Facts and truth are neither codependent nor mutually exclusive. Facts are objective. Truth is subjective.

Facts are not swayed by the truth and for some folks truth is not swayed by facts.

It isn’t possible to live according to facts, because no fact has passed the test of proving unchanged an infinite number of times. All it takes is one failure and the whole shebang goes to hell. It is true some so-called facts have a 100% success record, so far. This is handy for some and disregarded by Democrats and neonates. But there are no known actual facts. We must live according to what we believe are facts. And that’s my truth.

When I was a kid, my parents told me I was a very intelligent young man. That became a problem when I realized my IQ was so high I couldn’t reach it.

I just bought a new car. It came with anti-stop breaks. That was a mistake.

You should never buy a new car. You should always buy a used car. That way, all of the built-in problems have already been fixed by the previous owner. The same is true with dogs.

My wife and I went to the SPCA to get a replacement dog for our dead one. (I’d appreciate it if nobody repeats what I just said to our new used dog. I don’t want him to know he’s a rebound pet since he’s already trying to cope with the knowledge that he’s adopted.)

This new used dog we got had already been fixed. I think it’s the law. This wasn’t really news to me, but I wanted to find out if it was a very strict policy or whether there might be any intact dogs available. I asked the girl at the shelter, “Does that dog, over there, have any balls?” She said, “No, it’s a bitch.” I had to agree.

Do you know what else I think is a bitch? When I get a ringing in my nose. I hate that. Actually, hate may be too strong a word. It’s also politically incorrect. We must hate hate and hate haters…or so I’ve been told.

Now there are hate crimes. These are especially bad and the consequences of committing a hate crime are far worse than attacking a victim because you like them.

So, I just let my nose ring until it stops on its own.

“They are seeking to harass and embarrass anyone affiliated with the leading news organizations that are asking tough questions and bringing uncomfortable truths to light, “Mr. Sulzberger said. “The goal of this campaign is clearly to intimidate journalists from doing their job, which includes serving as a check on power and exposing wrongdoing when it occurs. The Times will not be intimidated or silenced.

The above is a partial statement from A.G.Sulzberger, publisher of The Times, and was included in an article by Kenneth P. Vogel and Jeremy W. Peterson, also of The Times.

Mr. Sulzberger’s statement and the article in general refer to a reported “…loose network of conservative operatives allied with the White House…”, who are apparently collecting and disseminating unflattering information about “journalists” who have attacked the Trump administration and/or the President, himself. Quoting the article, “The material publicized so far, while in some cases misleading in ways, has proved authentic, and much of it has been professionally harmful to its targets.” The White House claims it had no knowledge of this group or its activities. Until substantiated evidence to the contrary  surfaces, this remains a simple fact.

If I were, for some distasteful reason, to advocate for this “…loose network of conservative operatives”, it would be easy to refer to the old adage, “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”; but there is much more to this.

It is a news journalist’s essential job to ask the tough and uncomfortable questions of leaders because the First Amendment to the Constitution demands checks on governmental power. It is not a journalist’s job to belch up rhetoric from any rumor mill. Stories offered by biased journalists, which include their biases, are unethical from their inception and don’t qualify under the purpose of checks on governmental power. They are a journalistic conflict of interest. Many of The Times’ articles as well as Mr. Sultzberger’s diatribe set themselves far apart from unbiased journalism.

While it is true the three branches of the federal government have power (which have checks and balances built into them), it is also true many news media journalists and organizations also wield great power and influence; perhaps more than the government in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, these powers are free from being constitutionally checked and are subject to the bastardizations of slander, innuendo, rationalizations and false conclusions. Self policing to avoid these pitfalls is impotent or non-existent. Power corrupts. As such, what this “…loose network of conservative operatives…” is doing is exactly what the journalistic media’s mandate is supposed to be, make public that which can be substantiated through established facts rather than opinion.

On the other side of the aisle is FOX NEWS, whose claims of being “Fair and Balanced” are not only untrue, but irrelevent. Facts are not influenced by what is fair or balanced.

Here is a thought for Mr. Sulzberger:

Dear Sir,    Your complaint is without merit. To again simplify by way of an old adage, “What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.”   Consider your gander appropriately  goosed.                           

In order for something to exist and be recognized, its antithesis must also exist. It’s rather like the idea that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

For the left to exist, there must be the right. For right to exist, there must be wrong. (Interesting how that works in politics).

For love to exist, there must be hate.

For up to exist, there must be down. For cold to exist, there must be hot.

For pleasure to exist, there must be pain. For happiness to exist, there must be sadness.

For veracity to exist, there must be Debbie Wasserman Schultz..

For honor to exist, there must be liberal progressives.

For modesty to exist, there must be Donald Trump.

For bravery to exist, there must be ANTIFA protestors.

Wisdom is a far tougher nut to crack. It is a powerful force. For wisdom to exist, there must be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Gavin Newsom, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi and the vast majority of humanity whose numbers are historically culled by way of the Darwinian rules of attrition.

.

I believe the ability to make wise choices derives from the factual information one has amassed. The amount of factual information one has amassed depends upon several factors.

