Here is a list of Opinionated Blogs. A Blog is a journal you may enter about your life, thoughts, interesting experiences, or lessons you've learned. Post an opinion, impart words of wisdom, or talk about something interesting in your day. Update your blog on a regular basis, or just whenever you have something to say. Creating a blog is a good way to share something of yourself with others. Reading blogs is a good way to learn more about others. Click here to post a blog.
July 4, 1776 and 2022: The Declaration Still Empowers Good to Triumph
Most Americans celebrating the July 4th holiday today don’t fully realize that it was the power of ideas in the Declaration of Independence that was the critical enabling factor for the Americans to win the War of Independence.
Compared to the British professional military, the American colonial army was simply no match — being undermanned, underfunded, underequipped, inexperienced, and undertrained. At the outset of the war, the British Royal Navy had 270 warships deployed in American waters, while the Continental Navy had seven ships.
On July 4, 1776, in what is now Manhattan, New York, Gen. George Washington was preparing for battle. He had no idea that a Declaration of Independence was being released in Philadelphia that day as he pondered the sobering reality of a continuous stream of British ships coming through the Narrows and anchoring off Staten Island in New York Harbor.
A month before, Washington had written a letter to his brother, saying: “We expect a very bloody summer of it in New York … If our cause is just, as I do most religiously believe it to be, the same Providence which in many instances appeared for us, will still go on to afford its aid.”
On July 4th in Philadelphia, it was also a somber day when those 56 members of the Continental Congress committed themselves to signing the Declaration of Independence. Each of them knew that becoming a signatory put a death warrant on their heads for being a traitor to Great Britain.
Thus, the first Declaration of Independence that was signed on July 4, did not have signatures identifying the committed delegates. Rather, there were two signatures on that first document: John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress and Charles Thomson, secretary of the Continental Congress.
It took more than two weeks for the Declaration to be “engrossed” — that is written on parchment in a clear hand. Many of the 56 delegates to the Continental Congress who had agreed to sign the document did so on August 2, but there were new delegates who replaced some six of the original delegates, and there were an additional seven delegates who could not sign until many weeks later. Recognizing the long odds against the small and underequipped American Continental Army defeating the British army and navy — the most formidable military force in the world — the Continental Congress decided to hold the 56-signatory Declaration for a release at a later time.
Read more:
Compared to the British professional military, the American colonial army was simply no match — being undermanned, underfunded, underequipped, inexperienced, and undertrained. At the outset of the war, the British Royal Navy had 270 warships deployed in American waters, while the Continental Navy had seven ships.
On July 4, 1776, in what is now Manhattan, New York, Gen. George Washington was preparing for battle. He had no idea that a Declaration of Independence was being released in Philadelphia that day as he pondered the sobering reality of a continuous stream of British ships coming through the Narrows and anchoring off Staten Island in New York Harbor.
A month before, Washington had written a letter to his brother, saying: “We expect a very bloody summer of it in New York … If our cause is just, as I do most religiously believe it to be, the same Providence which in many instances appeared for us, will still go on to afford its aid.”
On July 4th in Philadelphia, it was also a somber day when those 56 members of the Continental Congress committed themselves to signing the Declaration of Independence. Each of them knew that becoming a signatory put a death warrant on their heads for being a traitor to Great Britain.
Thus, the first Declaration of Independence that was signed on July 4, did not have signatures identifying the committed delegates. Rather, there were two signatures on that first document: John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress and Charles Thomson, secretary of the Continental Congress.
It took more than two weeks for the Declaration to be “engrossed” — that is written on parchment in a clear hand. Many of the 56 delegates to the Continental Congress who had agreed to sign the document did so on August 2, but there were new delegates who replaced some six of the original delegates, and there were an additional seven delegates who could not sign until many weeks later. Recognizing the long odds against the small and underequipped American Continental Army defeating the British army and navy — the most formidable military force in the world — the Continental Congress decided to hold the 56-signatory Declaration for a release at a later time.
