Lunacy of the Progressive Leftist Frenzied Hatefest

 

The mainstream leftist and progressive media continue kicking up the dust in attempts to mask the violence they are stirring up underneath the clouds of confusion. They talk of President Elect Donald Trump as if he were the greatest monster to ever reach office. They avoid recognizing the facts that he was duly elected President of the United States (POTUS) and continue to harp on Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote. Truth be known, take away California and New York and for fairness sake also remove Texas and the Deep South and Trump wins the popular vote. Hillary basically won New York and California by huge, and we mean YUGE, margins making the votes in the rest of the nation merely marginal in the contest for popular vote. Problem is this was not a popularity contest or a high school Class President race where the person gaining the votes of the jocks and the blondes wins the day. This was a regulated and carefully crafted contest as defined by the United States Constitution which established the Electoral College, the second best manner for choosing a leader coming from the second best set of laws by which to govern (having Hashem pick your leader and Torah are the best ways to find leaders and by which to govern a nation if only one existed today). The problem is rules do not matter when you are running a revolution, and that is what the progressive leftists are running, a fascistic takeover of the United States if they are permitted to get away with it.

 

Truth of the matter is the progressive media is simply keeping their base energized and ready to launch protest after protest at every single piece of legislation proposed by the Republicans. As they lost the elections and lost them big across the entirety of the country and now run most cities, the failing ones, and a few states on both coasts but lost the Presidency and Congress. This simply means they will take some time to discredit everything the government does, protesting the horrors which will come from repealing regulations which stifle businesses claiming that workers will be harmed despite their being the kind of economy where everyone who desires work can find a decent paying job. Also, because there will be more jobs than applicants, wages will rise. As long as wages are mentioned, bear in mind that even if Congress passed a minimum wage bill raising the minimum wage to $15.00/hr. over the next five years the media would go ballistic claiming that by the time five years have passed the minimum wage would need be $25.00/hr. at the very least. These are ‘glass is half empty’ when they are not in power and ‘glass overflowing’ even if it is obviously empty. Just read the job and economic reports on the economy during President Obama’s time in office. They almost praised his having one quarter where the change in jobs, income average, and virtually every other statistic was exactly zero, no gain, no loss, in almost every category, a statistical impossibility without cooking the results. It was later revealed that the report was a draft and not containing actual numbers and nowhere could one find the real numbers, how convenient.

 

Much of the talk coming from leftist progressive blogs, news both formal and informal, commentary, columns in major newspapers and other outlets is shrill to the point of being instigations towards violence against Trump, his family, Pence, the Cabinet nominees, the Ambassadorial selections (especially David Friedman as Ambassador to Israel as he actually likes Israel which should disqualify him for any Ambassadorial post, not just Ambassador to Israel) and any-or-everybody linked to Donald Trump and his administration during the transition and probably continuing on into his Administration after the Inauguration. Needless to point out, but the media was really behind something better than a mere Inauguration; they had the coronation of Queen Hillary I and her Royal Court into office next month. They cannot forgive Trump for having the gall and audacity to actually defeat Queen Hillary and denying her that rightful place reserved for her, the first woman to be President of the United States. They will never forgive the American people who voted for Trump even if, or especially if, they did so to assure that Hillary Clinton never again soils their White House unless on a tour and heavily guarded checking for silverware as she leaves. The people have spoken if one ever looks at the map county by county of who voted Hillary Clinton and who voted Donald Trump and the actual immensity of Trump’s victory becomes evident. The areas of blue barely if ever stretch outside the immediate suburbs of the major cities except in a relative few bastions and even in these states like New York, California, Massachusetts, Maryland and a few possibly in New England (see representative map in shades of purple, red and blue below).

 

County by County Presidential Electoral Map 2016
Using Red and Blue Plus Shades of Purple
Simply to Indicate Percentages of Votes
Thus Improving Accuracy in our Representation

 

