Who Do You Trust?

It’s an interesting question, one you should ask of yourself as well as others. I must admit the question was prompted by an old TV show where the question was the title. During the show the contestants were asked if if they trusted themselves or their spouse to answer a question.

However, we must admit that we make decisions of of trust, not only daily, but by the minute. We trust the others to follow the rules of the road. We trust those who work in stores restaurants, mechanics and many other merchants. Most of us take it for granted that when we turn that key in the ignition, the car will start. (Or we become angry) We flip the light switch in a room and, usually the room is lit.

I have noted that, according to trust, people can be divided into at least 3 categories. As in the national motto, some of us trust God. We are called Christians. Some trust themselves and not God. I call them libertarians… conservatives without morals. Then, there are the liberals. Their motto is, in government we trust. In general, they lie, cheat, and steal all for themselves and the advancements of government control. In many cases they don’t even know it. But if they have no trust in God or themselves, who do they trust.

They rely on government for medicine, welfare and their next meal. If they don’t get substance from God or their own hands, from whom will they get it? The almighty government will provide but only if the almighty government is almighty. On the other hand, Christians and libertarians don’t want want to rely so much on government. So they really prefer keeping government size down.

I have an idea. Let’s put all the liberals in 25 states…their choice. Then we stand back and watch to see how long it takes for them to destroy those states. When everyone has their trust in their government, it will take very little time for their government to fail. I suppose some states will last longer than others. Some may actually figure things out and stop putting ultimate control in the hands of fallible humans.


It makes a person wonder about the loyalty of the leadership of AARP. Are they more loyal to their members from whom they get millions or to corporate bribers, from whom they get hundreds of millions.

Do you suppose that was why they came out in favor of Obama care even though most of their members were agin-it.

Last Two

Late each night when I went home from work, I passed a real estate office. The owner(s) liked to post little quips, which I must admit I enjoyed reading.

One of them said, “Why didn’t Noah swat those last two when he had the chance.”

I suppose one may fill in the missing frustration. Perhaps, it might be the fly. That would be the pest most picnickers would suggest; or would it be the ants. I think the mosquito would have my vote. While in Nam, they used to bite my feet while I tried to sleep. Hence, I woke with itchy feet. As small as their little brains were, they seemed to realize that I really had to reach for my feet. By the time I did, they were alerted and gone.

In the end, I put my mosquito net up and it was the end to it while sleeping. While out and about, they still dive-bombed me regularly, as well as most of us.

Naturally, those of us with homes built of wood live in fear of termites. It is amazing how those little pests can do so much damage in so little time.

Maybe you have your own choice. Regardless, many of these insects do more than bug us. While in Nam, they made us take a quinine based drugs to prevent us from contracting a very deadly disease. Much of Africa was under attack by the sleeping sickness spread by the Tsetse fly. Memphis was almost turned into a big ghost town by yellow fever, spread by mosquitos. Then, of course. We can’t overlook Rocky Mountain spotted fever and Lyme disease spread by ticks.

It does make one want go back a few years before Noah, like before Adam ate the fruit. Before the fall, I’m sure Adam never felt the bite of an insect.

Hence, you just might want to remember, sometimes, seemingly small things can have devastating, long lasting results.

Afterthought: those who take salvation so lightly just might want to look at it more seriously. Forever never ends and insects will be the least concern of any of those who reject the the gift of eternal life.

Surprise, Not All Stove Are Hot

It is something, likely, as old as stoves. Most folks quickly learn not to touch hot stoves.

Actually, it is not so important today as it was a couple of centuries ago when ole Ben first started building stoves. Generally speaking, when someone would touch a hot stove, they were not apt to repeat it.

Actually, I suspect it went back even farther than that. Before there were stoves, there were fireplaces. Before fireplaces campfires, or their equivalent.

I even heard a tale of one of the big wigs at Levi learning not to kneel next to campfires…first time. It was then that they decided to remove one or two of the rivets from the area just below the fly of their famous canvas trousers.

The one thing brought away from the first experience was the probability of pain, sometimes a little embarrassment too. However, here’s the news. Not all stoves are hot. Not all rivets are hot. It just is that once exposed to these experiences we mostly come away thinking they are, or at least can be. It is referred to as inductive reasoning. Because the first stove we touch is hot, we assume all stoves are hot.

