Man Child Mentality

I'm actually having fun with all the feminine energy. It's a simple choice, either you accept what happened in the 2018 Mid-Term Elections or your Giant Bowl of Slime, it's that simple. Believe it or Not Boys, Ladies are half of the Electorate and if you want to continue to piss them off until your cast out into the oblivion, go right ahead. I'm sure the rest of us won't care if we see the likes of your kind for the next century. These jerks with their Clinging to Guns & Religion philosophy are about as current, as say Volksdeutsche. Now I know it takes an extraordinary leap of common sense for you to understand this, but right now I'm celebrating with women. I grew up with women. I was raised by women. Some of my best friends are women. All I can tell you is that it is nice to have comradery with the guys, but when you go home and want to be comfortable who better to spend your time with than a woman? Someone who is not Emotionally deprived or acts like a two-year-old. In early education, it's plain to see that girls are all about communicating and boys are about dominance & aggression. Now if you're a middle-aged man and you still want to be aggressive & dominant, I hate to inform you that the rest of us look at you like you're a child. It's simple, men who have matured into full grown independent thinkers and self-supporting role models, make a better world. Men who still need their momma to shoo away "Bad People," are an example of arrested development. I'm not saying everyone is without fault or that I myself didn't make many mistakes in my half a century of experience, but choices we're made, and the consequences of those choices contribute to where we are now at this particular moment. You can either decide that you're going to cooperate with the rest of the world or you're going to cling to your security blanket of misogyny, intolerance or hatred of others. It really is that simple and I am literally rolling on the floor laughing at those in my news feed who are fighting every little threat to their insecurity. I got news boys. The rest of us don't have that problem. "I'm with her," has a new meaning now. It's about the majority of people in society. We're all tired of your rhetoric. Your insistence that everything be done "Your Way," and frankly, "Your Time is UP." For example, in the State of Washington alone, voters approved a higher bar for Automatic Weapons and Police Over-Sight. What is the backlash? We have numerous stories where everyone opposed to operating under the conditions that the voters approved are speaking out. I want to point out. I personally don't have a problem with citizens opposed to or speaking out about policies they are against because 1st Amendment Rights protect Free Speech. What I do not understand though is when a requirement requires a higher principle or version of scrutiny, we as average Americans usually comply instead of trying to go on camera and reverse a decision made by the electorate. This is a prime example of the arrested development I am mentioning. You don't hear me cry around when some job responsibility requires that I learn a new technique or go through some type of mass re-training. Well, I might complain at first, but if I like my job and the money it earns to pay bills, I will comply. Going on television and trying to tell everyone who voted for this they're wrong, is just a knee-jerk reaction. Accepting the reality of the situation shows the person understands responsibility. That is called acting like a mature adult. Now let's take it a step further and say my role in society also puts me in the position of enormous power and that power includes the legal ability to take life from someone or end their life Seems to me when you put it in context, whining about a higher scrutiny seems rather obvious that the person doing the whining doesn't possess the maturity to understand the gravity of the situation. "I cannot do my job," is what the claim is. All I can think is, how is being aware of worst case scenario a, "I cannot do my job," scenario? What exactly do you need to do your job? Do you need to kill people with impunity? Assuming the answer is "Yes," makes me think you don't fully understand what it means to serve & protect. Using this as a "High Bar," or Low bar, depending on your own opinion, it's example of how we must be living in two different worlds. Another example is attitudes that guns are not the problem, but people are. In other countries where common sense gun laws rule society they have less than a thousand gun-related deaths a year. In America where we don't have the same standards the gun-related death count is over 32,000 and it takes in the consideration of mental health. What I'm saying is the idea that a "Madman," with a gun is the problem is a lie. Populations have roughly the same number of people with mental health issues. Maybe we just have to many guns! O boy! I can hear the echo of every middle-aged man with the mental maturity of a six year old screaming at me insults and offenses that would make a sailor cringe, but I'm willing to accept that attack because it's just words. What I'm trying to point out is that in today's climate, it's not just words anymore. People much like the Mail Bomber and the Synagogue attacker believe that real people must die for an ideological view. Even if this view isn't something real, but something they heard somewhere or read on the internet. That is the true essence of the Man-Child Mentality. So essentially, maybe you’re just blowing off steam or enjoy a good argument, but in the real world those of us who witness this type of behavior are starting to consider that there might be something wrong with you. I know that when I sense that my behavior is a bit off, I seek clarification to the individuals I offend how I might correct the behavior. In lies the rub of what I'm suggesting, social behavior or anti-social behavior is an extension of emotional maturity. As a man with responsibilities and an understanding that displays of aggression are a sign of weakness, I suggest to you my friend that you consider some counseling or just "SFU!" Until more men step forward and say this towards the fellow members of our gender, we will continue to see this type of behavior. All I know is that it's always been "Woman & Children First," in the world I live in. If you have a problem with that can you really call yourself a man?

Gun Rights

What Clarence Thomas Gets Wrong About the Second Amendment “[t]he right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan.” But in a world where consequences matter, the choice of the “orphan” metaphor is a particularly regrettable one: Guns in America have created real orphans in every city and state. No other right I can think of has done the same. To liberate black people all over the world, has sparked a lively discussion over whether he is a bad guy to begin with. What could be so bad about black liberation? “I fist-pumped in the silent, dark theater when he was laying out his plans.” I am using these excerpt from two totally different subjects to juxtaposition: the fact of two things being placed close together for contrasting effect, review an interesting phenomenon at play in our present day. Oddly enough, we have some non-traditional actors coming to the defense of gun rights after yet another mass killing this time carried out by an associate of White Supremacist. Clarence Thomas is an African/American Supreme Court Justice. He most famously faced a long and very public hearing where his former assistant Anita Hill accused him of in-appropriate behavior. That must of been nearly twenty years ago, but the vivid depictions of pornography remain fresh in my mind. I bring it up because in the twenty or so years after Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court which he was the first African American Supreme Court Judge, he has been mostly silent and has voted conservative. There isn't an issue with his conservative ideology or the fact that he has been silent in public hearings. The issue I see is his outspoken stance on gun rights. This is a man that has been obviously put in a position where his voice was limited from the very beginning. Not his decision making or his judgment has ever been in question, but for some reason his public voice has been silenced for two decades except for Gun Right cases? What’s wrong with this argument as a matter of law is that it’s being carried on in the dark, with no more grounding in facts than the average afternoon radio call-in show. A responsible course—as even Solicitor General seemed to admit—would be to remand the case for the creation of a factual record to supplant some of the airy theorizing the advocates (and the justices) engaged in. But that would allow it to carry on for another year or two. And that’s what’s really wrong with the whole proceeding. The conservative justices don’t even try to hide it: The case is really about politics—about their feeling that public-opinions on the NRA are not too powerful and that the policies they favor are hurting the country and they are all liberals who want Gun Control and they need to be stopped right away. In general, when we discuss government there are two sides to the conversation. On one side you have the Federalist perspective that advances Federal power and often times is called an over reach. On the other, you have state's rights advocates that believe in limiting the powers of the Federal government. To demonstrate this example let us hear from Anthony Kennedy who is also a Supreme Court Justice with what he had to say about this in a Labor case: "It can be a partner with you in advocating for a greater size workforce, against privatization, against merit promotion, against—for teacher tenure, for higher wages, for massive government, for increasing bonded indebtedness, for increasing taxes? That’s—that’s the interest the state has?" Let's exmine each of his statements as separate ideas to interpret his opposition to them. "It can be a partner with you in advocating for a greater size workforce," remember he is talking about the power of Labor unions. "Against privatization, against merit promotion," It seems to be he thinks Labor's measure of achievement is anti-capitalist and pro-socialist. "Against—for teacher tenure, for higher wages," now this one, it seems he believes Labor advocates for only Union Members to see increased wages. "For massive government, for increasing bonded indebtedness, for increasing taxes?" "That’s—that’s the interest the state has?" He's making it very clear that his stance is political. What sort of actor or actors do they answer to? It makes me wonder, "Who runs the Supreme court?" It's the legal branch of government and here we have members of the entity behaving in an obvious manner that is among other things out of step with legal pattern of behavior. A society so riven that the spirit of moderation is gone, no court can save; that a society where that spirit flourishes, no court need save; that in a society which evades its responsibility by thrusting upon the courts the nurture of that spirit, that spirit in the end will perish. It was plain to see that this Court is often very precisely divided on partisan lines. John Roberts is a kind of mirror image of Barack Obama. President Obama thought he would bridge the partisan divide in Washington by explaining himself to Republicans and getting them to agree. But that’s not how politics works. In my opinion, when he came on the Court, Chief Justice Roberts also believed that, because he is so intelligent and such a skilled writer, he would win over those who disagreed. That of course did not happen; it could not have happened. In one of those “unanimous” cases, Bond v. United States, Justice Antonin Scalia read his angry concurrence from the bench just as if it were a dissent – something that has seldom if ever happened before. There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” In that reading, the most protected participation is not the right to vote, but the speech-based right to spend money to speak independently and to contribute money to political figures. I think, democracy is a process in which those who have money and power necessarily and properly wield more influence than those who do not. Famous entertainers can raise more money than rich donors were allowed to give. This was unfair to the donors; the fact that rich donors can give