I'm Sucking At YouTube, But Who Cares?

Dance like no one is watching because, well, in this case, no one really is.

I am talking about having recently started a YouTube channel which is supposed to be an extension of sorts of my writing here and elsewhere. That's an overstatement because the reality is when it comes to writing I like to think I am decent at doing it, and of course I actually do have an audience.

Making videos is not my forte at all. That's the bottom line. But there was a time when what I wrote wasn't good either, but I kept doing it and eventually got better at it.

It's like anything you do in life, right? As the old saying goes, "Practice makes perfect." Or, at least in theory that may be mostly true. I am not sure it is exactly true. If you're 4 feet tall all the practice in the world may never make you a great basketball player.

The thing is, right now I am not even really trying all that hard to dance. I'm just doing whatever comes to me and going with it. I've gotten a couple subscribers and a few views. But I am virtually invisible. It is what it is. 

I don't really have a camera presence, and that hurts me. In fact, I have a face for radio. But my voice isn't that great either honestly. There is no nice bass to it, and I don't have the ability to really project the way I would like to.

Do I just use an AI voice for everything? Maybe. I've done it on a couple of videos, but it sounds kind of robotic to me. Not at all appealing, but maybe it's more appealing than me?

And while I can think rather quickly, there is a naturalness to the way I write which does not translate well in front of the camera. I write better than I communicate, and maybe that's the way it is for most writers. I am not sure, but I suspect it might be.

I need a script in front of me. What I really need is a teleprompter. But I won't spring for one. Not yet anyway. But maybe one day. I guess I will wait and see if anyone at all comes and finds me and gives me a reason to make an "investment."

My studio sucks. Right now, it's mostly just my dining room, if I happen to be doing a video in which I actually appear in. I'll change it up a bit and sometimes do a bit in the living room or some other space in the house.

Hopefully a clean space. I mean, my house is not dirty by any means, but it is certainly well lived in if you catch my drift.

Most recently I decided to do episodes of what I am calling a podcast. But I am not sure if that's really what it is. Podcasts that appear on YouTube tend to do well. But most of them are on done on camera. They adorn themselves in interesting lights, maybe sport a pair of headphones and a microphone on a boom to make it look all fancy and stuff.

I have none of that. Even the footage I have available for a faceless read off of one of my blogs is crappy at best. Boring at most to look at.

I'm thinking, maybe someone will simply load up my video on their phone and listen in the car? The whole 5-8 minutes of the typical one, by the way. The podcast, or whatever it might actually be called, is based off my blogs, and blogs tend to be relatively quick reads.

Even if I sometimes get called a windbag. Oh well. Can I sit for an hour and talk my way through it? Not hardly. If I could, being as opinionated as I am, I'd have probably tried to become a radio talkie many decades ago.

Too many umms and ahs. I know this because when I finish the audio recording, I have to edit a lot of that out.

I'm really just messing around. I am not trying to seriously accomplish anything, but I want to think something might blow up and send me to the moon. You know, cash in on some big bucks from all that YouTube ad revenue and potential sponsorships.

Maybe. One day. Who knows? I suppose I might be making a bit of a fool of myself trying this thing out. I guess I don't really care. I'm too old to be worried about what someone else thinks, you know. And like I said, maybe I will get better. Maybe the process of making videos will become as easy as writing comes to me.

Even if I am embarrassing myself, but hopefully not tarnishing my reputation, like I said, no one is watching. I am the Jonny Fever of YouTube, dear readers. Maybe I should just stick to what I know. Isn't that a great tenet even of writing? Just stick with what you know.

But then how can I grow? Maybe there will be a time, 10 years from now, I will be thankful for having struggled through the first days of all of this—onward and upward is my motto. Maybe I will become really good at it and have great success.

It is interesting to scroll down on some very popular channels and see where they came from when no one was watching. It's night and day from video 1 to video 950. Perhaps it will be the same for me?

For now I am going to keep at it. As I also like to sometimes say, sometimes it's the journey that's more fun than the destination. This does seem like a very long trip, though.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or follow me on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Want to check out my crappy YouTube? Click here and leave a comment and tell me how much I suck at it. Hey, at least it's an interaction, and I think the YouTube algorithm likes that.

Questioning 2020 is Not About Trump, It's About America

I found myself in an interesting conversation with someone recently wherein the topic of Donald Trump came into it, as well as the 2020 election. 

I told him that I sided with the opinion that there was strong reason to suggest that the 2020 election may have been stolen, although I did not assert that I had made that conclusion and firmly believed it. "Strongly suspect," and "firmly believe," are very different positions.

"But you support Trump," he said. "That's why you think that way."

I told him that idea could work both ways. "You support Biden, and that's why you think it couldn't have happened."

The reality is that my suspicions do not, in fact, come from my support of Donald Trump. Rather they come from another place entirely. My love of country and my deeply seated patriotism. That's a very hard pill to swallow for most Americans who aren't at all on Trump's side because, of course, the media has portrayed anyone in the MAGA cause as looney toons who are active in a cult-like mentality.

While there is always going to be a fringe faction in any political party or group, it rarely makes up the whole. But it certainly gets the most attention and somehow tends to be the main focus.

Trump supporters are, by and large, simply a group of conservatives who support a leader whose values and ideas align with theirs. It doesn't make them looney. It simply makes them active participants in the political discourse who happen to have an opinion that differs from those on the left.

By their definition, that MAGA is a cult, you could say the same thing about those on the left who support Biden.

I told him, "As an American above all else, I simply want to have faith in our electoral process. I think any American should ask questions and not simply accept things because their side won."

Not only is the thought that because I support Trump, that I deny the 2020 result, it's because I am supposed to be bitter that my guy lost. Except, I have never been bitter before, and usually I can find a good reason to at least understand why my guy lost and have talked about it ad infinitum on here.

John McCain and Mitt Romney, for example, were terrible candidates who ran horrible campaigns. That's why they lost to Obama. Whether or not I agreed that the American people made the right decision, I had no reason to question that the voice of the American people was nonetheless heard.

That, above all else, should have a very big bearing on why I feel the way I do now. In other words, becoming a Trump supporter in no way made me suddenly change my overall viewpoints or how I feel about America.

I have no interest in seeing America compromised just to see a guy in office who happens to be the guy I support. We have a process. The candidates campaign, and the voters decide. It's that simple. And most of the time, it generally works out. 

Obama, for example, took us down a wrong path. But was he the worst thing to ever happen to America? I will leave that open for debate, but I think we can mostly agree that the system, at least, seemed to be working and when it came down to Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump the right choice was made.

The American people did not want to continue down Obama's path with Hillary Clinton carrying on with his "vision for America" by proxy. Despite all the accusations to suggest otherwise, all of which were proved to be false, he was duly elected and won the election fair and square.

The point of this post is not to rehash all of the reasons why I think the election may have been stolen in 2020. The point is to make it clear that what I strongly suspect has nothing at all to do with my support of Donald Trump and has everything to do with my support of country.