Read more:
Some things I’ve learnt along the way…(pt. 3)
Over the last 20-30 years or so, I’ve had some ‘eye-opening/mind-changing’ revelations about myself and my life. Some of those revelations are about my relationship with myself, with my immediate family, with ‘ex’ friends and with an ‘ex’ husband – and are very personal. Others were revealed to me through observations, mistakes and other challenges that I experienced along the way.
As a young adult, I was accused by one of my roommates (we were ‘student’ teachers at the time), of being very ‘absent-minded’. I can't recall exactly why that was an issue for her, but she was quite peeved. As the years passed, the accusation would come to my memory off and on, but it wasn’t really ‘analysed’ until many years later when I felt the need for some in-depth introspection (after my divorce). I realized along the way, that there were several, if not many things that I would do, unconsciously, that would either irk or surprise others. Some of these were/are: snoring, frowning, teeth-grinding, judging, controlling, etc. I’m certain that many of these were involuntary, and weren’t meant to offend/discomfit anyone, but that they did.
*The things that you do unconsciously, can get you into trouble. So, be mindful.
The older one gets, the less significant ‘romantic love’ appears as a major desire/driving force when dating, and the more attractive financial security gets, as one aspires towards being in a fulfilling relationship. Dating expectations may vary, but being extra careful about things like one’s health and financial resources for the future seem even more paramount than a ‘love match’, for most men in their late fifties (and some women), onward. As a romantic, I lament this change, but as a pragmatic, I understand it’s logic. When I was young, I felt invincible and everything was possible. As I got older, I became more sensible, thus, more careful.
*In later life, ‘love’ takes a back seat to ‘practicality’. C’est la vie.
As a young adult, I was accused by one of my roommates (we were ‘student’ teachers at the time), of being very ‘absent-minded’. I can't recall exactly why that was an issue for her, but she was quite peeved. As the years passed, the accusation would come to my memory off and on, but it wasn’t really ‘analysed’ until many years later when I felt the need for some in-depth introspection (after my divorce). I realized along the way, that there were several, if not many things that I would do, unconsciously, that would either irk or surprise others. Some of these were/are: snoring, frowning, teeth-grinding, judging, controlling, etc. I’m certain that many of these were involuntary, and weren’t meant to offend/discomfit anyone, but that they did.
*The things that you do unconsciously, can get you into trouble. So, be mindful.
The older one gets, the less significant ‘romantic love’ appears as a major desire/driving force when dating, and the more attractive financial security gets, as one aspires towards being in a fulfilling relationship. Dating expectations may vary, but being extra careful about things like one’s health and financial resources for the future seem even more paramount than a ‘love match’, for most men in their late fifties (and some women), onward. As a romantic, I lament this change, but as a pragmatic, I understand it’s logic. When I was young, I felt invincible and everything was possible. As I got older, I became more sensible, thus, more careful.
*In later life, ‘love’ takes a back seat to ‘practicality’. C’est la vie.
People Are Dumber Today Compared to Medieval Times
We look at our society and praise how much we have evolved, but these past years that have tried humanity have shown that in some social concepts we have devolved. We have created this credulous mindset that invokes that technology will help us evolve and get smarter, but people forget that technology is only a tool and our minds are for us to control and evolved through education.
It’s said to say, but since 2018 humanity has been becoming dumber and dumber. It is no surprise why we seem to have so much difficulty finding solutions for the current world crisis which humanity has been previously faced with. Our trust in technology, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and algorithms has led some people to think that the human mind is an aspect of the past and isn’t needed any longer.
We have become so lazy that we created artificial intelligence to think for us, but what happened with organic innovation? A term left in the past. Our world reverts back to the same ideology, we must follow human nature’s track of organic evolution, but technology seems more of an impediment in this process.
People will believe anything
Lately, with the war that has just broken out in Europe, I have been seeing an increased amount of online propaganda, and as you would expect everyone is falling for it. People seem to not understand the simple concept of the internet. Anyone can publish anything without being reviewed or checked by anyone. Once again our trust in algorithms allows random people to publish stuff online and get it on the first page of google.
