Reality is a consequential phenomenon. It is something which is learned through personal experience and not by way of supposition or theory.

Reality occurs when a person turns away from a tornado warning on their TV and looks out their window to see the vortex coming across a field toward their house. It is what a person learns as they look down at the body of a child they just ran over with their car. It is the arrival from officials to tell a wife her husband was killed in combat. It is the feeling which comes from being evicted from one’s home. It is the last feeling a person has knowing they are just about to die.

The uninitiated who aren’t fully acquainted with reality readily proclaim they are, when that cannot be a fact.

 This is why the votes of young people, liberal progressives and non-military veteran college professors and politicians are so dangerous.

When soldiers from another country come calling at your door or when you realize that bright flash on the horizon was a nuclear detonation…that’s when you realize Joe Biden’s lofty words, “I’ve been saying for a long time, the reason the rest of the world in large part has repaired to us is not the example of our power, but the power of our example.” are the words of a man who has yet to recognize reality.

I just read an online article written by Brandon Katz. The subject of the article revolves around why Disney is paying Dwayne (the Rock) Johnson $22M for the upcoming film, “Jungle Cruise”, while his co-star, Emily Blunt, is only being paid $9M.

Katz believes this is an issue of Hollywood’s problem with equal gender compensation and representation. He is just another publicity seeker screaming in the echo chamber of popular bias.

Disney thinks fans will spend more than double to see Johnson than they will to see Blunt. They are probably right. It’s not about gender. It’s about simple economics.

I don’t know anything about Katz’s personal life and, frankly it’s none of my business. While Katz could be a female, male, transgender, multi-gender, non-gender. Katz could adhere to one or more of any number of religions or none at all, it’s his concern, not mine. What I do know about Katz is that he (I’m taking a chance via assumption of gender) knows nothing about economics in a free market. I also know he is not adverse to foregoing independent thought by jumping on the bandwagon of popular bias. This seems to be a popular sport nowadays.

Katz misses the much larger point. The question Katz should be asking (and for which the answer is simple) is; “why do Hollywood stars make so much money, when other folks, who work just as hard or harder in their own endeavors, don’t?”

Hollywood stars are able to command such high pay in the same way pro-sports figures do. Their fan base shells out the bucks to see them perform.  Hollywood stars carry their own advertisement in their names. Advertising is very expensive. Katz notes that two of Johnson’s films brought in over $1B each. Blunt’s films haven’t. Still, Katz doesn’t catch the drift.

Leading roles in film aren’t the same as most other jobs in which equal pay for equal work is relevant. Talent can play a big part (but sometimes doesn’t). Sometimes lesser, lower paying parts are played by much more talented actors than the lead roles are. Again, it’s how hard the fan is willing to strangle his/her wallet to view their “idol”.

Blunt wasn’t forced to do “Jungle Cruise”. Nobody nailed her shoes to the floors of the sets. She could have said “no”. She made a deal with Disney. She agreed to do the part for an agreed price (which isn’t Katz’s business at all). Katz thinks he found himself a way to try to knock the blocks off feminist’s shoulders. It might work. People in the echo chamber can’t hear the steady whisper of reason.

If Johnson’s co-star was a male, Katz wouldn’t have written his article because there would be no way to fuel controversy…which, of course, is his goal.

I just noticed an article informing the reader that the Monterey Bay Aquarium has apologized for a comment they tweeted referring to one of their otters as “thicc”. I didn’t know what that word meant, so I did some research. I found it referenced on “urban dictionary”; where I was surprised to find a few other idiomatic words, the usage of which seems reserved for designated individuals and/or groups. Apparently Monterey Bay Aquarium’s apology to those who took offense at the original tweet was due to their belief they violated some form of intellectual property law. They actually didn’t do that, so they apologized for exercising their own First Amendment rights by humorously applying a term in the same way “ok” was a jokingly misspelled abbreviation of “all correct” in the 1830s. Nobody seemed to take offense at the latter because people didn’t have such massive chips on their shoulders back then.

If you tell me you are contemplating suicide, I will tell you there are a lot of good reasons to live for; but living to see the day when people no longer end sentences  in prepositions isn’t one of the reasons I’m talking about.

These are the problems I see affecting our society today and revolve around the following liberal beliefs:

1) Recognizing reality and assuming personal responsibility are now considered cruel and         unusual punishments.

2) Facts may be adjusted in order to make one feel good.

3) Facts and truths are considered synonymous.

4) Valor is to be appreciated when displayed by other people…and is no longer considered       to be a personal responsibility.

5) Achieving the American Dream has nothing to do with failures along the way. Nor does it      have anything to do with intelligence, ambition, hard work, sacrifice or talent. Everyone        is entitled to it.

NBC/WSJ final poll prior to the midterm elections show the Democrats hold a 7 point edge over Republicans. Let’s see how accurate that turns out to be after all the votes are counted.

I just viewed Capt. C. B. “Sully” Sullenberger III offer his political opinions on MSNBC news. He indicated he would like to see more political balance in the houses of Congress. I agree (with reservations, citing the need for sanity and honor required of the counterbalance). Therein may lie a problem and could be where the river of information gets shallow for Sully (who may not recognize this particular river as being the cesspool of partisan misinformation it actually is).

It’s no surprise MSNBC chose to have him as a guest…after all, he is a bona fide hero, having saved so many passengers on his ill fated flight which ended up in the Hudson River. People should listen to heroes because their words are important. Right?

In no way could or would I try or diminish Sullenberger’s achievement that fateful day, but Sully isn’t a hero. A hero is someone who puts himself/herself in harm’s way to protect someone else. Sully was already in harm’s way through no choice of his own. To be sure, Capt. Sullenberger is a well trained, very experienced and competent pilot; but most of all, he was incredibly lucky that day (as was everyone else on board). With minimal boat traffic on the river, waters not being overly choppy and craft readily able to come to the rescue, he lucked out big time. He has said so himself. Did he try harder to make his water landing safe because there were so many on board? I’m confident he would have shown the same aeronautical diligence had he been alone in a single engine Cessna under similar emergency circumstances. The fact that there were so many other souls at risk was and is, in retrospect,  irrelevant.

Since that day, Capt. Sullenberger has been lauded with praise and inundated with folks proclaiming him a hero. Under such circumstances who can blame him for falling into the trap of believing it himself?

Sully has every right to express his political views whenever and wherever he chooses. It is, however, to MSNBC’s discredit to pretend Capt. Sullenberger’s opinions carry any more weight than those of a politically aware deli clerk of similar age from Hackensack.

Who?

As the midterm election approaches the media on the right of the aisle is touting what they believe will be a “Red Wave” gaining many more congressional seats. They also fear a “Blue Wave”, which is what the liberal media predicts (while fearing a “Red Wave”.

I don’t pretend to know what will happen, but wouldn’t it be funny if all the early voting going on at the moment and all the wild and heated bluster produce a mere ripple; that what’s going on at the moment is just the result a more engaged, energized, and in some cases, angry electorate? How will both sides of the media justify all their “expert’s” predictions?

If there is a “Wave”, one side of the media aisle is going to look pretty stupid. If there is no “Wave”, both sides will.

“Hate” haters hate “haters”.