The real scam & the scammers - Rev. J.T. Smith

Recently, I've come across two opinion pieces included in the daily AlterNet Top Stories  newsletter in my email that I'm subscribed to. The author of the pieces, John Stoehr, is of the opinion that third party Presidential candidates are all scammers because all third parties are a scam.

He didn't drink the Kool-aid.  Clearly, he guzzled and gargled with it.  He also assumes the only people who are attracted to third party candidates are those who solely vote during Presidential elections and take no other particular part in politics.  He claims those third parties are full of false promises, are in a sense demagogic, and are anti-democratic as a result.

Strange.  Every year, I see a smattering of third party candidates for positions up and down the ballot.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Bernie Sanders is not only currently a United States Senator representing Vermont, but he is also an Independent.  Strange.  (Obviously Sanders switched to the Democratic party from 2015 - 2016 and 2019 - 2020 in his run to be President, but the fact remains that he is now, once again, an Independent.  See my previous entries about his running as a Democrat.)

As a matter of fact, there are currently four Independent Senators: Bernie Sanders (VT) (2007 - present); Angus S. King Jr (ME) (2013 - present); Kyrsten Sienna (AZ) (2013 - present); and Joe Manchin  III (WV) (2013 - present).  And they are not the only Senators in American history that belonged to "Third or Minor Parties."  While there are no members of the House Of Representatives belonging to third or minor parties as of the writing of entry, there have still been many examples throughout American history.  To be fair, not all of those third and minority party members were originally elected as a third or minor party member.  Some changed parties and were still reelected, and some like Bernie Sanders were elected as a member of a third or minor party member.  And those examples are strictly referring to the federal government.  There are still more throughout state and local governments as well.

So while third party candidates are rare enough masse in American politics, they can and do still win.  And in winning they adjust the course of politics.

As I have noted previously, the corporate duopoly of American politics is the problem.  Alright,  technically it is a problem.  The two bigger problems which combine with the corporate duopoly are the real overall problem.  What are the two bigger problems?

First is the Electoral College.  I've already spoken about that travesty in previous entries.  The other relates to Duverger's law in political science.  America is a political system with single member districts, which means each district is represented by a single officeholder.  In contrast, systems with proportional representation usually have more representatives of minor parties in government.

Considering that America started with zero political parties, which George Washington would refer to factions and in fact Washington was strongly against because he felt that unity rather than division was necessary for a democratic republic to survive.

Ultimately the only reason third parties have yet to break through that wall is because enough people buy the lie that the only viable parties are the corporate duopoly, and fools like John Stoehr who think that we must do everything to make changes while maintaining that duopoly.

My father was a member of the Libertarian party.  His father wanted to name him Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but didn't know how to spell Delano.  My father, for reasons I neither understood nor really discussed with him, hated Roosevelt.  That was my personal introduction to politics aside from what was loosely taught in school.  Frankly I had no interest as it all stank of bovine defacation and held less than no interest in it for me.  Especially considering the President is not elected by the majority of Americans due to the Electoral College.

In November 2000, I wasn't registered to vote.  My personal take was that my vote doesn't count, and I pointed to the Presidential election as the prime reason for concluding that.  For clarification, in 2000 I was residing in Pennsylvania, a state that Al Gore, whom I would have voted for had I been registered to vote, won handily even without my vote.  Not only did Gore win Pennsylvania, he also won the Popular Vote.  We all know how that played out.

My first actual real involvement of any political kind was to add my voice to the chorus who stood against AT&T's intended buyout of T-Mobile as I was and am a T-Mobile customer and I don't want to be ripped off any more than I have to be.  And AT&T wants to charge me more for the same services I currently pay less for with T-Mobile.  I made calls and wrote letters to my local/federal government and signed every petition I could find to end that "merger".  When I learned the part those calls, letters, and petitions ultimately played , I started signing petitions and writing letters to elected officials involving the environment, ending the death penalty, government issues, and far more.  Feel free to check out my Pinterest page for a better understanding of where I stand.

I didn't get properly involved in "local politics" (which is how I see all human politics regardless of nationality) until 2012 when I registered to vote for the first time and I voted for Barack Obama because I saw the Mitt Romney's vision regarding women as a direct threat to all of my female friends, and who make up the majority of my friends.

While I have no interest nor intention of running for political office myself, my political activities haven't slowed.  Frankly, I loathe politics in general.  Unfortunately, I have to get involved to try to make change. 

As of January this year, the number of registered independent voters surpassed the number of registered Democrats and Republican voters.  Frankly, take that as a good sign. 

On a personal note, while I am registered as an independent, and with the exception of the times I briefly changed to Democrat simply to vote for Bernie Sanders in both the 2016 and 2020 primaries, and while I lean Democrat, I more closely align with the Green Party and the Working Families Party.  And for over a year now the Green Party is an official party that you can register to vote as in the state that I currently live in.

The movement to eliminate the Electoral College is growing.  Fighting the corporate stranglehold on American politics is ongoing.  If history teaches us anything, it is it can be done. Hopefully without a relative replay of the French Revolution.  Eliminating those will definitely help to allow third parties to be able to end the duopoly.  As will getting people to wake up to the fact that people should vote their conscience even when it's a third party candidate that most aligns with your conscience.

Voting for third parties is not a scam.  The scam is believing the only viable options are sticking with the corporate duopoly.

 

- Rev. J.T. Smith

 

 

Keep Your Own Data - Rev. J.T. Smith

I am old enough to remember when audio cassette tapes were the go-to method of storing music.  Not just the music albums from your favourite artists bought at the music store, but also the homemade mix tapes we made for ourselves and to give away to someone we liked and/or were hoping to woo.  And since cassette players were ubiquitous in cars, it was far easier than vinyl records.  Not to mention cheaper than CDs.  Cassettes also held more music (90 minute audio cassette tapes were easily available even at K-Mart, as were 120 min tapes) than CDs (only 80 minutes).