I simply want to know the truth because there are enough valid questions, in my view, that we need to at least be interested in seeking out the answers for.  And I think it should be a concern for every American regardless of who won or lost.

Elections matter. They always have. Elections do have consequences, and there are enough examples in history that serve as glaring examples. But the worst consequence is to have someone in office who isn't supposed to be there. To have someone who may have been selected rather than elected.

That's dangerous. It's a serious threat to our democratic republic. If we ever arrive at a point when we truly, as a people, no longer question what our government does just because "our guy" won, that's really the end of America.

We can't trust our government, and we can't trust the media. So, what's left? It's up to We the People. We need to be interested in ensuring that even if the wrong choice is made to lead us, that it was our choice to make the wrong one.

I am not sure if I was able to change the person's mind in our conversation. But if nothing else I was at least able to explain why I feel the way I do, and why I think it is important to be cynical.

It's not about winning elections in so much as it is about preserving this great nation and making sure that our government remains one that is by, for and of the People. When our founding fathers set this country up, that was a core value, that the American people would be the ultimate curator of accountability against it.

We cannot be that if the only word we accept is theirs.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

Have You Ever Eaten a Tuck's Pad?

When you write a novel called, "Great Expectations," it almost most certainly has to be good, because the title alone has already suggested to the reader it will be.

When it comes to food, most of the time when you see a picture presented of something you order or buy, you know there's going to be at least some sense of glorification, and what winds up on your plate will not exactly resemble what was advertised.

But it's still usually relatively close. It's still relatively good. You can still relatively accept it for what it really is.

That was proven to be far from the case when I decided on a Banquet homestyle gravy and sliced white meat turkey meal as a quick dinner. 

I swear, that Banquet gravy and sliced white meat turkey meal got more laughs than the funniest comedian to ever grace the stage at the Improv could ever hope for. Not that our meal was the joke of the century, but it sure packed one hell of a punch line to our plates.

Granted, it's not like I was expecting something gourmet. It's a frozen meal, of course, and just like when you order a steak at Denny's, you're not looking for something 5-star when it arrives. But what I was expecting were at the very least, 12 slices of decently portioned turkey.

From the picture, you'd have expected that there would have been nice sized pieces to serve up. Instead, you literally had to fish out the slices in a lake of gravy. In fact, of the supposed 26 ounces shown on the package, I am certain it was about 20 ounces of gravy and 6 ounces of actual meat, although I cannot verify that since I did not actually weigh the slices.

As for the actual size of the slices themselves? I am not kidding at all when I say that they were only slightly larger than a Tuck's pad.

I mean, in the box's picture, you'd think you were going to get a heaping plate of at least something remotely worth eating. It is not an exaggeration at all to suggest that the plate they used was, in fact, a tea saucer.

The box stated, "Enlarged to show quality." What did they use? The Hubble space telescope?

Sure, the box is going to be the thing that makes the sale in the first place just like the title, cover and back cover blurb on a novel will put a book on your reading list. But if the goods delivered don't match the sales pitch, it doesn't mean someone will buy it again—or read the book over again thinking maybe you just missed the point the first time around.

Embellishment is one thing, such as that juicy, well-crafted hamburger on the menu looks like that you know will never be served to you. But where's the line between embellishment and outright false advertising? Because, at least when it comes to this Banquet offering, that's clearly what it is. 

Either way, the bottom line for me is that it matters enough to me that I won't be buying this product again. And Banquet ought to be ashamed of themselves on this one. 

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

Using the Rule of 5 When Buying Things

Getting ahead financially, or even managing your budget can be a difficult task. But it is never impossible if you at least think about it. Sometimes one of the ways to do that is by having unique ways to force yourself to not only think about what you spend but force yourself to think about ways to save.

All too often, part of the problem is a lack of forward thinking, or the, "I want it now," mentality. What can especially get us into trouble is relying too heavily on credit, and not thinking about what the real cost of things are when they are financed.

We all know about the value of compound interest on assets. But compound interest applied to liabilities can devastate us.

For a lot of people who carry large amounts of debt, they tend to think of their debts as manageable so long as they can make the payments. The reality is that if you cannot afford to pay the debts off tomorrow immediately, you cannot afford to carry the debt.

If debt is used responsibly, it can be a useful tool with some additional rules applied. For example, if the cost of the interest on any loan is less than the amount of interest you are earning on cash in savings or investments, the debt is "affordable." If the cost of the interest on the debt is greater than the amount of interest you are earning on any cash or investments, it is better to use the cash instead of incurring the debt.

The rule, however, creates a caveat. But it is one that works to your advantage.

The Rule of 5 is a very simple concept, and one that can be applied, and even probably should be applied to nearly every purchase you make, with some exceptions—such as real estate, for example.

The idea is to accumulate money before you spend it rather than to simply earn it and then spend it as it comes in. You may see a pair of shoes you want, for example and think, "I have $50 right now to buy them, and so therefore I can afford them."

The reality is that you cannot actually afford them. Even if you have the cash right now in your hands to buy them.

Applying the Rule of 5 means that before you can rightfully claim to be able to afford that pair of shoes, you need to have at least $250 of available cash on hand that is expendable—in other words, not tied to any other commitments.

It makes you stop and think about your money before you hand over your hard-earned cash. It's posing a very simple question. "Can I afford to buy 5 pairs of these shoes?" If the answer is no, you wait until you can before you actually make the purchase.

Not only does it avoid spending money today, but it also forces you to save additional money and to think about your reward for having the money differently. Instead of having nothing left after your purchase, you have the joy of knowing that you have $200 left. On top of that, you can now apply that to other future things you may want to buy.

Although the Rule of 5 can seem impractical when it comes to certain purchases, I think it is essential. It gives us a peak into what we are actually doing to set ourselves back financially. Something we rarely pay attention to, which ultimately gets us into all sorts of financial problems.

"Can I afford this car?" you might ask. "Can I buy 5 of them?" is the better question. Even if you decide to take on a loan, it doesn't mean you can afford it. 

"But if I want a reliable car, and I have to pay at least $30,000 for one that is reliable, who has $150,000 lying around to justify it?"

The answer is, "Most people don't have that kind of money lying around because they have never considered the Rule of 5 in regard to anything else. Especially when it comes to the small things."

We are all well aware of the age-old adage that good things come to those who wait. It is rarely applied to reality when it comes to most people. Even if you applied the Rule of 5 on a smaller scale, the rule could still work.

For example, say you can afford a car payment that is $600 a month. You aren't going to be able to afford $3,000 a month. But you can afford $120 a month. So, when you decide to buy a car, you find one that will only cost you one-fifth of the payment you can make.

How about considering applying this rule in your favor? You effectively make the $600 payment after you buy the car and have a payment of $120, but instead of paying $600 each month to a loan originator, you pay $480 to yourself and put it into savings or investments.