The above map is not as extreme as the purely red versus blue map which is slanted even further in making it appear Trump won almost unanimously outside twenty cities, which is probably not a poor description, just a tad too slanted but no more so than the near constant pounding of, “Hillary won the popular vote and should be POTUS,” “Trump Not My President,” “Dump Trump,” and “Love Trumps Hate” (see images below) That last one is somewhat confused as it could also be used as a pro-Trump poster all depending on how it is lettered. The unfortunate item has appeared in some newscasts which report on the fueled hate, rage and tendencies for violence. There is an old political adage often used on the right which goes, “If you desire to know what the progressive left is planning, simply seek out what they are currently accusing the conservatives of committing.” During the two terms of President Obama the progressives accused the conservatives, often targeting the Tea Party, of equating Obama with Hitler (this was done at some rallies but unedited pictures have shown Lyndon LaRouche supporters using signs which clearly were marked as being from his organizations (bottom Image). The lesson we can take is one does need to carefully inspect from whence messages actually derive. The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) often are seen at pro-life rallies as well as disrupting the ceremonies of fallen soldiers being interred which would appear as far right at one demonstration and perceived as far left at the other. The reality is that the WBC is a family who believe they know everything about everything with such assuredness and certitude because they honestly believe their messages are derived from Heaven. Their manners and willingness to insult the sensitivities of a family grieving proves that to be otherwise unless their Bible is worded very differently than mine and likely most of yours, dare we say all of yours. Unfortunately for the progressive left, their message is plain, clear and unmistakable. They won the election and damned be the rules. So what if we knew the rules ahead of the election, they did not go our way and thus must be corrected. That is their message on its face value, but is there another message hidden within their rhetoric?

 

Anti-Trump Protesters

LaRouche Impeachment Protester with Printed Sign
Depicting President Obama as Adolph Hitler

 

The answer is that there is another message but it is not hidden in their message, it is their message. The message they are screaming is simply that they will stop at nothing and they will get their day to make America theirs again. They promise that one of these times they will finish the job and nobody will ever be able to oppose them again. The problem is that they are dead on right and they will prevail if for no other reason, they have nothing else in life as important as ruling the lesser people. Oh yes, we the multitudes are these lesser people and unless we masses stand against their ideas we will live under those ideas. What are these ideas? Well, President Obama and Hillary Clinton threw off any masks of pretense and plainly stated these ideas and what they desire to do for starters. Quoting President Obama with excerpt below and full speech video as well,

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me – because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t – look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires; we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.”

 

The entire Democrat Party stated it clearly when they refused any Republican amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and passed it in both the House of Representatives and the Senate without a single Republican voting for this universal government guaranteed and funded, sort of, healthcare. When this fails, and it is failing, then the democrats will insist that healthcare in the United States is broken, which they know they broke, they will claim the only answer is a single payer government healthcare, their aim from the beginning. We know this because it was what Hillary Clinton tried to form into a comprehensive plan when her husband, William Jefferson Clinton, was President. Even the Democrats rejected such a plan back then because they knew they had to make healthcare even more burdensome before the American people would accept an all government system. That was the idea behind the PPACA, to destroy the insurance industry and make healthcare so broken the people would demand something, anything, and that will be when they get the socialist healthcare like Canada, Europe, and Mainland China. Their aims are the same that socialists have chased and imposed whenever and wherever they can take control, and eventually they will take control. The progressive ideals started with Theodore Roosevelt and was crystalized and defined by Woodrow Wilson and carried into programs by Franklin Delano Roosevelt with Social Security, higher Minimum Wage, a federal labor board which dictated prices and virtually all sides of manufacturing to retail which had to be retracted as the people all but revolted carrying proverbial pitchforks and torches to Washington through the voting booths.

 

Lyndon Banes Johnson gave us the Great Society which was far less great, not so much society, not actually civil, but was most definitely socialist and destructive all but permanently destroying many cities and even far more families as much of the aid to poor was a set of demands which demanded that parents be single parents and then they decried there being so many single parent homes, especially in the inner city communities, meaning minority generally and blacks in particular. They claimed that without the Democrats in power the welfare, food stamps and other programs would be taken from the poor should Republicans ever be elected. Since Lyndon Baines Johnson there have been a few Republican Presidents including Nixon, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush and these programs did not disappear but now the claim is President elect Trump will take away these programs as the latest scare tactic. Then President Jimmy Carter decided that instead of having one Cabinet Department of Health, Education, and Welfare he made a separate Education Department as a new Cabinet position and competency and education quality have declined to the point where the United States is near the bottom of the industrial and developed world. The constantly proposed solution has never been to return education to the local level, preferably as close to the individual schools and their communities as possible but to spend more money and with these increased funds they demand that the schools hire people to assist the schools in utilizing these funds. The new hires use up most of the money just in salaries and then bemoan not having sufficient funding to meet the demanded programs, more funding. Schools have gone from a three or four room main office with one Principal, one or two Vice Principals, a relatively small number of councilors, two to three secretaries and the teachers were the hall monitors. In today’s schools many have two or more Principals, numerous Vice Principals, a small herd of councilors, a diversity coordinator, an EEOC coordinator, other coordinators and advocacy positions and all of these people have staffs and investigators, some have police in their halls, and instead of less than half a dozen offices there are now an entire wing of the schools used for administrations. Back before the Department of Education schools had a few necessary officers and that was all but now they have administrations and when you get such a formal title it takes more funding to staff these important administrators who mostly fill out reports demanded by Washington D.C. and half of the teachers teach two or less classes and spend the rest of their time filling out reports to prove they satisfied all the demands on diversity, multicultural education, inclusion teaching and who knows what else. They have changed reading from phonics to whole word recognition where the pupils are taught words by recognition of the symbols, the letters, but the letter have no sounds of their own, they just make a sound in the recognized form of a taught word. If your schools did not teach you some words, then you must not need those words, which is a great way to enforce limitations to thought because without the words how can one express new ideas?