Obviously, as CDs gained traction, CD burners for your computer became widely available, and since CDs aren't susceptible to magnetic fields, and the costs of CDs in general came down, they overtook cassettes.  Even with their inherent limitation of not being able to fit as much music on them.

 

While I still keep my hardcopy music collection primarily on CD now, I still miss audio cassettes.

 

Similarly, I also miss VHS cassettes.  Albeit currently buried in storage, I still have my old VHS library.  Granted, my DVD collection has far surpassed my VHS collection overall, but I still have things like classic Doctor Who as it was aired on PBS in the States, meaning no adverts and all the individual eps within a serial were put together like a movie.

In terms of computers, admittedly, I finally adopted Windows 3.11 when Windows 95 had been out for a few years and Windows 98 was very soon to be hitting the market simply because I liked DOS.  I still miss DOS: my computer was only ever infected with a virus once while running DOS and I was able to wipe my hard drive completely, reinstall everything from 3.5" floppy disks that I knew were not infected, and I was fully back up and running in approximately in 45 minutes.  Good luck doing that now.

Contrary to what you may be thinking I am not a technophobe, and I do still try to keep up with the times.  Granted, I don't replace my mobile phone every year with the newest toy as I keep the same handset functioning as long as I can, replacing it only as I deem necessary.  But mostly due to costs and I'm a Scottish Jew.  (Think about it, it gets cheaper.)  But it's more than mere cost issues.

 

I don't immediately adopt the newest tech as I've watched my even techier (dunno if that's actually a word, but I'm using it anyway) get burned by the bugs that hadn't been dealt with by the first patch.  I also analyze not only the potential benefits but also the potential pitfalls.

As a result, I have not and will not get a DVR.  Not only do I not pay for television, aside from box sets of seasons and complete series of shows I like, meaning I will never be paying for cable/streaming, but DVR has a massive drawback that VHS never had.  It's a drawback that I witnessed from mother and father.

When they were living in Tennessee, they had accrued a sizeable collection of shows and movies on their DVR.  Until they maxed out their DVR's storage capacity.  Which served them well for a time.  The great drawback was when they changed carriers for their television.  Instantly, that collection on their DVR was permanently wiped out simply because they didn't own any of those recordings, and they had to turn in the DVR to their service provider and then rent a new DVR from their new service provider.  The beauty of VHS was that it didn't matter whether or not you had cable, nor did it matter who your television service provider was.  All that mattered was whether you still had access to a working VCR (Video Cassette Player, which allowed you to record your show of choice) or VCP (Video Cassette Player, which couldn't record but could still play back), and as for storage you just bought new blank VHS tapes and you were set to go on.

Prior to the general public being able to record music from the radio (adverts and all, or trimmed down to eliminate the adverts but with shorter versions of the songs than the actual albums would have) and shows from the telly, when a network decided to no longer air it, you were boned.  The ability for the common person to record onto medium that they could physically hold onto changed all that. 

Obviously, major entertainment corporations weren't happy about it as we were less dependent on them, so their profits dipped.  But it seemed the ability to time shift, the vaguely technical term for recording shows, whether radio or television, and playing them back whenever we wanted to, seemed like would be with use forever.

Then mobile phone apps and streaming came along.

The newer generations latched onto it as it's the latest and greatest.  All while missing the pitfall.  A pitfall that I partially discovered the hard way.

Among other artists I am a fan of DJ Heavygrinder.  At one point, I paid for her Love Letters mobile phone app.  Like the rest of my music collection in general, I didn't listen to it every day.  I was more of a sporadic thing.  That is until what I thought I had bought was more like rented as I can lo longer load it onto my phone.  It cannot even be found on Google Play.  And since I was never able to find a hardcopy, that album is gone for good.  I've looked.

Between streaming and tech like DVRs and cloud storage owned by other corporations which offer only the illusion of it being yours, corporations are once again gouging you.  Even when you're paying them money as they're still monetizing everything that you let them store for you.

I insist on buying shows on DVD and music on CD simply because as long as I have the equipment to play them, I will be able to watch/listen to them any time I want to, even when I have absolutely zero internet access.

And I've been trying to get friends and neighbours to realize this for ages now.  Unfortunately, the ones I couldn't convince are now discovering the hard way what I was trying to tell them.

"On June 24, 2024, the financially struggling entertainment behemoth Paramount began a large-scale defenestration of its vast public and free web archives. LateNighter and other entertainment news sites began reporting that Paramount took down footage from its MTV News archives (back to 1996), Comedy Central, and CMT (Country Music Television). The company wiped out decades of comedy, pop-culture news, and left-leaning political satire. Episodes of The Daily Show (TDS) dating back to 1999, the entire run of The Colbert Report, the Key & Peele sketch comedy show, and South Park are, with no warning to the public, no longer available. It’s likely to get a lot worse, since Paramount has now merged with the production company Skydance, with a deal involving billions in Wall Street debt funding—and the new co-owners want $1.5B more in cuts than Paramount was talking about last week."

 

Oops.  I'm thinking it's safe to say that what's happening with Paramount is merely the beginning.

 

Now, while I have been talking about audio cassettes, VHS, etc, I am not opposed to having a digital copy as well. However, there are two caveats.  First, that digital copy should really be in addition to a hardcopy, whether you're talking about books, music, or television/movies, etc.; and second, the only "cloud" storage should be physically accessible to you (e.g. external hard drive that you can disconnect from your computer and by extension the internet).

This also includes any personal projects you may be working on whether it be recordings of podcasts, books/articles you're writing, etc.

You should be certain that you can and do keep your own data.

