Healthcare bill HR 3200 ????????

Often it is wise to search out the actual text of widely touted and discussed laws up for vote in Congress.  You absolutely can not go by the little snippets you hear regarding what the bill will do, what it includes, who is helped, etc. 

In attempting to find text of the bill as it now stands, the one passed to the senate, I am not sure I had luck.  I did find what was supposedly up for vote in the house, Nancy Pelosi's "Christmas present to the American people. 

If I were to flow chart the text it would look like a maze which tracks back on itself and loops through other mazes as well.  These things are not designed to be overly clear or straight forward.   

The most glaring aspect is that the actual parameters as far as co-pays and how competition is treated are vague and mostly at the discretion of "the secretary" or a particular commissioner.  Other aspects will be up to a board appointed by the president.   In short, it is more a bill which transfers power rather than actually specifying how things would work. 

Much of the oversight seems to involve other agencies, such as the IRS.  

Regardless how one feels healthcare and insurance should be changed, I think this particular effort is geared toward a very serious power play and intrusive invasion into private lives and industry, not toward actually providing one more access and freedom regarding how he maintains his health.   I see hints that even pre-existing conditions may not be as fully covered as it sounds.  

Perhaps some of the more catastrophic types may be, provided you aren't real old. I doubt things in the realm of an old sports injury would be given priority if you aren't all that young or in great need; just something you'd like fixed because you want to go hiking or whatever.   

Anyway, it would be nice to see in plain English the true content of this legislation.  It looks like a lock for certain companies to make money. and extension of executive branch power and a tremendous amount of authority put in the hands of officials who are not elected by the people whose lives they would influence.

Privileged

Just a pic from the movie site thejourneythemovie.com

There are lots of movies titled "The Journey".  This is not the one about the Indian lesbians, their trials, tribulations, and forbidden love.  Although that does sound like a must see. 

More on The Journey I'm reviewing a little later on the page.

===============

The term "under privileged" begins to take on new meaning when you think of all the licenses and permits there are for the various aspects of conducting a life.   If passing the test and getting a license to drive is a privilege, not a right, then I assume every licensable activity is a privilege, not a right.  

Did you know that you have to have a license to own a cat or dog in some towns?   Actually the cat or dog has to have the license, similar to the plates on your car, I think.  Owning a cat is a privilege, not a right.   And this is separate from being sure the animal has shots and all that.  At least one vet who performed all those tasks then reported the owner for not having a creature license.   

This probably makes sense to plenty of people, and they might lecture me about how that $70.00 fee goes toward animal control or maybe lawyers who sue humans on behalf of other living things.   Once again we disagree in principle.  

So, wanting to be even more privileged than I already am, I set out to get my library privileges here in the best of southern California.   I presented my case to the local library in the town northeast of me.   Very small town.  There is a school, a feed and saddle store, a sort of general store, and the pizza and other food diner.  And the library.  Very small but their computers were all being used.  They have about six of those.  I was impressed.  

It all went without a hitch so I checked the shelves and found a book and a movie.  The movie is an indie film which I highly recommend.  It claims to be in the tradition of Motorcycle diaries and Y Tu Mama Tambien.  I am no fan of Motorcycle Diaries, being a bit more sympathetic toward those Cubans who did not deserve Che's firing squads than I am toward Che, or Fidel.   

This film, The Journey, is not supposed to be about any historical figure or T shirt icon.  It is simply a good story, with better directing, and much better acting than the Motorcycle Diaries.  Much more real without trying, even though some was anything but realistic. 

It was directed by Scott Marcano, who also co-wrote the story.  This film makes me want to see what else he has out there.   Andres Londono and Kazandra Santana do well in the lead roles as do the supporting players.  The soundtrack is not bad at all.   I'm a sucker for most films set in Mexico with a Latin soundtrack.  This one begins in Orange County, near Los Angeles, with the last 7/8 of the flick occurring in Mexico.  

I know that due to Motorcylce Diaries fame and misguided praise, they think it will pique interest by categorizing this independent flick as being in that tradition, but to me that is like marketing Renoir as being in the tradition of the guy who paints tigers on black velvet.