There is absolutely no control over the internet due to the humongous volume of content published every day. People forget to use common sense and their brains to identify what is fact and what is a fairy tale. We are in 2022 and there is still a large portion of people worldwide that believe the vaccine contains a chip to which you can connect your phone through Bluetooth. People are so stupid that dozens of articles had to be written to ensure them that there is no chip in the vaccine.
As described in “Our Brains at War: The Neuroscience of Conflict and Peacebuilding” written by Mari Fitzduff, social media is used as a weapon and the easiest weapon to kill someone as it only takes one click through any sort of interaction with false posts. Social media has created multiple platforms that allow disinformation to flow like water in a river and a lot of it leads to violence, persecution, and exploitation.
The ease of access to information is another cause for the lack of intelligence. Why go read a reliable book that is the primary source of information when you can read “good old” Wikipedia. People still don’t understand that the problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can go and change the information on any post created.
If you think that some random person has a lot of potential at manipulating people through disinformation, just imagine what a well-known writer or influencer can do. During current events, governments don’t even need to try, they share a propaganda post and it goes viral overnight. The next day you have to listen to how misinformation is exchanged. Even with this war between Russia and Ukraine, everyone who has a social media account has become a politician, despite most of them not even knowing where Ukraine is on the World Map or the history behind this conflict.
It’s said to say, but since 2018 humanity has been becoming dumber and dumber. It is no surprise why we seem to have so much difficulty finding solutions for the current world crisis which humanity has been previously faced with. Our trust in technology, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and algorithms has led some people to think that the human mind is an aspect of the past and isn’t needed any longer.
We have become so lazy that we created artificial intelligence to think for us, but what happened with organic innovation? A term left in the past. Our world reverts back to the same ideology, we must follow human nature’s track of organic evolution, but technology seems more of an impediment in this process.
People will believe anything
Lately, with the war that has just broken out in Europe, I have been seeing an increased amount of online propaganda, and as you would expect everyone is falling for it. People seem to not understand the simple concept of the internet. Anyone can publish anything without being reviewed or checked by anyone. Once again our trust in algorithms allows random people to publish stuff online and get it on the first page of google.
There is absolutely no control over the internet due to the humongous volume of content published every day. People forget to use common sense and their brains to identify what is fact and what is a fairy tale. We are in 2022 and there is still a large portion of people worldwide that believe the vaccine contains a chip to which you can connect your phone through Bluetooth. People are so stupid that dozens of articles had to be written to ensure them that there is no chip in the vaccine.
As described in “Our Brains at War: The Neuroscience of Conflict and Peacebuilding” written by Mari Fitzduff, social media is used as a weapon and the easiest weapon to kill someone as it only takes one click through any sort of interaction with false posts. Social media has created multiple platforms that allow disinformation to flow like water in a river and a lot of it leads to violence, persecution, and exploitation.
The ease of access to information is another cause for the lack of intelligence. Why go read a reliable book that is the primary source of information when you can read “good old” Wikipedia. People still don’t understand that the problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can go and change the information on any post created.
If you think that some random person has a lot of potential at manipulating people through disinformation, just imagine what a well-known writer or influencer can do. During current events, governments don’t even need to try, they share a propaganda post and it goes viral overnight. The next day you have to listen to how misinformation is exchanged. Even with this war between Russia and Ukraine, everyone who has a social media account has become a politician, despite most of them not even knowing where Ukraine is on the World Map or the history behind this conflict.
A Federal Gas Tax Holiday Is A Terrible Idea
President Biden is proposing a three-month federal gasoline tax holiday. He may want to appear to be doing something to address high inflation, which is both an economic concern and a growing political problem for his Administration. But suspending the gas tax is a terrible idea that, on the margin, will make inflation worse, not better.
