When people learn about my bout with COVID-19 I am often asked to describe my experience. I am always happy to do so, but I find that normally it involves me trying to type a long detailed story on my phone, and inevitably I leave out what I believe might be pertinent information for them. So I have decided to do my best to describe it in detail on this blog post so I can share it whenever, I am asked, and if someone wants a friend or family member to read it they can forward.
For me it began the day the nation was put on stay at home requests, March 16th. The week before my 90 year old uncle was ill with the flu, I took him to the ER to be seen, knowing that driving him in the car with me would put me at risk for the flu, but he needed to go. The following weekend my wife was at his apartment doing his laundry, he was still ill. She caught it a few days later, both of them had a stomach flu. On March 14th I was mentioning to her that I must have dodged a bullet because more than a week had gone by and I didn't get it. However, I spoke too soon. Over the weekend I noticed that my cough had gotten worse. I have had a chronic cough for the last three years, I have been tested and retested and it is caused by my body not liking a lot of possible allergens. When the cough increased I knew something was coming on, assuming it was my every spring sinus infection. So I cancelled all my meetings for Monday the 16th and worked from home. By that evening my fever started and from that time for two weeks I had a fever plus or minus of 102.
I had made an appointment with my doctor on my phone app for that coming Wednesday on Sunday evening, and also requested a prescription of the antibiotics I normally get for the sinus infection. I hadn't heard back so I wasn't aware that the prescription as ordered and waiting for me. I went to doctor on Wednesday and tested positive for the flu, influenza B. Not the stomach one that my uncle and wife seemed to have. So from there on it was next to impossible to get a COVID test because I was diagnosed with the flu.
That following Saturday, my wife was concerned because I kept getting worse, and my fever stayed about 102 all day and night even though I was taking Tylenol every three hours. She called the Nurse on Call number and after she spoke with me she wanted me to get to see a doctor within the next 24 hours. I went to St. Vincent's ER because it was close to my house. I explained it was unlike any flu I had ever had, how I couldn't eat because everything tasted absolutely awful, everything tasted like pure salt or a metallic chemical taste. The only thing I could bring myself to eat was a banana each day. I ended up losing 18 pounds in two weeks. Unfortunately have put about half of it back on. When I was with ER doctor she told me that it wasn't uncommon for the flu to last two or three weeks. I had never heard that before. I told her about how my wife and uncle had Influenza A but I somehow missed that one and got B, she told me she believed I had both, she told me to quit taking the antibiotics because it won't help the flu. She then sent me home.
That next week, I kept feeling worse. I simply couldn't think, my brain felt like it was mud. Every waking moment, which were the smallest part of the day, I was confused, trying to figure out if something I saw, heard, or believed I had experienced was real or some sort of fever dream or hallucination. By back was killing me, as an old wrestler who used to cut very unhealthy amounts of weight, I recognized the pain was kidneys. I was dizzy and found walking difficult to navigate without worrying about falling. When I stared coughing up blood, I called my doctor again and said that this is unlike any flu I have seen, and something isn't right. I waited on a return call. By that Wednesday night, I still hadn't heard back from them, but right before I was going to bed a major coughing fit happened, and I simply could not breathe. It felt like my ribcage was collapsing on itself and I couldn't get any air. It took me about an hour to calm down enough that, with effort, real determined effort, I was able to breathe at least shallowly. My wife was holding me up until she could get me into a chair.
The next day, the doctor office called back and told me to go to the ER for a chest x-ray. They asked me to take a deep breath and it wasn't something that was possible for me to do. The tech told me I would be hearing from my doctor because my lungs were a mess. This would have been day 10 of COVID-19, days 10-11 are the two worst because that is when your lungs fill completely. He sent me home to wait for my doctor's call. The doctor called the next afternoon, he wanted me to go to a respiratory clinic. I drove there, it was actually in my doctor's normal office, but the hospital system had moved them all around. He was now in a different facility doing video doctoring so he couldn't see me. I drove to the door where I normally go in, but there was a sign that no entry was allowed to that door, that I had to go around to door 7. I wasn't sure where that was so I tried walking around to it, I ended up having to lay down on the side walk when I got about 3/4 of the way there because I simply couldn't get a breathe. It was almost impossible to talk with the staff when I got in after my little walk. The doctor there was very concerned about my lungs and my very low blood oxygen levels. She wanted me admitted to the hospital right then, put on oxygen and an IV. So she sent me to the only door open at the hospital, the ER, she called ahead and told them she wanted them to admit me. When I got there they did another chest x-ray, blood tests, and a COVID-19 test. Three hours later they came back in where I was, I assumed they were going to take me to my room. However the ER doctor said, she was 100% sure I had COVID-19 even though the test hadn't come back yet. She then sent me home and said come back to the ER if I couldn't breath. I was thinking, I came here today and yesterday because I couldn't breathe and both times you sent me home. I didn't have the energy to argue.
The next day, I got two calls, one from hospital and one from my doctor both said I had COVID-19, my doctor said I was the only one he knew who had both the flu and COVID-19 at the same time. He ordered me a Z-pack antibiotic and told me to start taking the other one he had given me again. This would have been day 12, two more days and three days without a fever and I was off quarantine. However, that wasn't an issue, it was another week before I felt remotely human again. In fact, it was the Friday of the third week before my brain felt like it was actually functioning again. I recall asking my wife about a "device" I believe she had made that I was using every night to prop me up so I could breath, but I couldn't find it. There never was any such thing but in my mind, and it was something I believed I was using almost for three weeks.
I have a friend, who is a doctor and research scientist, who has been studying COVID-19, he has been a God-send to me, educating me and assuring me when needed. He taught me that the media has this all wrong, that it isn't a respiratory disease but a blood disease. That it attacks the red blood cells capacity to distribute oxygen to the body. This caused the organs to fail for lack of oxygen, the brain, kidneys, liver, etc. This explained a lot. That is also why they are seeing so many patients with blood clots from it.
For me I was down for three weeks, then it took almost three weeks to get strong enough to actually feel normal. I wouldn't wish this on anyone. However, as my doctor and my doctor friend have explained to me, I am now 100% immune and can now pay it forward by donating plasma. I am in the process of working through that system now. But today, really great news, my wife, who was with me every day and didn't get it, her antibodies test came back and she has had it. So we don't know if that was the three days she was sick that I thought I avoided, or if she was totally asymptomatic. But she too is now immune.
