Remove Emotion From Debates


This is a response to #the one-word prompt “Thwart” by “The Daily Post.”

In the wake of the Parkland Florida school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School which killed 17 people, there has been a considerable nationwide #debate #on how to better protect our schools and children in them. Some of it has been good and productive, but a lot of it has just been “noise” that is really only inflaming passions on all sides of the “political spectrum but having little actual productive results.

There has been new legislation passed by some state legislatures to answer some of the perceived weaknesses in school security. In Florida’#s case, it is a mixed bag with a lot of good things being done but also a lot of “showboating” (as is the case whenever politicians get involved). While the legislation does carry some new rules for dealing with handling mental illness and its treatment it also bans the buying of guns till the age for 21 (it was previously and is in most of country 18).

The call for banning gun sells until 21 years of age ignore the fact that most teenage shooters unlike the one in the Parkland Florida shooting do not own their own guns but take them from home, i.e. parents or relatives who do. Thus, banning the sell of guns until age 21 won’t do anything in #reducing the risks to shooting in our schools.

Those who advocate for tougher/more gun control laws always use the term “sensible” in describing just what they want. A gun control measure can only be called “sensible” if it actually does or makes a considerable effort to the objective it would be put in place to accomplish. How can the measure just mention contribute to our preventing more school #shootings if the majority of teen/school shooters don’t buy the guns they use to shoot up schools?

Unfortunately, this detail largely escapes the ongoing debate of the issue above because of the raw emotions evolved and the very little actual, rational thinking among those partaking in the debate on both sides. Everyone wants to just “do something” to keep our schools and children safe. Yet, that there is the problem, our need to “do something, anything.” Just “doing something” will not help solve this or problem. Solutions need to be concrete and precisely targeted in order to have the best results.

The only way we as a nation and as a people are going to be able to come up with solutions to better protect against school shootings (any mass shootings) is to #remove our emotions #from the actual decision process. They may be good for the initial call to action, beyond that they always only cause more harm than good.

What are your thoughts and viewpoints on this issues? Please do share them; all are welcomed and wanted.

“The Founding Fathers’ Guide To The Constitution” by Brion McClanahan; A Review


#Brion #McClanahan‘s book “#The #Founding Father’s #Guide #to the #Constitution” is #a very compelling and complex history of just how The Constitution to the United States had come to be and of the views for and against it. The way he percents his facts and figures and the back-stories behind each of the debates during the Constitutional Convention and the ratifying debates is just stellar in the thoroughness and ease of following.

Especially compelling is how he counts not just the well-known men that “we” all “know” from history as “Founding Father’s” (Washington, Madison, Hamilton, so forth), but literally everyone involved in the making and ratifying of the Constitution. He measures involvement #by the debates on what type of government the United States should have; which were going on all across the thirteen states since during the Revolution on till the ratification its self.

He tells how the “founding #fathers” included not just the names we recognize such as those mentioned above, but many others such as Luther Martin, Rodger Sherman, and George Mason, to name a few. He also does away with the “common” terms of “Federalist” and Anti-federalist” in explaining his reasoning; where he shows how the opponents of the Constitution were actually wanting to preserve the existing federal system of the Article of Confederation.

Brian’s work shines because of the detail he puts into his findings that the Constitution would not have passed ratification let alone pass the Convention floor if it was not understood to be putting in place a strong centralized government, but one with limits in place. He also does a wonderful, enlightening job of explaining away certain preconceived notions and myths about the “founding fathers” and the making of the Constitution.

It is a myth-but one often repeated-that the Framers “really wanted” the president to be chosen by the people at large; supposedly they rejected this method only because the people in one State would not know enough about the candidates from others States. But the records from the Philadelphia Convention clearly illustrate that the Founders intended the Electoral College to be a buffer against the potential abuses of democracy (p.129).

Overall, the book is a very well thought-out, telling of the history of the Founding of the (2nd Republic) of The United States under the current Constitution. He does an excellent job of keeping to a “fact-based” scholarly approach while at the same time showing the suspense and conflict experienced by our “founding fathers” to keep the reader entertained as well as informed and not be drowned in “dry” texted. A very good history of the subject with some surprising turns in its direction. The most important point from a historical perspective is that the author Brian does so well in not just telling the history of the Constitution’s making, but the telling of “all the sides” involved.

I hope you enjoy this book #review; please do share your own thoughts and viewpoints. All are welcomed and wanted!

