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.

Polls Show Voters Believe Democrats Are Cheating

We can sit around all day and debate whether or not the 2020 election was stolen, but the reality is that we will probably never know the truth about that—even if Trump goes back to the White House. Some questions simply remain questions. 

But one thing is clear, and that's that Democrats are up to no good in this election cycle, and more and more of the American people are waking up to it. 

In a recent new national poll, 56% of voters believe that President Joe Biden is trying to jail Donald Trump simply to win an election. What's more telling in the polling is how many of those voters polled believe it is a concentrated effort coming directly from the White House itself, and at the direction of the Biden administration.

Whether or not even that happens to be true can also be debated, and even when it comes to that question, we may never have a definitive answer. But at the same time, it seems quite clear what's going on and why it is happening at all.

The Democrats are cheating—or trying very hard to.

We also know it is backfiring, and badly. In nearly every single mock general poll Donald Trump now leads in the race over Biden. And while polls can be subject to interpretation and not always reliable, the fact that most polls are weighted toward Democrats is something to keep in mind. If a Republican is winning in the polls, he's probably winning in the real world.

On top of it all, it's the things the Democrats are going after Trump for that has made more than a few people raise their eyebrows at. None of it seems—legitimate. It's a lot of innuendo and implied things, but really, where are the crimes? Where is the evidence? And why are the only people bringing any of these cases Democrats? And moreover, why are they all confirmed Trump haters?

I have said it over and over again. If the Democrats believed in the success of their time in the White House, it would be the only thing that would matter. If it's all true, and the Biden administration has been a glowing success, what would they have to fear with Donald Trump running? By their account, the Democrats have already proven they can lead the country.

Of course, the problem is, none of that is true. The Biden administration has been a complete disaster and I think even they know it. Deep down, they know it. Otherwise, what's the threat from Donald Trump?

The thing is, all of these "cases" have so many red flags it is simply hard for any thinking person to ignore, which is part of what is generating the growing consensus that Biden's going after Trump solely for political reasons.

The E. Jean Carroll case, for example, came from an allegation of a rape that occurred 26 years prior, that absolutely no evidence was provided to prove. The person who paid her legal fees was an anti-Trump billionaire. A dress she said provided proof turned out to be one not in style until two years after the alleged rape. There was also a TV interview, which was barred from evidence, where she said she was never raped.

But of course, when it comes to Trump, you don't need to prove a case in court. You don't even necessarily need to offer a conviction. Because the allegation is more important than anything else, and they know that all they have to do is accuse Trump of something and the media will run with it, call it true, and naive viewers who also hate Trump will ignore the evidence and go along with the story.

In that same poll, 67% believe that all of the indictments against Trump are politically motivated. 58% believe Biden has played a role. 52% believe that indictments were only brought because Trump was leading in polls. 58% believe that all of this nonsense should be dropped, and it should be up to the American people to decide who becomes our next president.

I think what it comes down to is that people aren't seeing the results Biden keeps saying he's gotten done and it makes them wonder more what all this Trump chasing is really about. To make matters worse, Biden doesn't talk about the supposed accomplishments. He simply talks about the dangers electing Trump poses, while at the same time working very hard to paint the former president as the Most Evil Man in America.

And what about the New York case? Sure, New York effectively won. But based on what evidence of what wrongdoing? Trump did not do anything against the law. He did not do anything outside of what other developers always do. And the prosecutor who brought the case had many on the record meetings at the White House prior to the case. What were those conversations and why don't we know what they were?

The facts are clear. The aim is to financially destroy and potentially jail Trump to get him out of their way. Because it is the only way they can win. I think there was cheating in 2020. Like I said, that can be debated, and we will likely never know the truth. But what is true is that the Democrats know they can't pull the same stunt in 2024 that they pulled in 2020. 

So, it's either lose an election or remove the guy who can actually win. And that's what they are up to. And the polls show clearly that The People know that's what the gig is.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. You can also follow me on X. If you liked this post, please share it across your own social media. Every click helps to support what I do and keep it going.