 

by Rev. J.T. Smith

Some Things We Must All Keep In Mind Here - Rev. J.T. Smith

I originally wrote this while I was still in Acute Rehab at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital following my surviving a hemorrhagic stroke that initially left me completely paralyzed from the neck down on my dominant side.  I originally intended this to be for both the physical/occupational therapists and staff and their patients.  As I was slowly typing this one-handed, I concluded that it was appropriate for all the patients and staff, and not just in that hospital or in any specific kind of rehab..

 

 

 

SOME THINGS WE MUST ALL KEEP IN MIND HERE:

 

 

 

STAFF

 
It is your knowledge, your skill, your patience, your guidance, your kindness, and your heart which allows the patients with whom you work with to accomplish all that they do.  You never seem to give up on a patient even if it seems or feels like they’ve given up on themselves, and that action by itself can be a tremendous source of strength that you might not even realize.  Always remember with the appropriate humility that it doesn’t matter how much drive the patient has without your contributions, as the patients will be facing a much longer path ahead of them without your help.  Your contributions should never be ignored or overlooked, and you deserve the thanks of so many people.  Just please always remember that the patients know their body more intimately than you do.  They live there while you’re merely visiting.  Living through it is far more instructive than any amount of “observation,” and you may need to be occasionally reminded of that.

 

 

PATIENTS

You’ve already been through a lot in life.  You’ve survived, and that should never be taken for granted by anyone, including and especially yourself.  What will help you in your personal battle beyond what the staff can do for you is what you yourself bring in your heart.  Without your drive, your will, your desire, and your sheer tenacity, no amount of instruction or guidance will help you to succeed.  The staff working with you realizes that you have a difficult journey ahead of you, and they are willing to help you providing you make an effort.  No one said it will be easy; but once you get there, you’ll know how much it really is worth it!

Never worry about whether or not other patients are watching you.  

If they’re watching, it could just as easily be curiosity on their part.  Considering that they’re also facing their own personal battles, they’re most likely either cheering you on or watching in genuine curiosity.  Any other reactions don’t matter in this vein because you’re the one ultimately fighting your battle.  Always accept support as it means you’re not as alone as you may feel.

If they’re not watching you, most often it’s to help you concentrate on what you’re doing.  They’re leaving you completely alone simply because they don’t want to intrude on you or interfere with you.  You’d be amazed how many prayers of support that are still being sent your way.

Never fear even perceived failure.  It simply means that you’re trying and you’re learning.  You’ll learn and grow as long as you never give up on yourself.

Among so much else, you’ll learn about yourself most of all.  Including and especially how much strength you really have, and that’s something you’ll always have and can never be taken from you.  Remember while you’re learning that you know your personal situation better than anyone else.  Living it is more instructive than any amount of observation, and you may have to occasionally remind some people of that.

With hard work, and providing you don’t give up, you’ll really succeed far more than you might realize; but, only if you never give up.

 

- Rev. J.T. Smith 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here We Go Again With Not Voting For X Is A Vote For Y - Rev. J.T. Smith

 

Every four years America is treated to the Presidential election when Americans are directed to vote for one of two wealthy (anymore it's more like obscenely wealthy) candidates to run the country.  And for many decades now, American politics has been subsumed by a corporate duopoly divided between the Democrats and Republicans.  That duopoly has literally become its own industry that claims to cares about its customers (you guessed it: us) but in practice only serves to enrich itself.  And for free advertising, bring in major media outlets that drown out every other potential candidate.  Just look what happened to Bernie Sanders in 2016.

I've been hearing the trope about voting for a third party for decades now, about how it's a thrown away vote, or it's a vote for such-and-such candidate, etc.  I am NOT a fan of Trump by any means, so I will not vote for him.

The reality is that America desperately needs to break free of the corporate duopoly of the two-party system; but, as long as people continue to buy into the fallacy that it is the only viable system, which is a lie that you've been spoon-fed since you were in grade school and fed to you by the corporate "elites" who effectively control both parties with their extremely deep pockets, as long as Americans buy that lie, and as long as the Electoral College is allowed to remain in place, then America is screwed by it.

The only ways that I'm aware of to break that cycle is: 1) Permanently end the Electoral College; and 2) to finally vote for someone else, someone who is not so beholden to American corporatocracy, for enough people to both be registered to vote (finally starting to see some small movement on that, albeit infinitesimal) and for them to stop automatically simply voting for only either Democrats or Republicans.  That Senator Bernie Sanders held that office as an Independent for as long as he has is an indicator it can be done.

Eliminating the Electoral College is not impossible.  For things to do to achieve this, there are many avenues.  There are a plethora of petitions dedicated to this.  Sign all of them.  You can even start your own if you're so inclined.  You can also contact your government representatives, both state and federal.  You have the right, utilize it.  Write to and call your Representative and Senators.  And not just once and done, but repeatedly.  Don't let them ignore you.  To magnify your voice, also join or start a local group for this purpose.  For perspective, "gun rights" adherents and groups are calling in nearly daily.  It's one of the reasons Congress has failed so miserably to actually do anything particularly to curb gun violence  in America.  You can do the same.  As always, be polite or you'll be working against yourself.

Frankly I still think that if he had run as an independent in 2016 rather than falling into the trap of running as a Democrat against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, then we might finally have seen a solid crack in the system.  Especially considering Sanders was bringing in more small money donations and larger turnouts at his campaign rallies than Clinton and Trump combined.  But he was a clear and present danger to the established order which is why, since he was running as a Democrat, the Democratic Party was able to quash him and hand the nomination to Clinton.  Frankly, I could never vote for her as she never met a war she didn't like.

Until that break from the corporate duopoly happens, every cycle there will be people screaming that a vote for someone other than the corporate chosen candidate is a vote for the other corporate chosen candidate.

Want to keep Trump out of office?  Then do everything you can to make certain that the protections of the 14th Amendment are enforced, and throw his arse in prison where it likely belongs. 