If the loan term is for 5-years, at the end of that term you'd have effectively saved $28,800 which can be applied to whatever future assessment of a vehicle you can afford would be. It is either used as a hefty down payment on something, or it is reapplied to the rule of 5 and divided into a 5th over the course of another 60 months giving you an additional $96 of monthly spending power, meaning now you can afford a payment of $216 per month when added to the $120 per month you could reasonably afford to pay before based on the Rule of 5.

Of course, applying this rule does not mean that what you are ultimately trying to do is to be able to necessarily buy more things. It simply means that if something happens tomorrow that negates your ability to afford things in the longer term, you are able to at least cover everything in the short term.

If you suddenly lose your job, you can still pay for what you have, and if you have applied the rule appropriately to everything you buy over time, you probably have something to fall back on as well to cover the necessary day to day expenses until you can find a replacement job.

The idea is to simply think about your money in terms of its intrinsic value and apply that value in order to get the most out of your money over the long haul.

There is nothing more comforting than knowing that if your income fell to zero tomorrow, you could still afford to pay off every single debt you have five times before you've actually run out of money. More importantly, the Rule of 5 forces you to think about your money more carefully before you pull out your wallet.

| "If you are digging a hole, it is best to bring a ladder with you along with your shovel, because ultimately you are going to want to have a way to climb back up to the surface." |

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Did you find this blog useful? You can support this page by sharing it with others.

No More Speaker Fiascos, Please

I am once again torn after Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene filed a resolution, a motion to vacate Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House. Whether or not we will have another Speaker fiasco is up for debate as many House Republicans have expressed, "It's not the time," but certainly there is even growing disdain for Speaker Johnson among Republican voters outside of Congress.

The issue for me is that while I disagree with Johnson's decision to allow for more funding to Ukraine, I have also expressed numerous times the need to have at least some modicum of unity within the party, and to have an understanding that while we all want certain things, we're not ever going to get everything we want.

I don't want an all or nothing government anyway, regardless of who is in charge. It doesn't get the work done if you have that expectation or operate that way. The job of Congress, in my view, is not to do the bidding of the parties, but to do the bidding of the American people they represent.

That means having a discussion on the issues, searching for and finding that important middle ground, and deciding things on the basis of compromise that still gets something done even if neither side gets a perfect resolution.

I grant you, the topic of Ukraine is a hot one. It's not our fight. I admit to having mixed feelings about it. Unlike many of my fellow Republicans, I am not as huge a fan of Putin as some my Republican friends seem to be. I view Russia as an evil regime with interests and ideals far removed from core American values.

They are allies with countries like Iran and China for Heaven's sake. And I disagree with Putin's rationale for invading Ukraine in the first place.

The bottom line is, I have no admiration for Putin at all, honestly. I feel for the citizens of Ukraine, caught in a battle they likely will never win. But the amount of money we are sending over there just feels wrong to me when we have other issues inside our own borders to address and a ballooning debt crisis.

I mean, what's the end game for the United States, really, when it comes to Ukraine?

Look, we're only 7 months away from the general election. Can we afford to have another clown show Speaker fight? And I know that assessment might piss of some of my fellow Republican friends. But that's what it is. That's what it looks like to the general voting public. It especially looks like that to the all important independent voters who ultimately decide who wins the race.

I get it. We're conservatives. We're Republicans. We take the higher moral ground and unlike the Democrats, when we have bad dogs, we scold them. 

Meanwhile, all of this infighting also does another thing. It creates a huge distraction. There's work to be done. We should be filing resolutions and having discussions that advance the interests of the public at large. 

I don't like all of what Mike Johnson is doing. At the same time, I have no expectation that I will find myself in agreement with him 100% of the time. Just like with any politician. I don't even disagree 100% of the time with the Democrats.

I think it is important to air our concerns and state our disagreements. But immediately calling for someone to be fired just because we didn't get our way on one or another issue to me is simply childish and uncalled for.

The big question is, how do we expect to win elections if it appears we cannot even agree with ourselves? How can we convince the American people we know how to lead if we can't even decide who leads us?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

Will the Real Joe Biden on Abortion Please Stand Up

The Biden administration is seeming to want to make the overturning of Roe v. Wade and abortion rights a key issue as we draw nearer to November. After all, with the border issue and inflation being #1 and #2 issues concerning Americans, and they have miserably failed on both of them, what else is there to try and win votes on, right?

But there's a giant flaw in their stated positions, and not that politicians on both sides of the aisle aren't prone to a little vote pandering and being a bit disingenuous, but I think some voters siding with Joe Biden at least on the issue of abortion should have more questions than answers.

Because at least if abortion happens to be a key issue swaying a decision to vote one way or the other, trying to understand the root position, or what it probably is, is a pretty important thing to add to the equation, if you ask me.

President Joe Biden never supported Roe v. Wade and was always against abortion, even in the case of rape or incest.

That's important to point out, I think, regardless of where he says he stands on the issue now. Or where he said he stood on the issue from day one of his presidency. Because it's more important to understand how much "fight" will be in defending the issue if a voter gives him another four years in office to do it.

The issue of abortion for Joe Biden is effectively a pander. It's a way to solicit a vote. Because if there's one thing he knows, it's that most people won't bother to check his record and the media isn't going to report on it.

If they do, they will do it very quietly on page 952 of course.

When it comes to Roe v. Wade itself, it wasn't long after the Supreme Court issued its decision in 1973 that Joe Biden stated he disagreed with it, going on to say, "Abortion is always a tragedy." He generally stayed with that position all the way until a few months before he ran for president in 2020. 

Some have chosen to suggest that Biden has simply "reckoned with his Catholic faith," and is now acting on the "greater good," but that does not at all comport with what his stance has been all along. And is this generally a position that you suddenly change your mind about? Especially when your position is deeply rooted in your faith?

In 2006, even before he became the vice president, he said in a televised interview, "I do not view abortion as a choice or a right." That's a stark contrast to what he says his position is now, even taking an opportunity during his final State of the Union speech to scold the Justices, and told them directly, "Women are not without electoral or political power."

His stance now wants to be seen as direct and firm, and both he and Kamala Harris have been pounding the podium at speech after speech saying they will stand strongly for "women's reproductive health," a term they like to use instead of abortion, by the way.

Joe Biden has also always been against any federal funding for abortion, specifically having been a longtime supporter of the Hyde Amendment which banned federal funding for abortions even in the cases of rape or incest. That was his position entirely until he hit the campaign trail in 2019.

It is important to know these things if this is an issue topmost on anyone's radar when it comes to their choice in 2024. Because you have to examine why the position changed only prior to an election campaign in 2020?

Any issue that is important to a voter is a reason to cast a vote for a candidate if you think that candidate is going to fight hard for your cause. But you have to reason that the personal conviction of the candidate is as strong as his word.

Will he be strongly and firmly engaged in fighting for your cause if he gets a second term, or is he just saying that to get a second term now that the decision on Roe v. Wade is set in stone? Just like he said he was for your cause to get his first term?