more than ordinary citizens was not worthy of mention. I conclude that the Chief thinks that a level playing field is not simply impermissible but undesirable; that the hills from which some speak, and the valleys in which others are trapped and muffled, are what the Founders had in mind. “[i]f the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades – despite the profound offense such spectacles cause—it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.” Now let's examine the powerful lobby effort of the Gun's Rights advocates keeping in mind that they already have a majority of the Supreme Court backing. This is to point out that no one is coming for their guns, but they use that as slogan to keep their supporters in fear that is happening. NRA head breaks silence to attack gun control advocates LaPierre made the customary moves: denunciations of creeping socialism, warnings that American’s gun rights could suddenly come under threat, blame of the mainstream media for its deceptions. At times, he sounded like Trump’s political identical twin. And we have this from French leadership, although not directly connected to the NRA, sounding suspiciously similar: Maréchal-Le Pen claimed French sovereignty was under siege. “France is no longer free today,” she proclaimed. “After 1500 years of existence, we now must fight for our independence.” She also claimed that after 40 years of mass immigration, Islamist lobbies and political correctness, France was in the process of going “from the eldest daughter of the Catholic Church to the little niece of Islam”. What do all these things have in common? Conscious and unconscious ideas, that an individual group has. A narrower scope than the ideas expressed in worldview. In other words, ideology! What we’re seeing is an extension of a dominant class an elite to all members of society. When post-Napoleonic governments adopted a reactionary stance, French nobility struggled to maintain their own rights in the matters of local government. Representatives of royal power in the provinces did much to undermine local control. Now I want to stop here to point out that This Conservative viewpoint is reversed here in America. We don't have a Monarchy, so the idea that Nobles & Royalty exist is more attributed to Wealth & Equality. Our substitute for servant based economy is as much a depiction of wealth inequality as any Monarchy. So earlier when I asked, "Who runs the Supreme court?" I think it's safe to say from the demonstrations we've witnessed in terms of the court's decisions becoming political, it's wealth. Now if wealth is controlling branches of government which it's also simply safe to say more than likely it is, "What type of Secret Society is it?" This term, "Secret Society," has been around for a long time and it applies to many ancient concepts, but what mainstream examples do we have today? For background into this concept, we go back to France. French Protestantism, which was largely Calvinist, derived its support from the lesser nobles and trading classes. Its two main strongholds were south west France and Normandy, but even in these districts the Catholics were a majority. in 1620 the Huguenots proclaimed a constitution for the "Republic of the Reformed Churches of France." Huguenots were allowed to hold religious services in certain towns in each province. Conservatives were on the defensive, and the government increasingly applied pressure. A series of small civil wars broke out in southern France between 1610 and 1635. They were long considered to be regional squabbles, but today we know they were between rival noble families. Let's consider the idea that our form of Democracy is at times, at it's core, an extension of French revolution. Peasants lead a revolt against the Nobles and succeeded. As for terms of seigneurial dues or tax, the majority refused to pay. I comparison, present day America. Tax cuts! Lead by wealthy Americans and signed by their leader into law. Founding texts of modern France. "They destroyed aristocratic society from top to bottom, along with its structure of dependencies and privileges." "For this structure they substituted the modern, autonomous individual, free to do whatever was not prohibited by law ... The Revolution thus distinguished itself quite early by its radical individualism." In America that is known by its current moniker, "Freedom." The old judicial system, based on the 13 regional parliaments were suspended and officially abolished. The main institutional pillars of the old regime had vanished overnight. Its central phrases and cultural symbols became the clarion call for major upheaval. What does this say about modern judicial activism in our society? Does Clarence Thomas want guns for the citizens to provide ammunition for a future revolution? Remember, I provided an excerpt from a viewer watching Marvels, "Black Panther," as the second phrase starting this narrative. By comparing modern culture and historical record, we can see a clear pattern of upheaval today, but what does it mean when the conservatives hold all three branches of government and are the current Anti-Proletarians? Who are they rebelling against? Inequality is broken into further classes of Gender, Education, Race, Social, Participation & Stratification. Stratification is where we find the differentiation of Upper, Middle and finally Lower class in society. This is further described as Kinship, Clan, Tribe or Caste. Here is the connection between Social Conservatism and Kinship/Clan stratum of society. We all know that Caste System dictates wealth. If your parents are poor, you are born poor and so on and so forth. Conservatives claim that Middle American workers or Blue Color voters have been left behind by a government that has ignored them. I'd tend to agree with this sentiment, but where I start clarification between reforming governmental policy and reforming judicial precedent is with the "Hot-Button," issues, Voter Restriction, Abortion, Labor and Gun Rights. You can see where these issues are world view versus justice instead of one in the same. Law is not quite the legal theory where fairness is administered as the word Justice implies. When a Supreme court judge is allowed to be political in decision making and swayed by the influence of wealth or power, well that isn't exactly administering justice is it? It's not just the Legal Branch of government that I'm talking about here, but the last branch of government Americans want politicized. Politicians vote on law every day. A court judge reviews those laws when they come into conflict with existing laws, they rule it out of order. But, by becoming an advocate for gun rights before listening to a petitioner state a case, is a clear-cut sign of influence where this circumstance we are seeing, a "First Amendment right being compared to Second Amendment right." For me, that's a problem because the First Amendment is about speech and the Second is about the right to bear Arms. Speech, the last time I checked isn't quite as lethal. What we are witnessing is a judge making a ruling before any evidence has been heard. Does that make sense to you? Not only is he making a decision before examining the evidence he is strictly saying, "Don't bring this to me because this will be my response." Ideology is one thing, but bias and prejudice from a Supreme Court Justice. I know it's heard of and I can fathom it. I just don't understand the principle. How can a judge be allowed to sit in a elevated position, the highest court, and behave in a manner unfit for any court? Then you have elected leaders who choose to corral the impulse to do something to protect the public in favor of protecting themselves. It's pretty clear the GOP is taking a beating, but they're sticking to their guns. At this point the number of guns in the country has reached the saturation point of a one to one ratio of one gun to every person. How about a completely out of the box idea? If the gun manufacturers were thinking strategically they would be in favor of confiscation of certain types of weapons. With millions of guns taken off the market they could start a new sales trend to satisfy the death cult ideology of all those who were forced to turn in a weapon. While it seems counter-productive to the goal of less guns it would be an avenue to getting rid of certain types of weapons such as military grade and semi-autos and with the help of the manufacturers. There's also the disturbing message that this has become a nation of overripe adolescents more preoccupied with infantile comic book fantasies than in paying attention to realities like the ongoing assault on our civil rights. Attack a minority? Fine and dandy. Criticize my comic books and their childish world view? Outrage! Fascism! Yet there are people who don't think Americans have become childishly passive, docile, housebroken consumers. Now we see the same right wing conform-it-ism in broadcasting: A recent merger of the media company Sinclair Broadcasting with Tribune media would eviscerate the principles the FCC was created to uphold and defend. This will bring right wing politics into the homes of 72% of American Households. Principles such as diversity of ownership to foster competition, diversity of viewpoints to foster public debate, and localism to foster service to the community will be cast aside.. All three have been perched precariously on the sill since the Reagan administration. Speaking of presidents, let us examine a current one: These days, the denials serve instead to distract from the ever-clearer picture of a president surrounded by crooks and liars. The claim that this president was a business man is collapsing. Look at the latest development in the corporate hierarchy. It would be easy to write off this moment by saying these companies are simply reacting to an online mob, or following each other like lemmings. But the fact that companies, rather than Congress or the courts, are shifting in response to political activism in the United States says something profound—about American tribalism. This avalanche of companies abandoning the NRA is just the latest chapter in the gradual politicization of every square inch of the public sphere, which has compelled traditionally nonpartisan companies to take one partisan stand after another. I'm a little confused by all this because the GOP has for the most part been business friendly. Now they're attacking corporations for exercising their so-called free speech rights? Let's consider the reasons why this might be happening in the White House and the reason business is breaking partnership with this administration. “Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty.” The discussion on bribery is quickly shifting from did he break the law to what laws did he break? The promise of the Kelly regime was that it would avoid hasty, poorly considered eruptions like this one. The prospect of Trump quickly signing a document without careful vetting harkens back to the earliest days of the administration. In part thanks to the president’s own impulsive statements at the time, the president signed a travel ban that was written without consultation by many of the stakeholders; that ban, and successive iterations, have repeatedly lost in court. This is not the only example of Trump shocking his allies with extemporaneous statements. Why might the president be emotional, volatile, and angry? There are, in fact, plenty of reasons. The revelation that the White House has been gaming the clearance system is not only an example of the kind of chaos that has rattled Trump—it is also a cause. One possible casualty is Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and a senior adviser. While Kushner is not out of the White House, there are signs his position is weakening. Last week, he lost his top-secret clearance as part of reset by Kelly, with the president apparently opting not to overrule his chief of staff in favor of his son-in-law. Kushner’s close aide Josh Raffel this week announced he is leaving. But in Kushner’s case, given his portfolio, his demotion to the kid’s table could prove fatal. Trump flouted the anti-nepotism rules like every other norm, whether giving up his business, releasing his tax returns, or accounting for the money he promised to charity. Trump giving his daughter Ivanka and Kushner jobs in the West Wing was just another example of doing as he pleases with the swagger of a businessman from