Impossible is for the lazy.  Nothing is impossible if people start thinking rather than merely reacting.  It takes a lot of hard work and time invested.  As a hemorrhagic stroke survivor who's ambulatory again (after being completely paralyzed from the neck down on my dominant side, I'm not fully recovered YET), I am here to tell you impossible is for the lazy.   According to the laws of aerodynamics it's impossible for a bumblebee to fly.  Screw impossible and just DO it.

- Rev. J.T. Smith

 

Self Checkout Is An Utter Ripoff - Rev. J.T. Smith

 

 

It does not matter whether it's at Walmart, Target, your local grocer, or your local convenience store.  In every instance, self-checkout is a function of a corporation to literally slave your labour.

Every price on every product in every store covers more than merely replacing that product on the shelf for the next customer.  Obviously a portion of that price does pay for the store restocking that product and another portion is the profit for the store/corporation, but there's still paying the utilities (electric, telephones, heat, etc.) and the payroll for all the employees.  Including cashiers.

Earlier I referred to "slav[ing] your labour."  When you choose self-checkout, you are literally doing the job of one of the employees, specifically the cashier, and you are not being paid for it.  Not even a small discount for doing the job.  The corporation that own the store is making even more money off you as they get the profit(s) from the product(s) you are purchasing and they are not having to pay the expense of the payroll for the employee whose job you are doing for free.

Let's put this in perspective.

Regardless of where you work, what field you work in, or who you work for, the "company" [small company or multinational corporation], you are dealing with customers.  Even if only indirectly.  Now imagine if a customer came to your workplace and started doing your job without pay.  Sounds great being able to go to work and someone else is doing your job for you, doesn't it?

Or would your automatic response be realization that if someone else is doing your job, then you no longer have a job.

That is what is happening in every store that has self-checkout.  Trafficking is a new word for the slave trade.  To my mind, self-checkout is little more than innocuous voluntary slave labour.  Why should any company bother with hiring employees when they can get their customers to pay the company to do the jobs of the employees?

 I will NEVER go through self-checkout with my order in any store!  Any store that completely switches completely to self-checkout rather than actually hire people will be automatically boycotted by me.  I do not care how much "faster" it is to just do it yourself using self-checkout, I am not going to participate in something that causes people to lose their livelihood.

The pandemic demonstrated just who the essential workers are.  Thanks to self-checkout, companies are working to eliminate their positions so that unpaid, let alone underpaid, people can do the work.  More money for the uber-rich and more unpaid labour for everyone else.

by Rev. J.T. Smith

Gun Rights And The Second Amendment, The Reality Behind The Arguments Ignore - Rev. J.T. Smith

Am I the only one who finds it outrageous that any member of the American military and police forces must be fully trained in how to use and store any weapon before they're ever issued that weapon, yet a civilian can just buy any weapon they want without ever being trained or demonstrating that they've been trained first?  Am I the only one who thinks that everyone in America who even wants to purchase or even use a gun must be fully trained in how to properly use and store that weapon first? 

First things first, the Second Amendment of the American Constitution:

It would help to no end if Americans, especially those members of the NRA and their sycophantic followers, would actually learn the most important and opening words of the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia".  Having enough money to pay for the gun and requisite ammunition as well as the patience to wait out any waiting period does NOT make a person a part of "a well regulated militia".

A bit of history which used to be taught in high school and probably still is but gets ignored or glossed over:

The United States began as the loose coalition of states, originally the 13 British colonies, that were brought together under the Constitution thus forming a central government that gave both unity and some cohesion to those states.  While there was a standing army (in this context, this term is simpler to use than "armed forces"), the Continental Army, that was controlled by the federal government, it was still necessary in time of war to augment it with militias that were formed, controlled, and maintained at the state level.  Militias were then what the National Guard is now.

This was the most expedient solution as those militias already existed and were the armed forces used to defeat the British army during the Revolutionary War.  What's more, it was believed that every able-bodied man (in this, yes, they were sexist) in a given age range as determined by the individual states would eventually serve in their local militia, and that they would maintain their own small arms equipment as needed.  Equipment that they would actually be trained thoroughly in how to properly use and maintain prior to being allowed to ever have such weapons.  Larger weapons, such as cannons and requisite ammunition, were stowed in the armoury when not in use.

It was specifically those very militias that are referenced in the Second Amendment.

[Related:

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/06/its-time-democrats-stop-agreeing-second-amendment-protects-individuals-right-bear]

Next, guns themselves:
The sole purpose of a gun is to maim and/or kill at a distance quickly and efficiently.  Any argument of what physically does the killing demonstrates a distinct mental disconnect (not to mention a severe case of cranial-rectal inversion).

What's more, all a drawn gun demonstrates is two things:

First, whether it's drawn or holstered, empty or loaded, a gun simply demonstrates fear.  The fear felt by the person who's carrying and holding the gun.  This includes the American police and military.  Other nations (e.g. Great Britain) have police forces that are not constantly armed with a firearm and are further trained to do something Americans find unthinkable: they actually talk down the criminal with the gun and disarm them without firing a single shot or brandishing their own weapon.  They're not completely defenseless as they do have collapsible batons and tasers, but those are not their first used option.  Instead, they use a far more dangerous weapon: their BRAIN.

The second thing a drawn gun demonstrates is that you are immediately the prime target of anyone else with a loaded gun.  This obviously includes the police, who actually are properly trained in the proper use and storage of their weapons before they are ever issued their weapons.

I have an idea: Everyone in the NRA hierarchy and everyone who panders to them (including every politician who accepts any money from the NRA) should be shot, preferably embarrassingly and unexpectedly.  Note I said shot and not killed.  This way, they might learn from the experience.  Especially if it's done in such a way that even if they're armed themselves it wouldn't actually help them in the slightest.  Though I think the exercise would need to be repeated several times for each gun worshiper before they wake up to the outrageous danger their lust for guns puts everyone in.