Instagram Wants to Limit News and Information

We are in an interesting time when much of what we digest in the way of "news and information," happens in a very different way than it did many decades ago when there were only a handful of networks, newspapers and radio stations to get it from, and all of them mostly came from centralized news organizations like the Associated Press ultimately.

In many ways, there was also much less bias presented in news. It was straightforward journalism that sought to get to the truth, even when the truth may be painful and even destroy political careers.

Perhaps news has never truly been completely reliable. But certainly, it was more reliable than it is today.

Beyond the 24-hour news cycle, of course, the advent of social media outlets also changed a lot of the way that we receive news and information. Discussions or opinions that would otherwise be relegated to the dinner table or other social gatherings, and perhaps the occasional "Letter to the Editor," now moved into more public territory. 

Social media is largely a place where everyone has an individual voice that they can share with masses of other people. 

But that's not what everyone wants, of course, and after Trump's reelection efforts in 2020, we saw a side of truth that doesn't want to be heard, and we saw freedom of speech come under fire. Social media outlets began shutting down anyone who said things the social media powers that be did not like, and even banned certain people from being heard at all.

Suddenly truth was not being determined or examined. It was simply being decided.

Sure, it doesn't mean that many can't still have a voice. Many people, such as myself, can still freely write and publish blogs or articles sharing my thoughts and opinions, or findings on particular topics I find interesting that I think others may also find interesting.

But the sites that I write on can be limited by the places where I can post the links, such as Facebook, X and elsewhere. That can have a limiting effect on who gets to see it, let alone find it.

When Elon Musk took over X, his aim was to put an end to that and allow a freer forum for people to express themselves. It can be hotly debated whether he has actually accomplished that. But the fact remains that social media is still pushing back on certain speech.

That can be shown in the recent decision by Instagram to limit political speech in particular. 

Regardless of whether or not news or information is better with so many voices in the pool of news and information is also debatable. Because not everyone is going to have the whole truth and nothing but the truth necessarily. 

Even when it comes to my own writing on various topics, it's my opinion and it is up to the reader to decide whether or not they agree with it. It's also up to the reader to seek out more information to better form their own opinions.

What social media and blogs and podcasts and whatever other media source is being used offers is another side. An alternative. I think that does, in fact, make things better. Because otherwise all you have is one centralized source who collectively decides what is true or not. 

That makes news and information potentially propaganda. Because one group can simply control the flow. 

The problem is not so much the limiting of news and information. It's the clear agenda behind it. Because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that most of social media and news outlets are slanted to the liberal side.

And you can't make an informed decision without hearing all sides. It is better to form an opinion based on multiple sources and perspectives than to rely only on one.

Especially when it comes to politics, I think it is important for people to be able to think openly and constructively. If we had a media now that were more prone to just tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, perhaps a decision like Instagram's would make more sense. 

But that's not the world we are living in. The truth can often times now be questioned. It is often shaped and configured rather than told as it is. People need to have the ability to hear all sides and decide for themselves. That's part of why freedom of speech is so important. Why it is necessary. 

And again, it doesn't mean that anyone else is absolutely going to preach the Gospel. People still must do their own homework. But the discussion is needed, and every voice should have an opportunity to at least be heard, even when we don't like what is said.

Instagram members can opt back into political content. But the first choice should be to be able to see and hear the content before a decision is made whether or not it should appear at all for the viewers. But again, it also puts control into the hands of a very select group of people to decide what we can see or hear. 

That is not a good thing. Every American, regardless of their political leanings should want every word to potentially be heard. Because when you begin to silence one speech, eventually speech you want and need to hear will also be silenced.

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. 

A Sign of Something Else?

From time to time my wife and I enjoy perusing an antique and consignment store in a nearby town. There are always interesting things to look at, the prices are fairly reasonable as well, and sometimes you can find something rather unique.

A lot of times there are signs or plaques that are quite intentional in making a joke. But sometimes you also happen to find a joke where one was, perhaps, not necessarily intended.

Of course, anyone who has been married for a while is all too aware that marriage is not all love and romance the likes of an untold number of movies and books about love. There are times when you even think, maybe I should just pack it in and call it a day. Is this even worth it?

But it is also the trials and tribulations and sour moments that actually serve more often than not to make a marriage stronger.