What if the reverse is true. What if the first stove you touch is ambient temperature? Do we then assume that all stoves are cool to the touch. If we do this, we expose ourselves to many painful experiences. This is called inductive reasoning.

While it is useful, it can easily lead to errors. For instance, if we see a brown Labrador retriever, it would be wrong to assume that all dogs are brown and weigh eighty pounds. Indeed, it would be wrong to assume that all Labs are brown. Oddly there are some that are black.

On the other hand, suppose we touch a hundred cool stoves. Can we then assume are stoves are cool? If we see a hundred brown Labs, are we to assume that all labs are brown.

You see, even though we see a large number of examples, we cannot truly assume anything.

Until we see a large enough number of examples, we cannot positively say that we know all labs are brown and that all stoves are cool. Even when working with large numbers, inductive reasoning can lead us astray.

I wish that kids in the eighth grade were required to spend a few hours learning about inductive and deductive reasoning. I am convinced the concept is extremely important in so many parts of life.

Let’s take for instance, the woman that is robbed by an African American. Is it right for her to be afraid of all African Americans? Of course, not. Yet, it may take her years to get over the experience. Our fears are not always founded on good logic. Indeed, her fear might keep her from many good friendships.

The somewhat opposite of inductive reasoning is deductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning, we draw conclusions from many, perhaps exhaustive numbers of examples. It is best that these examples are at random. It is the way that medical research is done. I suppose we can say that statistics and deductive reasoning are interrelated. The more the examples and the more random, the more accurate will be the stats deductive reasoning that depends on the stats.

If we have a random selection of a million dogs, it is likely that only a few will be Labs and we will likely see a few black dogs, white dogs and even a few multi-color dogs. Therefore, we can have a more accurate idea of the coloring of dogs. If we take a random measurement of a million stoves, we might actually find that only 30% are hot enough to cause pain, or even discomfort. (only a wild guess, not am actual statistic)

I’m not going to try to create an equivalent example with the thievery. It’s far too complex and there are too many ways it can go wrong with my imaginary statistics. Moreover, I am not going to suggest that a woman should get robbed a million times. Two or three maybe, but no more. Still, the principles remain firm. With a larger number of examples, we would be able to draw more accurate deductions.

However, we need to be careful about drawing snap conclusions. When we go from the millions of examples and try to derive a single situation from millions of examples, we can still be wrong. For instance, if I may. It would not indicate that a thief is of any ethnicity, and it would be wrong to make any such suggestion.

Yet, every day, I see some people blame Black men because of individual as well as vast statistical data. Those methods just don’t work. And, by the way, the methods don’t work on Caucasian policemen, again, regardless of past inductive or deductive reasoning. You cannot convict a policeman based on past experience just as the woman cannot convict based on past thieves.

Perhaps the most horrible example of inductive reasoning is when the person says, “Single parent families are just as good as two-parent families.” Then they go about calling out two, three or four examples of good kids brough up by single parents. That logic has two holes. First, it is based on a very small count of examples. Second, there is the probability that, if there is a second parent, the child would likely have turned out better. The statistics back it up. We are talking millions of examples not just two or three.

On the other side of the coin, I see people say that a particular person turned out good or bad because of his parent(s). The stats prove that some good kids come from bad or broken homes and bad kids come from homes with good parents.

In this case, the inductive logic gets us nowhere and the deductive logic only shows trends. The trend shows overwhelmingly that two parent homes are better. But logic tells us that it is only true if they are good parents. Abusive and or alcoholic parents rarely qualify as good parents. Yet, again, some good kids come from homes with abusive parents. Sorry. I have no explanation for that. I’m not sure there is one.

For those who are not truly familiar with the terms inductive and deductive reasoning, may I suggest you take an hour or two and look into it on the net. Most will find it far more complex than most of us realize. For instance, one thing that must accurately be determined in inductive reasoning is an accurate correlation. For instance, that dance by that Voo-do doctor likely has nothing to do with that solar eclipse. On the other hand, all that rain I dumped on my lawn the other day likely had nothing to do with the thunderstorm we got the next day, though it did seem a little coincidental. If we collected enough data, it is likely to be proved that the one thing had nothing to do with the other.