Another suggestion would be to start heavily taxing ammunition.  People will definitely stop and think before firing a bullet that costs $1000 and can never be reused.

It is long past time that the carnage made so readily enacted by guns comes to an end.

by Rev. J.T. Smith 

We Desperately Need To Get Off Oil, But Batteries Are A Bad Idea For Fueling Vehicles! - Rev. J.T. Smith

I am in no way supporting Big Oil with what I'm about to say as petrol as a fuel is an environmental disaster.  There is no denying that at all.

That said, batteries are not the right way to go either for several reasons.

One of which is that batteries all wear out eventually.  Just look to your mobile phone and you'll realize this.  Then again, far too many feel a desperate need to always have the latest and greatest product and update their mobile phone every year or so.  A fact that manufacturers don't only realize but actively count on and encourage this behaviour.  Consumerism at all costs.  Great for the bottom lines of corporations around the world but utter shit for the environment.

Car companies, including Tesla, are counting on this short-sighted behaviour too.  Though of course they won't admit it as that would be bad for sales.

One of the more subtle ways of encouraging this is to place in the instructions that come with the device, including electric cars, the notion that batteries supposedly no longer develop a memory the way nickle-cadmium [Ni-Cad] batteries used to so you should recharge them once they drop to 15% rather than run them flat first before recharging.  They tell you this, not because they really want you to get the most life out of your battery (FYI, there's zero profit in it for corporations for you to not have to replace the batteries sooner!), but because they want to sell you more batteries and/or a new device sooner.

These days, the only thing that's kept around longer than the rechargeable batteries that run them are vibrators.  Then again, a dead vibrator is still a dildo. 

Now, I grant that lithium ion [Li-Ion] batteries don't develop a memory the way that Ni-Cad ones did, they do still develop that memory only over a longer period of time.  Longer enough, the manufacturers figure, that you'll be throwing out your old device and replacing it with a new one before the battery will no longer hold a charge.  But if you really want your rechargeable batteries to actually last as long as they can before they're permanently dead, then you should always run them until they're flat before you recharge them and you should recharge them until they're fully recharged before using them again.

In the meantime there's still the matter of the fact that it still takes hours to fully recharge a battery from flat (the more powerful the batteries, the longer it takes to recharge them); and as noted earlier, if you don't run the battery to flat prior to fully recharging completely you will shorten the total overall life of the battery.  (This is the end result of the aforementioned memory.)  I know this for a fact by taking two identical modern mobile phones (I inadvertently got two identical handsets, one from each of two people, due to my previous mobile phone dying completely after 4 years of service, and I kept the second as a backup) and ran the first one battery to flat every time prior to fully recharging.  That handset started getting a bit worn so I started using the second handset fresh from the box.  Only with the second handset I decided to go against my better judgement and started recharging every day or so regardless of how low the battery was.  The end result was that the battery of the second handset ended up needing to be recharged as often after one year as the first one did after two hours.  Now, neither handset will last 24 hours before going flat. And unlike Top Gear, who would fake things to get their end result, I didn't fake any of it.  That's because batteries typically lose approximately 80% of their capacity after a couple of years.

Regardless, if you do decide to keep your electric vehicle for long enough, you'll have to deal with the battery.  While some companies like Nissan are trying to make it that you would only have to replace a bad cell rather than the entire battery replace the entire battery, it's currently more common and more likely that your dealer won't be the ones to deal with individual cells; so you'll still end up having to replace the battery outright to keep that car going the way petrol fueled vehicles can currently.  At which point you have a piece of trash that still contains components that still can't be recycled; and that, in turn, continues to have a toxic environmental impact.  Yes, more of the components can be recycled, but the cost of lithium is low right now because the relative demand is low currently, but that'll change over time.  And all of this presumes you'll still be able to get a matching replacement battery when the time comes, anyway.

I fully acknowledge the fact that petrol fuel is an environmental disaster, but one of the advantages of a liquid fuel is that as long as the engine/motor still uses that fuel then it doesn't matter what shape the fuel tank takes as long as it fits into the hull of the vehicle.  And replacing a liquid fuel tank is a lot cheaper than replacing the battery on an electric vehicle.  And one of the beautiful things about classic cars is that we can still drive them now, decades after they were manufactured.  If the trend of throwing away battery operated devices, either as soon as or before the batteries will no longer hold a charge, then things like classic car shows will be a thing of the past.  Classic car shows aren't  singing the praises of Big Oil; they're showcases of lasting and durable engineering and works of art created from metals.

Even more troubling than the technical issues, there's still the slave labour and environmental problems inherent in the manufacture of batteries.

We would do far better with a hybrid car consisting of a hydrogen fuel cell backed up with solar panels.  But thanks to irrational fears due to a misunderstanding of just what downed the Hindenburg, it'll be a long time before this is more widely accepted.  And thanks to current economics, it'll be cheaper to replace an entire vehicle than only the battery when the battery can no longer hold a charge.  Batteries are a stopgap measure at best.

by  Rev. J.T. Smith

"Earning" A Rebate? - Rev. J.T. Smith

 These days you'll see adverts like this from Rakuten 

 with taglines like: "Stores pay us. We pay you." (FYI, this is actually a rebate) or articles like this one titled "How I earned more than $2,500 using credit cards in 2020.  These cards helped me earn a 4.1% rate of return on spending last year" found on creditcards.com.  It has always bothered me when I see articles and adverts claiming people are getting paid and/or that they're "earning money" when in reality they're only getting a rebate.  

Please understand that I am not opposed to getting a rebate from a company or cash back from a credit card company per se, but claiming that I am being paid or have somehow earned that discount (especially in terms of a rebate) is very misleading.  Rebates are best recognized as large companies acknowledging that they are vastly over charging for their goods and/or services, and that cash back or points from credit card companies are simply another form of rebate that is simply processed from another source.