Tuesday, May 26, 2020
Sunday, February 16, 2020
Why Keynesian Economics Always Fails.
In 1965 Time Magazine cover was the title "The Economy: We Are All Keynesian Now." It really didn't matter if you were a Democrat or a Republican, they both ascribed to the Keynesian theories of economics. Our Universities have for decades nearly taught these exclusively, with some Marx thrown in, in later years more and more Marx thrown in. What is Keynesian economics we hear so much about?
In the 1930's, Lord John Maynard Keynes predicted that someday everyone would have a four-bedroom house, at which point, the American Dream having been fulfilled, people would lose their incentive to work. Keynes believed that peoples' affluence would eventually outstrip their appetites - that their demand for goods and services would reach a plateau, beyond which the amount of money they spent would represent a smaller and smaller percentage of their incomes. Therefore, he argued, the government would have to adopt fiscal policies designed to keep people from hoarding too much of their incomes. `This can be found in Keynes "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money." This was why our government developed a progressive income tax, to keep you having to work harder.
It is hard to believe that was a theory anyone every believed, no less that even today, we are still finding the bulk of politicians, academia and the media that are pushing it. It seems so much of what we as a society do is more based on tradition than any thought through idea. Today, it is clear that nothing could be further from the truth of people stop wanting more after basic needs are satisfied. Indeed, we know it to be the exact opposite of what Keynes predicted. Just look at the spending habits of American consumers, they are insatiable. The more we earn, the more we spend; the more we spend, the more we get; the more we get, the more we want, and the more we want, the harder we seem to work to earn more money to get it. If any segment of society has lost the incentive to work, it is the poor, not the upwardly mobile and middle class.
What happened to confound Keynes's prediction that increasing affluence will lead to decreasing consumption? In part, Keynes got tripped up by a basic misunderstanding of human psychology. Improving prospects breed rising expectations, not complacency. Thus, as John Kenneth Galbraith noted in 1958 in his book "The Affluent Society," "In the affluent society, no sharp distinction can be made between luxuries and necessaries." Galbraith was talking mainly about consumer psychology as used by advertisers to play on consumers' insecurities, envy, and self-esteem to make them want things they don't really need: or as imposed by consumers upon themselves. Consider, for example, how buying a luxurious new suit makes a consumer feel he must have an equally luxurious silk tie, a fine linen shirt, and pair of Italian leather shoes to match. And once he has added this to his wardrobe, his less expensive suits, shirts, ties, and shoes look dreary and he wants to replace them with the better quality as well. If she was driving a Toyota then she wants his and hers, then they want to trade up to a Lexus, then two, and so on.
Add to that what technology advancements do by providing an ever expanding array of astonishing new products, the use of which changes our behavior to an extent that before long what was once a great luxury is now an everyday necessity. So the very economic system that our Establishment politicians, our academics and our business media keep pushing, the one they were all raised to believe is built on a false premise that has never ever worked. What has worked is a more Alchemic approach to economics, where the money is left in private hands, both in business and consumer hands to spend and invest as they like. That is the power that fires the engines of the economy. As John F. Kennedy said, "A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced Federal budget...as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance."
Throughout history, every time we reduce tax rates significantly we increase the economy and that increased economy actually creates record revenue into the national government in taxes. The reverse is also true, whenever we raise tax rates the economy slows, business people and individuals start spending more time and resources to shelter their existing income rather than try to grow more and the tax revenues to the government actually shrinks.
In the 1930's, Lord John Maynard Keynes predicted that someday everyone would have a four-bedroom house, at which point, the American Dream having been fulfilled, people would lose their incentive to work. Keynes believed that peoples' affluence would eventually outstrip their appetites - that their demand for goods and services would reach a plateau, beyond which the amount of money they spent would represent a smaller and smaller percentage of their incomes. Therefore, he argued, the government would have to adopt fiscal policies designed to keep people from hoarding too much of their incomes. `This can be found in Keynes "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money." This was why our government developed a progressive income tax, to keep you having to work harder.
It is hard to believe that was a theory anyone every believed, no less that even today, we are still finding the bulk of politicians, academia and the media that are pushing it. It seems so much of what we as a society do is more based on tradition than any thought through idea. Today, it is clear that nothing could be further from the truth of people stop wanting more after basic needs are satisfied. Indeed, we know it to be the exact opposite of what Keynes predicted. Just look at the spending habits of American consumers, they are insatiable. The more we earn, the more we spend; the more we spend, the more we get; the more we get, the more we want, and the more we want, the harder we seem to work to earn more money to get it. If any segment of society has lost the incentive to work, it is the poor, not the upwardly mobile and middle class.
What happened to confound Keynes's prediction that increasing affluence will lead to decreasing consumption? In part, Keynes got tripped up by a basic misunderstanding of human psychology. Improving prospects breed rising expectations, not complacency. Thus, as John Kenneth Galbraith noted in 1958 in his book "The Affluent Society," "In the affluent society, no sharp distinction can be made between luxuries and necessaries." Galbraith was talking mainly about consumer psychology as used by advertisers to play on consumers' insecurities, envy, and self-esteem to make them want things they don't really need: or as imposed by consumers upon themselves. Consider, for example, how buying a luxurious new suit makes a consumer feel he must have an equally luxurious silk tie, a fine linen shirt, and pair of Italian leather shoes to match. And once he has added this to his wardrobe, his less expensive suits, shirts, ties, and shoes look dreary and he wants to replace them with the better quality as well. If she was driving a Toyota then she wants his and hers, then they want to trade up to a Lexus, then two, and so on.
Add to that what technology advancements do by providing an ever expanding array of astonishing new products, the use of which changes our behavior to an extent that before long what was once a great luxury is now an everyday necessity. So the very economic system that our Establishment politicians, our academics and our business media keep pushing, the one they were all raised to believe is built on a false premise that has never ever worked. What has worked is a more Alchemic approach to economics, where the money is left in private hands, both in business and consumer hands to spend and invest as they like. That is the power that fires the engines of the economy. As John F. Kennedy said, "A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced Federal budget...as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance."