New York who isn’t going to make governing so much harder than it needs to be. Kushner was given authority to stick his fingers in every pie so that the wattage of any number of other experienced officials was seriously dimmed. Rex who? H.R. McMaster did what? Trump gave the crown jewel of our foreign policy to Kushner with a mandate to bring peace to the Middle East, as if what’s been lacking in the region all these years is for a fresh, untutored mind to take a stab at reconciling blood enemies. If Kushner were to leave, it would be another blow to a president who has few close confidants, tends toward paranoia, and detests changes to his routine. Given that the best the White House press apparatus can even hope for is maintain its head above water. It’s hard to disagree with the statement because Trump reopened his feud with Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday urging him to politicize the Justice Department and circumvent standard procedures. Trump’s previous interference in the Justice Department connects to another source of his recent troubles: the Mueller probe. Mueller has demonstrated the breadth and seriousness of his probe and offered proof of the concepts he's used. That includes a set of detailed indictments against anyone involved with the campaign to interfere with the last presidential election. It seems for the most part able he put to rest any suggestion that Russian interference is imaginary or a "Witch Hunt," like the president says. The president’s own personal business dealings, and obstruction of justice evidence is a reminder of how Trump surrounds himself with crooks and liars. The fact that Kelly and others were able to hold Trump off for so long shows the ways in which they had managed to channel the president’s energy, at least for a time. But the ultimate emergence of scandal demonstrates that any such efforts to handle Trump are doomed to fail. It’s not a temporary development, not a turning point, but the White House's impulsive decisionmaker who seems to feel no need to reconcile differences. “It is not exactly shocking when he betrays the people who elected him,” and "While he doesn't speak for millions of Americans, the vast majority who support him will be appalled”. “Every word is a betrayal.” These were the recent words of a prominent leader who I don't think it's necessary to name, but it goes to demonstrate the opinion changing. “I thought it made for really good TV but I thought some of what was discussed is going to make real bad policy,” he goes on. “We’re talking about punishing innocent Americans and stripping from them constitutional rights without due process,” the leader said. I find this statement particularly compelling coming from a conservative who in fact supports the very idea for everyone who isn't a republican. While Trump’s disdain for his national-security team is not as toxic as his shaming of his attorney general, it’s more dangerous. Intercepts reveal Kushner has gone rogue with impunity, taking and making calls to and from foreign leaders, some of whom only want to deal with ingénue Kushner because he’s so “naïve” and “easily manipulated.” The White House insists that multiyear lapses in clearances happen all the time when, of course, they do not. The only thing Trump can do for Kushner now is to grant him a presidential waiver, but more significantly it could lead to Kelly’s resignation when there is no one willing to take such a perilous job. He not only expected to enjoy the fruits of power and influence but to be rescued from the brink of bankruptcy on a flagship building on Fifth Avenue. There have been few glittery evenings to be had, no dinners in the residence with movie stars or historians, the first White House in decades not to hold a state dinner in the first year. This is all an experience of an anti-intellectual in the White House. "Fake News," a denial of facts. These issues of subjective bias versus objective truth were among those explored in 2016 - 2017 presidential year. I think we were able to get to substance. We were able to move from flame throwing to actual policy. I just think it’s good to hear it from the horse’s mouth and we don't have a bigger Jack Ass other than the one we have. So, I think that is valuable, but I understand that sometimes some of these things can be more heat than light. But I do really try to fight my way to the actual substance. So, I'm a bit interested in what Kushner might have to say after departing the White House, but I'm not holding my breath that he will reveal any more than we already know. I publicly broke up with President Trump — I just felt that it was just a toxic playground and he was the bully. I don’t miss it. I think my life has actually improved. I’m interested, obviously, in what others have to say. And obviously as an American I want to have my finger on the pulse. But I really don’t need to hear his insults. I don’t think that’s good for my psyche. I don’t think that’s helpful dialogue. I don’t think it’s helping kids. I like talking to real people. I think that it has helped. In some way, social media is the same in that you’re always up against an opposition, but instead of going all in for a "Money Shot," you hold out to calm your judgment then you can form an opinion. Believe me sounding rational on social media isn't a very popular fad right now, so it won't build a following that most would like to see. Being Raised in A Greener Pasture May Have Had Beneficial Effects on My Brain Development For this I have to offer about education. Primary schoolchildren who have been raised in homes surrounded by more space to explore tend to present with larger volumes of white and grey matter in areas of their brain. Those anatomic differences are in turn associated with beneficial effects on cognitive function. This is the main conclusion of a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives and led by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health. In contrast, confined young people have special circumstances. They are too hurt and shocked and angry to be calmed down. They are too social-media fazed by bots and trolls. Insane conspiracy theories were born in the 9/11 and are fearless. To be made to be backed up by bullies like the social media trolls they can easily spot the BS of a president. He ruined his hand when he had to palm a card to remind him to care when he speaks to them. Their terrifying experiences contribute to what they are demanding and it’s so irrational and impossible to argue against, but that is exactly what the presidents doing. After an armed security guard – a proverbial good guy with a gun – proved powerless to prevent this tragedy, even more extreme lobbying groups like Gun Owners of America have gone after each of these tragedies to push more guns in more places, more permission for gun owners to kill fellow human beings by ensuring they can get away with it via the law. This should give the average American pause to ask a serious question, "If the goal is to have an all-out war between citizen A against citizen B, who gains the upper hand?" I'll propose one outrageous theory, but it's no more outrageous than some of the ones we've already heard. Culture Vegetables & alcohol And yet, despite having better access to these institutions, it seems like it’s some white people who seem to feel culturally deprived. Here is an example of an average experience. Let's take a girl and call her Amanda. She's a colleague with the contempt for guitars. In 2015, she interviewed black psychologists to ask their opinion about Rachel Dolezal, a white academic who purposely misrepresented herself as an African American. Anita Thomas, an associate professor of counseling psychology at Loyola University, said: “In some ways it’s normal, but not at her age.” Thomas explained that many white adolescents behaved similarly to Dolezal, attempting to take on what they perceived to be the characteristics of another race while exploring their identities. Being “the other” sure as hell has its downsides, but it turns out that not being “the other” does too – especially if you’re a teenager. “For white [American] youth, who are disconnected from European heritage or legacy, it often feels like whiteness as a concept is empty,” Thomas added in a quote that has really stuck with me. It seems to tie together some disparate thoughts I have had on “white” as an adjective. Dolezal was treated as if she were a “bizarre” outlier, but she’s part of a much bigger pattern of white behavior. It includes Mezz Mezzrow, the 1930s jazz musician who declared himself a “voluntary Negro” after marrying a black woman and selling marijuana. It includes the millions of white Americans who take DNA tests and proudly reveal that they are in fact x percent non-white. And it’s a pattern that includes the white Americans who listen to a “rights for whites” album that includes songs titled Sons of Israel and Fetch the Noose. One reaction might seem laughable, the other frightening, but they are all ultimately about finding a concept of whiteness that isn’t empty. But what does all that searching yield? I’m not sure I can answer the question “what is white culture?” but I’m certain we should try. If whiteness takes no shape, then the concrete structures that shaped it (and often benefit from it) remain invisible too – the supermarkets, the marriages, and the museums that make these numbers what they are. If the “somethingness” of white culture is never quite pinned down, it remains both “nothing, really” and “well, everything”. If white culture remains vague, then it can lay claim to every recipe, every garment, every idea that is not explicitly “non-white”. That would mean that my identity is just a sum, that my “non-whiteness” can only be understood as a subtraction from the totality of “whiteness”. I refuse to be a remainder. In comparison, let's now take a look at the opposite perspective. Reviews of Black Panther I loved the movie and am appreciative of the scale of the project and its success. This review made me dig a lil deeper which leads me to agree with the review. I can only hope the success will lead to more offerings that will go a lil further however I THINK if the movie had more political substance perhaps it wouldn't be so successful? I thought the connection with Oakland and the Black Panther Party was daring, useful but unless one knows a lil history, it was probably completely missed. So hopefully we will now see more positive offerings with the Black (American) experience in the lead, like doctors, Charles Drew or inventors George Washington Carver or lawyers Thurgood Marshall. These stories have never been told on a large scale and considering the obstacles of their eras, how could they NOT be compelling? Now see that is my juxtaposition on the entire situation. On one hand, we have the usual suspects behaving in a predictable manner. On the other hand, we have a single solitary member of the highest court in the land behaving in a different manner. I'm not saying because Clarence Thomas is African American I feel I should be able to count on his judgment to fit my world view because that would be foolish. What I am saying is that it's very obvious I cannot count on a lot of individuals to even come to the table to discuss what we might have in common. That bothers me and I want to figure out what are the reasons we are so divided because it's very obvious foreign actors have figured that out and intend to keep us divided. “Unintended consequences” isn’t a supremely appropriate title under which to write the misbegotten history since 9/11 American politicians love to say, “the indispensable nation,” as a matter of fact and I agree with the sentiment, but let's examine if we are a self-proclaimed “sole superpower?” George W. Bush’s administration were stunned as they scurried for cover for al-Qaeda's attacks of that day. As all Americans, at least we should have been better prepared, given the warning offered to the president only weeks earlier. Yet in America, there are remarkably few connections ever made between the present and that blowback moment against the Soviets nearly 40 years ago. al-Qaeda, would be nurtured into existence by an all-American urge to give the Soviet Union its own Vietnam. Bin Laden’s 2001 attack brought official Washington to its knees, to its deepest post-Cold War conviction: that the world was its oyster; that a single great power potentially had it all, a shot at everything, starting with Afghanistan. In a post-Soviet world where America’s leadership felt it' deepest sense of triumph. Back in time, Afghanistan set the stage for America's peril. If we would have just looked at the Soviets history there. Gorbachev, would call it, its “bleeding wound.” Google It! You want to see “blowback” in action? Type in phrases like “warmest years,” “rising sea levels,” “melting ice,” “lengthening wildfire season,” or “future climate refugees,” and you’ll find yourself immersed in the grimmest of blowback universes. Quite the Blowback to conservative idealogy! We don't need to search far when we want to find examples to Blowback in action. Although Great Britain once had global reach, with its dominant navy and far-flung imperial possessions, it alone could not impose its will on its most important international competitors—the United States, France, Germany, Japan, and Russia. Eventually, and predictably, it was eclipsed by several of them. The United States is a unique imperial power. This country stands as an international colossus. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it dominates the world in a manner not seen for least 150 years. America is an empire. Foreign commitments were considered alien to America throughout most of its history. It's a fact that, a decade after the end of the Cold War, hundreds of thousands of American troops, supplied with the world’s most advanced weaponry, sometimes including nuclear arms, are stationed on over sixty-one base complexes in nineteen countries worldwide. Unfortunately, the cost of this policy is high. Among the costs is what the term blowback means. "Unintended consequences of policies." Osama bin Laden, “only turned against the United States in 1991 because he regarded the stationing of American troops in his native Saudi Arabia during and after the Persian Gulf War as a violation of his religious beliefs. In a nutshell those actions, "Radicalized," him. Maligned acts of ‘terrorists’ or ‘drug lords’ or ‘rogue states’ or ‘illegal arms merchants’ often turn out to be blowback from American operations. Osama bin Laden would prove to be the poster boy of blowback. Yet in America, remarkably few connections are ever made between the present war and that blowback moment against the Soviets nearly 40 years ago. So Osama is gone. Obama killed him and here we are dealing with the Soveit Union. This writing is an attempt to see that these things are connected. That Gun Rights in America isn't just something Americans have a stake in, but the discourse is being amplified by foreign interests as well. You can keep crying foul and conspiracy theory, but if you don't become, "Woke," to the facts, you'll never be able to grapple with the challenge before you. Every straw man and scapegoat has been exhausted to the point that were fighting and killing each other. Do you think other countries hungry for power have an interest in that?

Category Processing

Gimmee Data or Gimmee Death 0001001001001000 This is Binary code. It’s a modern binary numerical system. It’s calculus theology. It’s concept in part is that of pagans used to create the term “One, Zero or nothing,” which is a simple representation of God’s almighty power. The reason this is said is because “nothing,” can represent or demonstrate the power of numbers, but Only God can make something out of nothing. I will use this concept to explain a modern-day phenomenon called “category processing.” When people pursue categories to predict romantic inter-action, but do not pay attention to real communication, there are two outcomes: A) Avoiding Love from the right Individual B) Approaching the wrong Person They use superficial categories to define the self and others as well as predict the effectiveness of a possible relationship. It's a very dark day in society when people are being treated as objects but in this narration, I attempt to make the point that it happens to everyone. Being the target of a elucidate ingredients has shown me that either gender can misrepresent themselves or become attracted to unrealistic portrayals of each other. Ignoring affection from a real person you are attracted to is a form of dysfunction. This also known as emotional baggage. Fear, anxiety and or conflicts of past hurts in interpersonal relationships hurt you. It hurts your chance to develop a real relationship. People like me don't deserve to be the subject to projections that don't exist, but I will attempt to explain why this is happening. Broken hearts take time to mend and growth is a part of the process. A person can "Grow," or develop the mechanism to cope with a heartbreak. it is then and only then do they start giving themselves an opportunity for a fresh start Here is the problem with Category based processing versus Inter-action-based communication. Categories are just substitutes for Reality, not Reality Itself. Validation from a targeted attraction never develops because validation of superficial categories are all you have to work with. This kind of distorted cognation can only be rectified through regular and meaningful interaction because individuals find out they are worthy of love and appreciation through the communication process. Category-based processing does not heal the emotional pains and only the user conceptualizes the prediction of possible acceptance and or rejection by others. It's artificial intelligence. My annoyance with Category based acceptance is not about the rejection or acceptance of a real person, but of the magnified and perceived attributes of the categories. It's not real and when people use this form of interaction People never fall in love. Traits used as basis for matching do not represent the real human experience. Only real interpersonal communication can create the feeling of love. This disappoints me when mature people don't know this. When they somehow become blind to the process of common sense and genuine appreciation. Love is created and maintained by meaningful communication. New computer technology has greatly expanded a person's potential and their freedom to communicate. Some of which may generate love and romantic relationships, but Category processing in its current state, has restricted the freedom of Mr. Right or Ms. Right to find the best individual in one's own eye. If they prescribe to the artificial processing, they are doomed to fail. Someone approached me with this Category processing which is common online and it felt like genuine interest until I recognized the line of questioning. Working with data, I'm keen to understanding how one set of data points relate to the other. I've worked with artificial intelligence on a regular basis. Knowing the target scope an expertise of another's false intention is rather insulting. Much like the physical advances of an unwarranted sexual partner, it's a violation of trust between individuals. I make a distinction between online communications and online category matching. New computer technology has greatly expanded people's potential to do both, but when those two worlds collide, the collateral damage is degrading. To find real love, a person needs to cultivate and nurture physical, emotional, as well as, intellectual or spiritual wellness. In respecting, supporting, forgiving and accepting forgiveness through intimate interaction they release themselves to forgiveness and find unconditional love. Falling in Love is about the whole person not just the categories used to reduce them. I’m being careful not to unmask the platform where category matching takes place because to whittle it down to one violator misses the point. All I can do is warn you the combination is advertising. If something appears to be free and in the back of your mind, you think it’s free, it isn’t. API’s (Application Programming Interfaces) are set as defined functions and methods for interfacing with an operating system on the host computer. It is usually used by establishing a reference to a library in your importing function from a dll. (Dynamic Link Library) There is no need to pay attention to the acronyms I’m throwing around. All you need to know is categories are being matched and its intentional. I can relay its not obvious, but its happening on every website. You’re reading & sharing things yes, but it’s happening in the links and it's intention is much more devious than I can explain. You see for the sake of continuity websites design their interfaces to interact with the hosts, so that you never know your on a different website. This gives the user a fluid feel where everything seems to be on the up and up. The user is positive their data is safe. The reason this is possible is because the Dynamic link or DLL only needs to connect to the host once. From there the memory or the cache registers a token. This is all covered in the user's agreement. Every time the user takes a survey or tries to find out what flavor of cookie dough they will be re-incarnated in the next life, (oh yes, a tech joke) they have administered an API connection to a online profile. This profile builds and builds until categorized processes match your answers with a profile. Category processes don’t only work in one direction though. At some point the host site redeems the information in the form of data. This is my way of quick explaining legality. My disclaimer is, “Maybe the category processing happens on the host or maybe it doesn’t.” It does happen somewhere and you need to know is that it isn’t easy, convenient or simple. It doesn't make sense to go about a relationship this way. I think, "Maybe it’s habit or maybe it’s because we are creatures of habit." All I know is people can replicate category matching on there own and when it happened to me, it seemed exciting and inquisitive, but then I figured out what was really going on. Ask any woman. Being objectified is not a desirable experience. A person who does this is exhibiting narcissist tendencies in that they don’t care about you. They're only interested in how they see you and what it means to them about them. The important lesson is that when you reject someone based on the fact that you know they're vision is not based on reality, there are some consequences. How do you deal with it? Well that is an important question, but what is more important is “Why is this going on?” I just told you that it happened to me, but how do you know if it’s happening to you? "Trust Me," it's happening to you. it's just a matter of time before you find out. For one I want to point out and examine some of the ways we’ve arrived at this point. Basic marketing is the idea of selling a product. What could be more enticing than a happy & secure relationship? We see it in the movies & entertainment. It’s used to sell us every product from bath salts to prescription drugs. Buy the phone, get the car, have the boy or girl. You are constantly bombarded by this idea perhaps hundreds of thousands of times a day. The stark truth is that life is a struggle and advertising is an escape from reality. That is why I waited two years to release this document. It’s called sympathy and I hold that respect for those that misunderstand things because they need a false reality. They might be dealing with something because of guilt or obsession, but it's not their fault because these systems are designed this way. Compassion and truth aren’t always accepted like a friend request. When you reject someone’s romantic illusion it advances into obsession or stalking. This is very easy to do through social media because essentially the software is doing that already. Several platforms connect to one another in an attempt build a better experience. The user doesn’t need to build a profile and connect all the APIs because the system already does that. Category processing is meant to simulate things alike to behave in a manner that makes sense. The unfortunate miscalculation in the process is that AI (artificial intelligence) doesn’t recognize the difference between a pineapple & an apple. It just considers them both fruit and puts them together. Platforms using groups put individuals together based on location. Relative mapping increases ability to interact in real life thus making the algorithm successful. You weren’t born in a lab and tested in a facility. This is not happening of your own cognition. You had to learn social skills through a period of your life that may have left you with some social