What's even worse is when companies tell you that the cost for something is $X without informing you that you get that price after a mail-in rebate.  Pep Boys pulled that one on me once when I was in need of an an oil change.  I was quoted $19.99 for the oil change when I called ahead to find out the price so that I could be certain I had enough money available to pay for it (I did not have any credit cards at all at the time and being a non-pizza food delivery driver my personal available cash on hand was typically tight).  It wasn't until my car was on the rack and the oil change was in progress that I spotted a sign informing me that the up front price for the oil change was $49.99, the $19.99 was after a $20 mail-in rebate.  I was lucky that I had just enough money to pay the bill but no ability to make change for my next delivery.  To add insult to injury, I never did receive the rebate.  Pep Boys will never again be allowed to work on any vehicle I own.

No one actually earns a rebate or the cash back that credit card customers can receive.  It is that belief that people are "being paid for shopping" that has allowed pyramid schemes like Amway to stay in business and that leads so many people to get into financial trouble with their credit cards!

Yes, you can get good discounts from credit cards and rebates, and you're better off if you can simultaneously stack those discounts for the same purchase.  I am not denying that fact.  But, let's call it what it really is: Cash back from credit cards are rebates, and any rebate is nothing more than a delayed discount that's saving you some money, but not a paycheque.

 - Rev. J.T. Smith

Major Problem With The Coronavirus Reporting - Rev. J.T. Smith

While there is no question that the COVID-19 coronavirus is a serious issue, the media have been exaggerating the problem.  Suspicion is not knowledge, and a presumptive case is not a confirmed case.

In Pennsylvania as of March 14, 2020, there are reported to be 41 cases of COVID-19, 35 presumptive positive cases and six confirmed. That is bad reporting as suspicion, regardless of the probability of accuracy, is still not knowledge.  Presumption is based on probability, and while something has a high probability of being the case it would be far better to stick with reporting only the confirmed cases.

Not only that, but pushing hand sanitizer, which while being antibacterial isn't effective against viral infections, is nothing more than a placebo that in the long run helps to create the superbugs that resist antibiotics due to overuse.

Obviously freedom of the press is important, and I am not suggesting otherwise; but, the government's reporting presumptive cases as actual cases is only serving to foment fear and panic.

What's more is the fact that the massive quarantine was never put in place to combat a frankly bigger threat to human health, even with the vaccine that's relatively readily available,  that has been well known for a long time now: Influenza.  Then again, humans panic so easily when confronted with a new unknown.

And while I am not prone to conspiracy theories in general, I have noticed that the quarantine measures now in place handily circumvent the First Amendment's protections ["Congress shall make no law respecting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble"] and quash the myriad protests (e.g. protests against any/all of Trump's scandals, protests against the police, et al) that have been taking in America for the last three years and more.

The COVID-19 coronavirus issue has been blown vastly out of proportion in this country, allowing fear to take over from rational thought from the public and harming more people than merely those even potentially at risk from this virus.

Either way, it does help to show how much better Bernie Sanders' Medicare For All would be than what's currently available; but while Sanders' Medicare For All would help the medical system issues under the circumstances, it still leaves hourly workers, the unemployed, and small business owners high and dry if this situation lasts for too much longer.

- Rev. J.T. Smith

Daylight Saving Time - Rev. J.T. Smith

Once again we've gone through the twice-a-year time warp from the clocks throughout most of America being moved ahead an hour.  And once again there are numerous people complaining about the inconvenience.

Naturally, there's an accompanying push-back due to that inconvenience where people want only one time-set.  Truth be told,  I also wish the ritual was finally done away with; however, I disagree with anyone and everyone who wants to eliminate Daylight Savings Time [DST].  Their reasoning is that they don't want to lose that hour of sleep when the clocks jump forward, nor do they want to lose the extra hour of sleep when the clocks fall back.

Admittedly, I can empathize with that line of reasoning, but it's frankly shortsighted.

My preference, along with the preference of Benjamin Franklin, who initiated the concept of daylight savings time, would be to simply remain switched to daylight savings time.  Even with it being darker in the morning during DST.

Granted, if we followed the example of pre-Columbian Native Americans, then we might be happier in general as they never centered their lives around a mechanical device meant to measure the position of the Earth in relation to its relative position on its axis in relation to the sun.

But since we're so programmed to measure every second at a minimum, then I've always concluded that DST is preferable by far.  Ultimately, the length of time the sun shines in comparison to daylight and night time never actually changes, only our perception of it does.

- Rev. J.T. Smith

Trust, Respect . . . And Beauty - Rev. J.T. Smith

Trust, Respect . . . And Beauty

Both trust and respect should always be earned rather than treated as some form of a door prize to be handed out to anyone who shows up or just happens to be in any kind of position of authority (e.g. parents/elders, teachers, the police/military personnel, any part of the government, the media, et al).  And just as actions speak louder than words, albeit not as often, a person's actions are the best and surest method of determining whether or not they deserve your trust or respect, if ever.  Neither trust nor respect should ever be treated as absolutes unless they have earned either of those; and if anyone should ever abuse you personally or their position of power in general, then that trust and/or respect should be revoked.

In reality, the word "respect" gets thrown around far too readily and nearly everyone seems to demand it these days.  We're told that everyone deserves respect at all times.  The fact is that people erroneously use the term "respect" when they should be using the phrase "common courtesy."  In his article "Command, Don't Demand Respect: Giving Respect Without Feeling It Inside Is Pretentious. Insisting On Such Respect Is False Pride," Manoj Khatri said: "All around us, we see people demanding/giving respect for all the wrong reasons.  In your family, respect your elders whether or not they deserve it.  At school/college, respect your teachers, doesn't matter if they can't teach anything.  At work, respect your seniors, regardless of how competent they are."