The impact of a federal gas tax holiday would be extremely modest. On average, a driver in the US uses about 600 gallons of gasoline annually. Suspending the 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal levy would save a typical driver less than $10-a-month. To put it another way, the federal tax represents about 3% of the cost of $5-a-gallon gasoline.
Biden also urged states to suspend their gas taxes. Because state levies often are much higher than the federal tax, the impact would be more significant and drive prices even higher. But since Biden has no ability to suspend state gas taxes, let’s stick with the federal tax.
While the effects would be small, almost everything about a gas tax holiday runs in the wrong direction. It would:
· Increase consumption at a time of low supply, thus driving up pre-tax prices and worsening climate change.
· Discourage consumers from purchasing more energy efficient vehicles.
· Provide a windfall to oil producers, the very companies Biden has been blasting for price gouging.
· Temporarily eliminate a key funding source for infrastructure improvements.
Let’s unpack a few of these issues:
Demand for gasoline. Gas prices skyrocketed in recent months because of a growing imbalance between oil supply and demand. Supply was constrained in part due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, demand increased sharply as the COVID-19 pandemic receded.
While a tax holiday will lower the after-tax price of gas, that lower price will boost demand, worsening those supply shortages, and, yes, raising the pre-tax price. Any net benefit for drivers would be very small.
It is hard to know exactly how much the tax cut would affect driver behavior. Economists have long estimated that consumers barely respond to short-term changes in gas prices. They don’t drive less, and they don’t buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Read more:
The impact of a federal gas tax holiday would be extremely modest. On average, a driver in the US uses about 600 gallons of gasoline annually. Suspending the 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal levy would save a typical driver less than $10-a-month. To put it another way, the federal tax represents about 3% of the cost of $5-a-gallon gasoline.
Biden also urged states to suspend their gas taxes. Because state levies often are much higher than the federal tax, the impact would be more significant and drive prices even higher. But since Biden has no ability to suspend state gas taxes, let’s stick with the federal tax.
While the effects would be small, almost everything about a gas tax holiday runs in the wrong direction. It would:
· Increase consumption at a time of low supply, thus driving up pre-tax prices and worsening climate change.
· Discourage consumers from purchasing more energy efficient vehicles.
· Provide a windfall to oil producers, the very companies Biden has been blasting for price gouging.
· Temporarily eliminate a key funding source for infrastructure improvements.
Let’s unpack a few of these issues:
Demand for gasoline. Gas prices skyrocketed in recent months because of a growing imbalance between oil supply and demand. Supply was constrained in part due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, demand increased sharply as the COVID-19 pandemic receded.
While a tax holiday will lower the after-tax price of gas, that lower price will boost demand, worsening those supply shortages, and, yes, raising the pre-tax price. Any net benefit for drivers would be very small.
It is hard to know exactly how much the tax cut would affect driver behavior. Economists have long estimated that consumers barely respond to short-term changes in gas prices. They don’t drive less, and they don’t buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Read more:
Why the Jan. 6 hearing is a sham
Dershowitz: 'Never Believe Anyone Who Is Not Cross-Examined'
Retired constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax on Tuesday that to be credible, witnesses must always be cross-examined, and that none of the Jan. 6 committee hearing witnesses has been.
''As a professor of criminal law for many years, and as one of the most experienced litigators, never believe anyone who is not cross-examined,'' Dershowitz said on ''The Chris Salcedo Show.''
''And none of these [Jan. 6 committee] witnesses are cross-examined.''
'It's as if a basketball team was sent out on the court, and the other team is held back and not allowed to present its defense of the players,'' he continued. ''It's one-sided. Don't believe it.''
Dershowitz said that the House select committee tasked with investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol building breach would have been much more credible had it accepted the Republicans initially selected to serve on the committee.
''They would have asked hard questions, they would have cross-examined, they would have presented contrary evidence and then the American public could make a decision,'' he said.
Instead, the hearings are being conducted in an entirely partisan way, Dershowitz said, much as the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings were.