Throughout history, every time we reduce tax rates significantly we increase the economy and that increased economy actually creates record revenue into the national government in taxes. The reverse is also true, whenever we raise tax rates the economy slows, business people and individuals start spending more time and resources to shelter their existing income rather than try to grow more and the tax revenues to the government actually shrinks.
Corporate Taxes Most Hurt Lower and Middle Earner Families.
We are bombarded by the arguments that those greedy corporations are not paying their fair share, that we must raise taxes on them. That this huge company paid no taxes and we need to do something about that. It is one of the most popular arguments by politicians playing their favorite card of class envy and jealousy of one group of people against another. They promise if you vote for them that they will stick it to these big rich companies who aren't paying their fair share. It plays to our most base and dark human emotions so it is very effective. Furthermore, very few people in this country have had more than a semester of economics or civics in their lives, if that much, so really have very little understanding of either. This makes it even easier for politicians and their friends in the media to play to our emotions not our minds.
What are the realities of Corporate Taxes? First of all, corporations don't actually pay taxes, small businesses do, but not the large corporations the politicians sell you they are going to get them to pay their fair share. Corporations only collect taxes for the government from their consumers through their price of the products and services. They must make a net profit to sustain their company, their stockholders, etc. They figure in the taxes they will pay into the pricing structure, so you actually pay it. This has a disparate impact on the lower and middle income earners in this country, because they spend a much higher percentage of their incomes on consumer goods and services than do the highest income or wealthy. Thus any Corporate tax has the biggest tax increase on the lower and middle income earners in America, conversely lowering it benefits them the most. Maybe not immediately, why would a company lower its pricing if people are willing to pay it, until forced to by their competition? However, that money becomes a larger profit for the company, is reinvested in future growth, lower pricing on products, and more labor. The more demand on labor the upward demand on wages. So the people who vote to tax companies are voting to tax themselves and to reduce their wages.
We are seeing those results right now, if we but look for them. Under President Trump, the reduction of corporate taxes from 35%, the highest in the developed world, to 21%, This has caused a tsunami of billions if not trillions that companies were storing off shore back to being repatriated into our economy at home. We are seeing companies moving manufacturing back like we haven't seen in any of our lifetimes. What we were told could never happen seems to be happening monthly as manufacturing is coming back, investment in America is coming back. We have the best economy for any and all demographic group in decades if not historically. And keep in mind it's VERY early in the process, it has only been in place not yet two years. Those factories, those expansions of existing facilities are yet under construction and haven't started hiring to fill them yet. This is the beginning of an economic juggernaut like we have never seen. However, we can look to the not too distant past to see the science behind such an expansion.
The Media, the political left, and frankly the Establishment Republicans all tout Keynesian economic models in their view of the world. Unfortunately, the Keynesian model has yet to actually work anywhere in the world. For centuries economists from Adam Smith, to Karl Marx to John Keynes, while their methodologies differed, shared some things in common. They all based their views on how society uses and distributes "scarce" resources. Ronald Reagan and his supply side economic model, showed us that those long standing theories were flawed by the long-term economic growth during the use of supply side until it was cast aside for the old models once again and the drying up of the economy. In 1981, pushed by newly elected President Reagan Congress passed ERTA, The Economic Recovery Tax Act, which dramatically lowered tax rates and provided incentives to businesses that purchased new equipment. The idea behind this was that the increased work incentive resulting from lower tax rates would lead to increased economic activity, which in turn would more than offset the reduction of federal revenue that tax cuts might normally be expected to produce. All the traditional economists predicted disaster and economic collapse. They were all wrong.
Late in 1982 the GNP began a meteoric rise that initially outstripped even the most optimistic projections by the supply-siders. Many began predicting that unless the spiraling budget deficit could somehow be checked, the nation would face severe inflation, escalating interest rates, and economic stagnation. The economy however, paid no attention to such warnings. From 1985 to 1988, the budget deficit continued to increase. Yet despite dire predictions to the contrary, GNP continued to grow unabated. By 1989 most economists, ignoring their earlier concerns, were expecting the economy to continue its climb well into the 1990's, although they were unable to support their projections with a specific explanation or theory. Clearly something was going on that no one was able to explain. It was, in fact Alchemy at work.
The expansion of the past decade had its genesis in 1946, when the first electronic computer, known as ENIAC, was developed at the University of Pennsylvania. Over the next thirty-five years, even though computers became smaller, faster, more powerful, and easier to use, their use remained generally restricted to the sterile carefully guarded data-processing centers of universities, government agencies and large corporations. By 1981, the computer had evolved to the point where it was ready to burst out into the wider world, onto the factory floor, inside the automobile, and onto the supermarket checkout counter. Serendipitously the Reagan Economic Recovery Tax Act came to be at that moment.
The tax incentives that ERTA gave businesses in 1981 - in effect, a government subsidy amounting to 58 percent of the cost of new equipment - virtually forced corporate America to retool. This greatly accelerated the integration of the computer throughout the economy, dramatically increasing productivity and growth in implemented technology, on a scale not seen since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The impact of these massive productivity increases were both immediate and profound. By significantly lowering the production cost of virtually all goods and services, they reduced inflation. In addition, by swelling corporate profits, they effectively expanded the supply of capital, which in turn kept interest rates down. As well as they gave the United States eight years of unprecedented economic growth. In fact, the effect of this technological change on inflation, interest rates, and GNP has been so significant that it has compensated for the continuing growth of the federal budget deficit.
The reason for this impressive growth had to do with the technology gap. When traditional economists talk about a technology gap, they are generally referring to the disparity of technological sophistication between one country and another, or the industrialized nations and the Third World. However an Alchemic view of the technology gap is not between countries, but between technology currently available and any less-advanced technology actually in use. The size of that technology gap, that amount between what is available and what is being used, is the greatest determinant of economic growth. Our current technology gap is as wide as ever in history, so the future is very bright the more we reduce that gap.
As we reduce the burden on American businesses, we increase their incentive to grow and increase their profits, not find ways to shelter those they already have. This causes them to reinvest in ways to continue to make them more and more competitive. So that money that would have been taken out of the private sector into the public where no growth of wealth every has or can happen, it lights a fire on the economy in the private sector. This is where capital comes from, where wealth is built, were jobs are created, where wages grow as companies trying to grow must compete for the labor force. This is how the wealth of a nation and all of its people come from.
