Maybe I'll Title This Later

 Not sure what I want to post about this time.

I don't like to get into politics, However I will be so glad when a certain leader will no longer be in power because then hopefully all the controversy and hate, especially the hate will be gone. It is not because I hate the leader, I can take or leave him, but it is all the hatred that is unleashed toward him. In many ways the hatred for him is worse than what he is actually doing or what people are saying he is doing, or will do. Much of what people are saying is just that people saying. Every Joe Schmo on Facebook is an expert politician or health official these days. They have no idea what he thinks they are just saying things they think he might do or could try to do. Most of the time he isn't doing what they are saying. He likes to stir up the pot and keep it simmering, then he lets everything boil over. Well That is that for that at this time.

I guess this will be a catch-all stream of consciousness sort of. So when does the ship sail?

I seem to have gotten a second blogging wind back for my trading card blog. I am updating a few drafts over there and am starting drafts for a few other ideas I have. Sadly I'm not sure what I want to do over here. <sigh>

Twitter Talk

 WARNING: This post talks about the current status of Twitter, Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Readers may disagree with some statements I make or my general right of center conservative view point.

It seems that many people are all a twitter about Twitter and its new owner Elon Musk. He is all bent on trying to make Twitter a free haven for free speech. Reinvent it by steering it away from its old far left leaning Liberal ways. Musk reinstated Donald Trump's account and some others that he felt were wrongly banned, making many people angry. Elon is daily posting mean and taunting Tweets. Honestly it is more annoying than mean. Many people are afraid of more angry Tweets from Trump. Trump has disappointed them by not returning, yet. When he was expelled from Twitter he was so angry at them for wrongly evicting him from the platform, he said he wouldn't come back if they reinstated him. So far he has kept away. He has Truth Social now which is supposedly where he rants and raves now shouting mean Truths? Personally I have not ventured out to Truth Social. I barely followed Twitter, However recently I have checked it for the reactions all this has gotten. Lots of people complaining about lots of tweets that upset and anger them, simply because they disagree with them.

Many say that these changes, Musk has made, are making Twitter more evil and violent. Several liberal celebrities have made their goodbyes to Twitter and still others threaten they too will leave. Of course some of those folks said they would move out of the United States if Trump were to be elected President, well he was and they didn't.

I usually try to stay in neutral territory politically and for the most part do, but much of this left winged craziness leans me farther to the right. I have noticed in recent years that it seems the only things Democrats have been talking about (when they weren't trying to impeach or convict Trump on anything that would stick) are all the mean and evil things those damn conservative Republicans are "planning" to do and the mean things they say. They also chant daily to convict Trump for some crime or another. Isn't it interesting how both parties keep warning their followers about the evils that the other party is "planning on doing" and what we need to do to save democracy from them? 

World Peace: Some Thoughts And Ideas

For many years I have had an idea for a world peace plan. Unfortunately due to mankind's violent nature this world may never have true worldwide "peace". The plan is very simple in concept but the actual execution of it is the part that would probably never be possible to accomplish.

In a nutshell the idea is for all of the countries in the world (195?) to hold a peace conference, select a group of globetrotting ambassadors that would travel the world and meet with each and every country's political and religious leaders over a year or two year period. After the traveling ambassadors complete their trip a second peace conference would be held discussing the information the ambassadors obtained on their travels and to formulate some kind of plan to get it done.

Unfortunately with the thousands of religions in the world and some of those in direct conflict with each other on many issues there is no clear cut solution.

There is also a small faction of isolated tribes that don't want to have anything to do with the outside world. These isolated tribes in the short term would be a non-factor I guess. These primitive tribes are usually very hostile to outsiders. In many cases those unfortunate enough to encounter these tribes end up dead. In recent weeks (about a week before Thanksgiving?) a young American Missionary was killed in his attempt to "Introduce The Lord" to the Sentinelese from the isolated island North Sentinel in the Bay of Bengal off of India. The Indian government has strict laws against any contact with the tribe. These laws are intended to not only leave the tribe alone to keep their culture intact, but also to protect them from modern diseases which could kill them and to protect outsiders from the tribe. This young man ignored those laws and warnings he was given.

Would total world peace require a worldwide government, or could just a central "mother" government that oversaw the group of individual countries work? Many think it would require the full one world order/government yet several religions primarily Christianity are dead set against an overall one world government. There are also conspiracy theories about secret societies like the Illuminati planning on creating an evil One World Dictated Government by force.

THE PLAN or IDEA:
OK so here are more details on the idea. All the countries in the world would agree to hold a peace summit. Every country would participate, no exceptions. Each country sends a small delegation of 2 or 3 people to this summit, conference. The delegates do not have to be government leaders or high ranking officials. From this assembled group of delegates a small group of special ambassadors will be assembled. My original thought was to have a symbolic 12 people. The number could be as few as 5 or 6. There will also be a small group of alternates designated to fill in for the main group should there be some sort of need to do that.

This group of 12 will have the task of visiting with the political and religious leaders of each and every country within a one or two year period. Spending a few days to maybe a week in their world peace discussions. The number of special ambassadors might have to be increased and they might have to be split into smaller teams to meet the suggested 2 year time limit. I don't know how long visiting each and every country will actually take. They will discuss with the leaders (and their translators) what world peace means to those people and what they think it would take for that to be achieved.

While the special ambassadors are traveling from country to country their health and safety will be insured. If any individual country or group of countries attempt to kill or kidnap the special ambassadors, they would be met with worldwide sanctions against them. Trade with that country would cease immediately. Diplomatic relations with those countries ended. That country would be socially isolated from the rest of the world. If they then declare war on any individual country they will be met with the military force of the entire world against them.