In other words, his position on abortion was very clear. He was against it. And the only reason he ever said he was okay with it and would fight for it was because that's what he knew voters wanted to hear. It gave him a marked contrast with Trump's position and his message, at least in appearance. 

He wanted to win over a faction of voters and so he decided to say one thing other than what he probably would have said if he had stated his position from the heart rather than to appease a base.

The question is not about what Joe Biden's position appears to be now. The question is whether or not you believe him. Because if abortion is a key issue for anyone undecided, and you think Biden's got your back, you might want to reassess that. He doesn't want to have your back. He wants to have your backing.

If he wins in 2024, you can bet the abortion issue will become ancient history, and he'll just forge ahead with the real agenda to push progressive, liberal ideology on things like climate change and DEI.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

Are They Conspiracies or Simply Truth Being Hidden for Power?

I used to trust my government, and it was often that I sided with the government stating things like, "The government sometimes keeps secrets that are secrets for the good of the people and to protect our national security and other interests."

But recently there have simply been too many things that have caused me to be on the side of questioning everything. The bottom line is, "Who can we trust, and why should we trust them?"

Our government has never been by, for and of the government. It has always been by, for and of the People. But it seems like the government has turned that around to favor only their interests, and to function outside of the interests of the We the People.

To what end, is of course the question?

Not that certain government agencies haven't always been up to sometimes nefarious things. The FBI, for example, under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover, at a time when there was thought to be massive and clandestine infiltration of communists, gathered all sorts of information on certain Americans—mostly celebrities and public figures. But how do we know it never went farther than that? How do we know that this didn't just become the foundation for what is now the types of information that is gathered?

Not just on public figures. But on every single American? I honestly think not only is the FBI still doing it, along with other of our federal law enforcement arms like the CIA and NSA, but they have amped up the game and joined forces with other unscrupulous people either through coercion or cooperation, or even both.

How much information might Jack Dorsey, the former founder and CEO of Twitter, have offered to certain government agencies? Or how about Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook? Even Jeff Bezos can't be left out or even the late Steve Jobs with the introduction of smart devices and things like Alexa. 

Essentially the government could know everything about you. Including your opinions and political leanings.

It creates a very scary and dangerous world, if you ask me, and it seems so obvious some of these things are happening, and few people seem to be worried about it. It worries me to think about it because it's not where I came from regarding my thoughts and perspective.

Again, I trusted the government and felt that what it did was in the interest of us. We the People.

But the Justice Department isn't really working properly. We can see that with the fervor and tenacity by which they are going after former president Donald Trump. The FBI can be questioned in a great deal of their actions, motivations and intent.

Spying on political campaigns. Perhaps having some involvement in the coordination of January 6th. The persecution of all sorts of conservatives who questioned the election or had any association or involvement with Trump. It's either jail or we'll bankrupt you, take your pick.

The covid pandemic has brought numerous things to light as well. All of the information that was disseminated was kept centralized—trust the CDC and only the CDC. And just like election deniers, anyone who questioned where covid came from or how to deal with it were quickly shut down.

Did social media companies decide to simply go with the CDC and label any question that did not follow the CDC's directives as misinformation? Or was it an "or else" proposition forced by the government to comply and tell the story "as the government wanted it to be told?"

Even more regarding covid, how come we later learned it never came from a bat, but from a lab in Wuhan, and that it was funded by the U.S. government? What was their intent? Was there intent?

Was covid simply a last-ditch effort to get rid of a sitting president they felt never should have been sent to the White House? Was it an effort to test control over the population? 

As I have said many times previously about these things, including whether or not the 2020 election was above board or not, we will likely never have the whole story. We're never going to find the real answers. We may get bits and pieces, but the whole story will probably forever remain a secret.

But not to protect the people. To protect the government and their interests. Not ours.

Cynicism is something badly amiss in this country. Maybe more people are starting to get it? That we need to question our government more than ever? That we need a media that is not engaged in politics, and not supporting one side or the other, but engaged in getting to the truth.

When you think about it, beyond the powers of government, the founders of this great nation allowed the absolute, untouchable freedom of the press so as for it to serve as the eyes and ears to oversee all of the other branches of our government, and hold them accountable, and serve the public by telling the real story.

The Freedom of the Press in the First Amendment was perhaps the biggest and most powerful check and balance we could ever have been afforded.

And now we can't trust the media either.

It pains me to have to be branded a conspiracy theorist these days the more I find myself questioning things. But at the same time, I do wonder if the label "conspiracy theorist" is just another way to silence the questions and make rational thought sound crazier than it actually is?

Anyone can laugh it all off and call someone like me observing things from a rather cynical perspective just a tin-hat nutjob. That's their right, of course. At the same time, it is not something I feel or express because I want to bring down my government or shut down my country. These are simply questions I want answers to so as to preserve and protect the integrity and beauty of what our founding fathers created.

When government becomes more powerful and bigger than the people it serves, it can never remain one that is by, for and of the People. And it's not who sits in the White House who threatens our nation the most. It's the deep-rooted bureaucracies who truly control everything. 

If we, the People, allow them to.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

When it Comes to the Economy, The Democrats Did That

"What magic wand do you have?"

That was the question posed by Barack Obama in response to Donald Trump in the 2016 election when Trump said he could restore the economy and bring back American manufacturing. Of course, this was after eight long years of a virtually no-growth economy under Obama's reign, and it was his contention that the United States was simply transforming into a new economy.

What it was, essentially, was his excuse to try and explain what he was never able to do, and that was to lift the economy out of the throes of the economic crisis he faced when he took his first term in office. "Some of those jobs just aren't going to come back," he said. "Well, I'm going to negotiate a better deal. How are you going to do that?"

Of course, President Trump did in fact, negotiate better deals. Granted, it can be up for debate what real impact some of these deals had on actually bringing back manufacturing in a significant way, but many jobs did return, and certainly the policies that were implemented by Trump had a major positive impact on the economy itself.

Obama's comments signaled, to me, a capitulation and an admission (although quietly) that he had no idea how the economy actually worked, or how to fix it. It certainly showed in his results. And time and time again when he was asked about why the economy was experiencing one of the slowest recoveries in history, he simply pointed blame back at the Bush administration before him.

He blamed Republicans for the economic crisis in 2008 that was largely a result of Bill Clinton's, "Every American should be able to own a home," and blamed Republicans for hurting his economic efforts, and of course went on to simply blame the "new economy." 

It was very clear that he felt that this was just the way things are now, and we're going to have to accept it and adapt to it. That was the capitulation part. "I can't fix what can't be fixed. We now just have to deal with what we have."

Only to turn around when Trump's economy soared and proved Obama very wrong and claim, "I did that."

Now Democrats are fit to claim that all of the economic woes we face today are the result of Trump's policies coming back to bite us in the butt. So, which is it? 

On top of that, what Democrats are doing now is outright dismissing the first three years of Trump's rapid economic successes and only pointing to the last year. "See what he did? See what his policies left us with?"