So, I got a license to read and watch movies for free.  Not owning a pet, I figure maybe they charge pet fees that pay for the library, who knows?  I am not sure they put license plates on animals yet in CA.  There is absolutely no way to keep up with the various rules and peculiarities.  The license to be a cat thing came to my attention when being told of a story set in a Wisconsin town.  

Strange how places settled by very independent people who did not to be told what to do eventually became insane "What if" nanny states.  What if you fall of your bike on your head?, etc.

Now that is appears I may not be overdrafted at the bank, I am able to notice the cool setting in which I live.  It was all new and somewhat out of my dreams.  I can hardly imagine living in a place with no mountains and hills and curvy roads which drop hundreds of feet on one side, while hugging the side of the hill on the other.   And no large body of water nearby.  

In this case, we have about the largest body of water found anywhere, the Pacific Ocean.  I'm still somewhat fonder of the Caribbean as far as oceanic locales, but ocean is ocean, so this serves the purpose.  It is big, and here we have sea lions, seals whales, and more surfers than you might guess. 

Company was here and now is not.  I don't have a host permit or license, but it was a privilege.   Like Muddy Waters said, according to something I heard, "You don't miss the water until the well is dry".  I miss having my company here, believe it or not.  I know.  That is so unlike me. 

Now I have great leftovers which might last a few days.  I actually had a healthy super dinner tonight.  Left to my own devices I rarely manage to do that. 

This ballistictour thing has been a long term healing journey.  It becomes quite clear to me at times just how much of me was whatever unhealed is.  In that context it makes sense not to get too impatient with progress in the various aspects of living my life.  I'm not quite sure what happened but it becomes amply clear that I am re-learning a lot.   Maybe I am learning what I never knew before, but should have by the time I was 20. 

This is going to be a slim Christmas.  No big Santa this year.  I do what I can, when I can, and I certainly don't expect or want others to offer anything beyond good cheer. 

I was beginning to get down and worried, but I think maybe I ought not do that.  Too much that I am happy about, and as always, too many people to be thankful for to be moping from concern that I don't rate it.

It Is Not Easy, being crazy

That is my experience.  Perhaps you are one who finds being a nutter a walk in the park.  Not me. It is rather frustrating and sometimes sad.  

Then again, I suppose the condition does have its moments.  Even so it leaves one continually self punishing over the stupid things done or not stupid things not done.   You look at it and wonder why you're such a stranger in your own mind, then you know; nutter.   

Don't worry, it doesn't encompass any psycho human tricks in my case, although  the quiet ones who mind their own business are the ones that you have to watch.  That is what they say, no?  At least a paraphrased version. 

Now that I think of it, that philosophy has swept the nation, especially since 9-11.   Unfortunately, it is another of those false truisms.   Sometimes the ones who look and act like killers and psycho-kooks really are the killers and terrorists.   Even now, for some reason, this concept, especially the out loud expression of this concept, is so distasteful to certain people that they would risk your life and their own rather than investigate the validity of the assertion.  Better to focus on the harmless, they aren't likely to do anything rash.

See how it works?  I start somewhat close in, and before you know it I've moved the conversation off to generalized comments on national affairs.   That's as close as it gets.  I'm not so sure that is a good thing.  Have I just made the case for my original premise?   I should be an abogado.   Spanish.  Lawyer.  

I just saw an advertisement in which a family is in a Mexican standoff pointing TV remotes at one another.  They all want to record a different show.   Along the way civilization must have taken a wrong turn.  It could be that I am less of a nutter than most, when you compute the final tally.

Theory of Finite Effectiveness of Centralized System Control

***The measure of desirable results in social systems is predicated upon the idea that it is not desirable to consider the individual components arbitrarily expendable in serving the goals of the whole system or ensuring the authority of the central controlling unit [modeling human social structure after ants or bees requires the assumption that the individual is of least value and expendable.  Ants do not possess a great deal of individual autonomy or self reliance. They system is designed to protect the queen. The power unit is not in business to protect the sanctity and autonomy of the lowly ant]***

The theory is that there is a point within multi part systems at which centralization yields negative results, and as the degree of centralization increases the integrity of the system breaks down.