Coming upon one of the booths at the store there was a sign for sale that read, "All because two people fell in love." And right above it, a very large tree saw.

Naturally, if one has a bit of a sense of humor, right away you can see how the saw may imply something about that sign. Because while most of the time those sour moments in marriage do indeed make our marriages stronger, there are still times when the thought occurs that having a large tree saw around might come in handy.

Jim Bauer writes mostly about conservative politics, finance and investing. But of course, he also writes the occasional random thought or shares his views on everyday life. If you'd like to keep up with the latest writings wherever he may write them, you can follow him on his Facebook page.

A Surging Post Begs a Question

Sometimes an old post surges for whatever reason and it makes me wonder why. Especially if the post in question happens to be one that is not evergreen, and really is no longer relevant. Not that I mind if a post like that does surge, of course. Regardless of whether they are relevant or not, I still get paid for them.

Unfortunately, I can't see what search terms someone may be using to find them. But this post, in particular, begs a question, especially as we are rolling deep into another presidential election coming up in November.

It has long been felt by some that our current president, Joe Biden, hasn't really been running things. So, who is? Many have suggested that it's our former president, Barack Obama, secretly behind the curtain pulling the levers and strings and serving as a shadow president.

I admit, it's always been an idea sort of "on the fringe." Even I suspect it at least. If it's not Barack Obama running things, perhaps it is a collective of sorts within the administration? 

Do we have any logs we can check to see if any staffers have been in frequent and direct contact with Obama? Or would that make things too obvious? Would there be another way the communications are occurring? 

It's tin-hatty to a degree. But nowadays you just never know. It's hard to really know what's going on when you have a president who 99% of the time appears out of his wits. What is interesting to me is that the very post that is surging, "President Obama Is Not My President," may be surging based on the very premise that he is operating as a shadow president, and people are searching for things looking for an explanation or theorem on that idea.

The post had nothing to do with that, of course. It was speaking on a Mosque that was being proposed to be built at Ground Zero where the Twin Towers were taken down by Muslim terrorists on 9/11 and Obama's support for that at the time, which I felt was a slap in the face, and an unpresidential move considering what happened there.

I already had issues with Barack Obama's actions, and this was simply a final straw to conclude that perhaps it was time for him to step down. A position that I feel now may have been a bit extreme. Nonetheless, it's very old news. So, what else could be the reason the post is surging?

Does it say anything, even, about the coming election? About the possibility more people are questioning or more deeply examining their decision in November away from Biden? Who's finding the post? Democrats? Republicans? Independents?

The latter, if that's who's looking, would be even more interesting, of course, since it's usually the independents who ultimately determine who the winner is. 

Regardless of why the post may be surging, it does seem to suggest, at least just below the surface, that if an irrelevant statement that President Obama is not my president—which is obvious—is catching some attention, that at least in title only, the idea is relevant to today in that way.

Because I would assume nobody is suddenly finding new interest in the Mosque, or even anything that occurred during Obama's lackluster presidency.

What else can it be, is the question?

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

Self-Checkouts Are Being Rethought

When self-checkout first came around as an idea, it was of course a response to calls for higher wages, made more through arbitration than through bottom lines that supported increases. Most recently, in just the past couple of years, the number of self-checkout lanes has surged.

But already we are beginning to see a pull back from them by the companies who were so eager to put them into use. It seems to be falling into a category of "be careful what you wish for." The idea was, of course, to reduce the need for human cashiers who of course require a W-2 wage and save businesses money.

But has it actually saved money? 

It was announced recently that our local Schnuck's grocery store would begin limiting self-checkout to 10 items or less. And more businesses are following suit, including the world's largest retailer, Walmart. The reason is something in business known as "shrink." In other words, these retailers are losing money due to customer errors and intentional theft.

The thing is, physical cashiers serve more than one function, really. Of course, the primary one is to scan your items and collect your payment. But the other is to act as a failsafe between you and the door to ensure all the items in your cart were paid for and accurately charged.