What are the realities of Corporate Taxes? First of all, corporations don't actually pay taxes, small businesses do, but not the large corporations the politicians sell you they are going to get them to pay their fair share. Corporations only collect taxes for the government from their consumers through their price of the products and services. They must make a net profit to sustain their company, their stockholders, etc. They figure in the taxes they will pay into the pricing structure, so you actually pay it. This has a disparate impact on the lower and middle income earners in this country, because they spend a much higher percentage of their incomes on consumer goods and services than do the highest income or wealthy. Thus any Corporate tax has the biggest tax increase on the lower and middle income earners in America, conversely lowering it benefits them the most. Maybe not immediately, why would a company lower its pricing if people are willing to pay it, until forced to by their competition? However, that money becomes a larger profit for the company, is reinvested in future growth, lower pricing on products, and more labor. The more demand on labor the upward demand on wages. So the people who vote to tax companies are voting to tax themselves and to reduce their wages.
We are seeing those results right now, if we but look for them. Under President Trump, the reduction of corporate taxes from 35%, the highest in the developed world, to 21%, This has caused a tsunami of billions if not trillions that companies were storing off shore back to being repatriated into our economy at home. We are seeing companies moving manufacturing back like we haven't seen in any of our lifetimes. What we were told could never happen seems to be happening monthly as manufacturing is coming back, investment in America is coming back. We have the best economy for any and all demographic group in decades if not historically. And keep in mind it's VERY early in the process, it has only been in place not yet two years. Those factories, those expansions of existing facilities are yet under construction and haven't started hiring to fill them yet. This is the beginning of an economic juggernaut like we have never seen. However, we can look to the not too distant past to see the science behind such an expansion.
The Media, the political left, and frankly the Establishment Republicans all tout Keynesian economic models in their view of the world. Unfortunately, the Keynesian model has yet to actually work anywhere in the world. For centuries economists from Adam Smith, to Karl Marx to John Keynes, while their methodologies differed, shared some things in common. They all based their views on how society uses and distributes "scarce" resources. Ronald Reagan and his supply side economic model, showed us that those long standing theories were flawed by the long-term economic growth during the use of supply side until it was cast aside for the old models once again and the drying up of the economy. In 1981, pushed by newly elected President Reagan Congress passed ERTA, The Economic Recovery Tax Act, which dramatically lowered tax rates and provided incentives to businesses that purchased new equipment. The idea behind this was that the increased work incentive resulting from lower tax rates would lead to increased economic activity, which in turn would more than offset the reduction of federal revenue that tax cuts might normally be expected to produce. All the traditional economists predicted disaster and economic collapse. They were all wrong.
Late in 1982 the GNP began a meteoric rise that initially outstripped even the most optimistic projections by the supply-siders. Many began predicting that unless the spiraling budget deficit could somehow be checked, the nation would face severe inflation, escalating interest rates, and economic stagnation. The economy however, paid no attention to such warnings. From 1985 to 1988, the budget deficit continued to increase. Yet despite dire predictions to the contrary, GNP continued to grow unabated. By 1989 most economists, ignoring their earlier concerns, were expecting the economy to continue its climb well into the 1990's, although they were unable to support their projections with a specific explanation or theory. Clearly something was going on that no one was able to explain. It was, in fact Alchemy at work.
The expansion of the past decade had its genesis in 1946, when the first electronic computer, known as ENIAC, was developed at the University of Pennsylvania. Over the next thirty-five years, even though computers became smaller, faster, more powerful, and easier to use, their use remained generally restricted to the sterile carefully guarded data-processing centers of universities, government agencies and large corporations. By 1981, the computer had evolved to the point where it was ready to burst out into the wider world, onto the factory floor, inside the automobile, and onto the supermarket checkout counter. Serendipitously the Reagan Economic Recovery Tax Act came to be at that moment.
The tax incentives that ERTA gave businesses in 1981 - in effect, a government subsidy amounting to 58 percent of the cost of new equipment - virtually forced corporate America to retool. This greatly accelerated the integration of the computer throughout the economy, dramatically increasing productivity and growth in implemented technology, on a scale not seen since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The impact of these massive productivity increases were both immediate and profound. By significantly lowering the production cost of virtually all goods and services, they reduced inflation. In addition, by swelling corporate profits, they effectively expanded the supply of capital, which in turn kept interest rates down. As well as they gave the United States eight years of unprecedented economic growth. In fact, the effect of this technological change on inflation, interest rates, and GNP has been so significant that it has compensated for the continuing growth of the federal budget deficit.
The reason for this impressive growth had to do with the technology gap. When traditional economists talk about a technology gap, they are generally referring to the disparity of technological sophistication between one country and another, or the industrialized nations and the Third World. However an Alchemic view of the technology gap is not between countries, but between technology currently available and any less-advanced technology actually in use. The size of that technology gap, that amount between what is available and what is being used, is the greatest determinant of economic growth. Our current technology gap is as wide as ever in history, so the future is very bright the more we reduce that gap.
As we reduce the burden on American businesses, we increase their incentive to grow and increase their profits, not find ways to shelter those they already have. This causes them to reinvest in ways to continue to make them more and more competitive. So that money that would have been taken out of the private sector into the public where no growth of wealth every has or can happen, it lights a fire on the economy in the private sector. This is where capital comes from, where wealth is built, were jobs are created, where wages grow as companies trying to grow must compete for the labor force. This is how the wealth of a nation and all of its people come from.
Friday, July 5, 2019
A Life Mirrored By Songs
There is a book that was recommended to me that has some things I find very sad for the writer and those who follow his suggestions. He is all about finding your true self, your inner voice and your higher consciousness, your highest self. While I am all for personal growth and self-discovery, he suggests that it is that quest that supersedes all else. I suppose if you want to end up living in an ashram that may work. However, I believe as John Donne did, "that no man is an island." Others must come into the equation when you are making your choices. The author tries to persuade you that you must find your own values and beliefs and shed those that were passed on to you from others speaking into your life. This is something I don't believe is an either or thing, the values that are passed down from one generation to the next are what make a history, what gives roots and substance. The key, to me, is choosing those that serve a higher purpose and discarding those that had parasitically attached without truth and value.