Only it misses one big point. Covid. Because that was what sunk the economy in Trump's final days. But not through his policies. But through the recommendations of people like Dr. Fauci and Democrat leadership that insisted that businesses be shuttered, and the country should be locked down.

Of course it killed the economy. How could it not? Suddenly we had to print all sorts of money we didn't have to shore up business owners and workers who were sidelined by the shutdowns. It set the wheels in motion to face one of the biggest supply chain crises we've seen in decades.

The odd thing is that right before Trump left office, we actually began to see a massive uptick in the economy. It can only be argued that policies were implemented quickly by Trump to ensure we could get things moving again post-pandemic. They would have worked.

But Biden turned it around and stopped it in its tracks with new policies that made no sense, such as introducing the American Rescue Plan and reversing Trump's energy policies, both actions which catapulted us into 10% inflation by the end of 2021.

Whose fault is it we're in the boat we're in now? According to Biden and the Democrats it's Trump's fault. 

It's the usual Democrat game. Blame someone else when things are bad and take the credit when things are good. Only there's one big problem here.

If Barack Obama wants to claim that Trump's stellar economy was a result of Obama's policies, and Biden won the election in 2020 and essentially continued Obama's policies, why is the economy not ten times better today instead of ten times worse?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

I'm Going to Call You Bruce

There are certain things in this world such as false advertisement and fraud, and when it comes to these things, we consider these things wrong. And rightly so. 

If you sell me a pound a meat and there's only 9/10ths of a pound in the package, someone is going to have to answer for that. Hell, some people will even sue when a company calls their sandwich a Footlong and it's only 11 inches when it is served.

Outright lying about things makes most people a little upset. We can't live in a civilized world if people are allowed to say one thing and do another, or outright dupe us.

I can't walk into a bank and claim to be a gazillionaire and suddenly money I don't have materializes out of thin air and my withdrawal is carried out without any question. Some things just aren't true, even if you believe they are. Even if you tell someone it's true, it doesn't mean it is. And it doesn't mean someone has to accept it just because you say it's true.

I can't go out and buy a Chevy Avalanche, slap a Cadillac grill on it and change a few logos on the interior and sell it to you as an Escalade any more than I can roll back the odometer and tell you it's practically brand new.

That's a lie. It's fraud. And it's still just an Avalanche dressed up to be an Escalade. When you strip it all down, the obvious will become known. Because while an Avalanche and an Escalade are both trucks, they're not the same thing inside.

Things simply are what they are, and that's that.

I write this over an argument I had with someone on X wherein I referred to Caitlyn Jenner as Bruce and called him a he rather than a she.

"You wear your bigotry well," I was told.

No. I have eyes and common sense and I know what I saw before I see what I see now, and that woman was clearly a man. "Was" isn't even the right choice of word because uttering it suggests a past tense situation.

Because nothing changed but the appearance and the name.

When Bruce's final day comes and he's opened up for examination, they aren't going to find a uterus and ovaries. Despite what the package looks like, the inside tells a different story. It speaks to a reality that cannot be denied regardless of whatever fantasies wanted to suggest otherwise.

The thing is, not wanting to play along with the lie does not make me a bigot at all. It does not make me insensitive or cruel. You have the right to pretend, and I have the right to call it out as pretend. 

In life I wish I were a lot of things. A rock star, for example. I do write music and play an instrument, and I even record what I do and publish it. It doesn't mean I am actually a rock star, and if I go out and try to fill a stadium full of fans, it's not going to happen regardless of how much I believe people should respect my right to make the claim.

What will I do? Force people to buy a ticket and make them believe my make-believe? Guilt them into coming along for the ride just so I can go home and feel like the rock star only I believe I am?

It sounds like a ridiculous analogy. And maybe it is. You might say, "But that's not even remotely the same thing." But isn't it exactly the same thing?

I say red is blue. It doesn't change the fact that red is red. Even if you go along with it and agree with me that red is blue—red is still red. Nothing changed. In fact, the only thing that did happen is that two people became duped and confused in the same lie.

I don't want to live my life living in a world of fantasy and make believe. I want to live in a world where reality is the path by which we can make sense of the world we live in. If you remove reality and accept fantasy, suddenly you find yourself perpetually confused and unsure of things. 

Without order, there is chaos. Calling things other things breeds chaos. Clear lines become blurred.

Bruce can be whatever he wants to be. That's his right, even if I think it is weird. But it is also my right to call him what he is rather than what he wants to be. Because that's the reality. That's the truth. Just like the bank will deny my withdrawal if I don't have the funds to support my claim. Or just like the guy I sell the Escalade to can take me to court and sue me for lying.

No matter what you call yourself today, I'm still going to call you Bruce.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

To Jimmy Kimmel: It's Because America Doesn't Live in Your Bubble

On Wednesday night's broadcast, Jimmy Kimmel told viewers during his monologue that Trump is leading in key swing states and this, "Just gives me a headache." His delivery was slow and melancholy, with him adding, "How could this be?"

I say, it's pretty simple. Biden's just not gotten the job done, and no matter how hard the left tries to sell the nonsense about things going well, it's just not adding up for any thinking American voter—and that happens to be true no matter which side one happens to be on.

In many polls, even many Democrats have lost faith in Biden's abilities. And it's a hard pill for any of these late-night talking heads to swallow, and it shows.

On top of that, there's one thing these lefties and late-night talk show hosts don't get. America is not as woke as you think they are. These guys live in a Hollywood bubble where everyone thinks like they do. They have guests who come on their shows and talk about woke things and they get applause from audiences who are just as woke as they are.

For them, it is affirmation. We ARE America and we are sharing Her views.

The reality is, it's not true. Late night ratings have been in a virtual free fall for years. It's nothing like the old days when Johnny Carson and David Letterman ruled the airwaves and late night was actually funny and entertaining to watch. At the same time, a conservative viewpoint is also beating them out in the ratings with Gutfeld on Fox News leading the pack.

Jimmy Kimmel is getting a headache because he can't see outside the bubble he lives in. The American people aren't okay with high prices at the pump and skyrocketing food costs. They're not okay with having transgenderism shoved down their throats and seeing trans people reading books to school children. People do see the border crisis and understand the dangers it poses.

And the American people aren't okay either with the complete dismissal by the left that America is dying under horrible progressive and liberal agendas that are putting Americans last.

Trump is winning because his message resonates with the majority of the American people, and because most people can see that what they (the left) are doing to Trump is simply trying to take him out, because they know he can win. They can see through the lies being pushed by the media about Trump's threat to democracy, his supposed criminal acts, and this ridiculous idea that he wants to become a dictator—some on the fringe have even suggested Trump will literally kill his political opponents.

The thing is the left thinks the only thing that matters in this race is that Biden isn't Trump. But at the same time, they fail to recognize that Trump got things done when he was the president the last time, Biden has been a total failure, and the American people are confident Trump can get the job done this time around again.

You have to have real accomplishments to boast about and win elections. 