This holds true in mechanical systems, and social systems.  

Prior to that point centralized control is effective and beneficial to the survival and sustainability of the whole.

An example would be in the realm of education.  Particularly in formative years in which the individual units (students) are less equipped for prudent autonomy. Large institutions, large classrooms tend to lose effective positive effect on individual units.   There is a point at which size of institution and size of individual classes are most effective in achieving the goal of positive guidance and education to prepare students to be autonomous, productive and capable of reasonable self governance.

Most school systems consist of institutions which are far past the point of diminishing returns and in possibly the majority of cases are below the break even point; negative results.   The oversight and guidelines for the system have also entered that realm as their function has moved from stated purpose of educating to indoctrinating, and care taking, assuming much of the authority which might work best left to family.

Obviously many other factors interact with this.  Systems overlap and influence one another.  The same principle applies to all such that the only effective means of bringing one system into the positive results range, in which each component is left its most effective level of autonomy, is to also bring the other dependent or interactive systems' level of centralization back into that range.

The principle applies to utilities such as power production as well.  To some degree it depends on the method used to produce and transport the power.  The problem with one unit serving too many user points is that any problem with the main unit affects a huge number of delivery points.  It is vulnerable.  

There are also factors of efficiency over large distances, loss through resistance, etc.  Additionally it places the users vulnerable to potential tyranny as any evil doer who gains control of the central point can then in essence extort and exert undesirable control over the users dependent up the product.  

This is where emerging technologies and even long existing technology which makes possible production at the site of the user, or more production points serving fewer users is desirable.  If one of those goes out, fewer parts of the overall system are hurt.  As it is with all these systems of society, achieving the best level of centralization of a utility requires other systems to also move toward that point.

The tendency to rationalize control in the name of morality can result in pushing control past the optimal point.  There is a point at which removing autonomy from the individual, the family, the community, etc., may detrimentally affect the system as a whole, even if it means some of those components do not adhere to that which other components on equal level would choose.  By usurping authority in matters which do not increase a particular unit's ability to exercise self determination, all components can find themselves reducing their own ability to thrive. 

Any of the matters which involve humans have to be predicated upon certain common principles.  Some of these follow the idea that systems all have a point of diminishing positive result when the balance of authority over function moves from the individual components to one controlling unit.  

In military terms, this concept is one of the keys to the success of the US armed services back when wars were defined endeavors with a clear goal.  Our system of chain of command allowed for each unit to have one governing member, whose command was broken into smaller units each with a command.  If any controlling unit, commanding officer was not present or taken out, the next in command was defined and prepared to continue.  Not all forces had this system and once their leader was knocked out, they were thrown into chaos and got their asses kicked.

So, that's the initial idea of my theory.  I think it can probably be refined to a formula, which would definitely contain many variables.  

I believe the problems faced today are largely due to a lack of recognition of the idea that there is an optimal level of centralized control in systems, especially those which are more complex and contain a wide diversity of subsystems.  

Additionally the lack of recognition that there is a point at which subsystems are best served in terms of their ability to be self determinant, even when equal entities may not choose the same path in response to the same stimulus.  As long as their choice does not impede the ability of the other components to operate then the need for higher authority does not exist.  It is only at that point in which control must be moved up in the hierarchy of centralization. 

Often levels are jumped in response to controls which are in place being ignored.  That's primarily in human systems.  An example would be when fraud, and violation of property are not dealt with according to basic laws which have been in place for some time, but instead are regulated from more centralized entities through very specific edicts which do not cover broad principle but very narrow specificities which then leave pathways for further abuse.

It works like electricity; if there is any corruption in the process at the highly centralized level then larger numbers of component parts are affected.  There is a point at which more, smaller, manageable parts can be more effective because the authority and control is closer to the source of the problem, and defects or corruption of a component pose less threat to the whole, and can be more easily traced to the source.

Another example in which over centralization of control has been a disaster is the use of social security number for so many things which have nothing to do with the social security account.  It has become a window for theft and fraud which is very difficult for the victim to correct due to the far reaching web each social security number encompasses.  In the effort to number everyone for the convenience of  control, the security of the individual has actually been compromised.  A case where centralization exceeded the point of positive optimization.