The Biggest Fear of Our Forefathers

As they were froming the federal government, one fear drove them more than anything else. It is the reason for having 3 separate parts:legislative, executive and judicial. Each has its own powers and limits. That way, the hope was that no one person or group of people would exceed their authority.

In addition, they added 10 amendments. If you study them carefully, you’ll see that, while each has its purpose, collectively they have 1 purpose, to protect the individuals from the government.

Now, why did they feel the need for protection from our government. It’s because they were afraid of the tyranny of the majority.

Without the bill of rights, the majority could take control of the government. Then, ironically it could be ruled by a small minority. If you doubt the fear to be valid, look at what we have now, a one party rule.

The hope of the forefathers was that a free press would keep them in check. On the contrary, they are doing all they can to assist the overthrow of our constitution.

Now the Bill of Rights is on the verge of being trodden under the feet of socialists. They hate freedom of religion and they are destroying our rights to have our say. They want to remove our right to defend ourselves. I could go on but I’m sure you get the picture.

Still, I must add one more remark i heard lately. It would seem that the dems interpret the 10th amendment as reserving all powers not specified in the Constitution to the democrat party.

Maybe it’s a joke, but I am sure they would accept said power without a second thought.

To be sure, we just might be realizing the tyranny of the majority within the decade. It was the primary fear of the framers of our Constitution and today, the threat stands before us and it isn’t even well hidden. What a legacy to leave for our children, especially considering the freedom we inherited.

A Brief Word on Fairness

I have two dogs. Suzie-Q is a mix lab and Chinese Sharpe. Misty is some kind of hunting dog, I guess. Both are rescues but they don’t know it. They both figure they are part of the family.

They have something of a sense of fairness. When I give one a treat, the other one knows she is going to get one too. If I walk one, the other expects she will have her chance as well. If I pet one, the other comes over and reminds me that she needs attention too. I had to buy each of them a bed. If I hadn’t you can imagine what that would be like.

The point is, they both know that fair is fair. That appears to be more than some people know. Expecting men and women to compete against each other in most sports events is just wrong. Then again maybe I am the one who is wrong. Maybe these people know it isn’t fair. In fact, I think they do. Certainly, if a dog understands fairness, certainly people who have letters following their name know something of fairness.

It sort makes things worse; doesn’t it?

The Best Place

I write this for one simple reason. Some people just can’t understand the sudden rise in crime. 1st let me suggest a couple of solutions for those who have stores that are subject to the recent crime wave. Armor your business so that it is difficult for the criminals to enter. That way, the criminals will do criminaling somewhere else. Hiring security is OK, but in the current environment, it will do little good and you just might get sued. Even when you when the suit, it will still cost you an arm and a leg. The lawyers have seen to that.

Then you build a solid anti-room for entering and one for exiting your business. This will ensure that only 1 or 2 at a time enter. While they are in the anti-room, require an ID and credit card. Notify them that they will be charged for anything they take or damage. Insist they sign an agreement before letting them into the area where you have your merchandise. Finally, before they leave, search them completely to make sure they are not taking what they have not paid for.

OR you can simply close the business and go to a city where such problems don’t exist.

This may not completely solve your problems but it just might force the cities to solve theirs.

NOW as for solving the problem.

It is simpler than you might imagine. Put the criminals in prison and keep them there as long as possible. Even if they are not rehabilitated, their criminal endeavors will be greatly reduced. Besides, it will put teeth to the saying that crime does not pay. It would seem, right now, it does.

As for why those in charge don’t already do this, that is simple too. They don’t want to. Those in charge of locking up the criminals are the Friends Of Criminals (FOC). Indeed, some are criminals. Why would they want to lock up their friends when it enhances their bank accounts to let their criminal friends do criminal things? As an aside, they are also friends of lawyers. Think of all the money they get out of it all.

So, instead of going after criminals, they go after those who go after criminals in every way they can. To be sure, they don’t like it when they are so embarrassed by honest people making them look bad. Besides, it is cutting into their profit. [Has anyone noticed? The Clinton slush fund(so-called charity) has drastically shrunk since they no longer have any influence to sell. On the other hand, I would expect that Joe will be a multi-billionaire when he leaves office, whether that is vertically or horizontally.]

