Sometimes It Takes A Dictator

You know what they say about too many cooks in the kitchen ruining the soup. There’s a lot of truth to that.

Hypocrisy is blind.

Hypocrisy is blood.

The Word Chef

Hypocrisy is created when one fails to see the same flaw in themselves that they see in another. This leads to perpetual stalemate, which eventually if not broken leads to the letting of blood.

Such is the hatred that comes about from seeing and understanding only one side of any view.

Yes, sometimes it takes a dictator using dictatorial moves to thrust a country forward out of the doldrum dumps when opposing sides refuse or fail to compromise or agree or present viable, alternative solutions.

The Word Chef

In the interest of all those who need and deserve a solution to whatever hinders them, a singular action by one person in place to execute that action, starts the forward moving process out of the ditch, that their resistance dug by standing still in a moving world.

It takes a lot of energy to stand still for creatures who were designed to move. Lost energy. Energy that digs graves for impending death instead of energy that moves mountains to build better communications to unite the world, at least by bringing the world together to hear all views.

Yes the views of the populace too. They are the most important, since the politicians decide their fate by imposing laws they write onto people they’ve never met – except for a few populace-plants on the campaign trails in the places they visit. Frankly, I don’t want those hand-selected populace-people speaking on my behalf.

Resisting any movement at all is counterproductive to a functioning entity, be it government or business or in one’s private life. The operative word here is ‘functioning’. Without it there is no government nor entity. The purpose of all entities is to function.

Governments, if they’re smart and if they really care about the people they claim to serve, write into their constitutional laws a mechanism designed to break a stalemate, knowing the high probability that among passionate, ego-driven players, digging one’s heels in becomes a strategy rather than an honest vote.

That’s when the person elected to break stalemates when they occur is allowed by the laws of the constitution to make dictator-moves in order to keep the country functioning as an entity.

Perpetual blame leads to inaction, thus the blame-game becomes in reality the blame-strategy used to keep an entity standing still.

The Word Chef

Dictator-moves are crucial when lawmakers are too obstinate or too tired to lead effectively.

The populace wants and deserves the deployment of that option when their elected officials fail them by not working on the projects that make their lives better than they were before. Not just a little better – that’s as bad as stalling until the next election just to get re-elected.

Big, bold moves is what my heart, mind and soul want – moves that benefit us all, not more for the rich, because they have more money and ten percent of five million dollars is more than ten percent of fifty thousand. So they give everybody the same percent, which makes us all equal?

NO IT DOESN’T make us all equal.

Biased ratios are used to discriminate not level the playing field.

The Word Chef

Why use that biased mathematical ratio? It helps only the rich get richer. The rich can invest their ten percent or $500,000.

The poor need their meager ten percent or $5000 just to survive.

The math is accurate; it’s the application of it that discriminates against the poor (in this instance).

Eliminate The Biased Mathematical Ratio






Advertisements

BIASED TITLES – day 13

FIVE DAYS IN MARCH

DAY 13

Ivanka Trump slammed after sharing photos from family vacation: ‘Shame on you’


YAHOO PROFILE PIC

Sharon Lee Davies-Tight

22 April 2019

Ivanka Trump slammed after sharing photos from family vacation: ‘Shame on you’

At least she’s not using her kids as human shields to get into a country illegally.

Nor is she selling her children to child sex traffickers.

These Yahoo writers insert too much hatred and political and economic bias into their news article titles.

People who use children as human shields, bargaining chips and cash cows should be separated from those so-called adults.

All those children at the border are crying to go home; they’re not crying to get into the USA.



ADD-on for writing tips:

SHAMING IVANKA FOR FAMILY FUN would have been a more decent title as well as more truthful.

The “shame on you” was overkill in that title. And the title was a sentence not a title. Living in a GAY neighborhood and being familiar with their talk, my first thought was a gay wrote that title. They are the most biased group of people on every topic that I’ve ever encountered. They write like they talk – absent a filter.

Writers have the opportunity to edit what they write before it gets out; while once out of the mouth, it’s out. You can’t take it back.

A title should not communicate the views or the bias of the writer if written as a journalist on a news site.

It should be devoid of emotional bait.

And it certainly should not communicate the writer’s anger.