One day maybe this can be more simply stated and formulated.   I believe it to be a principle which holds for any system which requires controlling units, and as the function, size and complexity increase the tendency to exceed the critical point and dip into negative affect on the entire system increases at an accelerated rate.

See, I'm not really an anarchist, although, if one considers the present day system moderate control, or even not enough, then I am anarchist by comparison.

I do think the kernel of this theory is valid.

Hooked on Anarchy Show

Hulu is a pretty good place for shows and movies, sometimes.   I recently got hooked on a show called Sons of Anarchy, about a motorcycle gang.  Lots of the guys look almost as old as me, and they still wear their colors everywhere they go.  It's kind of strange to think plenty of grown men actually do that.  No different than the current trend in which Republicans and Democrats in DC all wear red and blue ties, respectively.   What a bunch of garbage.  Just like the Crips and Bloods, except with the repubs and dems gangs I know which color goes with which gang.

So, if I were to wear a tie and it happened to be red or blue I guess some people would draw a political significance from the color.  First the rainbow gets highjacked, now red and blue ties.  Now that I think of it, I like the motorcycle gang colors better, because even though they call it wearing their colors, it is really a logo, so they aren't highjacking some normal facet of aesthetic life like rainbows or an entire color.   I never did like all the red state blue state crap.   Logos take a bit more creativity and originality.   

Back to Sons of Anarchy.  First off, the show is pretty good.  They seem to mess up almost everything they touch, and they regularly have the wrong picture in their internal battles.  I want to tell the younger guy that the older guy did not burn down his porn studio.   No way to do it so I guess hijinx will ensue.  Many of the people in this show are very much like people I've known who were loosely connected or otherwise to the wilder side of the biker world. 

Generally I hate motorcycle gangs because of some of the harassment, rape and torture committed by Hells Angels and Outlaws in Florida and the Carolinas many years ago.  What they did was inexcusable, and I plotted ways to wipe out large portions of them but never did. 

Any group with a cool name like Sons of Anarchy gets my attention.  I wish I'd thought of that name for a band.  Fits me well.  Since it has been done I could not now use the name for a group.   No originality in that.  

The SOA don't harass innocent bystanders from what I've seen.  They mostly battle with other gangs and government agencies.  They also have tenuous alliances with other gangs and government agencies.  Maybe that is what I like; they portray the various government players as the gangsters they are.   

It's a great show.  I think it is on FX if you have cable or other modern media access, which I don't.  I'd watch far too much if I did.  

What drives me crazy is now I have to wait about a week for the next episode to show up on hulu.

 That's my review.  

Mr Hospitality

It has come to my attention just how crazy I either am or have been.   For years I could not manage having company, regardless of the hovel in which I dwelled.  It is hard to escape the thought that it had crossed a line into the realm of mental disorder.  I'm not quite sure what I was thinking, but I never felt quite ready to be a host, even in the most minimal of ways.  There were a few times when someone may have actually come in and sat down, but not for long and it was not something I enjoyed.

Since I packed up and moved west, I've had more than one person actually enter my dwelling and maybe even spend and hour or two, and I did not freak out, develop a nervous rash, or otherwise melt down.

Company is coming and I'm looking forward to it.  That is amazing.  I still have little vague concerns, but that is OK.  At the very least it does demonstrate a change in my psyche which I count as a measure of positive improvement.  One of my goals was to quit being so anti social, especially in circumstances where it made no sense.  

This is going to be a fun time.  I've been careful to leave my car and house dirty so that my guest will have something productive to do.  I'm generous like that.  Maybe I'll stock up on cleaning supplies for a welcome to my cottage gift.   I bet that will go over well.

Yep, the way to a woman's heart is a mess to clean up.  Good thing I know this secret.    

The Back and Forth of Infidelia

Infidel (according to dictionary.com)

–noun

1.	Religion.           a. a person who does not accept a particular faith, esp. Christianity. b. (in Christian use) an unbeliever, esp. a Muslim. c. (in Muslim use) a person who does not accept the Islamic faith; kaffir.