On top of that, more and more Americans are having second thoughts about what they have been told about the 2020 election as well. As they see things unfold, they start to wonder, "How did this guy ever get elected?"

It will happen across the board. From Kimmel to Colbert to Fallon. They're all going to start complaining of headaches. Because their bubble is bursting, and reality is being allowed to settle in. The world they have seen for the past three years is not the same world we've all been living in. And no matter how many monologues they spit trying to sell a bill of goods that all is well in the world...

The voters know better.

Jimmy, I'd tell you to grab a bottle of Tylenol. But I think what you really need is a dose of reality. Stepping outside your bubble and viewing the past three years with a clear head is probably going to help you more than the Tylenol will.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

Playing the Powerball is a Bet on the Impossible, But It's Still Kind of Possible

Let's face it. Winning the lottery is the pipe dream of pipe dreams. But I still play because as the old saying goes, you can't win if you don't play. Besides, at least when it comes to the Powerball and the MegaMillions games, a ticket only costs $2, and it only takes one to win.

Granted, you need the right one, and when it comes to the Powerball, which is going for a whopping $1.23 billion for Saturday's drawing, depending on which payout option you choose, the odds of holding the right ticket are 1 in 292,201,338.

In other words, it's nearly impossible to win. But of course, someone will.

Sure, you can try to buy multiple tickets, but it only fractionally increases your odds and is so insignificant it probably isn't worth doing. But you just never know. When jackpots are this high, I might be okay with shelling out $10 or $20 for a few extra shots at it.

Why not? Besides. It's fun to dream, right? And I suppose I have wasted $20 on worse things? Hell, there was that time I bought a drone only to take it outside, hit one button, and watch it whizz straight up into the air and into the atmosphere never to be seen again.

Besides just being gosh darn lucky to win the thing, here are some fun other things that are far more likely to happen to you other than winning the big one which may help to put the odds into a bit of perspective.

You have a 1 in 2 million chance, for example, of finding a blue lobster in the ocean. 1 in roughly 2.5 million have a chance to be attacked by a grizzly bear in Yellowstone National Park. There's a 1 in 9 million chance you will be struck by lightning twice.

Odds are even better you might find a four leafed clover which is 1 in 10,000. You even have a better chance at winning an Olympic medal which is 1 in 660,000. 1 in 6.5 million have a better chance of dying from a bee sting than hitting the big jackpot. 1 in 10 million stand a chance of being struck by a piece of an airplane falling from the sky for Heaven's sake.

Even 1 in 3,800 have a shot at living to be 100 years old. 1 in 11 million are likely to be attacked by a shark. You could walk into a casino and have a 1 in 649,000 chance of sitting down at the poker table and having the very first hand dealt to you be a royal flush.

Odds are that not even one of these things will ever happen to you. But again, they are more likely to happen to you than winning the lottery.

I think the key with it is just to have fun. Let the dream fly, but not to get carried away and shelling out big bucks that won't really impact your chances of winning at all. I think we have all sat down and done some of the math just to see how much we might actually take home.

For example, most people choose the cash option, and that immediately takes a sizeable chunk of cash off the table right away since the published prize is not the actual total prize pool, but instead is the prospective value of the annuity that the prize pool would be invested in if you decided to choose to receive payments over 29 years.

The cash option in the next drawing on Apil 6th is estimated to be $595.1 million. Depending on the state where you live you could probably expect to take home about $357.06 million after taxes. It's a lot less than $1.23 billion, but nothing not to write home about and forever change your life.

Consider there is also a 1 in 584.4 million chance you may have to share you prize with someone else. And when jackpots are this high, it is more probable you will have to share it since more people tend to buy tickets.

Either way, $178.53 million after taxes is still a sizeable chunk of dough.

Ultimately, if I had one strong piece of advice for you on what to do, I'd say not to bother getting your own ticket. After all, I already have the winning ticket. I am pretty sure of that. I wonder what the odds are of finding a four leafed clover in a paved parking lot?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Facebook or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Looking for a place to find the $2 you need to buy a lottery ticket, have a look at the Discover card, the card that pays you back 1% to 5% on your purchases.

President Obama Is Not My President, Or Is He?

There was a time in my life that when it came to certain conspiracy theories, I viewed these things with more cynicism than I do now. I don't chalk it up to age, or even wisdom. I think it comes from simply looking around and seeing things happening all around you that just don't add up anymore.

For me this really took hold after the 2020 election. I still make it very clear that I am not saying the election was stolen, but that I simply very strongly suspect that it may have been stolen. Can we call Trump's election claims lies if we don't know the truth?

To me it's simply a question we don't have a solid answer for yet.

But there's another question that began popping up recently when a very old blog post from 2010 about former President Obama suddenly surged. Being that what the blog is talking about has nothing to do with anything happening now, it got me wondering about why.

The post was simply titled, "President Obama Is Not My President."

For a long time, it has been felt by many that Joe Biden is not actually running the country. Granted, that theory comes mostly from the right. But there are enough things happening that strongly suggest it could be possible.

Namely the clear and undeniable evidence that President Joe Biden is in mental decline. How could he be running things, and if he's not the one doing it, who is?

I remember there was a lot of chatter back when President Obama was president that he may have some desire to seek out a third term one way or another. I wrote that I felt it was mostly hyperbole, but at the same time did also point out, "President Barack Obama is exactly the kind of person I think we should be very cautious about, and very suspicious of."

You have to keep in mind that even if you can't get a two-thirds vote from Congress to pave the way for presidents to seek more terms, the progressive and liberal movements are exactly that. Movements. All they want to do is keep that movement alive and well.

So, it makes you begin to wonder how far they might go to get that done? When Obama's term was done, it was clear that if Hillary Clinton were elected, she'd have absolutely carried Obama's torch and continued his agenda. The movement's agenda. 

But then Trump won the election and threatened to stop it in its tracks.

With all of the effort there was around trying to remove Trump from office, all led by the Democrats, it began to form a thought. They'll try anything. And we saw that they did exactly that. They tried everything to get Trump out and to convince the American people Trump was a really bad guy.

And then Biden won the election. A very questionable win, as I have stated, that makes me very suspicious something was just not right that happened there. And it goes back to the other question. How far might they go to carry on their agenda?

And if Biden's not running the country, could it be that the answer to who is actually running the country is Barack Obama? Did he actually get his third term after all?

It makes you wonder a bit more recently since we've seen Barack Obama running around with the president. Granted, so is Bill Clinton, and it is an election year, and these are largely campaign fundraiser visits.

But it's also not the first time we've seen Barack Obama with the president or even in the White House.

I am not saying Barack Obama is the president any more than I am saying without a doubt that the 2020 election was stolen. But there are enough reasons to ask the question. Even if Barack Obama is not leading vicariously through Biden, he is the true Democrat figurehead right now, and so even if there is a consortium at work to lead the country and carry on the progressive and liberal movement, Obama is certainly the guy everyone else is going to talk to in order to potentially deliver the orders and instructions to whomever it is in the White House who is directing Biden to put his signature on things to make it all seem official.