Explorers Verses Inventors


This is a response to the one-word prompt “Explore” by “The Daily Post.”

What was one your favorite activities to do as a child growing up? For me it was the make-believe/pretend. The playing soldier and running through the backyard and the trees behind the house. Whether it is the childhood pretend games or the exploration of space and/or the ocean to making any kind of scientific/new discovery as an adult we as humans have a deep inner need to explore our surroundings

If we are confronted with something that we do not know, eventually we will be driven to confront it, to find out just what that thing is. Oh, it may not happen right away, and we may be frightened into staying away form that something for a time, but eventually we will confront it; our curriortsity will be too much for us to handle.

Yet, our deeply inner need to explore and find out new things and ideas is becoming a problem for society’s development when it comes to technology development and how that effects said society. In order to see why, lets look at the two fundamental motivations of “#explorers/scientists” and “#inventors.” Explorers are driven by the need for discovery for discoveries sake. They are in it for the knowledge that they gain. The inventor on the other hand while may take the knowledge gained from the explorer/scientist’s discoveries, is primary motivated on applying that knowledge to solve a problem or provide a need for both the individual and society at large.

The problem arrises or can arise when the jobs of “scientist/explorer” and the “inventor” become entwined. For when the explorer is doing both the “discovering” and applying of new ideas, he is not concerned with “is this needed” but only “in can this be done.” Jeff Goldblum’s character Ian Malcom from the first Jurassic Park movie said it best in the line “Yah, but your scientists where so focused on ‘can we could do this,’ but never asked themselves ‘should we do this.'”

Now there, the question is more on the moral need of society and advancement, but still is needed in answering the question of a perceived need or benefit to society by a new discovery/invention. I am not one to take away from all the technology breakthroughs in the last decade or so, nor the ones just coming around the “corner in a few years ( in fact I am quite excited ); but I do think with the rapid advancement of said technology, we are having the problem of only trying to figure out if “something can be done” and not truly “asking should it be done, is it needed.”

We as humans are driven to explore and find out how “this or that works” and we are also driven to come up with better ways of doing things and making our lives easier. When the two natures are balanced and while connected still in their proper spheres of influence, human society benefits. The trick is to find that balance, to be able to discover to our hearts contents, yet still be able to ask the question “is this truly necessary; should it be done?” That is the unending conflict between “explorers and inventors.”

What are your thoughts and viewpoints? Please do share them, all are welcomed and wanted.

Is Social Media Toxic In Large Amounts?


This #is a response to the one-word prompt “Toxic” by “The Daily Post.”

#In light of the controversy around FaceBook right now, it seems a good time as any to discuss the effect that #social #media as a whole has on society. There is no doubt that social media in the likes of FaceBook, Twitter, LinkedIN, and so-forth have been a major boon for society in terms of better and faster connectivity for individuals and groups, but at what costs?

While we as a society may be more connected then ever; are we really getting anything out of that connectivity or is it just giving us a false sense of connectivity? In other words are we actually connected and/or spending time with each other, our family, friends, etc. The consensus and research says no we are not; we are actually as a society feeling more lonelier than ever. This despite the fact of how much time people are spending on social media. We humans are social animals who need social contact with others, but as it turns out that social contact actually needs to be physical or in other words “real.”

Social media platforms like FaceBook or LinkedIn can be useful in helping us to maintain contact but only if they remain just that, a ‘magnifier” or addition not a replacement for “traditional” face to face in real life meetings. To put it another way social media in small docidges are extremely helpful, but in #large #amounts are actuallly #toxic to what they are meant to help, that being social contact.

What Are Your Thoughts and ViewPoints on this subject? Please do share them, all are welcomed and wanted.

Do You Worry To Much?


This is a response #to the one-word “Warning” by “The Daily Post.”

How often #do #you #worry day-to-day; what do you worry about? Why do you worry? We all worry about different things and different times in our lives. To have worries is not the problem, for “to worry” is to put importance on/for something. The problem lies in the number of worries we get in our lives and what exactly we worry about.

A  common worry is for our loved ones. Of course, that is a good worry to have if there is actually something wrong that is affecting them in a negative way. The worry creates an “importance” for you to do what you can to help your loved ones. But that worry is not so good if it continues even when you know you have already done all that you possibly could do to help. Then all that happens is an increase of stress on your part that may very well affect your health. That will do nothing good to help your loved one’s situation but actually, make things worse for they will have to worry about you.