Just remember, it is about power and money. Those who go into office without it, generally have plenty as they leave. Those that do leave without with power and money, we can truly label as honest, usually. To be sure, politics is a dog-eat-dog world. Sometimes, even the dishonest ones get eaten by the dishonest ones.

To go back to the main theme. The best way to have thriving businesses, keep the criminals in prison! It is the best place for them and keeping them there is the best for the honest folk. If a few lawyers go hungry, maybe that’s best too.

Speaking of criminals, why isn’t Fauci behind bars where he can’t invent any more viruses?

So Much for Individuality

Obama Care insurers that Uncle Sam can veto any procedures we think we need. Now mandatory vaccinatins insure we must undergo anything Uncle says we need.

Then too, just in time, they found a new variant to make sure we must be confined to our homes, regardless of the disasters to our economy and, or our society.

It does look to me like a good weapon for the final destruction of what is left of our nation…if we allow them.

I Propose 2 Constitutional Simple Amendments

I am realistic. Few, if any will pay attention to me but I believe the vast majority of the common folk will agree that both amendments would greatly improve things throughout the nation.

First, every person, even those who hold public office would be subject to same laws as everyone else. This would also apply to congressmen and senators and their staff. This would definitely include required costs and health programs.

[This would hopefully encourage the doing away with Obama care as well as a few other laws that should be removed.]

Secondly, all new bills would be limited to 10 pages or less, which will be the equivalent 8 1/2 x 11 inches of 11 point print. The pages would have half inch margins. Also they should be published 7 days unaltered before they could be voted on. If it’s altered, the time would start all over. This part could be overridden only by unanimous consent.

[This would keep the FOCs from hiding horribly things in big complex bills. Also, it would keep anyone from slipping bad things into an important bill at the last second. If anyone should try such a thing, everyone would know it. ]

I am sure many would complain about the amendments, most of whom draw government paychecks. I am sure most of those who work inside that big building with the huge dome on it would voice their opinions very loudly.

Now if only I can figure out a way to get Biden and FOCs to actually obey the laws.

Three Reasons the IRS Will Never Go Away

  1. Power. The tax laws have ways of controlling the way we live. When they provided tax shelters for all kinds of interest, people went into debt, even with credit cards. Then we deducted the interest from our taxes. Now, of course, interest is not so deductible. Now it is limited to our homes and then that is limited. If the dems have their way, the rich will again be able to deduct the interest for their mansions and perhaps for their yachts. I mean a person can live on a yacht, even if it is a 2 or 3 million dollar land yacht.
  2. Power. While specific info on one person is not yet available to congress, general info is. The government can tell where we make our money, where we spend our money and even a little about our health, thanks to Obama Care. This info is power and the dems just love power.
  3. Power. (I know. It is getting a little repetitious.) Congress collects money and they spend it. The more they collect and spend, the more power they have. And congress, no matter which side of the isle, loves the power they get from spending money.

Now with all that, you would think I am in favor of doing away with the IRS. Not so. That is to say, unless they pass an amendment disallowing it. If we did away with the IRS and replace it with a sales tax, it would not be long that we would have both. Then the government would be hitting us from both directions: earning and spending.

Wait a minute. I guess they already do. The feds do collect 1% sales tax; they collect gas tax as well as a few other things. Besides, the state and local government gets the sales tax. And by the way, most states get us from both directions, sales and income. It sort of makes me wonder how we manage to hold onto any of our earning for ourselves.

And so it it is, we give them the money and they take our freedoms. Then they spend our money one things that don’t work, such as modern education like CRT. At the same time, they refuse to spend it where it does work, like on border walls and law enforcement.

I do find it odd that the FOBs just love things that don’t work, like windmills and solar cells. Then they refuse to let us develop energy sources like natural gas, oil and atomic energy. Do you suppose that they like the idea of making our nation a third world country.

Well, at least it would solve the border thing. If they are successful, all the illegal aliens will start leaving, and maybe a few of our citizens. Let us hope that includes all the FOCs