He said that the goal of the Jan. 6 committee is to ensure that former President Donald Trump cannot run for president again.
''Although I voted against President Trump twice, I want to see a fair process,'' said Dershowitz, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat. ''I want to see a fair election. I want to see no partisan misuse of House committees.''
Earlier in the show, Dershowitz said that when he watched the Jan. 6 committee hearings, the discussion revolved around threats that were made to people during the events of the day.
In light of the threats to conservative Supreme Court justices and their families over the potential overturning of the landmark 1973 abortion case Roe v. Wade, Dershowitz said that ''it’s so hypocritical.''
''Threats only seem to matter to Democrat politicians if they're directed against them, not if they're directed against people that they oppose,'' he said. ''We shouldn’t tolerate a double standard: A threat is a threat, violence is violence, no matter who it is directed against.''
Retired constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax on Tuesday that to be credible, witnesses must always be cross-examined, and that none of the Jan. 6 committee hearing witnesses has been.
''As a professor of criminal law for many years, and as one of the most experienced litigators, never believe anyone who is not cross-examined,'' Dershowitz said on ''The Chris Salcedo Show.''
''And none of these [Jan. 6 committee] witnesses are cross-examined.''
'It's as if a basketball team was sent out on the court, and the other team is held back and not allowed to present its defense of the players,'' he continued. ''It's one-sided. Don't believe it.''
Dershowitz said that the House select committee tasked with investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol building breach would have been much more credible had it accepted the Republicans initially selected to serve on the committee.
''They would have asked hard questions, they would have cross-examined, they would have presented contrary evidence and then the American public could make a decision,'' he said.
Instead, the hearings are being conducted in an entirely partisan way, Dershowitz said, much as the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings were.
He said that the goal of the Jan. 6 committee is to ensure that former President Donald Trump cannot run for president again.
''Although I voted against President Trump twice, I want to see a fair process,'' said Dershowitz, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat. ''I want to see a fair election. I want to see no partisan misuse of House committees.''
Earlier in the show, Dershowitz said that when he watched the Jan. 6 committee hearings, the discussion revolved around threats that were made to people during the events of the day.
In light of the threats to conservative Supreme Court justices and their families over the potential overturning of the landmark 1973 abortion case Roe v. Wade, Dershowitz said that ''it’s so hypocritical.''
''Threats only seem to matter to Democrat politicians if they're directed against them, not if they're directed against people that they oppose,'' he said. ''We shouldn’t tolerate a double standard: A threat is a threat, violence is violence, no matter who it is directed against.''
Nothing happens by accident.
You don't close an American pipeline and open up a Russian one on accident.
You don't abandon America citizens in Afghanistan on accident.
You don't spend trillions of dollars while inflation is out of control on accident.
You don't completely open the border and prioritize illegal aliens on accident.
You don't demoralize and weaken our military on accident.
And most importantly, you don't STEAL an election on accident.
You don't abandon America citizens in Afghanistan on accident.
You don't spend trillions of dollars while inflation is out of control on accident.
You don't completely open the border and prioritize illegal aliens on accident.
You don't demoralize and weaken our military on accident.
And most importantly, you don't STEAL an election on accident.
Biden admin to discipline border agents accused of ‘whipping’ illegal immigrants: Report
This a**hole President is totally out of his f*cking mind.
President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security is planning to discipline Border Patrol agents who were accused of “whipping” illegal immigrants while on horseback in Del Rio, Texas last year, despite being cleared of wrongdoing. The administration, as well as numerous news outlets, mistakenly identified horse reins as whips at the time.
While the agents will not face any criminal charges, Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin reported on Tuesday that a federal source told him the agents will be punished for “administrative violations.”
“Per federal source, DHS is preparing to discipline multiple horseback Border Patrol agents who were accused of ‘whipping’ Haitian migrants in Del Rio last summer. I’m told DHS will imminently allege ‘administrative violations’, agents will be able to respond @FoxNews,” Melugin tweeted.