glitches. This is what shapes your character and makes you unique. The uniqueness of your personality is not anything that can be sorted into traits and lumped together. Real connections are tried & true based on our perception of reality not virtual reality. We make adjustments in a learning experience. “Is the dress Brown or Blue?” This a phenomenon exists because everyone is slightly color blind. The dress is the color you perceive it to be either because you lack the sensitivity wired directly to your brain or you recognize color with more accuracy. Either way that is just a characteristic that can change based on experience. Some people have extraordinary depth perception. Some don’t. for example your sight might be perfect, but that doesn’t mean you can pilot an airplane. The skill it takes to acquire a pilot’s license requires several hundred hours of logging flight time. Sometimes I believe the same should be said for social interaction. I’ll keep my opinion to a bare minimum in detail, but practice makes perfect. Practicing social interaction is a feat many do not master let alone virtual interaction. You are not a data point in the virtual world. Remember in the movie the Matrix where “The One,” broke beyond the virtual reality known as the matrix defied by quantum physics? Well that is every human being because we are not born into virtual reality. In essence, I might be short. I might be fat. I might be ugly or considered beautiful. In the real world I might have a speech impediment or I might suffer from autism and cannot communicate effectively. Again, in the movie the Matrix, do you remember the girl in the red dress? Of course you do because that was the idea of the designer’s code embedded in the program. Well that is categorical processing. Social Platforms attempt to make the individual standout so that they may receive as many connections as possible. Why do you think you might have 300 hundred connections while your friend has 3,000? That is a standout feature of the system. Erroneous connections require no vetting and are simply allowed. The user is unaware that they behave in a manner that is synchronized with the system. Otherwise they would filter the connections if they knew what was about to happen to them. In a virtual landscape you are like the Agent from the matrix. No Filter makes you unrecognizable because you fit the exact same profile as many others. The content is pushed toward you in a generic form. AI has a memory of your activity and rubber stamps approvals to get the maximum data flow. This is the effect the designer of the system wants for all users because it allows the free flowing data. In order to route a specific data point that touches every other data point its stored into memory and categorized. You become a candidate for data mining. All the selfies you take the tagged memories offer the ability to push your profile. This results in frequency that is based on artificial categories. It builds a flurry of activity that will be used to sell the system. Maximum connections from APIs to the advertisers returns bigger profits for your data and in turn you become the advertisement. You’re now like the green goo in the matrix fed back into the other embryos. This what Categorical processing does. It transforms the individual into an avatar by trait otherwise known as data. “I like coffee, I like tea, I like Starbucks inside of me.” You become the poster child of advertising. Only it's your privacy that is being bought and sold over the open market. If you could do it all over again, would you take the blue or red pill? Like Cypher most of us choose to not remember anything. This is a result of the cold world that has drove us to a virtual world. Illusions are powerful, but social engineering can be deadly. Take any popular superstar and how often do you hear? "He or she had everything going for him or her," and yet he chose to end it all. That is the cold hard truth. Thoughts and prayers are generally about as effective as they sound. Many people choose not to deal with reality. We see it time and time again. It's happening more frequently and more violently. Many times ending in bloodshed. Believe it or not, there are many entities that profit from your demise. The Betterment Industry has the opportunity to profit in the hundred of millions of dollars. All your flaws turn into categories, ripe and available at the flick of a switch. So let's look at some solutions. Key Sun, PhD, MSW, & MPH is a psychologist and social worker. He has taught at Central Washington University and Bastyr University. He is the author of Correctional Counseling: A Cognitive Growth Perspective. His book discusses, The cognitive growth model. The Second Edition employs the cognitive growth model to examine the major contemporary issues. By explaining how to use the model to fully understand effective counseling, we might have some insight into this world. (Chapter 11) Emphasis, understanding and treating substance abuse and has been added to address the increase issue of abuse populations. In my own words, I believe that dissatisfaction can be attributed to digital media and the level of a user experiences within it. In other words, you buy into your own illusion and that is why your so unhappy. By design, Social Media is programmed to be addictive. The amount of endorphins rushing to your brain is the same as cocaine. Its very addictive. You anticipate the rush of knowing a person has "Liked," or "Commented," on your update. In my own experience, I have observed this the time and time gain a person becomes disinterested in Social Media then the notification symbol appears. In that regard, I consider it to be intentional and by design. Its not an accident that browses search longer than originally anticipated. The platform is designed to extract the most time from you. This creates a cycle of use that results in addiction. (Chapter 12) restorative justice. This chapter examines the skills and principles of restorative justice and addresses the needs of the victim. I made the point earlier that I was the victim of another's obsession. I pointed out that the reality of the situation had pretty much nothing to do with me because i recognized that I was focus of another's unmet needs. "Happiness." You see, is a trap. Instead of seeing yourself as a victim, you require the knowledge of what is happening to gain the power to control it. From a professional assessment, focus and technique, I benefit from understanding the counseling processes I'm pointing out here that I have experience in this area. Mental disorders can be in the digital form for offenders and victims. (Chapter 10) expanded discussion research about mental illness and violence analysis. The debate between social cognitive explanation and the biomedical explanation for disorders gives the reader incite into what is happening. Readers gain a wide-range of knowledge about counseling, theories and practices and full disclosure, I minored in Chemical Dependency Counseling before receiving my Technology Certificate. Cognitive Growth centers around the role, the work setting and challenges. It is intended to help people balance their lives and form healthy relationships. Through developing accurate cognition and understanding the self, the client can recognize their own patterns. Patterns governing their interactions and examining contemporary solutions, we can identify addictive behavior. In this case, obsessive or compulsive behavior with media. Classification, assessment, intervention and through therapeutic technique it will teach a person how to respond to the behavior. "They need help to cope with an issue, but they must first identify it." Although comprehensive discussions remain so that a client can focus on learning, the most relevant knowledge needs to be allowance for independent growth. Assisting someone with newfound coping skills, you can teach them how to heal themselves. Rehabilitation enables people who have lost control to regain control, but further work needs to be done on understanding the symptoms. The issue of triggering a response desired is my expertise. I know all about triggers in digital form, but to understand reform we need to hear from an expert. Key Sun also received a PhD and MA in psychology from Rutgers University, where he also received a master degree in criminal justice. In addition, he has a Bachelor of Law degree. His research involves examining mental health. Cross-cultural approaches with multidisciplinary psychology, criminal justice, social work, and publications of his have appeared in psychological and criminal justice journals and textbooks. Some of the titles are Angel ready, BlackBoard,Desire to Learn, Instructor Manual & Moodle read. The assorted subjects cover Counseling Processes, Group Counseling, Anger Management, Mental Disorders, Understanding and Treating Substance Abuse, Restorative Justice and Overcoming Prejudice and Promoting Diversity. I have listed these topics as a framework around the subject of Digital Bullying & Objectify Obssessions, but let's take a look at Harrassment. I tell my children that no matter what, "I will always be there for you." When they complain about a slight insult, I always say: “Want me to come, form a picket line?” This implies that the action to take can be more severe than the problem. Many times it's healthy to have a perspective that measures the correct response. Anger and disappointment do not rule your life. Just the opposite, Be an optimist. The stories here are real, but only parts of people's lives’ have these atrocities. I have a wonderful loving family & friends. Being exposed to abuse and violence that people suffer is a window into war that is going on inside each one of us. Race, class, gender or sexual abuse have no place in this world, but in order to treat them, we must first acknowledge they exist. Although, I am not expert on this, my effort is to assist others and point them in the right direction. This has made me aware that no response is inappropriate. The lesson is to support others, speak up and organize change. If you don't your only lingering challenge maybe a hard time sleeping. I don't want to wake when the wind blows, trees moan and shutters rattle. My conscious tells me: be alert. It will take minutes for my heart to beat normal, but I don’t want to be beaten with the knowledge people have been abused. It's a war within a war our conscious takes it seriously. The Gotcha! moment sometimes happens when you feel invaded by these stories. The usual response is “I am glad nothing happened to you.” I think "What?" I gasp for breath when it happens because it shows how impossible people can be. We often turn a blind eye towards things we don't understand. We feel they are someone else's problem. I've got news for you, it's all our problem. The argument “yes, means yes,” regarding relationships is an argument about burden. The burden of making sure there’s consent — who should ask, who should make themselves clearly heard, who shoulders discomfort in an awkward position? It is based on a belief that the gray area exists. If you argue spontaneity, your arguing the wrong area. Women permit too much from men and gain less support from other women. This is some how the fault of the victim. Our current culture rewards aggression, testing boundaries, making unexpected and unwanted moves. Assault flourishes in this environment. On the other hand, we have stories like the one about the entertainer/comedian Aziz Ansari. Of the many stories in the news over the past few months involving well-known men committing assault, few have been as controversial as this one. “Grace” uses the term sexual assault to describe what others, including most famously CNN correspondent Ashleigh Banfield, described as a “bad date.” The #MeToo movement will lose steam if accusations like these are allowed. In some sort of reverse universe, people have become the subject of mob mentality and we have become the Judge & Jury of these issues. Let me go back to why I think this is happening. Remember the facts I submitted about category processing? Here we have the same issue only were not talking about hundreds of thousands of connections, were talking about millions. That’s a lot of pressure. Social media encourages brief exchanges, but they often come from polarized positions. There are many facets of structural sexism beyond what we are observing. The debate of what