For me, there were many times that those instilled values may have given me short term pain, but long term benefit. When it came to my ex-wife, our relationship started actually by my wanting to protect her and lift her out of a dangerous and dysfunctional situation with her abusive father and addicted mother. The relationship was tumultuous at best, I learned that you can take someone out of the abuse but might not be able to take the long-term effects out of their psyche. I once had a business mentor, a man I greatly respected and followed, tell me to divorce her because she was holding me back. That was totally unacceptable to me, he may have been correct, but to me there was a higher purpose than discarding for business success. She eventually left me, and I allowed her to take all our assets and I kept all our liabilities to avoid the only thing I refused of paying her 15% of my income for life. She was the one that was doing the things that were cause for divorce, but I didn't fight her. This was short term damage to me, but I have always felt good about the decision. I believe in "you make your bed your lay in it." She had, and has, no one in her life to really be there for her, granted she has painted herself into that corner, but I wanted nothing to do with adding to her challenges.
There is no one who could convince me that I wasn't rewarded for that when I met my wife a few weeks later. It was when I was in to buy the cheapest possible waterbed to no longer have to sleep on the floor. It was her managing the store. I asked her out when she called later to schedule the delivery. The funny thing was our state of minds when this date happened. She had decided that all men were jerks so she was going to get a free meal and that was it, I was in a phase where I was dating a different woman every night. My theory was if I never saw someone more than once a week, I couldn't fall into a rebound situation. When we went out there was something magical, unexplainable, everything that could go wrong did, horrible bands at night clubs, running into a friend who was cheating on his wife, just one thing after another. However, I canceled every date I had scheduled for the week and she and I were together every night. The one night when we didn't plan to see each other, I was at a company outing where a co-worker fell off the wagon and was spiraling out of control. I called her and she came with me to babysit him to keep him from hurting himself. I really saw her heart that night. Within two weeks we were engaged. We weren't married for two years, because I got cold feet, starting wondering when the other shoe would drop and she might act like my ex. I thank God she was willing to allow me that time.
The concept of finding your highest self, to me, was finding the one who self was blended and intertwined together. The song, "Have You Ever Loved a Woman" by Brian Adams, when I first heard it years later so captured that feeling that I now feel it is part of my soul. It was like, "That's it, that is what I have been trying so say for so long!" Early in our marriage she was on a fast track with corporate America moving up and with a bright future, when our first son was born, sleep was something he had no interest in. So we made a choice, for self-preservation short term, but for what we believed was best for our children long-term for her to come home and be a full-time mom. To us, there was no higher calling, no higher priority.
To accommodate that choice I worked a lot of hours, and often in more than one venture at a time. I cannot count the nights that meant I was racing the sunrise to get home while it was still "tonight." I am sure that she often felt like a single mom during those times. When the song "Beth" by Kiss it would cut to my soul, especially if I was driving home from wherever late at night. The song, "Cat's in the Cradle" was just as much for me when it came to looking at my sons, as was "Butterfly Kisses" with my daughter. It is uncanny how some songs can say what you feel to you so clearly that they feel to be a part of you. Recently, for the first time, I heard the song by Lady Gaga, "I'll Never Love Again," has there ever been a better description of how two souls joined together actually feel? For me, a life lived loving others more than yourself, of course loving yourself you can't give love if you don't, but being part of something much bigger than just you is truly finding your highest self. When you live your life intertwined with others, choices must be made. There have been several times opportunities have presented themselves that I chose no because it is about more than me. I recall one in particular where I was offered to work for a sales and motivational company, they wanted me to travel and speak 200 times a year for a thousand dollars a day. I always wanted to be Zig Ziglar, this was so exciting for a couple minutes. I told the one making the offer "let me talk this over with my wife." However, I wasn't ten steps away before I turned around and declined the offer. In those ten steps I saw the faces of my wife and three children and knew that if I was traveling that much, they either wouldn't be there physically, or at least emotionally. What seemed to be my life's dream was very easy to say no to, it didn't come close to what I had.
When the author speaks of letting go of your values, habits and beliefs passed down to you, I agree if they are destructive, but isn't that who we are? Isn't that what makes us a part of something more, something bigger, something lasting, something worth passing along? I treasure the values passed down to me by those I loved, and want to honor them by passing them down to continue beyond my own time. I say to sift through and separate the wheat from the chaff, but don't throw out that wheat.
Friday, December 21, 2018
Should We Panic Like The Media and Washington D.C. Suggests?
Over the last few days, several people have reached out to me for my thoughts on all the turmoil churning in the news media and throughout official Washington. This made me decide to try to put forth those thoughts in context in this blog. By doing so I realize it puts me in a position that if wrong, it's on record, but then again, if right as well. So in no special order I will try to cover the chaos.
The resignation of General James "Mad Dog" Mattis. May I first ask why does everyone on both sides of the aisle automatically believe that General Mattis was blindsided by President Trump deciding to pull troops out of Syria? Why isn't the assumption that they have been in debate behind closed doors and simply disagree? Personally, I have twice resigned from leadership positions in different organizations when I was in disagreement with the leader's ultimate decision. There were other times where I was able to take a step back and decide if I could truly support the decision or not and decided I could after working my head around to see it their way. This would be my first belief how this went down, it only makes sense to me, maybe because I have been in those situations. Second, this was part of what Donald Trump ran his campaign on, that he wouldn't keep us entangled in conflicts that don't have a clear American direct interest. That he would not commit the blood of our service men and women and our treasure to such things. This is simply one more promise kept. With the addition of reduction if not outright removal of our troops in Afghanistan, this has been the single longest running war in the history of America as a sovereign nation. It has been going on nonstop for the last 17 years, two years longer than Vietnam. Today's high school seniors have lived their entire lives with America at war. There is a great deal being made over Mattis's resignation letter, and that it doesn't endorse President Trump, but does say he deserves a Secretary of War who shares his vision. How can anyone argue with that? For me, I will be in a wait and see stance on how this plays out, but I am not overly concerned at present.