2.	a person who has no religious faith; unbeliever.

3.	(loosely) a person who disbelieves or doubts a particular theory, belief, creed, etc.; skeptic.

Generally, I use definition number three, often jokingly, in addressing my doubting and befuddled friends.  Due to the current social climate of the world and particularly this country, people attach the word to what we believe Muslims call non-muslims.  pbuh.  I think they call us "whores", "thugs" "crackers" and "milquetoasts" in private conversation.  I can't prove it, but that's what I think.  

.

Then again, some of them don't call those not of the faith anything.  I've been told, and tend to believe it possible, that some mind their own business and do not seek world or community domination.   Like many subsets of society, organizations and self proclaimed leaders who suggest they speak for all of that subset cause others to believe the whole bunch are of one mind.  I've not seen as much evidence to counter the tone of the apparent leaders, but I don't get out much.

.

It's another word which has been hijacked.  This time it is a case of hijacking based upon religion rather than sexual proclivity.  Rainbows, the words, "queer", "gay", etc., have been restricted to meanings that have nothing to do with their original intent.  

.

Mostly I'm upset that rainbows are now a flag relating to sexual politics rather than the old deal in which they were just considered pretty and, to many, a symbol of hope.  If I paint a rainbow on my mailbox it would be interpreted as a statement to the effect that women need not apply.   I won't be painting my mailbox any time soon.

.

Considering case #3 in the definition, I'd apply it to most of those who have power over our lives and money these days.  They do not believe in the ideas of personal freedom, private property, right to free speech and dissent, or choice in too many categories to list.  Infidels!!!

.

. 

What leads to that word being most fitting is the fact that they are sworn to protect the laws which were designed to limit their ability to interfere with the peaceful conduct of free people.   The fact that slavery ever co-existed with this document is probably a greater factor in modern day reluctance to consider and adhere to the principles it represented than any other single thing.  

It is the number one mistake ever made in the USA.  That resulted in a large segment of the population believing it was entirely about class domination and that the law meant nothing, means nothing. 

.

That is truly a tragedy.  The very groups who stand to benefit the most should these principles ever be enforced are used to keep those in power whose goal is apparently nothing but more power--no matter who suffers.   The result of this bizarre game has been to isolate and destroy the stability of large groups within the country.  All in the name of doing just the opposite.  The insanity on both sides of the debates along the way is sickening.  

.

Now we have a country whose citizens are, in the main, completely ignorant of the structure of their government, and the reasons for that structure.  This allows gross abuse of power, distribution of tax money to specific private concerns in almost every industry, and subtle punishment of those who seek to build enterprises which are outside of the tax supported world which would employ people and provide support for themselves and others.

. 

We live in a country in which anonymous acts of charity and goodwill are discouraged because, unless you report your contributions to the government, and those contributions fit their approval, you do not receive the reward of a tax break.  I don't think you get a break for taking an addict into your home, helping him straighten out and get on his feet.  

.

Not that it is their business to begin with,  It is because the tax system is an oppressive, tyrannical mistake.  An aberration.  There are less intrusive ways, and that is precisely the reason you do not hear republicans or democrats insisting on changing that system.  It is a threat to both groups.  Few elected officials of either party are really willing to let go of that kind of public control.  

.

That is the second biggest mistake in our history; the income tax.  They had to wrangle a change to the constitution to pull it off.  There is no way we were to settle into freedom for all after that.  Just a matter of time to get where we now are.  A bill actually passed the house which would fine and possibly jail a person who does not buy a product specified by government?  

.

Of course if you can't afford it, according to their assessment of whether you can or not, you can surrender yourself to their care and get it done for you.  That means you then must seek their approval for your financial choices, and approach your health care as specified by Big Brother.  Some of us do not welcome this sort of oversight.

. 

I'd rather just keep a signed form on my person stating that if I can't pay for whatever care I need then go ahead and leave me to die.  People are suckered into thinking that those who now get free treatment from hospitals would somehow cease to be a burden if they sign up for government assistance in this matter.  The only difference I see is that several more middlemen and agencies wil get paid from the taxpaying private citizen world than is now happening.

.