separates an assault from “a bad date,” is being reduced to an opinion, instead of fact and this is because of categories. When you label someone a feminist, activist, chauvinist or abuser, no amount of proper behavior relinquishes that person of the label being applied. Historically, men have had the freedom to seek, enjoy, and explore their sexuality in Bravado! Women only recently have found equality in this area. Today we recognize that women’s sexuality is connected to liberation. This is an unrealistic expectations and interaction because it is a categorical label. "The oppressor can never free the oppressed." A man can never be fair and unjudgmental of the women he has abused, but in order for reform the social norm has to change. Right now, the social norm is that all men are bad and women can never achieve justice. That is something we must change collectively if we want to move forward. To reverse course, we must put men in women’s circumstances. To consider this we must ask the following questions about acceptable behaviors. I ask, "Can men be violated?" Often, when this question arises the answer is "Yes, by other men." But that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about cases that are not measured by interpretation, but by power & authority. I think there is a larger cultural conversation unfolding. We all seem to agree that men should be sensitive to the way that women are influenced by culture. A culture “ruled,” by men. So, to rephrase the question, "Can men be held accountable for blatant disregard of boundaries?" Silence…, obvious answer, “Yes.” now "Can the same be said for women?" Long pause…. See when you reverse the roles, it takes on a different perspective. It’s as simple as putting yourself in another’s shoes, but why can’t we do this? The historic origins and beliefs about the appropriate roles of women in society has always been from a male point of view. I looked up Chauvinism and this is what I found: a form of extreme patriotism and a belief in national superiority. Whoa, does that sound familiar? For the last twenty years we've seen a proportional change in gender of the workforce. Actually, during World War II women were the work force, so much so that Hitler derided Americans as degenerate for putting women to work. The Axis powers, on the other hand, were slow to employ women. The workforce earning wages or a salary are part of a modern phenomenon, one that developed at the same time as the growth of paid employment for men, but women have been challenged by inequality at work, at home and in the political landscape. Higher paid women are actually hit harder by discrimination than their lower-paid counterparts. Economists studying the issue have found that -- even when controlled for education, experience and profession -- women in the U.S. are paid less than men. Along with women who work in highly paid fields, the worst hit are women with children, older women and women of color. At the very highest levels, there is prejudice against women as leaders compared with their overall competency. Yet most top-paying professions lack mechanisms to help trim the pay gap. Some lawmakers are debating how history may hinder women from achieving wage equality with men because historically they have been paid lower. This is the first sign that policy makers, men are denying the fact that there is discrimination. What does this have to do with harassment? Female supervisors are less likely to report harassing behaviors and to define the experience of their counterparts as sexual harassment. Women of power have fought long and hard for their chair at the table and they’re not about to give an inch to a counterpart who threatens that position. They know that sexual harassment can serve as an “equalizer” against men, motivated by control and domination sometimes more so than desire for equality. This makes the woman in power the obstacle of the women in the workforce. Social isolation then becomes a mechanism linking harassment to gender and women’s authority, particularly in the work place. This makes not only women discriminated against by their own gender, but all efforts to tip the scales of justice are corrupted. That in itself is the definition of harassment and discrimination being denied by women for women they employ. So, the male dominate role survives not because it’s enforced according to gender, but because it exists because the power dynamic in the work place is a male idea adopted by a female. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what gender violates your personal space or reduces your value as an employee. To answer the question, I asked this earlier framed as, “Can the same be said for women,” concerning violating a man? The answer is yes because we are talking about people rather than male or female. To drive home the point of gender neutral aggression, I’ll use an eighties genre of film known as “Romantic Thriller.” Does anyone remember Michael Douglas in the movie Basic Instinct? "Basic Instinct" began with two naked bodies, a mirrored ceiling and an ice pick. The ice pick was wielded in the heat of passion. The default reaction to this is "She makes a nasty mess of her unsuspecting lover." This is the mentality of men. Especially powerful men. They view aggressive behavior as a characteristic that only a man can promote. by having a female character adopt that aspect of aggressive behavior through a violent attack like a man, the message is basically revealing that men only respect a woman that has male tendencies. Paul Verhoeven made Robo Cop & Total Recall and he will never be accused of not knowing how to get an audience's attention. Mr. Verhoeven winds up being assailed for this film because its violent and misogynistic. "It's sexually frank, he doesn't pull any punches." That opening murder scene serves as warning that the women are not bound by the rules of decorum., but it's also a statement about how they view women of power. Do women of power view themselves this way? I don’t know. I doubt it. Do the women they employ view women of power this way? Again, I don’t know, but I’m leaning towards maybe. Now let me explain. Quantitative and qualitative speaking, there are three hypotheses to form an integrated model of sexual harassment and or violent behavior towards women. Testing whether supervisor authority, gender identity, and sex are linked to experiences of harassment says using a strong statistical control for reports predicts whether a respondent’s report was determined a harassing behavior. The number of harassing behaviors they report and whether they subjectively interpret their experiences as harassment is subjective to power & authority. This is all from a man's point of view. "Economic, social and political developments during the last five decades have resulted in some improvements for women. One area of progress has been in literacy and education." "Women’s empowerment is an important goal in achieving sustainable development worldwide. In most fields, women’s empowerment is defined as the process through which women acquire the ability to make strategic life choices in a context where this ability was previously denied to them." I'm being as careful as possible to stay away from personal opinion, as I am not an expert in this field, but according to the barriers that women face: empowerment and equity lie ingrained in culture. Although there are many benefits empowerment and participation can have, many women are scared of disrupting the status quo. Gender-related barriers involve sexual harassment, unfair hiring practices, career progression, and unequal pay. Right about now you should be asking yourself, "What does all this have to do with Categorical Processing?" In response "It is very important to focus on shifts in gender relations as well as to address the process where gender relations are re-negotiated." This allows traditional gender roles to be reversed or at least redefined. Stalkers who stalk online will assist their activities with digital technology. How ever abusers will use many different types of technology to torment their victims. What I'm saying is that with role reversal or In my case, what seemed like platform coincidence turned out to be harassing behavior. You see, I put out this information in front of you, so that you can decide for yourself, but I already know what the statistics say and I'm still letting you decide. This the only way we can reverse values & principles thrust upon us by discussing it in a clear and thoughtful manner. I hope you come to the same conclusion as I have and see role reversal can defeat category processing by confusing artificial intelligence. GPS tracking devices or mobile assistance to help a seeker track me was used. A person who imagines a relationship is called an intimacy seeker. People who exhibit social ineptness or odd behavior are called Incompetent suitors. They want to reconcile their past, but become resentful and often fluctuate between the two. The stalking creates an opportunity for contacting the target and the focus becomes a substitute for a relationship. A person can be motivated by the feeling of power and control and can become addicted to this behavior. Sometimes they suffer from delusions or jealousy. They convince themselves that you're a partner that left them or you're going to find a new partner. They view themself as a victim of circumstances, society, family etc. Most of all they need others to give them an identity or sense of "self," that is what I mean by your only important in how they see themselves and it really doesn't have much to do with you. Self is the keyword in the entire scenario. You see it's the false interpretation of self that begins the cycle of odd behavior. It's listed in the ways that woman are told things about themselves by society. Culture attempts to devalue their role in society. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying women don't stalk because evidence shows they do. The thing to understand is that men stalk a person they had a relationship with and women stalk a person they want a relationship with. I spend so much time online that even people who know me would say things like, "Your stalker or your stalkers," but I never thought twice about it. I just figured because I'm so transparent with communication that I could see how others saw things I didn't. I really do have a bad habit of thinking I can help people. I started changing my behavior. I started using stealth techniques to go undetected. This is when I began to understand it wasn't my imagination, but something peculiar was really happening. I thought that I could help this person with their feeling of exclusion and show them that constraint can be overcome. It was my strategy to form a partnership, so that I could show them one's own power could be successful. I thought if the pressure was released, I would be released with it. I guess I felt guilty for the things like what society had done to them in effort to devalue their role. I didn't realize that I was dealing with a person I had under-estimated. I didn't realize it until I was told I had fallen in love with the wrong person and it was because someone cast a spell on me. That kind of scared me. It was schocking. They had no right to speak to me like that. We had no history together and I was concerned for their mental circumstance. The next day, I got a text saying that “it was all okay,” but after further reflection, I decided I felt uncomfortable about what was said to me. Now I don't know if you know this, but Aziz Ansari went through the exact same thing almost word for word. That is why I dropped everything and really thought about what was happening. Two years ago I thought It blew my mind, but he's is a famous person and got trapped into a situation like mine. The difference is his situation was very public and mine was private, but it concerned me and I started wondering if I was reacting like a victim or that reaction was calculated I decided to do my own research and after that. I felt something was a miss and something seemed shady. How could something like this happen two years ago when the #metoo movement wasn't until now? Is it the same person or was this some sort of copy cat? The odd thing at the time was I thought, "Maybe they aren't real." or "Maybe someone is messing with me?" I could ask questions to make sure they weren't misrepresenting themselves. People knew