 

Then there is new math because the old math of traditional methods was a failure because it did not use the latest psychologically meaningful method where the student will understand by having images in their heads from this system where every year they try a new approach and then complain that the children are confused and having trouble. The solution is let us try this new, new, new math. Math as taught today would bamboozle Euclid, confound Aristotle and would have left Bernhard Riemann lost and unable to reinvent geometry such that it could be applied to all surfaces no matter how irregular, and his mathematics enabled Einstein’s theories of relativity to have the necessary mathematical groundwork. Professor Riemann passed away on July 20, 1866 at the age of thirty-nine; a great loss for modern analytic geometry. Just under thirteen years later on March 14, 1879 Professor Albert Einstein was born. I would like to have seen these two men work together to solve the lofty questions of the geometric forms which make up our universe. Oh, did we mention that both these men learned math the old school way, the way we learned math and how one of us was able to take, and still working on fully understanding, a course using Professor Riemann’s book and theorems where n-dimensional space becomes one’s friend or one’s nemesis.

 

Riemann Surfaces

 

Back to another certainty where a great writer posed that if the government determined it to be true and taught everyone that 2+2=5, would that make it true? He also introduced us to Big Brother and a farm with some very strange animals, and the strangest of all were the pigs as they replaced the farmer. This author was a wild and crazy socialist idealist as a youth and became one of the world’s foremost adversaries to socialism as he gained experience, and we would believe wisdom. This man’s name was George Orwell, born on June 25, 1903, and died on January 21, 1950. His change of heart was a result of his observations of the three greatest socialist nations of his lifetime, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), Communist Mainland China, and Nazi Germany and its socialist allies of Spain and later Italy. He predicted or witnessed social upheavals, depredations of morality, financial strident control resulting in shortages all the while enjoying the grandeur that the British Empire and the fledgling nations which sprang from her colonial holdings and how they differed so much from many of the other European colonial nations upon gaining their freedom. He attributed this to the fact that the British did not punish beyond taxes the entrepreneurial spirit and actually often worked at nurturing such exploits. The British also insisted that their colonial entities have adequate schooling to serve the crown to a higher level which brought wealth to both the crown and the colony. The other colonial European powers enforced a strict almost caste system with redistribution of resources always keeping the best possible for their own subjects and the crowns back home giving little regard to the peasant populations, as they viewed them, for all they were worth was a laborers to comply with instructions.

 