Like I said. It's all conspiratorial. There was a time when I would have questioned the logic of any of this. Stolen elections, January 6th plans and coverups to hide the truth of what really happened in November of 2020, shadow presidents, single world leaders and so on and so forth.

But it all seems to be appearing to be more truth than fiction. It is at least plausible. It doesn't have that "farfetched" quality to it that so many things before it had. Because again, you can actually see it. It makes at least some sense, and just enough sense that you can believe it.

Will we ever know the truth? I fear we won't. Not about the 2020 election and not whether or not President Obama is the real president today in his third term, seeking a fourth. Because what happens with conspiracy theories in general is that we never truly ever do get to the bottom of them. 

But I will say this about these recent theories. It is in our best interest to deeply question the validity of them and keep our eyes and ears well peeled. Because things like this, if they are true, pose a very serious threat to the America we know—and Her future could forever be altered as a result.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

Of COURSE the Biden Border Bill is Nothing More than a Political Stunt

Without question, the issue of the open border under the Biden Administration has become a highly politicized one and one of the top issues for voters coming into the 2024 presidential election. Something that has more than a few people scratching their heads a bit that it should be an issue at all, and for a variety of reasons.

For one thing, the border was, for all intents and purposes, one of the leading issues that landed former president Trump in the White House in 2016 in the first place. It was a key component of Trump's entire campaign.

Yet, President Joe Biden, among a host of other things, in the first hours of his taking the oath of office, saw fit to reverse nearly all of President Trump's border policies, cease construction of the wall, and essentially send a message to Mexican nationals, "The border is open. Come one, come all."

The problem is that it created a massive border crisis worse than any border issues we faced long before Trump was ever in office.

Perhaps the Biden Administration simply didn't see the damage coming? Or did they somehow think it would not become the problem it is? It's hard to say exactly what they thought was going to happen, but clearly it became a much bigger problem than, I think, behind closed doors they would acknowledge now is a huge problem.

And one that they would rather not have to deal with in an election year. But deal with it they must, even if the reality is, that despite acknowledging it is a problem, they don't see it as a problem for America. They see it as a problem for winning an election.

The fact is, the Democrats simply have no interest in really doing anything at all about fixing the border crisis. But they sure want to look like they are concerned. That's why they tried to introduce a border bill—one that they can hang around the necks of Republicans to make it look like Republicans, and even Trump himself, are simply using the border issue to win points for the reelection of Trump.

The Democrats know two things. The American people won't bother to read the bill and understand what it does or doesn't do, and the media won't report on the bill according to its actual contents, but rather will report on the Republican's dismissal of the bill.

It is something they can use, ultimately, to try and make it appear that the Republican's interests in securing the border are just smoke and mirrors.

The Biden Administration has quickly tried to tell the American people that he cannot act on the border issue without the aid of Congress. A statement that is patently false. Just as quickly as Biden reversed Trump's border policies, he could turn around and put them back into place through the same executive actions he used to create the mess.

Not to mention the fact that the powers that Biden has according to laws already on the books are exactly the same powers to close the border as Obama and Trump had when they were in the White House. The real game of smoke and mirrors is being played by Biden himself and the Democrat party.

The Republican's rejection of the so-called bipartisan border bill is something the Democrats can take to voters and say, "See, they really don't want to secure the border."

But that's not the case at all. Of course we know that. But does everyone else? Because in conversation after conversation about the border issue that's the one thing thrown in the face of any conservative who argues we need to do something to fix the issue.

"We gave you the opportunity to do that and you said no just because it would give Biden a win that Trump and his supporters don't want him to have."

It's just not true, is the problem here. It's not about what the bill is called. It's not about what the Democrats say the bill does. It's about what the bill actually does and doesn't do, and the one huge thing it doesn't do is actually secure the border.

Sure, the bill may provide Biden funding for 1,300 border patrol agents, 1,600 asylum officers and 375 immigration judges. But what about the asylum system that's broken? And what about the authority to shut down the border being discretionary? 

These are important factors voters need to be aware of.

For one thing, provisions in the bill wouldn't even become possible to do anything until inadmissible immigrant encounters reached numbers totaling more than 4,000 to 5,000 over a 7-day average. That piece is strategic, mind you, in the bill, considering that the averages now are between 4,000 and 5,000. So essentially that piece alone makes the bill worthless.

If the bill's aim was to close the border and solve the issue, that provision would not be in it at all. Essentially what it allows the administration to do is to catch and release somewhere around 2 million illegals a year with no authority to stop it unless the numbers surpassed that.

That is insanity, by the way.

All in all, I think voters need to be more aware of what is actually in the bill itself and the media should do its job to explain that. The Republicans are attempting to explain it, but of course there are limits to what the media will disseminate to the public regarding their opposing statements and reasoning behind not wanting to pass the bill.

As Senator Ted Cruz put it, "It's a way for Democrats running in elections to say I wanted to secure the border, but those mean Republicans won't let me."

Democrats aren't going to sway from their idea that the border bill Biden wants secures the border. So, the ones who need to know and hear the message are the independent voters. The good news is that I think they are, in fact, getting the message as polls continue to show that most voters believe Trump is better equipped to handle the border than Biden is.

Either way, the insistence by Democrats that the bill proposed is the answer Republicans don't want to hear is more than a little bit annoying. Because we know it isn't the right answer, and the one that is, is already sitting on President Biden's desk.

He can close the border practically overnight with a signature.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or follow me on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. You can also check out my YouTube channel.

More Employees Should Be Encouraged to Own the Companies They Work For

At a time when there are more and more pushes happening to raise wages and a stock market that continues to perform well, I think more employees should be encouraged to invest in the very companies that they work for and participate in the opportunities for creating wealth that exists as a result of that.

Granted, many people will say that the stock market is too risky and that with inflation still at decades high levels, the path to entry for most lower-end spectrum earners is still a difficult challenge.

Education is key, I think, when it comes to promoting these ideas, because as I have long believed, it's these lower-end spectrum earners who are missing out the most and have the most to gain from being invested—not only in the companies they work for, but in the markets as a whole.

Beyond simply creating wealth, and even having employees share in the wealth created by these businesses, there is something to be said about employees having a sense of ownership and being partners with their bosses.

It actually helps the businesses.

Especially when it comes to workers who are on the front lines, directly interacting with customers, customer service could be greatly improved if workers have a sense that when they promote good practices that reflect well on the company, they have something personal to gain from offering a good experience.

When you have a personal stake in the business, you have a different attitude as to who gains financially through your own efforts. It's not just the boss. If you leave customers satisfied and happy when their experience is done, you're going to gain a little something from that as well.

But again, in order for an idea like this to work, employees need to be educated not only on the benefits of investing, but they need to be pulled away from commonly held beliefs among lower-end spectrum earners who have been led to believe that wealth opportunities and the stock market are only for the rich.