I had recently ended a long term relationship not a lot of people, but some knew. I thought "I'm being paranoid?" So, I decided to confront this person. I asked specifically, "Why did you go about enquiring with questions and why did you mention spells?" It seemed they sort of confessed right away that they knew I thought they had crossed a line. I told them I wasn't mad, but I needed some time to reflect on what had happened. They left me alone after that. I thought, "What motivates a person to get weird like that with another person?" I felt sorry for them. I felt like they probably didn't know what they were doing. I was confused because I didn't know this person well enough for them to talk to me like that. That's when I started to piece together what I knew about Category Processing. The more i thought about it the more I realized the signs were right there in front of me and I might have played a role in the situation. This is the type thinking I'm sure rational people consider. I've heard so many renditions of victims recalling things. Sometimes they think they had done something to become a target. They think they could have done something different. I thought, " I'm not going to take that route. I think it's time someone needs to stand up and call things out for the way they really are." There is a whole industry out there using people. They're using people and they'll continue if there aren't any real consequences. Roger McNamee a previous advisor to Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg, gave a unrehearsed interview about category processing. He was outraged with the idea of manipulation. He denounced the idea that Russia "Hacked," the election because he proclaimed the platform was already dividing people by category. He explained that people are most engaged when they are either upset or in fear They are shown images and news that increases their activity because they've reacted. I was discussing how in the Matrix the agents are genetically identical for category processing. Now I'm going to explain how artificial intelligence tries to diversify the data points (online Profiles) and group them. I mentioned your human traits. These aren’t characteristics like hair, eye color and height & weight, but more activities or circumstances. For instance, when did you graduate? What school did you attend? Did you go to college? Where? It’s things like this that an algorithm can use to match you with others on the platform. Emerging data starts to design levels to determine individual preferences. You might volunteer some information, but mostly it is extracted from you. We supply the platform with an email address. Many of these sites are categorizing. They might promote users that have had their data analyzed. Taking online surveys is one way to have your data analyzed. Have you ever clicked on a box with an “X,” to make something go away? Immediately after closing a question pops up. It’s a simple format where the information is delivered to the host and it travels to numerous websites. Was this message relevant? Is usually what the message asks. After closing the message not just your answer is analyzed, but your whole profile and this sets up the next step. The advertisers are tracking you across platforms to evaluate your searches. They are building a profile on your name and any additional information that can be used. They’re selling the information and in legalize "its theirs not yours." Let me compare this subject to the issue of harassment, so that we can identify what is feeding this construct. At first, information sharing and harrassment seem to have no obvious connection. While we generally acknowledge the societal benefits of a reckoning, much of the focus centers on the pathos of the accused. Experts on this subject warn that efforts to make things “100 percent safe” could lead to a kind of “police state” that would attempt to regulate the activity itself. The grounds that the harassment victims accuse a stalker instead of a system could lead to dismissal of the activity but on the grounds that the harassment itself is not as bad it could have been, undermines the whole premise. Truth of reasonable, fact-based discourse in response to people scrambling to erode Enlightenment, is a "Tit for Tat mechanism. The defense posture, however, is often its own sweeping argument. This employs not a mere endorsment of a double standard, but also intimidation to make the point that platforms gathered information therefore it is theirs. In other words, you relenquish the rights to the information once you utilize their software. Often portrayed as a movement of sound voices, the collective of people who enable technologies are premised on the value of telling many stories rather than a single one. It is arguing against failures not only of justice, but also of the vision itself. Whose perspective will be valued? This is their argument with justification that more stories are postive in experience, so they should not be judged on a few negative ones. Women, for so long, have come second in the story: Adam, and then Eve. Mr, and then Mrs. History’s plus-ones, decorative and nameless and expendable. Now, I am coming forward to tell my story, but to insist on the validity of my perspective is like treating my experience like its the only one.It might seem unrelated, but I will put this together in an understandable way by putting forth the following information. Effort Reward Imbalance The concept of ERI allows us to better understand how a sense of fairness and justice affects health There are two versions,” It says. “You can either do too little and receive too much or do too much and receive too little." The second condition, not surprisingly, is far more common and has been the subject of my research, but the first we know a lot about it. Studies follow thousands of people in different countries and the evidence shows that Americans reflexively connect hard work with deservingness. Effort and Reward become more disconnected in America though. This is highlighted by the following question, "what happens when labor is met with little money, or reward comes effortlessly, sometimes via inheritance?" “America’s ruling class,” populated by Astors, Vanderbilts and other uniformed retainers are underwritten by ironclad fiduciary trust. The American dream promises that if we work hard we will be rewarded, and that those who have wealth deserve it. The problem is many fail to realize wealthy people were born into wealth. The narrative goes that big corporations have "Earned," the rights of average citizens. We don’t think much about why a hedge-fund manager would “deserve” exponentially more than a doctor, scientist or teacher – or whether the measure of a person’s “worth” should be economic. Here is an example from a man who came from a multi-million dollar oil fortune and his grandparents paid for his full ride to Brown University. “I didn’t know what work/study was,” he says, recalling classmates discussing loans and financial aid. His previous social experiences had primarily been with people who had more than he did – not less. Then there is another scenario called "Marrying into money." Where a person becomes wealthy or financially secure by marrying someone who is wealthy or has a wealthy family. The biggest difference between these folks and wealthy people is how they view their time and money. Here is a quote from a lady who married into money. She said, "I recently bought my sister's friends a meal because "I remember what it's like to be a college student." When asked about how her husband viewed the activity, her reply was "He couldn't relate and wouldn't have even thought that college students could have some sort of financial hardship." My point is being a wealthy individual is much like being a member of a technical corporation. Even though the individual experience is that of an average worker, the focus becomes the abundance of wealth of the entity. I'm using these examples to emulate details about experience with wealth. Now this relates to my discussion on Categorical Processing in the same way I explained how Artifical Intelligence cannot distinguish the difference between an Apple or a Pine Apple. Except this time my comparison is Apples to IBM's. (Yes, I managed a another cliche reference) What I'm getting at is this. People who marry into money are treated like an Orange while if they were from a wealthy family they would fit in as an Apple. The nuance or tone of persons actions cannot be measured categorically by artificial intelligence. 99% of a group would instantly understand what I am describing, but 1% would never get it. That same one percent is designing, categorizing and making groups for the other 99% so that is why grouped by category is flawed from the beginning. Bourgeoisie is a polysemous French term that means "those who live in the borough." Most of us (99%) live in rural or humble areas of the Metropolis. Most wouldn't understand the concept of Bourgeosies in the same way millenials wouldn't understand a rotary telephone. Wealthy people don't understand the experience of poverty. That is changing with the influx of technology. Even though we may not have personal experience or understand wealth, we at least understand the concept. and that allows us to tell a story so that everyone can understand. The connection is centered on money though. More importantly it's the greed that is advancing these platforms use. So I'm comparing the understand of these things to the broader meaning of how we use technology We don't fully understand the platforms we communicate on. The bridge to understanding something is to discuss it further. You might not get it at first or even the next couple of times, but you'll eventually get it. One example I can currently point to is that hyper-privileged clubs have butlers and waitresses which are being main streamed by renaming similar services Personal Assistants. Advisors like Echo, Siri or Alexa are artificial intelligent agents that provide the average person a peek into sophistication. Not knowing "about," something is not the same as not knowing something. In this instance, Platforms have plausible deniability on their side. However, the suggestion that they don’t know if they collected your information and shared it is false. I feel that is proven by the detailed accurate description I've laid out. As for the assailant in my personal life, they might have known a lot more about me than they led on. Maybe they tracked activity using artificial intelligence or maybe they didn't. One thing is for certain. We are going to start seeing more of these cases. What unfolds from there is anyone's guess, but I think we are seeing the preliminary development right now and this will be effective through changes in Net Neutrality. I did not write this to advocate for or against anyhting. I only wanted release myself from holding onto an incident. What I discovered was that some forms of communication are innocent and others are being manipulated. We are finding these things out and the court of public opinion will eventually decide where to draw the line of being spyed on. If I frame the discussion around mental illness or wealth, seeing that they are the only two subjects that have laws, it doesn't do much good. People can't get a fair shake from an institution that profits off of both. I mean, that's a different issue. But looking at digital privacy restrictions purely from the perspective of a challenge ignores countless factors, including access to devices & technology. The US is pretty common on making internet access available to everyone, so the net neutrality argument goes out the window. If we want to address this issue as a whole, we must first try to pre-emptively define what signs make an individual vulnerable to acting out behaviors that are based on category processing. Where are the "signs?" Is it connected to mental illness? If so, wouldn't that be partially the failure of a society that doesn't provide for some way to address it? Beyond villifying a person before or after they do anything, why don't we examine the means in which they do it and decide if it should be allowed. Another possibility is to be aware through education and policy. For the sake of addressing this issue and trying to at least make it less common. In life, if it is not okay to stalk and make advances towards a person than why do we allow technology to do it?

