Sport Fans Are out of Hand!

August 22nd, 2010

I just read in the August issue of Athletic Business magazine that in the secondary market, 2 seats (yes, only 2 seats) at courtside for Game 5 of the NBA finals at the Boston Garden were $15,648 and 2 courtside seats for Game 6 of the NBA finals at the Staples center in LA was $115,900.

Come on guys! Can anything that lasts for less than 1 hour and may not even leave you feeling good be worth to you the same amount of money that could have been used by you to feed a thousand people for a whole year?

I am not judging you; but, I will judge the act.

If your answer is yes, I humbly suggest you do some serious self-evaluation. Whatever religion you claim to practice, try asking yourself if the Main Entity associated with that religion would chose the tickets over the food. If you still would buy the tickets, I think you need to remove yourself from the list of practitioners of any religion I know of.

Swami Buaji

July 22nd, 2010

My Guru, Yogiraj Swami Buaji, M.H.Y., left his body yesterday in a hospital near Bangalore, India. He was one of the greatest exponents of Hatha Yoga. He received his title of Maharajah of Hatha Yoga from Swami Sivananda, himself in the early 1950’s for demonstrating what many consider the highest level of advancement in Hatha Yoga, Kechari Mudra.

Why Do We Chose to be Hold More Liberal or more Conservative View?

July 21st, 2010

Most people believe that those who hold conservative views tend to be more independent, self-reliant personalities; and, those with more liberal views tend to be more dependent, more group oriented personalities. And that may be completely true for some people in each category.

However, I would like you to consider the following ideas.

I believe that most conservatives hold to their views because they are not more self-reliant; but, because they are more afraid of not being able to deal with changes they have not initiated. Or to put it a little more bluntly: Conservatives are conservative because they are afraid they are do not have what it takes to adapt to changes which are not in their own personal control. So they want to control everything that affects their lives even to the exclusion of sharing their successes and/or god fortunes with others.

On the other hand, people who hold liberal views may also be afraid of something. However, it is the exact opposite of what the conservatives are afraid of. Many people with liberal views seem to hold them because it relieves them of the responsibility for making important decisions and/or the outcome from these decisions.

I am sure most of us believe that we are driven very strongly by the basic instinct for survival. I believe that the decisions which label us as liberal or conservative will be decided by how we have already decide what is the best way for us to survive. Shall we do better as a team player or as an individual? Not whether my rights are more important than society’s ability to provide for everyone.

So why bring this up at all? I’m glad you asked!

Because maybe if we examine our deep core values and reasons, and see how they are unconsciously influencing our everyday thought processes, we may decide to use more conscious rational thought to arrive at whatever answer is most appropriate for us.

I have already posted about how the conservative talk shows seem to have more than the usual amount of sponsors which play on or to people’s fear of things beyond their control. I am sure they don’t sponsor these shows just out of political concerns. If this were true, one would think they would be making altruistic contributions also. Let’s face it, they are sponsoring these shows because the people who listen to these shows have a fear these sponsors can help them deal with. And so, they buy these products or services more often than people with liberal views do.

Many Liberal’s have their fears also. That’s why they are called “bleeding hearts.” They are afraid to accept the fact that their are cruelty and suffering in this world that they cannot alleviate. Worse still, maybe the idea that this cruelty and suffering are actually part of the natural order of things and should not be tampered with. Not until we know what the exact outcome of that tampering is. The concept of tough love applies to all of creation, not just to loved ones with addiction problems.

You can checkout another of my blogs at:

Politics Directory

The Gulf Oil Spill

June 10th, 2010

Let me say unequivocally that I believe this is a catastrophe of epic proportions.

Now, having said that; let me ask a question which might put your response to this disaster in a different light:

Which would you consider a worse: This oil spill or your most precious loved one being killed in an auto crash?

If you said the death of your loved one, why are you not immediately going to get and lock up everyone’s car keys? Or why not propose a ban on new driver’s licenses or car registrations?

After all, the odds of someone you know having a serious or even fatal car wreck is at least as great as that of you being personally affected by an oil spill.

My opinion of why this is so is because the banning the offshore oil drilling will produce only minimal (or so we believe) effects on our personal daily lives. Whereas, any kind of restrictions on our driving will have a personal cost which is higher than we want to bear.