Read more:
President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security is planning to discipline Border Patrol agents who were accused of “whipping” illegal immigrants while on horseback in Del Rio, Texas last year, despite being cleared of wrongdoing. The administration, as well as numerous news outlets, mistakenly identified horse reins as whips at the time.
While the agents will not face any criminal charges, Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin reported on Tuesday that a federal source told him the agents will be punished for “administrative violations.”
“Per federal source, DHS is preparing to discipline multiple horseback Border Patrol agents who were accused of ‘whipping’ Haitian migrants in Del Rio last summer. I’m told DHS will imminently allege ‘administrative violations’, agents will be able to respond @FoxNews,” Melugin tweeted.
Read more:
Will Sanctions Work?
I think sanctions is going to make Russia more resilient and wont work at all.
JMO
I recall sanctions against SA.
Cut the Fuel... We made fuel out of coal.
Cut the weapons... We manufactured weapons for the export market.
SA was even a Nuclear Power, not to mention the best defence force on the globe. (relatively speaking)
The list goes on and on.
Even our currency was stronger.
The UN banned all imports of fresh fruit from SA. What a joy for the locals
Sanctions make a country stronger.
JMO.
JMO
I recall sanctions against SA.
Cut the Fuel... We made fuel out of coal.
Cut the weapons... We manufactured weapons for the export market.
SA was even a Nuclear Power, not to mention the best defence force on the globe. (relatively speaking)
The list goes on and on.
Even our currency was stronger.
The UN banned all imports of fresh fruit from SA. What a joy for the locals
Sanctions make a country stronger.
JMO.
We Asked All 50 Democratic Senators If They Would Endorse Biden In 2024. Only 5 Said ‘Yes’
The Daily Caller contacted all 50 Senate Democrats repeatedly and asked if they would support President Joe Biden in his 2024 presidential bid. Five Senators said “Yes.”
A spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader and Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer responded to the Daily Caller with a one-word answer: “Yes.”
Spokespeople for Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Jack Reed of Rhode Island responded in the same way: “Yes.”
Democratic New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker’s spokesperson also said the senator would endorse Biden, noting, “Yes, Senator Booker supports President Biden for re-election should he run again in 2024.”
Several members of the Democratic Party have recently cast doubt on Biden’s support for his presidential run in 2024 amid his desperate polling numbers.
This week, Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez refused to answer if she will endorse Biden, saying “we’ll take a look at it” when the time comes. Democratic officials and voters also cited the poor state of the country and Biden’s age as reasons they are hesitant to be fully behind Biden now in an article from The New York Times.
A spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader and Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer responded to the Daily Caller with a one-word answer: “Yes.”
Spokespeople for Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Jack Reed of Rhode Island responded in the same way: “Yes.”
Democratic New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker’s spokesperson also said the senator would endorse Biden, noting, “Yes, Senator Booker supports President Biden for re-election should he run again in 2024.”
Several members of the Democratic Party have recently cast doubt on Biden’s support for his presidential run in 2024 amid his desperate polling numbers.
This week, Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez refused to answer if she will endorse Biden, saying “we’ll take a look at it” when the time comes. Democratic officials and voters also cited the poor state of the country and Biden’s age as reasons they are hesitant to be fully behind Biden now in an article from The New York Times.
A Blog is a journal you may enter about your life, your thoughts, interesting experiences, or lessons you have learned. It's your own page on Connecting Singles that you can update on a regular basis, or just whenever you have something to say. You can write about an opinion, impart words of wisdom, or talk about something interesting in your day. Creating a blog is a good way to share something of yourself with Connecting Singles members. Reading blogs is a good way to learn more about members you have met here. Please be sure to read the blog rules before posting.
Would YOU like to post a blog on Connecting Singles? Have you written blogs that you'd like to share with other members? Posting your blogs shows your skill and creativity and helps members get to know you better. Your blog will appear on the Connecting Singles Blogs page and also in a link on your profile page. Click here to post a blog »