The algae in Chesapeake Bay

I've encountered two subjects that seem to be completely separate, but for some reason they are forming one thought in my mind that they are connected. Okay the first subject is racial division and growing prejudice. Although this is not new it has been getting traction lately in either direction. No matter if your pro integration or for discrimination, you might be able to follow my storyline and eventually get the point at the end. The other topic is about high nitrates in soil robbing plants and fish animals of oxygen therefore producing dead zones where nothing thrives. Okay my thought is this, in the same way farmers offset the production of nitrogen by growing secondary crops to suck up the nitrogen in the soil would if we created platforms that likewise took the steam out of racial inequality and division amongst people? Well this can be looked at in a couple of different ways but let's discuss one of the first. "Backlash," is the phenomenon where something has already been enacted and the result was the opposite effect of what was predicted. Take for instance affirmative action programs where racial inequality caused institutions to form policy which attempted to even out the statistical numbers of college acceptance. It's a simple mathematical equation of counting the numbers of minorities accepted into university and limiting the acceptance of majority students until the "Qualifying," number of minority students are reached. In this example, it's much like adding additional crops to consume the nitrogen in the soil so that the over abundant chemical will not have a negative effect on the entire ecosystem. Now that is vast over simplification of saying nitrogen in the soil is like a majority population of students who originate from a upper middle class background because in this example nitrogen has a negative effect on the surrounding area, but having more affluent students in a local university couldn't possibly have the same effect, so what's the point? Well let's imagine that the nitrogen in the soil has the power not only to drown out all of the other variety of species in the area, but it's also introducing additional challenges to provide bio-diversity which is being limited. Now imagine, all the upper class students attending only the local university and no minority students attending. Problem solved, right? Well no actually just like limiting the nitrogen to give a variety of plants and animals the ability to flourish, by limiting affirmative action in higher education, you cut university funding for things like environmental research. This is a viewpoint to eliminate an adjustment to a problem already solved. This directly contributes to a new problem that has been introduced, so it proliferates a challenge to not only solve the problem, but to resolve the opinion that contributes to the problem. This is referred to as, "Backlash." Reversing a decision to implement a change doesn't vanquish a problem it only amplifies it. I believe this is what we are experiencing today, I ask myself, "where does the idea originate to reverse a decision?" The answer is found in the minds of people who never agreed with the original decision. I'm not saying they didn't agree with removing nitrates from the soil, but they didn't agree with having to send their students to other universities because the local university had met its quota of local applicants. You have to keep in mind where these policies originated and what was going on in the world at that time and that is where we are today. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was enacting policies, "The New Deal," to fight off the calamity of the Great Depression. His opponents accused him of collectivism which shifted away from individualism and contributed to the welfare state. Ronald Reagan's presidency was a testament to laissez-faire policing which in theory would 'save capitalism from itself,' by shortening the recession by opening up regulation to help Employers. The core of the argument was lost because Reagan was a Hollywood, "New Deal," dealer and it was Herbert Hoover who raised taxes not FDR. The failure to create new jobs was because of the lack of new technologies and new industries demand for new products, so employers could not hire new workers. Is this sounding familiar yet? Back to the subject of high nitrogen count and affirmative action. The idea is that if you study the facts, you will see that the core of MAGA (Make America Great Again) is based on disproven ideology that has been put to rest long ago or so we assumed. When people point to FDR's policies they might even go as far to say look at internment camps where Japanese citizens were imprisoned as a result of an executive order. You know who else likes to write executive orders against entire racial or religious groups? Look no further than the current president and his administration. In the current president's economic plan, he intends to make trade deals with the rest of the World's Economic Super Powers to offset trade which he claims, "Put American priorities First." The problem with this plan though is America is by and large responsible for 20% of the World's Carbon Emissions. So back to the high nitrate theory, if you don't create more sources to consume your potent chemical then the ecosystem will backfire and destroy itself and you will be left with a wasteland. 20% is quite high in the frame of the entire world and Donald Trump knows this, so his administration is of the influence that if you bail on all your agreements with foreign countries, you release your own limitation of producing fossil fuels and join what other country in the world? You might of guessed Russia. This Russia connection isn't only about domestic presidential elections because it's about influence and money laundering. If you wonder why Trump is so indicative to use Twitter, it's because it insulates the bubble of opinion. The cone of silence in America's 1960 television series "Get Smart," was a recurring joke where those inside the device couldn't hear, but those outside the device could with the end result of communication neither being secretive or silent. That in a nutshell is Trump's administration. He isn't trying to keep his plots and plans secretive nor was he ever intending to make them transparent. It's all a distraction device just as he constantly taints his own presidency with admissions of guilt. He doesn't intend to keep the public confident, but much on a larger scale distracted with arguing over the facts. It's a ploy to keep the mechanism of corruption and capital cronyism going. Look at the algae growing in Chesapeake Bay as a result of high nitrogen presence in the soil. Now consider the state of Maryland could lose 22.5 Billion a year if they have to clean algae out of the bay. If they invest $22,500.00 annually or pay $90.00 an acre to farmers to grow crops that won't be harvested, but are solely being grown to consume the nitrogen, you will see the obvious solution. That is an example of economically using resources to stipend a loss source of revenue to stave off an even bigger problem. Is it social welfare? Maybe, but it's common sense, right? Now, with something like following an affirmative action policy and applying it to University acceptance it's the same thing where an entity follows a quota guideline. Is it according to population diversity in the local area or is it statewide? Is it nationwide and numbers advocated to produce metro-statistical census information to spread over a wild perhaps mostly rural population? These are many unknowns, but what a person must first accept is that it's a practice that has a proven historical outcome and or benefit for all. This is where the challenge is. Today's discourse is spread through using the Cone of Silence device in a modern form to agitate many through a silo of information. People are told only what they want to hear and the rest is vitriol propaganda with a twist. That being the case, it makes sense to criticize a particular race or religious group. It's not for the sake of discrimination, but to scapegoat those who would push back against your agenda. The idea is to spread fear throughout the population while instituting a regiment of policy roll-back. "The Russians are coming," was a common call to arms back when the Cold War was at it's height. Today, it's being used to keep the opposition busy while progressive policies are deconstructed. The administrations perspective is that all bets are off and the legal interior structure of government is just an annoying detail to disregard. I look at it as probing the dam to see where it might crack. You were threatened with losing Healthcare. You were threatened to have your relatives forever locked out of the United States. You were told that the media industry was the enemy and all reports of impropriety were, "Fake News." One by one, Trump and his administration probed the collective psyche to lambast progressives into different camps of special interest. His transgender flip flops are meant to disrupt solidarity among progressive circles and break the alliance between social & economic groups. If these groups advance their agenda, he threatens to use voter bloc investigations to disarm them. He is using the government to shield himself and his conspirators from the law by suggesting executive privilege. All these false claims are meant to disrupt the normal pattern of operation between the government and those it governs. We the people are the constituents and the supporters of elected officials, but that is exactly the mind set his distracted attempts intend to corrupt. United we stand and divided we fall, but the operation of distributing propaganda and misinformation is a smoke screen. It's all meant to conceal the modus operandum where the ruling class dominates the legislature's objectives using the guise of authoritarian rule. This plays into the 30 plus years of setup that the far-right has been strategically implementing for nearly four decades. Make no mistake people, the conservatives are not about to abandon Trump as long as he can provide the potential for them to pass their agenda. I've watched countless hours of interviews in which interviewers ask Christian Conservatives how they can justify continued support for this administration. In one case, the host asked directly if the Billy Graham and Nixon relationship effects Evangelicals and Trump relationship. The answer was quite stunning. "In our games of golf together, he was always willing to coach me," Graham was in denial about Watergate until the last. When he finally read through the Watergate tape transcripts — including profanity, political corruption, lying, racism and sexism — Graham remembers becoming physically ill. He said later of Nixon: “I wonder whether I might have exaggerated his spirituality in my own mind.” For a Farmer, evidence of High Nitrate content is a no-brainer. When something threatens your crops and erodes the soil to the point of cataclysm, you react by finding the polar opposite effect and instituting it into your farming. Let's just say the harvesting of lost political souls should be the same, but unfortunately scorched earth is a policy we will be seeing for a while.