The Government Shut Down and the Battle over the Wall. First of all, the government shut down is a lot of fuss over very little impact overall. In fact, I would suggest that the Establishment in both parties are the only ones who can be really hurt by and actual government shut down, because the last thing they want is for people to realize how little impact it would have on their lives. Who knows, people might then ask, "why are we paying for all this?" When it comes to the Wall, I may be one of the few Trump supporters who is not a fan of a Wall. I am a big fan of the idea of the wall, and the goals of that wall, but not of the structure itself. Why? Because I understand that people I support will not always be in power, and that there is no guarantee that a Totalitarian Oligarchic Progressive Regime won't take power and use it to keep people in rather than out. I would prefer the Wall be made up of laws where there are real punishments for those who hire illegal's, for those who forge papers, and who create an underground economy. I would support the death penalty for those who human traffic people into sweat shops or the sex trade. However, I understand the ideas of the Wall because laws have so long not been followed. I hope that the President holds his line and forces the Establishment to blink.
The Stock Market. The stock market is always susceptible to any level of uncertainty. The FED, who didn't raise interest rates for more than a decade, but held them artificially low to protect the Establishment's economic policies of stagnation and a shrinking America are now raising them to "Slow down inflation" which simply doesn't exist. It feels pretty much like the Swamp trying to put a plug in the drain. This too shall pass. Why would you expect those who are invested in status quo not to fight change. Trump is, in fact, making America strong again and that goes against their plan of globalization and making America to be on par, not ahead of the rest of the world.
The thing that really cracks me up is the assertions that Trump is leading a partisan divide in this country. There is nothing remotely partisan about Trump. He is not an ideologue for either party. He is not a Progressive or a Conservative, even though he has been the most successful in advancing Conservative agendas in history. He is a pragmatist who really doesn't care who's ideas work. In fact, historically we have no had a less partisan President since Washington and Adams.
The battle will continue, this will get uglier before it gets better. We are at the front line of a civil war, the civil war is being fought at Trump's front door. It is a battle of will we be a nation of Laws, of Individual rights, with truly equal opportunities for everyone to start, or will we be a nation of collectivists making decisions for all? I pray that Donald Trump and those who support him stay strong and prevail, it is this nation's last greatest hope to pass along a Free and Independent Republic to our kids.
The resignation of General James "Mad Dog" Mattis. May I first ask why does everyone on both sides of the aisle automatically believe that General Mattis was blindsided by President Trump deciding to pull troops out of Syria? Why isn't the assumption that they have been in debate behind closed doors and simply disagree? Personally, I have twice resigned from leadership positions in different organizations when I was in disagreement with the leader's ultimate decision. There were other times where I was able to take a step back and decide if I could truly support the decision or not and decided I could after working my head around to see it their way. This would be my first belief how this went down, it only makes sense to me, maybe because I have been in those situations. Second, this was part of what Donald Trump ran his campaign on, that he wouldn't keep us entangled in conflicts that don't have a clear American direct interest. That he would not commit the blood of our service men and women and our treasure to such things. This is simply one more promise kept. With the addition of reduction if not outright removal of our troops in Afghanistan, this has been the single longest running war in the history of America as a sovereign nation. It has been going on nonstop for the last 17 years, two years longer than Vietnam. Today's high school seniors have lived their entire lives with America at war. There is a great deal being made over Mattis's resignation letter, and that it doesn't endorse President Trump, but does say he deserves a Secretary of War who shares his vision. How can anyone argue with that? For me, I will be in a wait and see stance on how this plays out, but I am not overly concerned at present.
The Government Shut Down and the Battle over the Wall. First of all, the government shut down is a lot of fuss over very little impact overall. In fact, I would suggest that the Establishment in both parties are the only ones who can be really hurt by and actual government shut down, because the last thing they want is for people to realize how little impact it would have on their lives. Who knows, people might then ask, "why are we paying for all this?" When it comes to the Wall, I may be one of the few Trump supporters who is not a fan of a Wall. I am a big fan of the idea of the wall, and the goals of that wall, but not of the structure itself. Why? Because I understand that people I support will not always be in power, and that there is no guarantee that a Totalitarian Oligarchic Progressive Regime won't take power and use it to keep people in rather than out. I would prefer the Wall be made up of laws where there are real punishments for those who hire illegal's, for those who forge papers, and who create an underground economy. I would support the death penalty for those who human traffic people into sweat shops or the sex trade. However, I understand the ideas of the Wall because laws have so long not been followed. I hope that the President holds his line and forces the Establishment to blink.
The Stock Market. The stock market is always susceptible to any level of uncertainty. The FED, who didn't raise interest rates for more than a decade, but held them artificially low to protect the Establishment's economic policies of stagnation and a shrinking America are now raising them to "Slow down inflation" which simply doesn't exist. It feels pretty much like the Swamp trying to put a plug in the drain. This too shall pass. Why would you expect those who are invested in status quo not to fight change. Trump is, in fact, making America strong again and that goes against their plan of globalization and making America to be on par, not ahead of the rest of the world.
The thing that really cracks me up is the assertions that Trump is leading a partisan divide in this country. There is nothing remotely partisan about Trump. He is not an ideologue for either party. He is not a Progressive or a Conservative, even though he has been the most successful in advancing Conservative agendas in history. He is a pragmatist who really doesn't care who's ideas work. In fact, historically we have no had a less partisan President since Washington and Adams.
The battle will continue, this will get uglier before it gets better. We are at the front line of a civil war, the civil war is being fought at Trump's front door. It is a battle of will we be a nation of Laws, of Individual rights, with truly equal opportunities for everyone to start, or will we be a nation of collectivists making decisions for all? I pray that Donald Trump and those who support him stay strong and prevail, it is this nation's last greatest hope to pass along a Free and Independent Republic to our kids.
Sunday, August 7, 2016
2016 Election Is Nothing New.
It's a popular premise that this election cycle and the division is at unpecidented levels. That is only because we use our own life experiences as if they are the entire scope of history. What we are seeing today is remarkably like we have seen several times before. Those who actually were involved in the campaign cycle in 1976 and 1980, the political establishment was in full war mode against Ronald Reagan and his supporters. As such we were castigated as troglodytes who the party needed to purge from their ranks. In fact in many cases it's exactly the same people saying exactly the same things about Trump and his supporters today.
However it goes back further, if you look at the 1860 election the political professionals were appalled at this classless backwoods rube who emerged as the candidate. The Ameeican people were so divided that almost half left the country and a full fledged war ensued. In the 1860 Republican Convention the favorites were Senator Henry Seward, Ohio Governor Salmon P. Chase, or St. Louis judge, Edward Bates, and Simon Cameron from Pennsylvania were all the ones being watched to emerge as the nominee when an abscure Abraham Lincoln got the nod. Lincoln brilliantly brought all the competitors into his cabinet, even though they all thought he was a fool. After some very bumpy and disloyal, even insubordinate acts by them, they eventually came to understand the merit of his leadership and together successfully steered the ship of state during our nation's most dangerous times.
