99% help to create the 1%?

The 1% are evil.  The 1% is the reason why the problems of this country exist.  The 1% are greedy and only care about making money.  The 1% have made their money on the suffering of the 99%.  The 1% have more wealth than most of the free world.  The 1% are buying every election.

We have heard it so much over the past years that the wealthiest 1% of this world is responsible for most of the problems of the world.  If only they were treated the same as the 99%, then the world would be so much better and more even.  But is that reasonable?

What do we really know about the stories of the so called ‘evil’ 1%?  Why shouldn’t the people that have money be allowed to have a say in how this country is run as much as the person making minimum wage.  Is it easier for us to call them the 1% instead of knowing who they really are?  The most important question is whether the very people demeaning the 1%, the so called ‘99%’, actually helped create the 1%?

First of all, in the world, the 1% group is about 70 million people, yes that is million.  To qualify for the 1% club the average net worth starts at around $600,000, the US that is closer to $400,000.  That means that every major league ballplayer is part of the evil club, even the ones that are just starting out.

When you look at the 1,810 billionaires in the world, they are worth 6.5 trillion dollars combined.  However, when you look at who these billionaires are, are they really the type that are building their fortune suppressing others?

http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

So let’s take a look at a few of these billionaires to show that no matter what they are still human.

Let’s start out with the most evil of the 1%, the richest man in the world, Bill Gates.  This is a man whose intelligence allowed him at the early age of 13 to create computer programs.  Even though he attended Harvard, he chose to work on getting a company started in the 1970’s on the verge of the computer revolution.  He never graduated from Harvard.

Bill Gates is a married man with 3 children.  He has created a foundation with assets of 44 billion dollars that helps programs related to education and fighting poverty among its many charities.  He has helped create a ‘pledge’ among billionaires to give half their wealth to charity, a pledge that he created with Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckerberg.

Mr. Gates wealth came from being smart enough to partner with IBM and not give up the rights to his software but to continue partnerships with other computer companies.  Bill Gate’s wealth came from companies need to use computers are part of their business, computers that contained their program.

Mr. Gates wealth came from our internal need to have a computer with his operating system on it, a computer to play games, put pictures and do our checkbook on.  A need that eventually led to wanting tablets, smartphones and everything else that came from Microsoft.

So is Bill Gate part of the ‘evil’ that we are suddenly protesting?   His company probably doesn’t pay their fair share in taxes and I am sure he doesn’t as well.  He has been accused of bad business practices in the past.

At the same time, he has changed our world for the better as part of the technological revolution, helping companies work better and more efficient.  Computers employ millions of people, people that make good money and this is because of people like Bill Gates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

Our next ‘evil’ billionaire is from Spain and created the empire of Zara clothing, Amancio Ortega Gaona.  He started out in a shirt shop, making clothes by hand.  Eventually, he opened a store with his wife and the rest as they say is history.

Zara now has over 6,000 stores and over 92,000 employees.  Mr. Gaona was never a person who flaunted his wealth, no picture had ever been circulated of him before 1999.  He also has created a foundation that helps Spain’s needy.

Clothing empires are built on the need of consumers to have the latest clothing and willing to pay for those clothes.  Satisfying our need to be dressed in a brand helps give people jobs in these stores.  The company probably doesn’t pay its share of taxes and Mr. Gaona probably doesn’t either and the stores have been accused of running sweat shops in South America.  

In the end, is it evil to give people what they want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amancio_Ortega_Gaona

Jeff Bezos is a person who loved science and actually graduated from Princeton with electrical engineering and computer science.  He was so into mechanical things that he built an alarm when he was a kid to keep his siblings out of his room.

Mr. Bezos was already making money from being a Hedge Fund Manager but when the internet was starting to take off in 1994, he realized that there would be a need to sell things online.  This business is over 20 years old which means it started when the internet was barely a blimp on the radar.  He was also an original investor in Google.  Even though he has not taken the ‘pledge’, Mr. Bezos does help donate time and money to charities and also is very involved in the aerospace industry.

Amazon has made its money on the fact that consumers want to be able to buy things in the comfort of their own home.  Even though it has reduced business from other retail companies, it has created an environment that other companies had to change to in order to compete.  It has branched out into other areas such as streaming video, another area that consumers have flocked to.

Is it evil to make our lives easier to live from the comfort of our home?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos

Mark Zuckerberg is probably called evil for different reasons, the most because he supposedly ‘stole’ the idea of Facebook from others.  However, he paid for that and yet it didn’t stop Facebook from changing social media forever.

Mr. Zuckerberg was already a child prodigy, building computer programs even before he went to college.  By the time he reached Harvard he was already a computer legend and then he built Facebook.