I didn’t even have to click on the article to read it, because I knew by the title and the intent that it wasn’t a feel good story about family fun. In fact I submitted the opinion before reading the article. I clicked it on finally when I decided to turn this into a writing tip. Of course I was right; the article was really about border children being separated for adults once incarcerated – not the First Family having fun with their children while on vacation.

Children at the border are not on vacation; they’re working underage for the political beliefs and socio-economic aspirations of their Spanish Conqueror Ancestors.

I had thought about doing this for a long time – calling out GAYS for inappropriate bias in their titles and news articles. Not all gays do it of course, but enough do it to make the method contagious whereby non-gays pick up the practice. Then everybody’s doing it.

It doesn’t take much skill to say what’s on your mind.

The skill comes in when you take the bias of emotion out of the facts presented and refrain from interpreting them for the reader. It insults their intelligence and puts into question their own problem solving skills when you decide to become their brain. You shouldn’t need to interpret the facts when presented accurately.


Yes, the opinion of the writer matters.

Then put it into the commentary, not the news article or the title.

Yes. Where you put it matters.






White and Black Nationalists

White is not a nationality. Neither is Black.

Calling a race a nationality is like calling a religion a nationality. It’s highly biased in favor of the designated group the nation is named after.

Referencing people as white or black nationalists isn’t appropriate.

Blacks predominantly populate the fifty-four nations in continental Africa and in some Island communities. Why do they need another nation half way across the world? Are they trying to colonize the USA? It wouldn’t be the first time a group of people did that.

What, anywhere they live they have to make it into their nation?

The Spanish are doing that now, trying to colonize the USA. Except for Portugal they predominantly populate the continent of South America. Central America too. Also the United States of Mexico. Some island communities too.

What’s up with people wanting to change their residences to other nations, then once there, work feverishly to change those nations into their likeness?

I thought the era of colonization was over. All it did was continue under a different name – immigration. The first people to emigrate paralleled the missionaries, scouting out a different place to conquer, then moving, establishing themselves, then moving their families to their new nation, then changing the existing political system to satisfy their needs and values. Next thing you know the transition to a conquered nation is complete and nobody saw it coming. One nation under whom? Pick a nation any nation.

It’s a slower ride, but mass immigration still results in colonization. Occupation is the same process with a different name.






 

We ARE ALREADY A ONE PARTY SYSTEM in the USA

Since the Democrats have a majority in the House of Representatives and they are the so-called compassionate party why aren’t they politicking to abolish the death penalty and for an equal rights amendment (ERA)?

Because they don’t want to abolish the death penalty and they don’t want equal rights for women.

So that makes them no better than Republicans. That’s about all the equal I see in the USA government: on all levels from local to federal: Democrats and Republicans are equal, which makes us a one party system.

Equal pay for equal work is not the same as equal rights. Women are sick of band-aid approaches and short-term fixes used to pacify them as equally worthy citizens. Women’s rights need to be the same as everybody else’s and they are not. Inserting the mirage of equal women under the title of ‘all men are created equal’ did not result in equality for women. If it had, it wouldn’t be a mirage; it would be real.

The USA is supposed to separate church from state according to their Constitution, yet they institutionalize a death penalty based on revenge supported by an ‘eye for an eye’ teaching in the bible – a religious book anonymously written, and anonymously edited a multitude of times to reflect the times.

Sparing a life is liberal. Taking a life is conservative.

Giving all humans the same rights is liberal. Giving certain groups of humans different rights is conservative.

So what are we?

We’re all conservative, except for those few who believe in equality for all.

The masses of people breaking our laws to enter our country claim to have all the answers for us. They do not represent a third party or even a second party. They represent themselves as lawbreakers who can’t even care for themselves, much less their families.

If premeditated murder is wrong, then it’s equally wrong to plan and execute the murder of an offender of that law.

Logic serves better to keep us equal under the law than does religion or laws that empower some groups or demographics over others.

What’s right for one or wrong for one needs to be right or wrong for all.

If a law cannot be applied equally, then abolish the law or don’t make the law in the first place.

Equality needs to be the litmus test of whether a proposed law becomes a law, then it needs a probation period to assess whether it should become a permanent law or a renewable law.






RACIST LABELS

Black Owned Businesses and Black Entertainment and Black Universities, Black Stock Market are all racist labels designed to favor black people over all others.

White Owned businesses and White Entertainment and White Universities, White Stock Market are all racist labels designed to favor white people over all others.

But wait, Whites aren’t allowed to sell a product under a White label. The fact that Blacks are allowed and do engage proves the prejudice and the ignorance.

