$15 - Is it Just a Political Ploy?

Wages are always a battle between people that do the work and people that pay the wages.  The people doing the work always think they deserve more money for what they do, even if they are not doing that much.  The people that pay the wages are always looking for ways to make sure the wages are low enough to not hurt their business.  With all of these battles, will a solution for a livable wage ever become reality?

Is basic necessity enough money to buy clothes, house, food, etc?  Would a car be classified as a basic need if you have to go to work?  Would a cell phone be defined as a basic in today's society?  If you worked and were able to afford all of this, would your wages be considered livable?  If you were able to only afford clothes, house and food but not a car or other needs, does that mean it is not a livable wage?

Minimum wage is the argument that people use about a livable wage.  America is unique, and sometimes complicated, in that we have 50 states that are almost like little countries.  They all have their own economy, their own rules, their own problems.  So what may be a livable wage in one state would not be a livable wage in another.  If this is true, then how do we think that we can come up with one standard minimum wage that every state can adhere to?  Do politicians that are 'fighting' for the people understand this or are they just using $15 to manipulate us to agreeing with them?

Even though today's federal minimum wage is one amount, most states have implemented their own minimum wage.  Do we think that $15 is the government trying to manipulate the states into raising their minimum wage?  Where does federal intervention start and states rights end?

It is amazing to me that in today's world we have access to so much information yet we still let people manipulate us into giving them what they want.  One example of this is the $15 discussion.  Almost every legislation or 'agreement' to raise the minimum wage to $15 is not the reality that people think it is.  Most of the agreements are phased in over what is usually 5 years.  So they raise the current minimum wage to around $12 and then it goes up a certain percentage over the 5 years until it is $15.  So how many people know this versus thinking that the $15 would be immediate?  How is this not manipulating us to giving people what they want versus what is best for us?  What is $15 going to be worth five years from now versus today?

Only about 2% of hourly workers are making current minimum wage or below.  Now that is around 1.8 million people but it is still a small sample.  Out of the 98% that are making above minimum wage we do not know what the average wage is for those people, including how many already make the $12 or above.  Is this the reason why people don't talk about people making minimum wage anymore they talk about a livable wage instead?

Do politicians actually think that raising the minimum wage will cause the company to raise other people's wages that are already making the new minimum wage?  Do unions agree with this so that they can get more money for their employees?  If the new minimum wage is implemented, will companies respond by cutting people's hours or getting rid of people which will put more demand on other employees?

Will raising the minimum wage actually raise prices on product?  In normal business, if the business wants to make a profit then they have to raise prices if costs rise.  If a business doesn't raise prices then either they are okay with less profit or their prices were so high before that the cost increase is okay?  If raising the minimum wage causes small businesses to close, is the government going to help these people?

Why hasn't anyone ever asked politicians if they are only wanting to raise the minimum wage because they want more taxes for their programs?  Why is $15 the wage that is acceptable?  This is only $31,200 a year which is about $7,000 higher than the poverty rate.  We are told that most people making minimum wage can't afford a $400 surprise bill but why is $400 the number?  Does that mean they will be able to afford all these additional costs after $15?  Every number is given to us by the government and we are asked to believe it.

Why have we not put some responsibility on ourselves?  Minimum wage was not meant to be a career wage, if anything it should be a temporary wage until getting a career that we want.  If we are making minimum wage as a career, then maybe we need to reevaluate what needs to happen to change that part of our life.  If we are not making enough money to provide for ourselves or our family, then maybe we need to look at why that is.  We still have to take responsibility for our lives.

People's wages should be something we take seriously because we are dealing with people's livelihood.  It shouldn't be a political ploy, it shouldn't be corporations looking at people as numbers instead of human beings and it shouldn't be people looking at others as if they are less than human beings.

There are still a lot of questions out there related to the $15 minimum wage.  Who is responsible for giving us the answers, government, corporations, people?  Until everyone comes together to try to help those that need it, these questions will continue to pile up without answers or with answers that only are there to manipulate us.

Budgeting Our Agriculture

One of the things that happen each year in our government is the annual budget of our Federal Government.  Being a person in Finance this has always interested me because I really do wonder how much of our budget is wasted and how much is really necessary.

So I have decided as part of this site to go over each area of the ‘Make America Great Again’ budget and communicate on it so we can see whether we agree or disagree with how our money is being spent.

So what I noticed first about the budget was that the first ten was all about the reasons for the cuts in each department, how it was for efficiency purposes and the need for the increase in areas of defense of this country.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf

The first department to be discussed is the Department of Agriculture.  This department is to provide leadership to promote sustainable agriculture production, protect long term availability of food through innovative research, and safeguard the health and productivity of the nation’s forests, grasslands and private working lands.  Basically, this department is about protecting our food and our forests.

The message on the budget for this department was about streamlining or reducing programs where the department competes with the private sector or other levels of government.  So basically, where they think these services can be provided by the businesses or departments that they think are better, the services are cut or reduced.

The budget reflects a 4.7 Billion dollar, or 21%, reduction, from the previous budget.

The reductions or eliminations are as follows:

-Reducing funding for lower priorities in the National Forest System, such as major new Federal land acquisition, instead focusing on maintaining existing lands.

-Basically this program reduces the chance of the government buying up land to either protect or sell for their own use therefore leaving it open for the ‘private’ sector.

http://www.trcp.org/2017/03/16/trumps-proposed-budget-threaten-hunting-fishings-future-2/

 

-Reduces funding for USDA’s statistical capabilities, while maintaining core Departmental ana­lytical functions, such as the funding necessary to complete the Census of Agriculture.

 

            -Reducing the amount of statistics is always a good thing.

 

-Eliminates the duplicative Water and Wastewater loan and grant program, a savings of $498 million from the 2017 annualized CR level. Rural communities can be served by private sector financing or other Federal investments in rural water infrastructure, such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s State Revolving Funds.

 

-This program provides funding for clean and reliable drinking water systems, sanitary sewage system, sewage disposal, sanitary waste disposal and storm water drainage to businesses and homes in rural areas.

https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/water-waste-disposal-loan-grant-program

https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf

 

-So basically this is to push the safety of our water into the hands of the private sector or the states.  For example, Flint, Michigan.

 

-Reduces duplicative and underperforming programs by eliminating discretionary activities of the Rural Business and Cooperative Service, a savings of $95 million from the 2017 annualized CR level.

 

-This offers programs to support business development and job training opportunities for rural residents.

https://www.rd.usda.gov/about-rd/agencies/rural-business-cooperative-service

 

-Discretionary spending is optional spending for programs which means it can be eliminated easily.

 

-What actual programs this will reduce or cut is not known.

 

-Eliminates the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education program, which lacks evidence that it is being effectively implemented to reduce food insecurity.

 

-This program provides for US agricultural products as well as feeding of school age children in poverty stricken countries.

https://www.interaction.org/choose-to-invest-2017/mcgovern-dole-international-food-for-education-and-child-nutrition

 

--Where is the evidence that it is not working because there is plenty of evidence that it does.

 

-Are we okay with providing for other countries feeding as part of our spending in this country?

 

 

Not a lot of people know about the Department of Agriculture and people forget that there is still farming going on in today’s country.

 

Do we believe that we should be cutting federal programs where they are in direct competition with private businesses?  Do we believe that incidents like GMO labeling or the Flint Crisis would be better off in the hands of corporate America?

 

We should agree that spending by the government needs to be more efficient but to do it so that corporations are in charge only brings about the country being at the mercy of them same corporations.

 

Is that the country we want?

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.