If you go back to our first time where we saw duplicitous actions by party leaders against their own candidates and outright lies pushed by the opposition against a candidate was our very first contested election with John Adams seeking reelection against his Vice President Thomas Jefferson. It was one of the dirtiest elections in history. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton formed and led the two political parties while serving as Washington's cabinet until the infighting became so severe that Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson resigned and moved back to Monticello. When Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton stepped down he stacked Washington's Cabinet with his lackies who did his and his Federalist Party's bidding.
John Adams, with hopes of unity, kept Washington's Cabinet which kept Hamilton's voice loud in the chamber. Adams wouldn't give in to Hamilton and eventually fired his left over Cabinet. Hamilton set out to destroy his own Party's candidate to get back at Adams. Hamilton, long the prolific writer, he would be considered a blogger today, wrote the campaign pamphlet against his own Federalist President "Letter from Alexander Hamilton Cconcerning The Public Character Of John Adams, Esq. President Of The United States." 24th of October 1800, the first October Surprise.
Hamilton called ro question Adam's sanity, temperament his judgement his morals and his loyalty to his country.
Thomas Jefferson, who Adams and his wife Abigail had considered their best friend until they learned how politics was more dear to Jefferson than personal attachments. Jefferson hired James Callendar, who was what would be considered a yellow journalist today, to write articles to destroy the political careers of John Adams and also his political enemy Alexander Hamilton. The funniest story to go with this is that after Jefferson won, Callendar expected a job in his administration as a reward. When Jefferson cut off access to Callendar, he got his revenge by exposing the world to the story about Jefferson's sexual relationship and children with his slave Sally Hemming.
So you can see that this is nothing new in 2016. However it is much like some of the most turmultuous four election cycles in our history. We have seen that never does the current establishment power structure give in quietly.
However it goes back further, if you look at the 1860 election the political professionals were appalled at this classless backwoods rube who emerged as the candidate. The Ameeican people were so divided that almost half left the country and a full fledged war ensued. In the 1860 Republican Convention the favorites were Senator Henry Seward, Ohio Governor Salmon P. Chase, or St. Louis judge, Edward Bates, and Simon Cameron from Pennsylvania were all the ones being watched to emerge as the nominee when an abscure Abraham Lincoln got the nod. Lincoln brilliantly brought all the competitors into his cabinet, even though they all thought he was a fool. After some very bumpy and disloyal, even insubordinate acts by them, they eventually came to understand the merit of his leadership and together successfully steered the ship of state during our nation's most dangerous times.
If you go back to our first time where we saw duplicitous actions by party leaders against their own candidates and outright lies pushed by the opposition against a candidate was our very first contested election with John Adams seeking reelection against his Vice President Thomas Jefferson. It was one of the dirtiest elections in history. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton formed and led the two political parties while serving as Washington's cabinet until the infighting became so severe that Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson resigned and moved back to Monticello. When Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton stepped down he stacked Washington's Cabinet with his lackies who did his and his Federalist Party's bidding.
John Adams, with hopes of unity, kept Washington's Cabinet which kept Hamilton's voice loud in the chamber. Adams wouldn't give in to Hamilton and eventually fired his left over Cabinet. Hamilton set out to destroy his own Party's candidate to get back at Adams. Hamilton, long the prolific writer, he would be considered a blogger today, wrote the campaign pamphlet against his own Federalist President "Letter from Alexander Hamilton Cconcerning The Public Character Of John Adams, Esq. President Of The United States." 24th of October 1800, the first October Surprise.
Hamilton called ro question Adam's sanity, temperament his judgement his morals and his loyalty to his country.
Thomas Jefferson, who Adams and his wife Abigail had considered their best friend until they learned how politics was more dear to Jefferson than personal attachments. Jefferson hired James Callendar, who was what would be considered a yellow journalist today, to write articles to destroy the political careers of John Adams and also his political enemy Alexander Hamilton. The funniest story to go with this is that after Jefferson won, Callendar expected a job in his administration as a reward. When Jefferson cut off access to Callendar, he got his revenge by exposing the world to the story about Jefferson's sexual relationship and children with his slave Sally Hemming.
So you can see that this is nothing new in 2016. However it is much like some of the most turmultuous four election cycles in our history. We have seen that never does the current establishment power structure give in quietly.
Saturday, July 30, 2016
Okay Not Why Not Hillary But Why Trump?
Today I was asked by an old high school friend who holds opposite political views than myself, "Why should I vote for Donald Trump? Not why I should vote against Hillary, but for Trump."
Let me attempt to answer that in a way that is relevant to those who may not agree with a lot of my own political beliefs. There are going to be those things that I hold dear that she would not. So allow me some space to try to answer her question for her. I chose this forum to record it because it is highly likely that I will be asked this again.
From a position stand point I agree with most of them, but not all. There has yet to be a president in our history from Washington forward that I've agreed with all they did or believed, with the possible exception of Calvin Coolidge.
Trump plans to build the Wall and make Mexico pay for it. Of course people scoff at this but he's outlined his thoughts and plans well on his website so I won't repeat them here. This will be long enough as it is. When it comes to the wall, I am not a fan of an actual wall, I find history too often found them eventually used to hold people in rather than others out. But with that said, I agree completely with the reason for the wall and what it represents for America. A nation is not a sovereign nation without borders and means of screening those coming in and going out.
Our economy is bleeding billions upon billions of dollars supporting those who are here illegally, clogging the health services for citizens and draining the resources to educate our own citizens and more. The safety of the nation in the world of today is all the more critical to assure those coming in are not intent on destruction.
While here, the Muslim ban, is anything but what the media and the Democrats are painting it. It's simply common sense. If we are at war with Radical Islam, and we are, then it makes sense to be highly careful before allowing someone in who could be on a mission of Jihad. Many of three counties have long been primitive and corrupt but today there is near anarchy where there is no means of finding records on people who want to come in. We MUST find a way to be assured those we allow in don't kill American citizens.