So think about it: We are willing to jump up and down and demand also sorts of actions for an admitted lesser problem as long as it won’t cost us too much inconvenience. However, we are willing to live with the risk of a much, much greater (and in the case of young drivers, much more probable) problem if the cost of rectifying that problem is personally too high for us.

What does that say about us and our reactions to this and other problems?

Now, I am not saying that we should ignore the problems of off shore drilling the way we ignore the problems of automobile safety; but, there is a disconnect that occurs for problems where we have to pay a price vs, problems where others have to pay the price.

I am saying this is wrong. What should be done has to be decided using the same standards regardless of whether we have to pay or not. If we wish to set our standards low, then they should be low across the board. If we want them high, we should be willing to pay the price to keep them high.

I can’t answer the following questions for you; but, you should be able to answer these for yourself:

1: How many dead birds equals a dead human?
2. How many dead turtles equals a dead human?
3. How many dead fish equals a dead human?
4. Is your number the same for each of the questions above? If not, why?
5. How many of any combination of the above equals the lives of one human being financially ruined?

You may think these questions are stupid. perhaps they are. However, I believe you can’t have a legitimate response to this crises until you do have an answer to theses questions.

A Shortage of Health Care Professionals

April 14th, 2010

Now that we have new mandates for health care coverage, one of the few uncontested facts is that more people will be receiving more health care for longer periods.

One of the problems which exists already and will only be exacerbated by all the additional mandated health care is the shortage of health care professionals. One of the ways groups try to exert control of situations is by controlling who is qualified to participate in the actions surrounding that situation.

Having a background in the New York construction industry, I have first hand knowledge how it is possible for certain groups of people to control the number of qualified individuals who can perform a task. Although they claim this is done to keep quality and safety standards high, it is very easy to see how this also kept wages and working conditions high, and political power concentrated in the status quo.

My suggestion to ease the shortage of health care professionals is for the government to offer some kind of Health Corps program in which qualified individuals will receive and satisfactorily complete their necessary education and training; and, in return, they will be required to pay back their benefactor (the American people) by agreeing to work for a certain time period for a lower wage than what is normal for their field, agree to perform services for free and to do these things where they are needed the most.

Notice, I did not talk about the existing standards. I am not enough of an expert to know what can be safely and rightfully changed. However, I have seen enough doctors to know that the existing standards do not guarantee every professional is worthy of their profession; and, that certain people who are excluded from the licensing process for any of several reasons could easily do a better job than some of the existing professionals.

By allowing more people to be financially able to enter the training without sacrificing the necessary safeguards, our country can have the services of more and possibly better health care professionals at a lower cost.

Everyone would be ahead of the game except those whose political power and/or financial rewards may not be as great as the status quo guarantees.

Governnment Health Care–III

February 22nd, 2010

Here’s some more questions for you:

  • What is the difference between federal Flood insurance and federal health care?
  • What is the difference between Florida’s state run home insurance program for those who cannot get private home insurance and a state or federal health care insurance?
  • What is the difference between FDIC bank deposit insurance and federal health care insurance?

    It seems to me that the only difference is that people think that they are entitled to get help protecting their investments and are not entitled to get help protecting their health and/or lives.

    We seem to be very comfortable with getting government help protecting our assets; and, very uncomfortable with getting the same help for health care.

    What does this say about us as human beings? Where and when did we get this set of priorities and values?

  • The Founding Fathers

    January 30th, 2010

    I am so sick of hearing references to The Founding Fathers and the original literal wording of the Constitution. It is not that I hold them in any less awe than other Americans. It is just that I feel that the people making reference to them have no clue as to who or what they are referring to.

    First of all, there was probably no political document in the history of this country that owes its existence to backroom deals and political intrigue more than the Constitution of the United States.

    Secondly, it was written by one of the largest group of extreme leftist thinkers in the world at that time. This group was the living embodiment of Change. They feared a lack of change, not change itself.

    Thirdly, as it was written, our Constitution allows Slavery and denies females the right to vote. Indeed, sixteen of its authors (including Washington, Jefferson and Franklin) actually owned slaves.