Imagine what we would be looking at in eight years had Hillary Clinton won and also achieved reelection. After a second term it would be unlikely that anybody more conservative than Bill Clinton could even imagine getting elected. The system would have been so overwhelmed with immigrants due to at least two if not many more waves of pardons for illegal aliens, there we go again, we mean undocumented workers, or is it citizens sans affirmation. Hillary Clinton had stated she believes that borders are not necessary to define a nation and that citizenship belongs in the ash-heap of history as the antiquated concept it represents. Equality in all things for all with our minders, our betters receiving a double, then triple and even more for their share as they are so much more deserving and their work more demanding scurrying around repairing this, tweaking that. Really there is no better way to describe how it all ends in a socialist nation as all one need do is look around the world and see which nations are stagnant, which are thriving and which are basically defunct and failed. The United States will thrive again; it is just a matter of how long it will take to slash away generation of barnacles from the Ship of State, which in English means ridding the books and the businesses of many of the useless regulations, reports and other government imposed restrictions and impediments. The USSR, dead and buried but still not exactly thriving as many of the detrimental resentments from almost a century of socialism and top down planning takes a while plus having such a steep negative growth rate withering away their population and the poor distribution of power which still remains far too centralized and held by a select few. Then there is mainland China which was doing so poorly they decided that cutting their population size would be easier than growing more food despite having much rich farmlands and good rivers. Their one child policy, a social engineering project if ever we saw one, produce almost two generations of mostly male children and now they are having some difficulties, like nowhere near sufficient women for the men to marry, what to do other than admit your plan backfired as you never anticipated that people would do whatever it took to have one male child. Abortions in China during this period were almost exclusively of girls which simply tell the story; one cannot force policies to have desirable outcomes, only allowing people freedom to reach their own desired outcomes and freedom to pursue life will produce the best results. The greatest example of the absolute bankruptcy of socialism comes from a nation with vast oil reserves and was once the beacon for democracy and free market economy with the highest per capita income in South America. Everybody figured they had it made and their government acted confident in that being true. They had a revolution and Marxists who believed that the Soviet example was the best form of fair governance and that they knew what went wrong and were going to show the world successful socialist governance. They had everything going for them with oil reserves and surpluses of almost everything. That was in the 1998 when Hugo Chavez won election running as a populist candidate. Often socialist progressivist governance comes to power under the guise of popularism which is code for giving people promises of plenty of free stuff. Once in office you take from those with wealth to fulfill your promises of giving the poorer people free things. When you steal from Bob, Bob will not vote for you in the future. But if you steal from Bob and give free things to George, Fred, Susan and a dozen or two dozen, it all depends on how much you give and what you can take from Bob, but then you get all those other people voting for you, so who needs Bob’s vote.

 

Hugo Chavez eventually ran out of people like Bob who had great wealth but there was still stuff to steal in order to continue to give stuff which needs not only to continue but now they demand bigger and more expensive stuff. So you nationalize the oil and gas industry and run them like a government agency. Well, that did not turn out as well as hoped so they nationalized the banks because obviously the banks had robbed the people of their money. Meanwhile the progressive leftist mainstream media lauded the greatness of Hugo Chavez who was still largely popular. Well, Hugo Chavez died of cancer in March of 2013, but he had a protégée who won election in April of 2013 making Nicolas Maduro the new President. The problems kept snowballing but all the government knows is socialism must work if only we make the right adjustments. People are starving; those with property do not leave their homes for fear of personal harm coming to them. Christmas was promising to be joyless which is one thing no government can allow, right? The government found the problem, apparently the main toy manufacturer was trying to gouge the people by charging high prices and get wealthy on the backs of parents buying gifts for their children at those inflated prices. The government took millions of toys and sold them at ridiculously low prices and how this raised moral in the capital and possibly places beyond, but there will be no joy nor toys to steal next year so this will be the last Christmas for the foreseeable future and socialism has brought the former jewel of South America to the brink of ruin and potential revolution. I think somebody should seriously think of heading out before being invited to leave more than Venezuela as they storm the capital with their remaining but fleeting strength. Every revolution has its turning point and the socialist revolution in Venezuela has actually gone beyond theirs. If ever there was a pressing reason to utilize the ridiculous and undignified Monroe Doctrine, it would be to assist Venezuela in holding fair elections and work to return the nation’s business to businessmen and women and assist their getting the nation back on its feet. Intervening with humanitarian assistance in this case has many an argument going for it as the United States used to and still does receive a share of our oil from Venezuela, so it is not like there is no self-serving interest in this case. But the people of the United States should have pictures of the extent to which socialism allowed to run rampant can destroy an otherwise healthy and prosperous nation and do so in less than twenty years. Why wait for the next lesson to possibly be the United States because should the people ever elect another progressive to the White House and allow them a pen and a phone as they will make quick work of reinstating everything up to and including all President Obama and the progressives before him had established and then add their own trinkets because that is how the progressives progress. Never ever retreat could easily be their motto, so to resist them never give up and never surrender and as Thomas Jefferson, or maybe Wendell Phillips, wisely wrote or stated, history can be so blurred and just imagine what the Internet will do to this with all the posts and tweets flying every-which-way, but to the quote in closing,

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either from human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

When Change Comes Merely For Change, Hope Can Only Follow

 

