*See previous post.

The advent of personal electronic devices brings with it a few unhappy consequences to their overuse; not the least of which is the reduction in physical activity.

My prior post references how excessive “screen time” on personal electronic devices can foster antisocial tendencies. Along with this unfortunate phenomenon, comes the inability, during that period of physical inactivity, to burn calories effectively. The result is the path toward muscular atrophy and possible obesity.

We all recognize a sedentary lifestyle is contraindicated if someone hopes to remain physically healthy . We scoff at the “couch potato” who spends his days binge watching sports reruns, yet spending hours on a PC or smartphone  is no different. Instaed of kids going down to their local skate park to hone their skills on a skateboard, it’s much easier to do that in the form of a video game. This is especially true of those who need the exercise most.

When I enter a restaurant for a meal, I’m constantly amazed at how many patrons are busy with their faces in their phones as they consume all the calories they have no hope of metabolizing efficiently. I’m convinced that when they leave the restaurant, (after having little socialization with other human beings), they will go elsewhere and remain glued to some form of screen…perhaps TV or desk top computer.

If I were an evil scientist or leader of an adversarial nation, bent on weakening a society to the point of helplessness, I can’t think of a better way than what the tech industry has fostered and promotes.

Am I against technology and its uses? No! I’m against gullible stupidity  and a complete lack of common sense.

Amtrak is doing away with its dining cars. No longer will their rail travelers be able to enjoy the notable fine dining experience which, until now, has rivaled fine restaurants. The reasoning behind this change is that Amtrak has its head up its brass and thinks younger customers are more interested in screen time with their electronic devices than socializing with fellow passengers. Amtrak believes the millennial set is uncomfortable sharing stories and ideas with strangers as they travel and dine together. Perhaps some do. Perhaps the lack of anonymity they find on social media scares them. Many friendly,  non-transfixed patrons, who enjoy experiencing reality, prefer things the way they are.

The discontinuation of the dining cars will save Amtrak money by eliminating on-board kitchens in favor of prepackaged meals. These are being labeled “flexible’ and/or “contemporary” dining options. Couldn’t Amtrak simply add these options to accommodate preferences? Once Amtrak gets a fix averages of who prefers what, the company will see a net savings.

Peter Wilander, who oversees Amtrak’s customer experience, says, “Some people like (the dining car) and view it as sort of a nostalgic train experience,” adding, “Some people, especially our new millennial customers, don’t like it so much. They want more privacy, they don’t want to feel uncomfortable sitting next to people” they don’t know.

Does any of this sound like the promotion of a progressive antisocial agenda? Of course it does. It isn’t healthy and the results of peoples’ escaping into their electronic devices to shoot people and blow them up as blood and body parts fly across the screen, or avoid reality in other ways, can be seen everywhere you look (sometimes on the news). The ability to mingle and converse on a friendly level with new people is dying. As for the “nostalgic train experience”; something becomes nostalgic once it fades into the past. Dining cars aren’t nostalgic, but Amtrak wants to make them so.

This is one case where change isn’t only unnecessary…it is seriously wrong-minded.

In the meanwhile, Peter, find another line of work. Perhaps something that can be phoned in.

*SEE FOLLOWING POST “SEDENTARY”

I just noticed an article by Andrew G. Biggs On MarketWatch regarding whether poor people should even bother putting away money for their retirement. Biggs contends it isn’t really important because statistically retired people are in better financial shape than the working poor due to Social Security. I think he’s probably right about the statistics. I think Biggs is missing the bigger picture.

Biggs also note the “auto-IRA” programs being introduced by states such as California, Oregon, Illinois and Connecticut wherein 3%-5% of earnings would be invested in an IRA for the worker. Workers could opt-out of the program. The opt-out disclaimer makes this an inoffensive idea from which the worker would benefit. Should it become mandatory, the idea would lose all merit in a free market society.

The area of contention I have with Biggs’ assertion that the poor’s saving for retirement lies in what I believe are the main reasons many people remain in poverty and those reasons don’t really have much to do with wages earned. They have to do with ignorance of how money works and how to budget money.

The poor are directly in the crosshairs of some businesses and the economy in general. Borrowing money in the form of credit card debt is far more expensive for the poor. Interest rates are far higher. The same is true for any other borrowed monies. This could be rectified via more compassionate business practices and is no fault of the poor. Their shortcoming lies in the ways in which they spend the money they do have.

Some of the problem lies in where they chose to shop and what they chose to buy. It has been my observation that poor people are much more likely to do their grocery shopping at convenience stores and other outlets which charge more for the convenience of purchasing smaller quantities at a time. They may purchase what is needed for the evening’s meal rather than shopping on a weekly or biweekly basis at a discount supermarket. Their choice of items may include more sugary and fatty snacks, candies and soft drinks than more affluent buyers may choose. I note the obesity problem among the poor as being more prominent than among their middle class and more affluent counterparts. My guess is those issues go hand-in-hand, as do the needs and costs of associated medical care.

Budgeting for retirement is a good start in learning how money works. Guidance on budgeting, whether derived from a governmental source or charitable organizations, would go a long way in allowing the poor to raise their standard of living. I know many people whose paychecks are humble, yet their lifestyles are very comfortable. There are always the people who strike it rich by winning some lottery, just to find themselves in the poorhouse months later due to poor money management.

As to those folks who see themselves as victims of the rich, no amount of instruction or charity or taxation of the rich or middle class will solve their poverty. Unfortunately, their numbers rise as politicians promote the unworkable idea that the poor have little or no personal responsibility for their own circumstances. Some of the folks we elect are those  who truly promote poverty.

For the past few decades congress has been a little under the weather. Most times, the illnesses have presented as representatives being unable to compromise. Still, debates were finally held and things moved along. That was then. This is now.

Congress now has a definable disease. It is the ultra left and socialist influence in Washington, D.C.. Congress has always held both liberals and conservatives. The conservatives in Congress still exist without the existence of elected ultra right or fascists. The liberals still exist and are seriously thwarted by a few communists in Democrat clothing seemingly intent upon overthrowing the United States.

The policies proposed by these problem representatives, if instituted, would be so expensive all citizens would have to turn over their paychecks to the government in taxes and the government would then be required to place everyone on assistance. That is communism in a nutshell.

The far left clearly doesn’t live within the realm of logic. They believe they can change human nature. This is the one thing which made Karl Marx’s ideas non-pragmatic.

Relying on the belief the public is a bunch of infants, these elected, corrupt infants need to be corralled and given a well deserved time out. They are causing unnecessary stress in an otherwise stressful world; and tend to promote the disease of foolishness presenting itself in places like New York, San Francisco and Chicago.

The buck stops with the voters fail to research the candidates for whom they vote, want others to support them or are simply criminals. In other words…LAZY.

The funny thing is that if these far left policies were to be adopted, the lazy peons would be forced to work for only what their masters (the government) felt they needed to survive. That is SLAVERY.

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.