When one starts to worry about someone or something, in most cases that “worry” can and will only cause one to “act” in a positive way, and to put what the worrying is about as a priority in one’s life. Only when that “worry” continues does it become a problem for you and those around you. Some worry is good, but too #much is never good and in fact is quite harmful.

What are your thoughts and viewpoints on this subject? Please do share, all are welcomed and wanted here. 

Getting Discipline In My Life


I want to be successful #in #my business. I want/need to lose weight. I need to manage my time better. These wants/needs I am sure sound pretty familiar to you. You probably have very similar if not the same ones right now or have had them in the past. The most important thing I have found in pursuing these wants/needs or any others is that they all require #discipline on my part. Lots of and constant discipline.

Discipline to recognize what needs to be done, and discipline to come up with a strategy to achieve my wants and needs. But most importantly of all discipline to stick with it. No plan no matter how good can help you to succeed at anything in #life if you don’t have some very good discipline. It is as simple and complicated as that; no discipline, no success.

How do I get my discipline? I get it by how much I actually want whatever it is I am working for. If I really want something and am willing and able to do what needs to be done to get/achieve it, then I will be able to better develop my discipline as in move forward in my goal/s. This here is important to remember, discipline comes not all at once but in stages; as I work for what I want/need I get a little more disciplined in doing so.

Discipline is a lot like a muscle, the more you work for it the more and stronger it gets. Yet, the less you work at it, like a muscle it will atrophy. In the end, in order to develop and have good discipline to achieve your wants/needs requires you to change your habits and/or get new ones.  Discipline never just happens, it comes a little bit at a time because you work for it and change how you go about your life in response to your wants/needs.

What do you think about this subject? What are your thoughts and viewpoints? Please do share them, all are welcomed and wanted.

How Many Branches Does Your Life Hold?


This is a response to the one-word prompt “Branch” by “The Daily Post.”

#How much responsibility are you juggling in #your #life? How #many#branches” do you have going out from you in all that you do? We all have, every one of us more than one thing or concern in life that occupies our time and energy. At different times in our lives, we tend to have fewer than others and at other times we can tend to have more. It all depends on us as a person and what drives us throughout our lives, and of course what drives us #does change as our lives evolve.

In managing all the things, concerns and/or responsibilities that we take on in our lives because of what drives us, we tend to resemble a tree with all its different branches. Each “branch” represents for us our many different areas of responsibility, the more we have the more “branches” we have. Here inline comes the problem for us.

With trees where the number of branches one has depends on its overall size and ability to support the branches; small trees have fewer, smaller branches then big trees do. So too is it with us and our “branches,” there are only so many branches that each one of us can support depending on our skills, knowledge, and so forth.

The problem is in the fact a lot of times we tend to be trying to support more “branches” then we are really able to. We constantly complain and groan about all the work and things we have to do in our lives, yet also at the same time keep adding more and more things to do/handle.

Our problem in life is not that our lives are too hard it is that we don’t seem to know how to properly manage our “branches” of responsibilities. Until we do so, we will continue to be overworked and overwhelmed by that we do in our lives. The key to being able to manage such is to recognize and know our limits as well as to stay within them.

So how many “branches” of responsibilities do you have and is the number bigger or smaller than what you can handle?  Do you know your limit to the number of “branches” you can #hold?

What are your thoughts and viewpoints on this subject? Please do share, all thoughts are welcomed and wanted.

 

Only Games Have Restarts; Not Real Life, Or Does It?


This is a response to the one-word prompt “Restart” by “The Daily Post.”

For all those who grew up playing video/computer #games (who hasn’t in the United States) #or still plays the occasional game here or there, the “save spot” and “restart” features of those games most likely became an important aspect of use when playing. The ability to save one’s progress and then come back later and pick up where left off. Or the ability to restart the game when you #have made too many mistakes to recover from and wish for a second, third, fourth, fifth chance, etc.. at the game. These features of the video/computer game are nice to have, but I think #it can be hard to remember sometimes that those futures are #only in games and #not #real #life.

I think we tend to sometimes wish we had the “save&restart” feature in real life that we have in our favorite video/computer game/s; (I know I do sometimes).  In fact, what is the appeal to such games at heart other than as a means to escape at least for a little while our real-life issues? Yes, we play them for the adventure, action, mystique, intrigue, and so forth; but only because that is what a lot of us really want out of our mundane lives.