Mr. Zuckerberg has also taken the pledge to give half his wealth to charity and is part of the Bill Gates Foundation.  He has also given 99% of shares to his own foundation built with his wife.  His salary for Facebook is $1.

Mr. Zuckerberg’s wealth was built on our need for instant communication about our lives and the lives of the people we know.  It was built because businesses knew that in order to continue to sell you product they had to be on social media.  Facebook changed the technology world by satisfying our instant gratification.

Is it evil to change the world?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg

Howard Schultz was a man who grew up in a poor Jewish neighborhood.    He was an athlete that won a scholarship to college being the first person in his family to go to college.

He worked as a salesman until he became GM for a coffee company.   In a trip to Italy while working for Starbucks, he found the way they serve coffee as being something to do in the US.  He raised money to start his own coffee company and eventually bought out the Starbucks name.  Starbucks was being created on every corner and not franchised so that they would always follow the Starbucks philosophy.

Starbucks has been one of the leaders in business giving part time employees health care, giving away food to the needy and good customer service.  When McDonalds gave competition they closed down their stores and said let’s change our structure to make sure they give customers what they need.  They were one of the first companies to do payments from cell phones.

Mr. Schultz is married and has 2 children.  He has a foundation that helps in areas of veteran’s assistance.

Mr. Schultz’s wealth was built on our need to have good coffee even though it was at an expensive price.  His wealth was built on his intelligence for making sure the business is run correctly.

Is it evil to put the customer first?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Schultz

The final 1% would be hard for a lot of people to call ‘evil’.  In fact, this person should be the poster child for how to overcome adversity in the country to become one of the wealthiest and most respected people in the world.  That person is Oprah Winfrey.

Ms. Winfrey was born in poverty in Mississippi.  She was born to an unwed teenage mother.  She wore dresses made from potato sacks.  She was spanked if she did not do her chores and her mother was on welfare.  She had siblings die of drug use and AIDS.  She was molested by family members.  She gave birth at 14 but the baby had died.  She was a rebel but eventually graduated and earned a scholarship to a university.   She did crack cocaine and had an affair with a married man.

She began working in a news station in high school and continued in television until her break that eventually led to the Oprah Winfrey show.  She built the show from tabloid format to the format of more issue related.  She has since created films, books and even her own television network.

Ms. Winfrey has held a non-marriage relationship for 30 years and said she did not want to have children because of the life she grew up in.

Ms. Winfrey has been very vocal in politics but has also given over $400 million dollars for educational purposes.  She also created the Angel Network for charitable work.  She has helped with Presidential candidate Obama getting people to see the person he was.

Ms. Winfrey’s wealth has grown from our fascination with tabloid television and soap opera type of shows.  However, most of it was built on the intelligence and compassion of the woman herself in every aspect of what she does.  It was built out of our respect for the person not the race or gender.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey

Other 1%:

George Lucas and Steven Spielberg whose wealth was built on us watching their movies

Candy Bar empires built on our vice of chocolate.

Beer empires built on our vice of drinking.

Perfume empires built on our need for self-beauty

Supermarket empires built on our need to eat

Casino empires built on our vice of gambling


Stock Market investors built on investing in companies that were built on basis of the above.  If the companies were not popular they would not want to be invested.

The Walton Family built their empire on the basis of consumers need for cheap items despite the fact that they pay cheap labor and have many items built from overseas terrible business practices.

When someone says the 1% we automatically see red because our lives are not what we want them to be and we need someone to blame.  However, when you look at some of the people, one can see that these people should actually be promoted as what can be done with determination and hard work.  They give back to the communities and charities where we can’t because of the positions that we are in.  They didn't all start with a silver spoon in their mouth but so what if they did, aren't we all working to give our children better lives.  Yes they may get some special treatment but when did it become a crime to create an empire or make money.

At the same time, how can we sit and not take responsibility for our part in the creation of the 1%.  Our vices, need for outer beauty and the technological revolution have allowed these people to build the empires.  They provided something that we desired, otherwise they could not be in the position that they are in.  We created the monster and now we are angry that the monster is now beyond our control.  One of the only ways to stop this is to stop our vices and insecurities, are we willing to do this to stop the 1% from getting even more wealthy? 

So maybe instead of sitting behind our computers at home or protesting on the capitol because a movie star wants to hold a $300,000 a plate fundraiser, maybe we should start to find out where that anger comes from hope or jealousy.  In the end, maybe we need to stop our anger at an illusion of a puppet master and start focusing on the 1% and 99% working together to help fix the issues of this country.