It occurred to me that if the insurance companies wanted this new system, it behooves them to pretend they don't and to play the fall guy.  How can they loose if everyone is required to buy their product and if competition is still limited to a set number which varies from state to state?   I believe this is a multi-faceted scam.  Unfortunately I do not know where, if anywhere, I can go to obtain a copy of this bill in order to catalog all the irrelevant earmarks which are merely bribes to various entities.

. 

The entire thing, I suspect, is a big money making and power grabbing venture which has little to do with compassion or any of the hooks they have put up as justification.   We are like the rabbit entering the box, which is propped up by a stick, to get the juicy carrot.   That string is about to be pulled and the box come down to trap us big time.  It will be safe and secure, and less hazardous than ranging out in the field according to our whims.   

.

It would not bother me as much if that buy or die part was not in there.  People make calculated choices which often involve a degree of risk.  Turn left on a busy street.  Life is that way.  It may be that one's priorities compel him to do X before he feels good about doing Y.   For the alleged aggregate to so closely dictate the conduct of the individual's life is totally at odds with any idea of all being equal under the law and free to choose their own path.  It is no improvement over the dreaded feudal system or class preference/slave states of ancient history.

. 

We have a strange mix of purely government generated feudal tactics, and corporations who pretend to be private companies, but due to the partnership with government and the bastardization of the union concept, are mini fiefdoms.  Infidels, all.  It is borne of a lack of belief in the sanctity of life, the birthright of every person to be his own director; to have the right to do as he can to build his life as he/she chooses. 

In the name of these ideals we've seen more regulation, yet the ideals have been lost in the process as the opposite is the result.  

.

Still, people demand more of the same thinking this time it will be better.  It is complicated, for sure, and few things can be done overnight without bad result.  First move, go to a fair tax, or just abolish the IRS and worry about it later.  Second, limit terms for the House and senate to three for the house and two for the senate.  Require sitting out another three terms before they can hold a seat in either branch of the legislature again.

. 

These family dynasties and the existence of career politicians has robbed us of our civilization and our freedom.  Not to mention our wealth.  Absolutely strip those positions of the perks like health insurance, pensions, personal cars and other transportation not germane to the conduct of the job  paid by citizens.  Let them fund their own transportation for the most part.  

.

Infidels when it comes to the belief that the natural, best condition of mankind is to be free.  Obviously that doesn't mean free to curb the rights of his neighbors.  People seem to have trouble understanding how that can be done, and don't want it.  It is more fun to support laws and measures which interfere in the business and conduct of others.  Isn't it great to make that smoker's habit your business, even if it is not actually affecting you?  Or to cast judgement on the possible gas milage your neighbor's car achieves?  Or to feel it best to require restaurants to be responsible for how fat people are, rather than leave it to the choice of the customer to eat their food or not?   

.

No way to give up that fun, because we are infidels when it comes to the principles which led millions of people who believed in unalienable rights to spill their blood throughout history.  That's the spelling in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

.

Personally, I think the writers if the Constitution compromised too much with big government proponents, but compared to where it went by the onset of the 20th century, they were damned near anarchists.  

. 

It is interesting that no continent has ever housed a significant and sizable, truly free state.   Cuba was the last place in our neck of the woods to abolish slavery.  Now they are all slaves to "The Revolution", much to the delight of Fidel, Sean Penn, and many misguided souls.  Fidel was supposed to bring fidelity to the disregarded constitution that island had adopted in the 1940's.  Fidel, the infidel. Clever. Parts of Africa and Asia have yet to stamp out involuntary servitude.  Why is that not a high priority of such illustrious bodies as the UN?  Infidels--they believe in no principle except power and theft.   Nowhere has fully cast off subjugation which places monarchs or other authorities above other individuals in worth and attendant rights.

.  

Citing mistaken behavior and conduct as argument against the authors of documents which contain universal principles which ensure that one can be his own master and move from the most meager of circumstance to the most abundant, according to his/her will and ability, is a self defeating mistake.   The concept I urge here is known as placing principles above personalities.

.