U.S. Trade, while the media paints a picture of isolationist that is anything but what he is actually saying. He is saying it's time to create trade deals that are win-win or not at all. For decades our deals have been done by politicians who are clueless about world economies and business and are being undressed by other nations in these deals. We need someone who understands how to trade internationally to renegotiate these deals and we have never had a better candidate to do that than Trumo who runs a highly successful global business.
Those who claim he is a bad businessman due to four of his LLC's filing Chapter 11. Keep in mind two things, that is part of our laws to protect the overt risk of business and capital. Second that those were four strategic bankruptcies out of 550 different LLC's he owns. That is a staggering success rate.
For decades, especially over the last eight years, it has become an absolute disgrace what we have done to our military and veterans. The VA is a place of nightmares where they have even been caught delaying service until the veteran died to avoid spending the money to treat them. Our active military has been engaged in war since 2002 without relief. All the while we have cut funding, reduced force numbers and ask those in service to keep going back on tours over and over again. It has caused the highest suicide rates in history in our armed forces. Trump promises to fix it or change it. If after analysis of the VA if he believes it not fixable then he will push to allow the money we promise to care for them to be used at any hospital to get the vets the care we owe them.
Tax reform he understands why American companies are moving their jobs overseas and hoarding now about 10 trillion dollars off shore. America has the highest business tax rates in the world making them less competitive in this, the global market place. Reducing these rates will cause businesses to grow in America bring back jobs and prosperity.
Trump has promised to repeal the 29,000 new regulations on businesses imposed since Obama took office that have been the cause of the lost decade in our economy. It has crushed small businesses in favor of Wall Street, large companies don't mind because it crushes their competition who cannot afford the floors of employees who do nothing but keep them compliant.
Trump has shown clearly that he is committed to protecting the Constitution with the list of Supreme Court Justice candidates he is proposing.
Beyond all the above he is uniquely fitted for the time we find ourselves. First he is the first politician in my lifetime who will lose net worth by becoming president because his time value of money is massively better in business. He is a businessman who actually understands how to create a dollar, the only one of all that ran who have.
He is the only one who has actually created a job in his life and he has tens of thousands working for him.
Politics has long been a breeding ground for corruption and this election has shown that even more clearly. Ask those who were "Feeling the Bern" about their wake up call. This may in fact be our only chance to actually send someone who isn't bought and paid for on either side of the aisle to actually give the power back to the people instead of some sort of ongoing Hunger Games immitation where we currently find ourselves.
Let me attempt to answer that in a way that is relevant to those who may not agree with a lot of my own political beliefs. There are going to be those things that I hold dear that she would not. So allow me some space to try to answer her question for her. I chose this forum to record it because it is highly likely that I will be asked this again.
From a position stand point I agree with most of them, but not all. There has yet to be a president in our history from Washington forward that I've agreed with all they did or believed, with the possible exception of Calvin Coolidge.
Trump plans to build the Wall and make Mexico pay for it. Of course people scoff at this but he's outlined his thoughts and plans well on his website so I won't repeat them here. This will be long enough as it is. When it comes to the wall, I am not a fan of an actual wall, I find history too often found them eventually used to hold people in rather than others out. But with that said, I agree completely with the reason for the wall and what it represents for America. A nation is not a sovereign nation without borders and means of screening those coming in and going out.
Our economy is bleeding billions upon billions of dollars supporting those who are here illegally, clogging the health services for citizens and draining the resources to educate our own citizens and more. The safety of the nation in the world of today is all the more critical to assure those coming in are not intent on destruction.
While here, the Muslim ban, is anything but what the media and the Democrats are painting it. It's simply common sense. If we are at war with Radical Islam, and we are, then it makes sense to be highly careful before allowing someone in who could be on a mission of Jihad. Many of three counties have long been primitive and corrupt but today there is near anarchy where there is no means of finding records on people who want to come in. We MUST find a way to be assured those we allow in don't kill American citizens.
U.S. Trade, while the media paints a picture of isolationist that is anything but what he is actually saying. He is saying it's time to create trade deals that are win-win or not at all. For decades our deals have been done by politicians who are clueless about world economies and business and are being undressed by other nations in these deals. We need someone who understands how to trade internationally to renegotiate these deals and we have never had a better candidate to do that than Trumo who runs a highly successful global business.
Those who claim he is a bad businessman due to four of his LLC's filing Chapter 11. Keep in mind two things, that is part of our laws to protect the overt risk of business and capital. Second that those were four strategic bankruptcies out of 550 different LLC's he owns. That is a staggering success rate.
For decades, especially over the last eight years, it has become an absolute disgrace what we have done to our military and veterans. The VA is a place of nightmares where they have even been caught delaying service until the veteran died to avoid spending the money to treat them. Our active military has been engaged in war since 2002 without relief. All the while we have cut funding, reduced force numbers and ask those in service to keep going back on tours over and over again. It has caused the highest suicide rates in history in our armed forces. Trump promises to fix it or change it. If after analysis of the VA if he believes it not fixable then he will push to allow the money we promise to care for them to be used at any hospital to get the vets the care we owe them.
Tax reform he understands why American companies are moving their jobs overseas and hoarding now about 10 trillion dollars off shore. America has the highest business tax rates in the world making them less competitive in this, the global market place. Reducing these rates will cause businesses to grow in America bring back jobs and prosperity.
Trump has promised to repeal the 29,000 new regulations on businesses imposed since Obama took office that have been the cause of the lost decade in our economy. It has crushed small businesses in favor of Wall Street, large companies don't mind because it crushes their competition who cannot afford the floors of employees who do nothing but keep them compliant.
Trump has shown clearly that he is committed to protecting the Constitution with the list of Supreme Court Justice candidates he is proposing.
Beyond all the above he is uniquely fitted for the time we find ourselves. First he is the first politician in my lifetime who will lose net worth by becoming president because his time value of money is massively better in business. He is a businessman who actually understands how to create a dollar, the only one of all that ran who have.
He is the only one who has actually created a job in his life and he has tens of thousands working for him.
Politics has long been a breeding ground for corruption and this election has shown that even more clearly. Ask those who were "Feeling the Bern" about their wake up call. This may in fact be our only chance to actually send someone who isn't bought and paid for on either side of the aisle to actually give the power back to the people instead of some sort of ongoing Hunger Games immitation where we currently find ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