Receipt checkers may stop you at the door to check your cart. But what are they looking for? The bigger ticket items like beer, soda and TVs. If you've slipped a Snickers bar in your bag without paying for it, it may not be the highest dollar amount item, but those Snickers bars begin to add up to big bucks. And the receipt checkers aren't going to know if you have scanned your avocados as a tomato.

I don't even think all of these intentional thefts signal a dishonest consumer at large in so much as it simply gives consumers another reason to feel like they are owed something. "If I have to check myself out and bag my own stuff, shouldn't I be compensated in some way for doing that?"

It's enough that most consumers already feel like they are being ripped off. Now they have to serve themselves as well?

Limiting items being self-checked to 10 or less gives retail establishments more ability to actually check a receipt and make sure everything is accounted for. But ultimately it also means more people will be going back through the regular manned lanes to check out.

I think ultimately, I understand why businesses want to do these things. Install self-checkouts and ordering kiosks. At the same time, at the heart of any retail business is the interaction between store representatives and the public. Customer service is important. And you can't get that if there is little or no interaction.

It makes the experience feel cold and mechanical. But it also gives consumers less to consider on the other end of the transaction, like how what they do affects the livelihood of a real person. Are they stealing from Nancy on aisle 5 or the guy stocking the shelves? Or are they stealing from a phantom entity behind a curtain pulling levers?

It would not surprise me to see expanding self-checkout lanes to begin retracting more and more as the experiment falls flat. In order to deal with the rising demand for higher wages, businesses are going to simply have to go back to the drawing board to figure out the best way to handle those costs.

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

Mike Pence Not Endorsing Trump Doesn't Matter

In a recent interview with Fox News, former vice president and presidential candidate, Mike Pence, said that he cannot, in good conscience, endorse former president Donald Trump in the 2024 election, but that he also cannot vote for Joe Biden under any circumstance, but that he is keeping it a secret who he will be voting for.

I might assume it would be for RFK Jr., but who knows? And frankly, who cares? It doesn't matter anymore than his lack of endorsement for Trump does.

This is not to suggest that I had issues with Pence when he served as vice president or that I took issue with his failure to question the certification of electors in 2020. I said then that I thought he carried out his duty in necessary fashion, and I continue to believe that today.

My preference would have been for Trump to have conceded the election and ask questions later. But that also does not suggest I don't believe that 2020 may well have been a stolen election.

We still need to get to that truth regardless of what we find in any outcome, because as I have said many times, our elections matter and the American people must have faith in them. A large swath of citizens have questions, and I think that demands answers.

Nonetheless, it's his decision to make whether or not he wants to endorse Trump. At the same time, I disagree with his assessments that Trump has walked away from confronting the national debt or is shying away from his commitment to the sanctity of human life. I also do not agree with him that some of these criminal charges sway his decision either—because at this time no GOP member should be okay with what essentially equates to the weaponization of our justice system for political reasons and is designed to remove choice from the American voter and stack the odds in favor of a competing party.

Is Trump the best choice for America today? That is a question that can be hotly debated. But is Trump the only choice for America right now? I think he is.

I continue to believe that we have some deeply concerning things happening within our government that has very deep roots, and threatens our democratic republic in ways that are unimaginable. Part of my support for Trump stems from that, believing that no other candidate in the recent pool of GOP contenders would have done a thing about any of it, but would have rather simply entrenched themselves into the very deep state we are fighting against and embolden it.

I also believe that Mike Pence is part of that establishment. And perhaps that's really what his motivation is to choose not to endorse Trump. Not to protect the Union. But to protect those who wish to maintain their control and power over our government and the people of this country.

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 get on board the Bitcoin surge and get some free Bitcoin? Check out FreeBitcoin for hourly spins, games and more.

Biden Regrets Saying "Illegal" In His Speech

Words are words and the left has forever been trying to change the meaning of them and what words are used in order to either fill an agenda or advance a cause, or as Jesse Waters of Fox News said on The Five, "To take the sting out of it."

When President Joe Biden delivered his final State of the Union address before the election, which I described as a not so state of the union in a recent blog post, Laken Riley's name, a 22 year-old Georgia nursing student who was killed by an illegal immigrant, was brought up.

In Biden's speech he referred to her killer, Jose Antonia Ibarra as, "an illegal."