I may despise the weaselly neighbor who informs me that the house is on fire, but that won't change the truth.  ignoring that would result in a rather toasty demise.  It doesn't matter what he's done or even if he's a famous arsonist.  Either the house is burning or not

Good Thought, Bad Thought

In keeping with my new found fascination with the ads below the posts I do (over at http://ballistictour.keepconnectedlive.com), I hit one of the links.  It was "free, life changing, bla bla bla" (paraphrasing there, even though it is in quotes).  As it turns out it was a video which was mostly audio.  Just text on the screen which went along with the audio to some degree.

The message was how to influence your subconscious by not letting yourself tell it bad stuff, like how stupid and doomed you are. The premise is that whatever you feed the subconscious, it believes, and when it believes something it influences your body accordingly.  That's why a person under hypnosis might think something cold is hot, and can be used as a scaffolding plank if you are short of wooden ones.  I refer to the typical thing where the hypnotist places the stiffened subject between two chairs then stands on her/and/or him.

The guy narrating has the ever popular English accent, which adds credibility.  Since moving to far south CA, I've noticed that the somewhat British accent is in vogue for various advertisements and such.  Maybe they find it a sound you can trust out here.  I guess I find it reassuring on a one on one basis, causing me to be relieved that the other person is literate and capable of reason.  Certain experiences taught me that this is not always so.  In the end I approach the Limey with that sense of being disarmed by assumed intelligence, and a healthy dose of suspicion.  The two things cancel out.   

What this guy suggests is that most self help confidence building courses and theories are bunk and don't work.  But his system works, of course.  Actually, I know his system probably does work well enough.  Anything that causes one to examine a self generated thought which predicts doom, or suggests the host organism is deficient and vile, is worthwhile.  Shooting down detrimental blanket assertions  before they get a chance to seed in the subconscious, is a productive practice.  Otherwise you constantly experience the bodily reactions of fear, and it makes it hard to think and act.  Exercise probably helps people do that because it requires enough effort that suspends idle thought for a time.  

It does make sense that a sustained belief in positive possibility probably increases the likelihood of bringing such things to fruition in one's life.  For some of us it is constant inner war.  That's because we indulged heavily in self loathing and internal criticism, without critical thinking, for long periods of time. That information became internalized to the point of habit.  Habits do not go away peacefully.   This explains why it was believed you could sail off the edge of the earth for so many centuries.   Despite little clues to the contrary that was the only sane view according to THEM.

I kept wondering, so how is this guy making money off of this?   It seems there are other videos and they will send you emails and all that, so I guess eventually they sell you something, maybe confidence building enlargement pills.  That does not change the validity of the assertion that you can at least guide your thoughts or temper their power.  

Mostly it is a matter of assessing validity, and benefit.  What good does it do to tell yourself you will never lose weight if losing weight is what you want to do?  Believe me, you can lose weight and there are those who actually wish to gain a little bulk.  Some things require a belief in possibility.  Most things have, at least in principle, been done by some other human; people successfully bring ideas to market, lose weight, escape poverty and depression, etc.  Things do happen like that, which adds credibility to the idea that it is possible for you, if you have the desire and few working tools at your disposal.  I keep trying to believe that for myself, anyway.

The main thing to realize is that skepticism is fine, but no one is saying that you can magically improve just by viewing videos or thinking and thinking without actually doing.  The idea is to cast away the thoughts that inhibit the action.  In the end the results come from some sort of effort and action.   When anyone promises shortcut magic which precludes real change or effort, then skepticism is prudent.  What is not prudent is to insist in your mind that any action you can dream up to achieve the presumed better condition you desire is doomed from the start and won't work.  That thought pattern guarantees you won't change anything because you talk yourself out of it before you start.  I hate it when that happens. 

It is very easy for old school American types to be discouraged these days.  We feel like we are in the grips of a giant boa constrictor which applies a little more pressure with every breath, making it harder and harder to breathe easy.  All the rules and controls which seem to do anything but protect our right to free choice, leave us believing directing our own recovery from hard times, and writing our own script for the kind of person we choose to be from now on, is prohibited at gunpoint.  Those who are presently comfortable and more secure often view our angst as unnecessary paranoia or crazy, radical rebellion.