    Fourthly, constitutional scholars seem to have a hard time proving our Constitution specifically grants us the Right of Habeas Corpus.

    So as everyone can see, there were changes that had to be made our Constitution. It was never, still isn’t and never will be sacrosanct. To remain great, it must be adapted to the changes in the society it is meant to protect.

    Kindly do me a favor: the next time you hear someone talk about how some proposal goes against what the Founding Fathers wrote, call him out and try to discuss this post with him/her.

    Corporate & Union Political Spending

    January 24th, 2010

    Well, it is official:

    Corporations now have almost every right under the constitution as real people do, except that to actually cast a vote.

    That makes me question which entity has more power: the average Joe/Jane who can cast one vote (and maybe spend a few bucks on his/her favorite candidate); or an entity which can’t cast a single vote, but can spend literally tens of millions of dollars to influence countless voter to vote the way it wants them to vote?

    Are you still pondering the answer; or, is it as apparent to you as I think it must be to everyone, even the Supreme Court justices who voted for allowing this type and amount of spending.

    The nation rails about Conservative vs, Liberal. It shouldn’t this time. However, it probably will because coincidentally it just so happens that most Conservatives will jump at the chance to limit government regulation any time than can, even when it shoots themselves in their own foot (hence the NRA). And so, the Conservative world will actually align themselves with Big Unions because once they can get the government under control, they can regulate whom they please.

    Weaken the regulator and you have a good chance of doing whatever you please.

    Oops, seems I got off the track a wee bit.

    This issue is about one person, one vote. Anyone who truly thinks that granting an entity the power to influence countless votes adheres to one of our Founding Principles needs to explain that to me in clear and precise terms. Because, try as I might, I just can’t even see how to begin to think along those terms.

    Let’s see how many times the Conservatives mention the Founding Fathers when talking about this decision. Let’s see how many times they talk about “Legislating from The Bench” when they discuss this issue.

    I would think the Founding Fathers would find this Supreme Court ruling extremely Progressive and perhaps downright Radical.

    Mr. Literal Says He is Standing on Solid Ground!

    January 18th, 2010

    Today at 2;34pm EST, Rush said “I am grounded in Reality” and “I am Mr. Literal.”
    As the Pharaoh used to say: “So Let It be Written; So Let It Be Done.”

    As for me, it has been a long time since I have heard such blatant nonsense. One of the surest ways of getting something you say to be accepted as truth is to say it as matter-of-factly as you possibly can with as little embellishment as possible.

    Why? Because most people listen to things with their emotions first and their intellect second, if at all. So, if you do not rouse their emotions, there is a good chance their intellect will never come into play.

    Rush is a pro at this. He will prance about the show raving about this or that; and, then he will suddenly calm down and say something like ‘I am grounded in Reality.”

    I always give credit where it is due. Rush has this technique down to a science.

    Liberal vs. Conservative

    January 16th, 2010

    I just had an Epiphany:

    The terms Liberal and Conservative DO NOT refer to any ideological, philosophical, social, moral, religious, etc., WAYS of thinking.They refer to the AMOUNT OF thinking the person does!!!!

    That right. Just consider what the words mean:
    Liberal means “big; given or giving freely.”
    Conservative means “cautious, avoiding excess.”

    So it seems to me that to be Liberal with your thinking means to think a lot. To be conservative with your thinking means to conserve your brain power and limit the amount of thinking you do. Of course, it is just a coincidence that the points of view reached by those that think more is usually substantially different from those that think less.

    After all, even the Deceleration of Independence says “….We Hold These Truths to Be Self Evident….” Therefore, no thinking should have been necessary to arrive at those conclusions. But, these people who did not have to think too much to obtain these Truths were actually as Radical a group of people as you could gather in those days–go figure.

    Having established that the amount of thinking a person does is not directly proportional to whether they stand for change or the status quo, I submit again that these terms must therefore refer only to the quantity of thinking done and not the view point which results from that thinking.

    The one caveat here is that I do believe that regardless of whether a person is to the Left or Right of the Main Stream, there are many people who do do a lot of thinking trying to figure out how to manipulate certain groups of the electorate strictly because they can accumulate money and power by doing so.