As stated earlier, respect, like trust, needs to be earned rather than simply given or expected.  While it has been said that respect is neither imposed nor begged, it's earned and offered, it has also been rightly observed that if you have to demand respect then you don't deserve it.  Even though at the end of the day you will never get to determine or decide how or when, if ever, anyone respects or trusts you, it is you who should be the one to decide who you respect and/or trust and by what individual criteria you use to determine who, when, and how anyone earns either from you.  And we should all be working to earn that trust or respect if we desire it from others.

Bear in mind also that trust and respect are not mutually inclusive.  While you can trust that a peer may do their duties to the best of their ability, it doesn't automatically mean that you do or should respect them as their other actions towards you or others might not warrant it.  Conversely, while you obviously won't trust an enemy, you might still respect them for their cunning, skill, or some other attribute that you find worthy of respect.

How does the concept of beauty fit into all of this?  We're essentially told by the media who we should find beautiful or that somehow beauty is a valid method for automatic judgment of a person.  The reality is that beauty is simply a combination of qualities (e.g. shape, colour, or form) that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially sight.  Sadly, the media (which in terms of determining "beauty" seems to be the accepted "authority" on the subject, an authority it doesn't deserve in reality as beauty is a subjective matter of opinion and we should be capable of making up our own minds based on our own individual aesthetic) continually focuses myopically on women's appearance while focusing on nearly every other attribute of men.  While the apparent majority of media will do this, it doesn't mean that everyone does. 

Since a person's physical appearance is the first thing we see when we look at a person and quite often it's the only part of a person we will ever be able to "interact" with on any level, particularly in terms of celebrities, we'll often say (even if only in our own minds) or post online "so-and-so is beautiful/sexy/pretty/hot/etc." when we see someone whose features or attributes fit within our personal aesthetic; and that action may seem shallow to others observing.  Of course, some people are simply that shallow.  Mind you, those statements aren't limited solely to stated observations by males. 

But that physical appearance neither determines nor denotes either intelligence or personality.  How can anyone ascertain another person's intelligence unless we're able to interact, most often talk, with them?  At that we usually base our conclusions about a person's intelligence far more on the way that person speaks rather than on how they look.  As for personality, once we encounter it, it will for many of us adjust how we see that person, either augmenting or diminishing their "beauty" in our eyes. 

Whereas we have to earn the respect and trust of others, we cannot earn beauty.  That said, like trust and respect, no one else can decide or determine for us who or what we find beautiful.  And though we have the absolute right to think of ourselves as beautiful in whatever form or capacity, and we should never let others determine how we perceive ourselves, we simply can't force or expect others to agree with our sense of aesthetic.  Beauty is an opinion, but it is our own opinion.

by Rev. J.T. Smith

Dealing With Offense (Updated) - Rev. J.T. Smith

I initially wrote the following in February 2015 as an article for the Wellspring Clubhouse's newsletter, which was published.  On December 4, 2016, upon starting this blog (which I admit I need to post to more often), I posted this article as the inaugural article, with a graphic attached so I could post it to my Pinterest page. 

Having attended a training regarding "recovery language" and the words/phrases that are now considered "offensive" on 11/22/19, it strikes me as apropos to share it with you, though updated slightly as a result of/response to that training.  [This article, with the exceptions of a direct quote used in the article and the graphics at the end, is solely me.  And the coarse language found in the primary quote is in fact a direct quote.  I do not expect anyone to agree with me.  As the title of my blog says, this is Food For Thought.]

--------

No matter what you do, no matter how hard you try for otherwise, either you will offend someone or they will offend you.  It’s simply a part of this thing we call life.  There is one thing to realize and remember: The only way you can be offended is if you choose to be offended.

Ultimately, the best way to deal with it is to surprise everyone and choose to not be offended.  Ask yourself why the person is in any way important to you specifically.  Also remember that others won’t necessarily share your viewpoint.  Sometimes, their view will be both negative to your way of thinking and will seem to be narrow-minded and inflexible.  Deciding to be offended will only succeed in giving you extra unneeded “baggage” that will only adversely affect *you*.  You do better to decide to not be offended, try to at least see where their point is coming from, explain your point of view (i.e. have something of a conversation about it), and if you can’t come to a consensus then at most mentally conclude that they’re an idiot and then just go on with your life.

Now there's a movement to change recovery language so as to be "patient first" in an attempt to thwart stigma.  On the surface this sounds noble as fighting and ending stigma is absolutely needed.  Unfortunately, it's focusing on the wrong problem in that it isn't the words "autistic," "autism," "drug addiction," "mental illness," or any of the other related words/terms that are the cause of or carry the stigma; it's the conditions themselves to which those words/terms refer.  Language is reflective of the culture that spawned it.  One anthropological fact is that language follows culture, not the other way around. 

The fact of the matter is that *any* word, phrase, or terminology can be turned into a pejorative regardless of how innocent that word, phrase, or terminology is, just as anything said can become sexualized even when the word/phrase isn't sexual in and of itself.

At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, it was decided to refer to people with various physical/mental health issues as "special" as it was considered a positive and affirming word.  We no longer say "special" because it quickly became a pejorative term.  And in an effort to thwart the use medical terms in the mental health realm, the terms have become more complex; the result has been an increase of the phrase "I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce" as an insult.

In another aspect regarding the fallacy of thinking being "offended" is a useful reaction, an example: While I was still a member of the Wellspring Clubhouse, I was in a conversation with a female friend, and while I don't recall the topic I do remember we were in agreement.  Shortly thereafter in the same day, I was in the library/computer room having a similar conversation with a male acquaintance about the same topic.  While I was describing the prior conversation (without identifying the woman I'd been speaking to due to my privacy protocols), with my lead-in being that I agreed with her, another female member came into the room on unrelated business whereupon she heard part of what I was saying.  Without bothering to learn the context of my remarks, she concluded that she was offended by what I was saying and came to the "defense" of my female friend.  The woman was further offended when I pointed out that, because she was coming into the middle of a conversation with no accurate reference points, she had no idea what she was talking about since I was in fact in agreement with my female friend.  Rather than utilizing logic, the woman who still thought she was defending my friend decided to let her emotions rule regardless of the facts.