Of course, that drew some attention from certain corners of the liberal media since liberals had decided long ago to ditch the term "illegal" and to instead use the term "undocumented." Of course, more often than not, these days, simply the term "migrant" is being used.

The word was the correct word to use. But of course, in using the term "illegal," in a back ended sort of way, it seems to want to imply something is wrong with the situation we have on our border. Something that the Biden administration has long contended is "under control" and not an issue until only recently, after receiving throngs of backlash from governors and mayors in his own party who are experiencing the issues illegal immigration poses firsthand. 

According to Biden and his administration, it was a bit of a slip of the tongue. As he told MSNBC's Jonathan Capehart in an interview after Biden delivered his address, "I shouldn't have used the word illegal. It's undocumented." 

Many saw his comments as an apology, and I think rightly so. But his administration was quick to run out and insist it was not an apology at all. When Olivia Dalton, the White House Deputy Press Secretary, was asked about her thoughts she said, "Regretting something doesn't equate to an apology."

I can agree with her statement to an extent. However, it was what Biden went on to say in expanding on his answer that suggested that it was, in fact, an apology. He was quick to point out that he disagrees with Trump's opinion of illegal immigrants, "The way he talks about vermin, the way he talks about them polluting the blood." 

And yet the very man Donald Trump has talked about are men like Jose Antonio Ibarra who aren't supposed to be here, and had he not been, Laken Riley would be alive today.

The American people, regardless of their political affiliations, should be astonished that Biden was so quick to defend his use of a word rather than address the real issue at hand. The tragic end of Laken Riley's life at the hands of an illegal immigrant. Because tragedies like this are the very reason having a secure border is so important—among many reasons. And it's not to say murders happen only because of open borders, of course. But at least in the case of this murder, it is one that could mostly have been avoided.

But it goes back to words and how they are used. Why is it felt, by the left, that it is needed to soften the language we use?  

As Fox News' Jesse Waters said on The Five recently, "You don't say a gun is undocumented. The gun's illegal. You don't say someone committed a nonconsensual sex act. You call it rape. You don't say Russia is expanding their borders. You say Russia invaded. You use precise language for a reason, and they are trying to pull the illegality out of border crossing because they want to take the sting out of it."

He further argued that they change the word because they (the Democrats, and Biden in particular) are complicit in it. 

It's their border through their policies which made it possible for Jose Antonio Ibarra to be in the country to kill Laken Riley, and that's the point Waters was making and part of the point I made earlier. We have a problem, it has gotten worse, Trump's argument has become a headline in the Georgia murder story, and they simply don't want to admit it's a problem.

Of course, changing the language we use doesn't negate the facts of what happened and under what circumstance it happened. But it does let us know where the priorities lie.

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

MORE READING:

Illegal Aliens, Muslims, and the P.C. Police Who Love Them (From June 2010)

Violence Out of Control, and the Media Is Absent

If you spend enough time on Twitter, videos like this one abound. While some of it may be anecdotal and not necessarily indicative of an epidemic of violence happening across America, the fact remains that there are simply too many videos to account for, and the frequency of this happening is something that we should all be deeply concerned about.

Where does it end? And more importantly, why isn't this violence being called out? Where are the advocates against bullying? Why are we not looking for a link between this and other violent crimes and other things that happen in our society? And where is the media to report on these things when they happen? Where are the police to call for a stop to this sort of thing? Where are our other elected officials and the leaders in our communities?

The question is, what is the culture of this, and why does it seem so important for many people to simply want to brush it under the carpet and remain silent about it?

It's not the way it is supposed to be in America. 

Granted, one can easily make the argument it's always been the way things are since our very early beginnings. From the raucous nature of the Wild, Wild West to the days of Jim Crowe and racially motivated lynchings and other crimes of violence.

But shouldn't we have moved towards more civility by now? 

And it's not just videos like this of kids running rampant stomping on each other and smashing heads against asphalt. It's adults lashing out in violent and criminal ways toward fast food workers and customer service personnel, and even strangers on the streets.

The violence is everywhere and there seems to be no end in sight.