With all the uncertainty in our lives from jobs, future career, the economy, politics, news, and so forth; it is not only easy to be drawn into the fantasy of the “gaming world,” to “lose oneself,” but also to wish what we get in those games we could get from our real lives. In some ways, the very act of playing video/computer games is a “save/pause/restart” on “real life” because when we are playing our games we are not focusing on nor worrying about what is going on in our lives in the real world.

There is some good from this aspect of playing computer games, as a distraction from real life, real-world issues; in that it can help elevate some of the stress and lets us relax and “recharge” ourselves. The danger is in the fact that we can become too “glued” to our computer games and lose face with reality as well as what is more important (life or game life). While there is no actual real “save/restart” in real life like in the games we play; when we lose ourselves in them, the games themselves sure can feel as such for a time.

A good video/computer game is always fun to enjoy and perhaps lose one’s self in for a time, but not at the expense of our “real” lives. We need to make sure that as we enjoy those games that they do not hold us back nor confuse our two worlds.

What are your thoughts and viewpoints on this subject? Please do share them, all are welcome and wanted here.

The Want For And Not Liking The Simple Answers


This is a response to #the one-word prompt “Simplify” by “The Daily Post.”

Why is that throughout all our lives, we always strive to make them better #and easier and to simplify our lives, yet when we are provided with “#simple #answers” to certain problems in our lives, we in a lot of cases have a dislike #for that “simple answer?” I think one of if #not the main reason for this strange contradicting desire is the confusing of simple with easy.

To have or make something simple is not always to have/make it easy, sometimes this is the case but not always.  What making things “simple” does is while not making the actual taking care of the problem/thing/event easier, it does make the understanding of what needs to be done and how a little easier.

This in its self can make all the difference both on our individual problems with the “simple answers” and in our lives in general, because we are more able to solve those problems and get them done, out of the way faster and for good.

What a lot of people don’t like a lot of times with the “simple answers” they get, is that we as humans tend to #want instant gratification and want the actual work of doing/solving our life problems to be easier.  So we sometimes think that the job requires complexed, thought out plans. The problem here is that in the more complexed the answer the more likely to overlook some “little” things, so that while we may be able to get the things/problems done, it still leaves us having to come back to it, or creating other new things/problems for us to deal with. This in no way makes our lives easier.

With “simple answers” for the planning out and deciding what needs to be done, we are when actually working on the issue/s more able to see all the “little” issues involved in the big issue, and thus take them into account in the answer.  “Simple” is while not always the answer, is and can be in a lot of cases if we are willing to do a little more actual work in taking care of them in order for the rest of our lives to be easier. Simplifying sacrifices short-term easy for long-term easy.

So what are your thoughts and viewpoints on this subject? Please do share them, all are welcomed and wanted.

Be Sincere, ​Not Profuse When Apologizing


This is a response to the one-word prompt “Profuse” by “The Daily Post.”

#When was the last time you had to apologize to someone for something you did? Did the person forgive/accept the apology? If #not, perhaps it was because your apology was too #profuse and longwinded as well as not sounding too #sincere.

When people apologize, too often they don’t sound sincere in doing so. This could #be due to a variety of reasons, but for simplicity, I will give you two; either they have apologized for the same thing to many times and thus are not believable, or they are so desperate for you to accept their apology that they feel the need to “play it up” and in great detail explain why they are sorry and how they will “do/be better.”

The thing is when apologies are really called for both sides usually already know full well the “reasons why” thus the person being apologized to is not really interested in hearing why. So, they are less inclined to take such apologies seriously, let alone believe them to be sincere.

When you make a mistake or have wronged someone, and you know you are truly regretful and repentant, then all that is truly needed to be done is say so to the wronged person. No explanation and/or “playing up” is necessary nor appropriate.  Whoever you are #apologizing to will know that you are truly sincere if you really are just by you being straight up and “short and sweet” in your apologizing.

What about those who don’t know they were wronged; you ask. Even then no long deep explanations are wanted nor needed, nor is “playing up” the apology. In this case, all one should do is say “I am sorry for______.” That is all; keep it short, simple, honest, and straightforward. When one says “I am sorry” those words need to mean something!

So what are your thoughts on the subject? Please do share, all thoughts and viewpoints are welcomed and wanted here.