OK so maybe a delegation of traveling ambassadors might not be needed, maybe a huge peace summit over a month or two might do the same sort of thing. The main idea is to have every country's input as well as the input from every religion. I thought that a small group meeting with the leaders would be more effective at actually getting the talks done and insuring the input from each and every nation and religion than one massive meeting. A huge summit would could also have too many potential arguments that would delay discussions.

The cooperation of every country would be needed for this idea or a similar idea to even be attempted or have a chance at being successful. As I said a big problem is religious beliefs. Some religions would have to reconsider their "traditions" as they relate to how they treat others and if they even give them the courtesy of respect or of recognition of being an equal human being.

Maybe just an overwhelming majority of countries would be needed for this to happen, and then hopefully the reluctant countries would eventually join in.

These a just my ideas on how world peace could be achieved. Maybe this sort of idea could work, but it probably wouldn't. Just as I said near the beginning of this post total world peace might never be possible on this world.

I welcome comments on this idea, but any hate filled comments or nonsense comments that just say it is a stupid idea will be deleted.

*World Peace Button Image from https://www.zazzle.com

Happy New Year: 2016 Into 2017

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

I begin this New Year's post in a similar fashion to last years. I basically just cut and paste the previous year's post and then edit the heck out of it.

In about 12 hours we will go A few seconds ago we went through the annual ritual of recognizing another full orbit of the Earth Around the Sun by changing the entire time keeping book on the wall (aka: Calendar). At this time of year many people make resolutions and vows to supposedly change their life for the better. Many more people will break those vows and many people like myself will not even attempt doing either.

Just as I did last year and the years before that, I will make my annual January "State of the Blog" post where I examine my posting history of the last 12 months, and see if I met my personal posting quota goal of a minimum of 32 posts in the year. For 2016 despite auto-posting a dozen or so Fryday Fourtoons I once again fell short of 32 posts. It was close though.

Well for many people 2016 was a BAD year. There were many A-List Celebrity deaths of many long-time icons and a few short time Celebs (including a few minor celebs and quasi-celebs known from Reality TV).

It was also a big year for some. 2016 was the year of The World Series heard round the world. Two teams with very long droughts of post-season success. The Chicago Cubs beat the Goat Curse by beating the Cleveland Indians in a full 7 game  World Series. The Cubbies were down 3 games to 1 and made a stunning comeback. The Indians last world series win was in 1948 and of course most people knew of the Cubs 108 years of disappointment. 1908 being the last time the Cubs had won the WS.

There was also the Presidential Election. Which depending on your hopes and dreams, and the candidates promises was either very bad or very good. I was not fond of either candidate and tend not to discuss politics. Definitely not here and rarely on Facebook or social media.

Wow I didn't mean to end this on a bummer of a note.

The Politics of Sports.

Who says that politics and sports don't mix?

In recent years first professional wrestler Jesse "The Body" Ventura was elected the Governor of Minnesota.

He also appeared in a small Hollywood action movie you might have seen with the Governor of California called "Predator". His acting wasn't bad, wasn't great, but wasn't bad. He also appears to have been a pretty good Governor.

Now a professional basketball player has been elected as Mayor. Former Detroit Piston (and Washington Bullet) Dave Bing was elected Mayor of Detroit.

So now the mayor's office will have to have a regulation backboard for the Mayor's One-On-One games with the President.

EDIT:
A link or two: bingformayor.com, espn.com news

Dancing With The Candidates?

Take this lovely Dancing With The Stars photo of Pop-Singer Mario (Who? What is his full name? Is that it?) and Karina Smirnoff. Again Who?

I don't watch the show so I didn't see any of their moves on the dance floor/ stage/ TV studio. I first saw a parody of this photo Monday Night on a blog or a chat board, and I of course got some emails that had it as an attachment. It is a nice photoshop parody and here it is.


Wow uncanny, so why is Barack Obama dancing with Tina Fey? OK I know it's Sarah Palin. At any rate it is a very good photoshop job. Congrats to whoever did it. By the way I had a Dickens of a time trying to Google the parody. Maybe I was checking with the wrong words or maybe it has been deleted from some places. I don't know, but I ended up using a copy from an email attachment. Speaking of Dancing with the Stars, I still don't watch it. Even when they had:


Marie Osmond, or Lisa Rinna, I was tempted to watch it then. I was also tempted to watch it some other time but I forget who the stars were that I wanted to see .

Personally I'd rather dance with Lisa if I could dance (I'd have to get by Harry Hamlin on that score, the lucky dog) than Karina even though she has slightly nicer looking legs. Yeah I know, Paula Abdul says she can teach anybody how to dance. Hey maybe I should take her up on that. Teach me to dance Paula!

Primary Politico Party Pooper.

I absolutely HATE the way our Primary system works. The primary elections which are the elections held to eliminate all the not-as-popular or not as fit candidates for the job before the general election. My big problem with it, however, is that the Iowa Caucous (spelled wrong yeah I know) and the New Hampshire Primary are usually the first two states to vote, and they usually eliminate everyone so by the time "Super Tuesday" comes there is nobody to vote for. SUPER TUESDAY is a good attempt at having most of the country vote at the same time, but comes up short because it is to late after the first few primaries have already decided who is going to race in November.

I think ALL the States should have their Primary Elections all on the same day, or at least in the same week and the media should hold off on making any announcements about whose ahead until the end of the week. That would make it more fair for the entire country to vote for who they really want to vote for. Back in the 1980s when John Glenn ran, he was eliminated and dropped out months before Super Tuesday so by the time the Maryland Primary came around, it was really pointless to vote for him but I did anyway just to protest the point. As with many other things concerning politics and the individual that kind of thing doesn't effect the over-all picture much.