Beyond that, there's another element here that I think is important. There aren't guns being used in much of these violent videos. It's fists flying and hair pulling and head slamming and gut kicking happening in them.

Which begs one other question. Where is the media? Because more often than not these displays of violence receive no coverage at all. But with all of the shootings we get to hear about, it seems clear that these acts of violence pose a much greater threat to all of society than even the high number of shootings does.

It seems like it is a bigger problem. But the problem is, there are no politics to be entered into the equation here. Politics on gun control. Politics on race and oppression. Politics on police violence. And because there is no agenda here to push, the media chooses to remain silent. And so do the community leaders.

The question becomes, what do we do about it? How do we stop it? How do we figure out what's causing it? And do we actually want to stop it? 

It's maddening to see these videos day in and day out, and what makes it more maddening to watch is that we also know nothing is being done about what we see happening in them. It's maddening that people are turning a blind eye to a very real problem while only focusing on things that aren't the big problems we are led to believe are.

On top of that, it's frankly disheartening. Our kids are supposed to be our future. They are supposed to be the epitome of innocence. If this is what the future of what will become our new adults look like, I can't even imagine how much worse it will get.

Because these are also our future leaders.

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

Weirder and Weirder

Whenever you start raising bars and "breaking barriers," things never really ever go back. Long gone are the days when you would see married couples on TV sleeping in separate beds. Actual sex and some pretty raunchy sex scenes, including gay sex have hit prime time.

Not to say it is all bad, mind you. There are things that are just real, and we all know what those things are and what goes on.

I am just saying that at the pace that bars are being raised nowadays, I think it's going to be a fairly rapid pace to things becoming more and more bizarre. Not that things aren't already quite bizarre if you ask me, beyond just sex scenes on TV.

The world is becoming weirder and weirder. What happens is a sort of "scrubbing" of sorts. You just get used to it, and when you get used to it, you sort of become a bit immune to it.

Sort of like when a homicide detective can walk around rotting corpses and enjoy a sandwich for lunch while they investigate a scene. A situation that, for most of us, would find us looking for the nearest toilet to unload what we ate for breakfast, let alone mow down on anything new.

I get that people want to "express themselves." Take the story of the AirAsia CEO, Tony Fernandez who openly and unabashedly held a team meeting while shirtless and receiving a massage. "I want to be transparent," he says.

Is it entirely bad? No. But it's weird. Not that I am some morals zealot or anything, but I do believe that in most things there should be at least some modicum of decorum. What do we do next, have a bath while figuring out what profits should be at the next quarterly report? 

But then, at the same time, social media has become something wherein everyone wants to be a star. And let's face it. Many people become stars for all sort of things they do on social media. Not all of it good. And a lot it quite weird.

Everyone has a schtick, and when you get famous for going out there, eventually in order to become more famous you have to go farther out there than the last guy did.

Elon Musk became famous for being outspoken and sometimes saying some outlandish things. So, why not get out there too by having a shirtless massage during a team meeting? Musk raised the bar and Fernandez perhaps wants to raise it some more.

I don't know, I just think the phrase, "Truth is stranger than fiction," is becoming more and more true with each passing day, and I am not even sure I can predict what's coming next. I just know it's going to be stranger and stranger the more time that passes.

I wonder where that's going to leave us eventually.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings on money, life, current events, politics and more, wherever I may write them. You can also follow me on X at Twitter handle @jimbauer601. Looking for some free crypto? Check out FreeBitcoin for a fun way to earn some.

The Not So State of the Union

Was it the State of the World? The State of Ukraine? Where was America in President Joe Biden's final address to the Union? If you were paying close attention, America wasn't part of it. In fact, it wasn't a State of the Union address at all. It was a campaign speech.

Where was mention of massive fentanyl deaths that are claiming the lives of 100,000 Americans every year? Drug cartels controlling our border states and the border crisis itself and the impact it has had across the nation? The cost of goods and services and eroding personal economies affecting every American household navigating through the pain of inflation? Where was talk about the massive rise in crime and chaos happening across our cities and towns?

Instead, Biden shouted at us in what was nothing less than a dark, pessimistic, and foreboding rant that put politics before American interests, and instead of addressing the core issues that are of concern to every single American.