That whole thing is a trap, even though there is plenty of good reason to feel the squeeze.  That does not mean the field can't be navigated and all opportunity is gone.   It may be a bad time to move to Michigan thinking you are going to get a great auto worker job and be secure from now on.  By allowing one's self to feel that one can no longer harbor personal dreams, you are feeding the snake.  Can't let that happen.  That is a slave mentality.  The ability to be the director of your own life, and maintain a personal code, is not yet impossible.  

It is a strange thing, living within the structure of civilization, but the alternative may be equally strange and uncomfortable.  I guess many homeless by choice people can attest to that.  There are some drop outs who are bright and capable but just couldn't hack the system any more.   In my own way, I suppose I am a drop out.  I keep believing I can avoid dropping out altogether, though.  There are too many good people and good things that can be done to buy the lie that the restrictions represent the character of all other humans.  

My goal is to prove by example that one can successfully create a niche which does not feed and/or depend on what I see as a macabre monster; the world of intrusive authority which was once a government based on a few pages designed to limit its power.   Obviously it did not do its job or it would not be possible for people to argue that freedom breeds oppression.  I reject that notion, and I am in the minority.   That stated goal is actually secondary.  The primary object is to push my limits of capability more, hoping to become immersed and enthused in the process of developing whatever project into being, and hopefully become moved to happily find myself in a state of ongoing effort toward well defined purposes, never again to feel like an aimless leaf in the wind.

There is no way to discuss it

Recent events, and the way they are treated by the press and the alleged government, are so bizarre that knowing where to start or why elude me.  Since it is likely that much of the country or a large enough portion to be dangerous, do not find the reactions surreal, and eerily frightening, I'd be wasting my time by trying to express myself in detail.  I may be wasting my time in the majority of cases which motivate me to spout off, I know that.

It is far too sad.  That is compounded by the mentality evident in what I've heard, and in what I've not heard, from media creatures and officials. 

If You Know What You Want, You are lucky

Picturing exactly how you want your life to be is not really as easy as it sounds.  Some people say they know but on closer scrutiny, they don't.  Really lucky people don't have to consciously picture anything because they are living it, and realize that they are.   

The feeling that real life is over there flowing along,  and someday maybe you too will be immersed in it haunts some of us.  The truth is that whatever is going on, it is real life.  Maybe many of us have some shade of autism in our makeup which makes it difficult or impossible to meaningfully understand the ways of civilization and the rhetoric used to define it. 

Phrases like "you just have to go out there and do it" can be very vague and confusing.  Go out where and do what?   Out there is a tough one.   I guess it means outside but I'm not clear on where.  How do you know when you are out there, and if you get out there, then what?   Maybe when you mange to do whatever living your life means, it will be evident.  I don't know. 

I've been in that flow a couple of times and it felt very strange.  Not bad, just different.  I ended up back on the bank every time through lack of a mystery quality or ingredient.  Maybe it was that picture of the ideal; what I want, how I think life should be,  and what I ought to be doing.

That last bit is another snafu; what I ought to do.  It is usually right in front of me, but jumping into the obvious action is not natural to me.  It takes fighting some part inside that would rather float on some imaginary cloud dreaming whatever dreams float through.   Not a good recipe for lasting relationships or putting food on the table.

If one is fortunate, there will be people around who insist on pulling him down to earth, or at least not let him fly away so far that he gets lost entirely.  That's a curious phenomenon when it happens.  Maybe the key to arriving in such circumstances is having a bit of purity of heart or at least a desire for a pure heart.  I can't think of any other reason that sort of good fortune would be in place.   

I know I've not always had the same simplicity of heart and degree of empathy that I have now.  Some of the misguided emotion, disregard for feelings, and general wrong conduct in days gone by troubles me at times.  I assumed that what I knew was right was wrong, and that things worked in some dark mysterious way that made no sense.  If you listen to the wrong things you think that way.   

What I see around me may make no sense and there may be a whole slew of false premises loudly broadcast which rationalize it, but that doesn't make a thing right or true.  It is better to feel alone and not human than to defer to that which is at odds with the inner compass just because that is what "everyone else" does or thinks.