[See my article: "Check Your -ism by Rev. J.T. Smith" for further examples.]

Regardless of whether it's in an individual setting or a more institutional one (e.g. job, official or professional situation, et al), being offended solves nothing and does not give you nor anyone else any special rights or privileges.  As Stephen Fry once said: “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.'  As if that gives them certain rights.  It's actually nothing more . . . than a whine.  'I find that offensive.'  It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.  'I am offended by that.'  Well, so fucking what." [I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]”

Getting and/or being offended solves nothing.  It won’t actually change anything.  Your viewpoints, no matter how well reasoned or even potentially innocent they may be, will still offend someone else.  That’s merely human nature.  Regardless of what far too many people will tell you, you always have a choice (you simply won’t always like the alternatives).  In terms of something, a statement or action that you don’t like for whatever reason, your choices are to be offended or not to be offended.  Make your life so much easier by always choosing to not be offended.

by Rev. J.T. Smith

Perhaps A Reason Why The Right Is So Willing To Push For Eliminating Contraception & Abortion Coverage? - Rev. J.T. Smith

I think I've figured out a large, though not consciously acknowledged reason why the Right is so willing to push for eliminating contraception and abortion coverage that has nothing to do with religious teachings even though those teachings provide a handy cover. We must remember that the mindset of slavers of old still exists, albeit in a new guise: Corporations. The wealthy few have found a new way to create a slave class in America, and the only way to make sure the money, which is invariably equated with power, keeps pouring in is to continually grow the worker base, which simultaneously grows the consumer base. And if the slaves, who also don't realize they're slaves, are allowed to have easily accessible and safe contraception and abortion, well that threatens the growth of that worker/consumer class. And allowing bigotry and misogyny at all levels has the added bonus of acting as a handy diversion from the reality that unless they're one of the wealthy few then they're also slaves. Amazingly, while they have more power than the peons, even the millionaires are slaves to the ultra-rich.

by Rev. J.T. Smith 

Dreaded Taxes [UPDATED] - by Rev. J.T. Smith

It's that season again: Tax season.  No one likes having to pay them.  And whenever we hear politicians promise to somehow cut or lower them, we instinctively love the idea.

Then again, we don't like having to pay for things like phone bills, car repairs, rent/mortgage, or any of the other bills that keep our needs met either.  Unfortunately, if you don't pay the phone bill, then no phone service for you.  Don't spend the money on the car repairs and maintenance?  Then you're out a working car.  (This becomes an even bigger issue if you live in a rural area with no available public transportation.)  Don't pay rent/mortgage?  Then you're either rich, living with very understanding friends/relatives, or you're homeless.

The problem is that the same concept also applies to taxes as they are in fact what pays for all of the services that are all too often taken for granted: Police/fire/emergency services, roads and their accouterments and maintenance, public schools, et al.  And the taxes are meant to ensure that all of us chip in, thus lowering the cost per individual.  As usual, we have politicians who are looking to privatize all those services in order to “lower taxes.”  The fact is that the wealthy want to lower their own taxes, at the expense of everyone else.  It's similar to the concept of “trickle-down economics.”  While it might sound good on the surface, the reality is quite different as history has demonstrated that those latter ideas simply don't work.  By privatizing what would otherwise be public services, we’re effectively paying more money for what amounts to less services as that is what allows the corporations to make more money, and the bottom line of profits will always matter far more to corporate America than people’s lives.  And the politicians who push for privatization are really in the pockets of those corporations and the exceptionally wealthy through the lobbyists who are metaphorically whispering in their ear.

This can be changed, it can be fixed.  Sadly, it won’t happen overnight; but, that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.  We need people in every level of government who want and are willing to push for tax reforms that forces those who can afford it (e.g. earn/receive $300,000 per year or more) to pay more in taxes in that they have more available to pay, as opposed to always sticking the working poor with the bill as is done now.  Not only those wealthy people, but  corporations also need to pay their share.  “Each and every year, we lose $100 billion in revenue because large corporations and the wealthy are stashing their profits in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other offshore tax havens.  That has got to stop.” [Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt)]  What's more, as Senator Sanders has also noted: “At a time when we now spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense, we can make judicious cuts in our armed forces without compromising our military capability.” 

Really, cutting America's military spending in half, which would still result in greater spending than the next top three countries combined, along with forcing corporations and the super-rich to pay their fair share of taxes including on all of the money they have tucked away in other countries, would easily cover the social safety net, the desperately needed infrastructure repairs, the salaries for emergency services, fully fund top notch public education as well as college tuition, and still have money available to lift everyone in this country out of poverty.

A very strong message that we must send to every level of government, especially to those politicians who constantly cry about government spending, is that the Government is not a for profit business but is rather a non-profit organization that is meant to serve ALL citizens regardless of age, biological gender, gender expression, transgender, skin colour, ethnic background, physical ability or disability, sexual orientation, or any other grouping of citizens we might think of that I've missed.

We can begin to bring about the changes needed by first making certain our voter registrations are up to date.  When election time comes around again (Presidential, Congressional, Gubernatorial, Mayoral, etc., et. al.), we vote in those who would push for and through the above mentioned changes in taxation practices.  In the interim between voting cycles, we can still band together and push for change.  Join local activist groups or start your own.  Write letters to the editor, write and sign petitions.  And follow the advice of Hillary Clinton when she said at National Partnership's 2012 Annual Luncheon on June 26, 2012, “Get organized, get involved, and don't let anyone tell you it can't be done.”

 

by Rev. J.T. Smith