On the issue of the economy, he tried to prop it up by saying, "Our economy is the envy of the world," even though the average American needs $11,400 more today to maintain the same lifestyle they enjoyed in 2021. Since Biden took office, grocery prices have risen 17%, cash strapping hard working Americans and straddling the poor. Instead of focusing on the core issues causing the inflation, such as the supply chain crisis and the high cost of energy, he railed against "greedy" corporations for price gouging and shrinkflation.

He once again took aim at Republicans for being the cause of trhe border crisis when everyone knows it was his decisions on day one to end Trump's border policies which was followed by a flood of illegal immigrants into our country. He blasted Republicans for not passing a border security bill that would do nothing to actually secure the border.

All in all, Biden simply missed the mark. Sure, he was amped up. He was more voracious than usual. But it was all for show. What was missing from his riled-up speech was substance. It was missing the core issues and what he plans to do about them. What was missing was where we are now, how we got here, and what he will do to fix it. According to Joe Biden, everything is fine in America, and we just can't see it.

He offered no solutions. He passed the buck. He assigned blame. He shrugged off bearng any responsibility for many of the issues we are faced with, and in typical Joe Biden fashion, he entirely dismissed the real State of the Union Americans are actually living in.

He chided and scolded and blasted, fist pounded and yelled. He looked and sounded more like an angry old man hyped up on too much coffee than a president ready and willing to lead all Americans united together into a better and brighter future.

I won't call his speech out as a total disaster. But it wasn't good, and I don't think it wins Biden any points except among his die-hard supporters which, quite frankly, are leaving in droves every single day as his policies and actions separate themselves from the reality we are all dealing with that cannot be escaped from.

What Americans want from our leaders is a sense of urgency that we can see they feel when times are not so good, and for them to accept and acknowledge the reality rather than sell us a bill of goods. We want to be understood and uplifted and have a sense that our leadership will forge better paths ahead for us.

How can we be assured that the challenges we face can be addressed and made into achievements if our leaders don't even convey a sense that the challenges exist?

When President Biden denies the truth and turns a blind eye, it leaves Americans with no hope. No sense of resolution. When his focus is on the safety and protection of other countries and other people while leaving Americans behind, it makes Americans wonder which country it is he is leading?

I would find it hard to believe that any honest, thinking person who watched that speech walked away feeling better about the current state of, or future of America. And that was the job of the State of the Union. It was the job of President Joe Biden.

Like so many other jobs since his administration took control of the White House, he didn't get this job done. Even if his speech really was essentially a campaign speech, you can't win over the American people and earn their vote relying on denial and lies to get it. All the assurances that we are on the right path and have strong future prospects have to be conjoined with the reality Americans actually live.

His State of the Union did not accomplish that.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Sharing my blogs on X, Facebook and other social media is also a great way to support my page if you like what I do here. As always, thanks for reading. You are appreciated more than you know.

Thinking In Terms of a Paycheck Is Part of the Problem

Especially when it comes to living at a time many of us have not experienced in our lifetimes, a period of high inflation where every dollar we earn has less buying power and must be carefully thought out before we spend any of it, there is still something I think that holds us back when it comes to financially getting ahead.

A paycheck.

That may seem like a silly thing to say considering a paycheck is of course, a means to an end. We can't really get anywhere without one. But it is how we think about our paychecks which happens to be the very thing that holds us back.

When it comes to income, it's the one thing most people consider as the source to having more money. If they could just earn a little more, ask the boss for a pay raise or find a better paying job, or find secondary or tertiary incomes like second jobs or side gigs, they'd fare better financially.

But the art of having money is not in simply earning it. The art is building wealth from what we earn. In other words, the more you keep and save the better off you are. 

Building wealth is not really so much about earning more as it is about making every dollar we have go farther, and letting our dollars endure the labors rather than us to produce more income. That means taking on some level of risk such as investing.

There is a difference between earning money and creating money. And once the mindset changes to understand that it makes a world of difference. It changes one's entire perspective about money and wealth building and creation.

When you work for a paycheck what you are really doing is simply chasing your tail. You earn some money, you spend it, and then you have to go out and earn some more. But you never really get anywhere. The cycle just repeats over and over again.