While it is a given that leftists, progressives, liberals or whatever one chooses to call those from the left of even the socialists demand change for the sake of change. Their rallying cry is and always has been we can do better and we can only get there through change, often, as was with President Obama in his 2008 campaign, radical changes. What people should ask themselves, and in turn those demanding change, is what we have working or has it failed us. The easiest way to remember this is to ask oneself as soon as one hears the mantra of change, especially change for the sake of progress, another way of saying change, is whether change is necessary or is the present system actually working. Even if we decide the system in place needs change, or simply some adjustments, then one need ask of those calling for change would be for them to spell out in specifics which parts of the system they believe requires change and what exactly is their change and how will it be an improvement. Usually if one simply claims change is required because we can do better, but they do not define the change, they just scream we must change everything that is not working or is broken, then this person is a danger to the society. Change is not in and of itself good. The concept that all change is inherently good because change will bring innovations and the latest new ideas into play and these new ideas are change we need is dangerous. Changes and new ideas should be approached with great caution, tried in selected places where if this change is an improvement, then this test group is the most likely to understand and gain from the change; and if they fail when trying change then one need return to the previous method and simply state that they gave the changes a fair assessment and they did not produce desired results thus these specific changes are harmful and will not be implemented.

 

 

 

 

The most evident and easiest to understand is in the field of education, all levels of education. The reason education is such a prime example is because there have always been improvements introduced which were radically successful and other changes have crashed and burned and should have been rejected but for the sake of ‘progress’ (this word actually means change when used in anything even remotely political and education is the most egregious example of these rantings and the programs they installed) were instituted across the board because they only failed because the entire system was not installed and full implementation is the only true test. Full implementation means absolutely no way ever of returning to the previous method because it will have been erased from educator’s minds by the changes in the curricula being taught at every level to teachers, and teachers are one of the few professions where additional training is required. The change barkers, the change merchants, the bringers of change armed with demands of this has to be better as it is change and that makes it innovative beyond any rational understanding so you must accept change, will attempt to overwhelm any opposition with long diatribes which have no clear meaning other than a simple idea that ‘change equals good’ and that is all the argument necessary just as long as you never state that clearly.

 

Go online and try to understand Common Core math as there are many sites to try and understand their version of subtraction or their forms for algebra which will eventually give one the correct answer provided the answer is a whole number, any mathematician or physicist or other professional who uses math will attest is a rare occurrence which usually only exists in the problems set-up to produce such a result. The reasoning behind this new math, as it used to be named, is that flash cards and memorizing tables is evil and does not explain to the student exactly what addition, subtraction, multiplication and division actually are and this new method does so by revealing every step taken in one’s mind. Therein lays the problem because no two minds will react in exactly the same manner except for memorization.

 

You want children to understand simple math just give them one hundred dollars in a savings account and tell them that they must never ever allow the principle to drop below that one-hundred dollars. You can then explain how the interest is applied and once they have mastered their savings account they will have a grasp of every function including some simple algebra. Actually, handling money will often teach children what math means faster than anything else. Further, if you ever want to see if the math teacher fully understands addition, just ask them in math what is the definition of a successor. Their answer should start out like this: a successor to any whole number is the point one increment higher on the number line. Every number has a successor thus there is no highest number thus we represent that concept as infinity. As every number has a successor, ever number is the successor to the number before it on the number line. Addition is repeated successors such that five plus three you are looking for the number that is the third successor of five thus the first successor to five is six, the second is seven and the third is eight so five plus three is eight. Subtraction is exactly the opposite so you count in the other direction to find what had the number as its third successor. Multiplication is repeated addition and exponentials are repeated multiplication and once you master that, welcome to the sixth grade and word problems; you will simply learn to hate two trains on the same track. That should be the gist of the teacher’s reply to your question, a deer in the headlights eye lockup is not the desired answer from a math teacher, and yes, my major was theoretical math at some fairly reputed universities.

 

Another example which I feel has been unbelievably damaging to children’s education was a change for the goodness of change in how reading is taught. The departure from even the most basic of concepts for phonics being dropped and replaced with whole word recognition has a very nefarious and not simply damaging effect on reading, robbing from the child the ability to learn new concepts and ideas on their own. The use of whole word recognition makes it impossible for a child to know what the difference might be had they yet to be introduced to the two words of banana and umbrella as they have no manner to read these words for themselves by sounding out the words using phonics. They do not even understand that just by saying the name of the letters rapidly might also give them sufficient recognition to realize what the written word means. The child has likely run into the two words, banana and umbrella, in their daily lives but solely in conversation and thus knows bananas are food and umbrellas are used for rain or shade from the sun, but never having had the words themselves introduced under whole word recognition, they will not realize what either word is and will be at a loss for understanding.