They need to know that the markets are for everyone, and everyone can share in the wealth generated by these businesses. It's not just a rich man's game. 

Beyond just investing, if companies could invest in their employee's knowledge regarding financial matters, it could also help them to become more satisfied with the wages they earn. Because the catalyst for wanting more money is typically because many people believe their financial troubles are the result of simply not making enough.

Offering regular financial advice such as on budgeting and planning, retirement, and the benefits of investing could go a long way in making employees smarter about their money and have a more positive attitude toward business in general, as well as their own financial futures.

Right now, when it comes to many fast food and retail workers, for example, there's a general belief among employees that they are simply being paid bottom dollar wages and being exploited so that rich fat cats can simply become richer and fatter, while they continue to be worked hard and can never seem to get ahead.

Walmart recently did a 3 for 1 stock split, and part of their aim in doing that, according to the company, was to make buying shares easier for their employees by lowering the cost per share. Chipotle followed suit and will be doing a 50 for 1 stock split in June and have expressed similar sentiments in their reasoning.

Whether or not these are actually interests these companies have can be debated. But I do think having lower points of entry does make it easier for employees to participate. But ultimately it won't accomplish the goal if the stigma among lower-end spectrum earners that markets are too risky, rigged, or only for the rich can be removed.

Regardless of the real motivations behind the stock splits, which ultimately offer no real gain to the companies themselves, I do think that now is a good time, more than ever, to fix some of the issues we have with workers demanding more in terms of wages, as well as to address some of the underlying reasons why customer service has suffered serious setbacks.

Companies need to understand that if workers feel like partners instead of just numbers or pawns in a game, they will be more encouraged to work more efficiently, and will have better interactions with the customers who ultimately pay their salaries and keep the companies running.

In other words, the more skin one has in the game, the more they are going to strive harder to win. On top of that, especially when a company pays a dividend, if employees have a sense that every dollar they collect means something will be shared with them as a result, they are going to be more encouraged to improve bottom lines for the company, because they know some of that money will also be passed down to them to more of a degree than simply receiving their paycheck.

I think more companies need to rethink their employee relationships and change attitudes from simple workers to partners. And if they do that, I think everyone has a better chance of ultimately succeeding in the primary goal.

Everyone makes more money.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Looking for a card that pays you back 1% to 5% on every purchase you make? Check out Discover Card to see if it is a good fit for you.

Mayor Jones of St. Louis Says Business Owners Should Be Accountable for Crime

Sometimes politicians say some very confusing things that leave little to question about why things never get better. "We have a lot of violence around convenience stores and gas stations," said Tishaura Jones, the Mayor of the city of St. Louis.

But what's her solution? To look for ways to hold business owners accountable.

Isn't crime the business of the police? And don't business owners and their businesses contribute to taxes that pay for policing? What exactly can business owners be held to account for if their store is robbed or a customer is accosted in their parking lots?

It's backwards thinking. The Mayor is in charge of the police and she is directly responsible for handling crime in her city.

I am wondering what it is she thinks that a business can do to "reduce crime," or even "police" its own business? Or why she thinks the onus falls on their shoulders for what happens at the hands of criminals? Or moreover, why it should?

If there is one thing business owners should do, it is to force the Mayor to do her job and protect not only her citizens, but the businesses who operate within it. Those businesses are what provides jobs and commerce to bolster the city's economy.

Beyond that, when crime is rampant and people don't feel safe, it actually hurts those businesses. There are some places that may have terrible reputations for crime around them that many people won't even patronize for fear something may happen to them.

If there is anything to question, clearly it is to ask Mayor Tishaura Jones exactly where her head is at?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Facebook or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. You can also find me on YouTube.

We Should Be Asking Questions, Not Just Forgiving Student Loans

I realize full well that the student loan forgiveness controversy is a bit old news. Of course I disagree with it as well as find it unlawful. But it does make me wonder about another side to the whole thing that perhaps requires further examination, despite the whole idea of it being entirely ridiculous anyway.

Why does anyone feel forgiving student loans is necessary and just?

Of course, the argument is that students who have gone well beyond their college days are suffering massive financial setbacks trying to pay them back, with many graduates requiring decades to do it, and enduring massive interest payments to boot.

First of all, cry me a river. College, for anyone who may have wondered about it, is optional. No one is required to go through continued education.

This is where someone will come in and say to me, "But in order to get into a high paying and meaningful career, and succeed in life, one is almost required to have a degree."

The argument is always, unless you want to be stuck flipping burgers or cleaning toilets and live in abject poverty, you must go to school so you can get something better. Granted, those are generally someone else's words. Not mine. I know full well that's far from the case in the real world.

Many people do jobs that don't require a college degree that also happen to pay extremely well, and many people make a very good living doing things that they didn't have to "suffer" through student loans to do it.

At the same time, I also fully recognize that certain professions do require a college degree, and if someone has interest in those professions, then by all means. Go to college and pursue that. 

The thing that grabs my attention, and that I think should grab anyone's attention is, yeah. But wait a minute. Isn't that the whole selling point of the college degree? That you will get this nice degree to put on display and get this great job and achieve a financial life better than anyone who didn't go to college?

I mean, that is the selling point, right? So, how come it isn't true? 

What if we tackled the issue with another question rather than just decide we should forgive loans and deem them to be unfair? What if we asked, "Are colleges falsely advertising and duping their consumers?" 

Moreover, maybe we should examine, when it comes to compensation, do salaries match the value of the goods and services offered to obtain them? Should the value be commensurate and demonstrable? If you are going to sell me something and sell me on the value, shouldn't your product have to at least support the value it supposedly offers?

I think what we need to do is go back to the colleges and dig a bit deeper into them about what their business practices are. Because clearly the people they've sold these degrees to aren't getting the promise they paid for, right?

They're not getting ahead like the colleges told them they would. Instead, they are suffering, saddled with debt they cannot repay stuck in jobs that don't support the degree they paid for.

Now, I am no legal expert. But that sounds like false advertising to me. 

I also think some of the way these loans are structured need to also be examined. Too many of them allow students to add things in like housing and living expenses. Should that be something allowed to be added in? More college students should be encouraged to work while they attend school in order to not only pay for their education but pay for living while they are doing it.

Just like the rest of us, by the way. If we want things, well...we have to work for them, right? A place to live, a car to drive, food to eat. Instilling a J. Wellington Wimpy mentality onto our kids, "I will kindly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today," is no way to foster future financial literacy.

All in all, I just think we're looking at this the wrong way. Sure, college is expensive. But why is it so expensive? And why is it that the cost doesn't live up to the promises sold? And why is no one pointing some of these questions at the colleges themselves? 

The colleges are essentially selling bills of goods like no other business would ever legally get away with, and instead of holding the colleges to account to answer for it, we're simply allowing them to continue doing it, and holding the taxpayers responsible to cover the bill.

If you are wanting me to flip the bill for your product, you better tell me first why the people who received the goods can't afford to pay for what they got.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. You can also find video content on my YouTube channel, The Springboard.