Richard Kiyosaki from Rich Dad, Poor Dad called it akin to being on a treadmill, being constantly in motion, but ending up exactly where you started.

The key is to find ways to make what you earn more valuable over time. What's a dollar worth if you spend it? Zero. But if you invest it a dollar could be worth $1.08. And with compounding, over a longer period of time that dollar could be worth $5.

This doesn't mean don't seek a higher paying job and earn more if you can. It doesn't mean don't ask for that pay raise. It doesn't even mean stop working. It simply means, don't think of that extra earned income as something to spend more with. Think of it in terms of something to build wealth from.

If you can get a pay raise through a better job or from your current one, pretend like you never got it and put the money to work for you.

A paycheck can be both a crutch and an opportunity. It just depends on how you think about it. It can either provide a level of comfort knowing if you just keep working, the paychecks will continue to come. Or it can offer you an incentive to put more of your money to work so that your paychecks become less and less necessary over time as an absolute means to pay for things.

As I have always said, paychecks are essentially worthless if all they do is maintain the status quo.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with all the latest writings wherever I may write them. You can also follow me on X via Twitter handle @jimbauer601. Looking for something a little different and want to support my blog, give my album Pink Flamingoes on Spotify a spin.

More Questions than Answers with No Cognitive Test for Biden

"The President passes a cognitive test every single day," said Karine Jean-Pierre in response to questions relating to why Biden did not have a cognitive test included in his annual physical.

The problem with her answer is, of course, that the question of his mental state is the very reason the question is a question. The People want to know, and it has been a question for a very long time. Not only for Republicans who have already largely decided the answer. But Democrats have been asking it as well.

So, what are we to believe is the real answer here, because any thinking person has to question the choice that was made here by the doctor and why the Biden administration decided to not push the issue? You would think that with a president so heavily questioned about his memory and fitness mentally to lead the country—someone would have decided to insist on the test to be done simply to hopefully put the question to rest.

All the decision does, to not do the test, is to raise more questions.

Did the doctor truly determine no test was needed? Or did the Biden administration persuade the doctor to conclude that because they all knew he wouldn't be able to pass it?

In fact, the question was a rather hot one right after the Hur report was released which made comments about Biden's memory, with Karine Jean-Pierre fiercely claiming, "You do not see the president as we do, and he is very sharp in all of our encounters." Biden angrily lashed out at reporters that his memory is fine while only mere moments later introducing the President of Egypt as the President of Mexico.

Even Biden himself should have insisted the test be done to prove to the prying public that they are wrong about their questions.

Perhaps they feel it was a smarter move to avoid the test and potentially avoid their Pocahontas moment such as was the fate for Senator Elizabeth Warren and her Cherokee claims. At the same time, I think what they were up against was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Because people aren't dumb. If Biden couldn't pass the test, which many people believe he can't, the answer in the minds of voters remains the same despite the doctor claiming that no test was necessary.

President Joe Biden is in mental decline, and that is precisely why no test was done.

Because we are smack dab in the middle of an election here, and all the Democrats want to do is win it. I have a strong suspicion that they already have plans in place to remove Joe Biden from office as soon as he does win it, if he should happen to win.

The 25th amendment could be applied, and Kamala Harris has already stated to the American people, "I am ready to lead," which seems to suggest she may become the president in the event of a Biden/Harris victory.

Does this hurt Joe Biden's chances of winning? I think it does. A large portion of Democrats are not convinced. And not all Democrats hate the country. Most Democrats, according to all the polls, can't stand Kamala Harris and find her to be a disaster in waiting if she ever becomes president. 

Either way, the fact remains that not including a cognitive test in his annual physical was a major misstep. Simply telling the American people he passes a cognitive test every single day is not enough. Because in the eyes of the American people, he is not passing that test. If we can't see it, your answer and the doctor's opinion mean nothing.

Like the way I write or the things I talk about? Follow me on my Facebook page or follow me on X under Twitter handle @jimbauer601. Do you want some free Bitcoin? Check out this Free Bitcoin Generator and have some fun while earning cryptocurrency.