 

This also comes in handy in controlling discourse or the ability to self-actualize and educate beyond their taught concepts let alone other more esoteric or ponderous political concepts outside those that may have been instilled by their educators. As is well established, control the language and one has controlled the discourse and the paths leading forward. This was well established in the novel 1984 with items being classified as good, plus-good, double-plus-good, ungood, plus ungood, and double-plus-ungood substituted for all emotions across an entire range such as envy, pride, satisfaction, hatred or any word dropped from the approved lexicon and also lost is the concept of having no opinion or neutrality thus one is forced to have an opinion even if one does not care thus everything at a minimum are either good or ungood, no such thing as ‘non-good or ungood’ as that was unacceptable speech thus a thought crime, something everybody knew was double-plus-ungood.

 

These have been some very basic observations on changes over the past half a century in the education profession where the goal of teaching was just as much, if not more so, to place barriers between the student and self-defining such that they could be molded in their thought to come to a uniformed result with all belonging to the groupthink and where individualism was discouraged. As an individual who attended a progressive school which was a test institution for the new reading and writing whole word recognition where I failed miserably as I seemed to continuously write and use words which were, as near as I could tell, unappreciated and there was a strong desire to press upon me the disapproval such words would have on my life should I persist in speaking using such terminology and that I should restrict my thoughts and expressions both written and spoken to appropriate language. As those of you who visit here probably have figured, I hardly ever restrict my choice of words to the meager vocabulary my school teachers of my youth desired I restrict myself to using. I was blessed with a mother whose patience rivaled that of Job who taught me at great pains, largely mine as she believed strongly in corporal-punishment, to use phonics starting with learning to sound out a word by simply saying the letters very quickly slurring them together and if that failed to use the more traditional sounding the word out painstakingly using every conceivable combination of long and short vowels and different emphasis and syllable break-points. I eventually learned sufficiently well enough to become self-sufficient in reading and learning new worlds though never quite to my mother’s, Baruch Hashem, complete satisfaction. My mother was to be blessed for teaching me to think and express myself adequately though after I realized my own path she did not exactly agree with my politics though she could rarely find fault with my positions, she just could not appreciate the manner in which I expressed my views when voting. I would always tell her that she need not worry as whomever I would vote for would be the candidate who would lose so she should be glad I did not vote as she preferred as that one vote would cause them to lose. Enough rambling and perhaps I might get back on track.

 

I find that I agree that certain things require changing and require such on a regular basis. Many pieces of clothing require changing each on its own schedule, though many choose to change all at the same time, to each their own. Traffic signals changing are a good concept. I have found that except for things which are cyclical that slow and steady change is not a bad idea as should any single step prove unproductive or worse, counter-productive, then it can be altered or even simply undone and discarded. That is how evolution works, or so I have been told though the skeletons of the individual animals which grew eventually into ducks and chickens from a singular ancestral bird have yet to be found; I will not condemn the entire theory as of yet. Somewhere there is an animal where one is a Ducken and another is a Chuck but thus far no such has shown. We are shown an animal’s skeleton and are told this is the ancestral animal from which we get the duck, the chicken, the swan, the emu, the Ostridge and etc. and etc. That had to be one proud bird-like creature to be the forerunner of so many different birds and yet I have trouble seeing the similarities and especially the differences.

 

 

 

 

Many of the ancestral animals I am particularly glad are not on Earth today as many were downright frightening in size and probably equally capable in defending themselves. I will always remember this one bird which they claim the Ostridge family arose that could kill a modern day buffalo with one strike from its beak by breaking the buffalo’s neck. That was one mean and nasty well-armed bird even if it could not fly. Yet, similarly the same biological-anthropologists, I think that is what they are called, tell us the cockroach has survived from before the dinosaurs almost unchanged over time as it has found itself well-adapted for its niche though some claim it has differed in size from time to time and even place to place. The difference in size from place to place I personally am able to confirm. These changes are necessary and led to our emergence so we do owe our very existence to change. That alone does not make change necessarily good. The flu virus threat changes every year, or at least the injection procedure and medication changes every year and this is definitely a bad thing, especially if the physicians guess wrong and a different outbreak were to strike which actually was favored by their flu shots, this would be a calamity, a world-wide calamity. So here change happens and unless the doctors get the correct change we can lose and lose big. But change in the manner in which we do things such as education, growing crops, raising herd animals, anything to do with the food chain should not be altered drastically or completely across all borders just in case one particular path proves devastatingly wrong. As long as there are crops or animals which were left unaffected by progress, then there would be a chance to return to a path which we know to be solid and proceed, making certain we do not go down that ill tread path ever again.