Number 1: COGNITIVE ABILITY. This is the ability to understand information and to be able to recognize the difference between good information and bad information.

Number 2: EXPOSURE. This means how and when information is garnered; and at what speed the information is delivered and absorbed.

Number 3: EXPERIENCE. Information is best assessed over time as options emerge. Judgments as to the value of information are sounder when the basis of the information is witnessed first-hand (not via hearsay). Hearsay (history) is only available from living witnesses or through their recordings of events or data and must be confirmed.

Number 4: JUDGMENT: The process of judgment requires one to choose the best information available and weigh any options. Only information which can be viewed objectively should be considered. Basing any judgment on information from a subjective point of view renders any judgment moot.

Number 5: PRAGMATISM. The final step prior to implementing a wise choice is to determining whether it has a significant chance of success when practically applied.

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is not yet 30 years of age. She brings simplistic, unqualified ideas to make choices regarding national affairs. Subjectivity is all she has at this point. She graduated cum laude from Boston University with a bachelor’s degree. It’s a good beginning. She knows theory, but has no experience with practical application. Clearly she is intelligent. So is my 4 year old grandson. He knows how super heroes can save the world. I wonder if New York would vote for him in 2020.

I just read that food delivery robots are supposed to come to the city of Sacramento. Watch what goes wrong.

I was speaking to a twenty-something college graduate the other day. We had a short debate. I’m an older guy who dropped out of high school, so I was at a distinct disadvantage. It didn’t take long for me to realize he knew a great deal more than I did, and a great deal less than he did.

I wish I could return to my twenties so I could, once again, be smarter than I was.

Gov. Ralph Northam has announced the removal of Confederate President Jefferson Davis’ name from an arch at Fort Monroe in Hampton, Virginia. Davis was held at the fort at the conclusion of the Civil War.

I understand the idea that the name of the president of the Confederacy is painful to some and I understand the idea that having his name displayed on the arch at the Jefferson Davis Memorial Park seems to glorify him or slavery. Perhaps this needs to be viewed through a more thoughtful, stoic eye. The Civil War wasn’t primarily fought over slavery. The North had slavery as well. The main cause of the conflict was secession.

Nevertheless, this is just another attempt to erase history. This has been done many times in the past and it’s never been a good idea. Why not change the names of the southern states? Shall we bulldoze Auschwitz and Dachau because they glorify Hitler and his Nazi terror?

History won’t change by painting over it or shuffling into some remote corner.

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I don’t need any group of people to tell me how to think. Let me take a moment to explain my positions on certain issues.

Technology: I believe most (if not all) technology can be improved and that improvement should be a constant goal. I don’t believe that if something isn’t perfect it should be scrapped and replaced with a hope or wish or dream. That is not pragmatic and is generally doomed to failure.

Foreign Affairs: I believe the ability to communicate with foes is of utmost importance, because when lines of communication are severed, the only option is war. Did Russia attempt to influence U.S. elections? Of course. We do the same around the world on a regular basis. Radio Free Europe, during the cold war was a prime example. What we are doing in Venezuela today is no different. Should we protect our elections from outside meddling? What do you think?

Racism: Racism will disappear when it is no longer being promoted by all sides.

Abortion: An unborn human is human. Unless it deserves to die due to something illegal it has done, the purposeful killing of it is murder.

The Economy: There is no finite number of dollars available to be earned or spent. New wealth is constantly being created…and I mean created, not printed. The concept of the rich having more than their fair share is ridiculous. To have a share indicates there is a whole from which portions can be identified. There is no whole. There are no fair shares. There is only the wealth people have. They can increase that wealth or decrease it according to their talents, enthusiasm and ambitions. The Robin Hood idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor is robbery. The fictional Robin Hood was a misguided thief, pure and simple.

The Environment: I think it’s silly to believe mankind has no influence on the climate. When I see the number of cars on the roadways during rush hours and multiply that by years, it makes me think of how a simple volcanic eruption is no match for the pollution introduced into the atmosphere. Yet, one eruption can have a profound and lasting effect. I think it is stupid to send any species (with the exceptions of some disease causing viruses or bacteria) into extinction in an effort to benefit our own species. Homo Sapiens have overpopulated the planet beyond the point of sustainability (while this may be buried in the middle of this text, I believe it is PROBLEM # 1).

Immigration: To repeat…Homo Sapiens have overpopulated the planet beyond the point of sustainability. The U.S. is a geographical area of 100% immigrants (including those called native Americans). We are overfull. Extreme care must be taken to add more people attrition cannot balance.

The Military: Foes are never swayed by kindness. Overwhelming military might is what keeps the peace.

Guns/Firearms: I have the unalienable right to have a tool at hand to successfully defend my life, the lives of those I love or any other innocent person I choose to defend without waiting for police to arrive. Parallel Fire Logic: Just because someone might use a match to start a forest fire shouldn’t deny me matches to start my barbeque. I should be able to own a fire extinguisher without having to wait for the fire department to arrive.

Honor, Veracity, Faith: I believe our society is losing all of these essential societal mores. They will return. They always do; but only after great pain, misery and bloodshed.

As I wrote, I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I lean to the Right because the Left espouses the opposite of what I believe.