 

The same should apply to education, and even political change though that often comes only from violent and complete change, all too often resulting within a short period of time, an all too short a period, to result in the same dilemma though with a new tyrant replacing the old tyrant. Then there are the merchants of hope who claimed that Bashir al-Assad was a reformer and would bring democracy and an enlightened path to Syria because, after all, he was educated in Britain and had been shown the advantages of Western culture and a whole long list of positive enforcements which would serve as a bulwark guarding against any temptations to resort to the kind or actions his father had used when he nearly wiped out an entire town to put an end to demonstrations. Unfortunately for the Syrian people and the entirety of the heartlands of the Middle East the Bashir acorn did not fall far from the tree and we had an exact same response to the demonstrations and then some, leading to a dysfunctional devastation spreading across the heartlands of the Middle East from Lebanon across the Syrian borders through to Iraq and even sprouting offshoots in Libya, Sinai Peninsula, Nigeria and beyond known as ISIS and claiming to be the Caliphate. That too is a form of change but not exactly constructive change.

 

I am not calling for an end to change as to do that is to claim you are against all progress. I am also not ever going to claim that all change is progress and therefore inherently good. Measured change which has been tried and proven to be an improvement by a wide consensus comprised with people from as wide an array of perspectives, experiences and all other criteria which may be either favorable or unsympathetic to the planned change is careful and responsible change. The results should be measured by disparate methodologies and across every field which may be affected and these results repeated in second, third and even fourth separate studies using different situations and mediums as may potentially be affected as well. Once a change has proven effective and superior to the previous known and generally accepted methods, then it can be fully implemented. Change must be performed in incremental and deliberate stages such that any and all ramifications as well as any difficulties can be addressed and rectified before the next stage is implemented. Change which is undefined is and always will be a threat to the wellbeing of the society.

 

Whenever somebody, especially a person attempting to take a meaningful position such as principle of a school or President of a nation, they must be forced to define every step of what it is they plan to change before their call for change can be judged and then approved by the people. Change which is undefined and the actual changes kept from definition is truly Hope and Change and that can prove to be very detrimental, something the full effects of which are being and are going to continue to be felt unfortunately far beyond the borders where the people claimed that they could sign on to Hope and Change and all that went with it. May the full effects be able to be repaired before some of the change delivers some nasty results, the arming of Iran with nuclear weapons within the decade being a prime example. Hopefully the human race has had enough Change where Hope was the underpinning and will now know to force any politicians claiming to be the bringer of Hope coupled with Change will demand as to what it is they Hope for and what Change they intend to use to get there, and then limit their enthusiasms as much as one is able. Change will happen even if a Luddite gains office and his entire Luddite Party gains both houses of Congress, even with such a resistance elected, change will come because some changes just cannot be held back.

 

Once the steam engine was invented and modified for industrial use with the centrifugal governor regulating its speed there would be no going back to oxen as the power for industry, the industrial revolution became unstoppable. Change that is worth keeping will eventually come into being but even as that may bring in change, it must be allowed to bring certain changes to an end when they no longer serve any purpose. One need not install any centrifugal governor to a step dc motor because it cannot enter a runaway mode, thus requiring such might have been a great idea during the steam age but would become an unnecessary part in the electronic age and requiring one would serve to keep the copper ball manufacturers employed but that would serve little other use beyond needlessly increasing prices. Still, one would be astonished on how long people have been kept in the employ and even hired to fill a position even after their position was no longer required. The fire stokers were required to man stations even after the steam locomotives were replaced by diesel electric engines despite there being no fire to tend nor coal to shovel, but that position was kept as required to man any engine for almost two decades after they became obsolete. There are those who claim this is what led to the end of passenger rail service in the United States but at the same time made air travel so successful. Eventually necessary change will happen and when resisted it can have some very interesting consequences.

 

Beyond the Cusp