That’s a Black on White discrimination, and by their own definition, hatred, which by further definition (their own) is a hate crime.

Stop using history to justify your racist thoughts and actions.

There is no valid justification, no matter how many people think there is – even if every human on the planet believes that bias based on race is justified – then that only proves that all humans are wrong.






 

RE: Children In Jail Cells With Adult Males…

When adults use children to commit crimes or to gain favor and they are captured together, they are separated for the welfare of the child.

Maybe in Mexico or Central or South America they put young children in jail cells with adults, but we don’t do that in the USA.

Child molestation is an acceptable cultural practice in the aforementioned areas in all Spanish-speaking communities (land and island communities). There is a huge sex-slave-trade market worldwide for children.

If they don’t want their children to be arrested, then don’t use them to gain illegal entry to the USA. I haven’t heard of anyone seeking asylum for sexually exploited children from any of these regions. That’s a tell, right there.

How do you stay out of a cage? Don’t go to a foreign country with the intention of breaking the law to get there.

Hey, each time I went to Canada, I had to enter through a check point. If I had entered on foot, with a screaming child in my arms begging to be taken in, the Canadian authorities would have taken me someplace to be detained to sort matters out.

If thousands of us showed up, it would have been mayhem. These people entering have no respect for America, its people or its laws. The ones telling them to go and break the laws of a foreign country knowing that they’ll be detained are the real monsters in their nightmares.

Desperation isn’t this organized. That’s another tell.






 

BIAS-FREE

BIAS-FREE

Machines have the same biases humans have.

Humans design the machines. Humans design the programs used on computers that provide automated services.

Just because an operating procedure or method is automated doesn’t mean it’s bias-free. It isn’t. Humans insert their biases into the programs.

Is bias-free the same as a lottery system? You have to do something to get into the lottery system in the first place, something that gets the individual or the group noticed and judged worthy enough to participate in the lottery.

This lottery system in a socio-political-economic sense refers to whatever an individual or group seeks and wants or wants more of.

For instance, if only first language Spanish-speaking people born in countries south of the USA border, or by individual countries south of the USA or island communities, or countries in any other continent are allowed legal entry into the USA, then at some point they had to petition for that lottery.

Nobody is going to be included in a lottery system who doesn’t want to be there. Or if by mistake they are included, then they would be given the opportunity to decline whatever it was being offered.

It is at the point of petition that biases are made, just as it is with machines and those who program them. Biases have been petitioned for insertion if they have made it all the way to the consideration process.

Then with the consideration process, comes more bias.

Even if you have a big jar with names in it, whereby the names pulled are by an automated random procedure, there had to be a process of bias to determine which names made it into the jar.

All names?

As many as were provided.

That’s it right there. ‘As many as were provided’, and of course we couldn’t fit them all, the program was designed for a ‘limited number of applicants’ – that’s another bias right there.

Well, we just got overwhelmed, we didn’t think so many would apply. So yes, we just put in as many as would fit, throwing our hands up into the air. It was chaotic in that lottery room.

Everybody is in the prejudicial box. It’s human nature to judge – everything, everybody, all the time.

When we decide who to discriminate against, by petitioning to insert biases, corruption enters the process of selection.

Then there is that question that nobody answers. Who are WE?

The ones who petition on behalf of the petitioners, the ones receiving the petitions and the ones forwarding the petitions.

You mean their names.

Well, could be anybody. Only insiders know and they are the ones who inform their constituencies. And as before, the constituencies have representatives with names only certain people know.

And, what process do these petitions go through along the way? Selection or rubber stamping.

Which Petitioner Representative gets a face-to-face meeting with members of the these socio-political-economic lotteries. And which don’t?

They’re not randomly selected, that’s for sure.

The conclusion drawn is that the socio-political-economic lottery system is filled with biases at every juncture.

When you insert the human factor into a lottery system, whereby the balls you’re picking are humanoids, it’s not the same as a money lottery.

There are always ways to fix the numbers (cook the books) when dealing with machines, and every state does it – legally of course. The laws that govern fixing odds or the equivalent are mostly out of view of the public.

Actually it’s easier than fixing a horse or dog race or sports game, because it’s always done to increase funds that go to the government. Of course they don’t call it ‘fixing’. They make laws that benefit themselves by claiming the laws reduce fraud from individuals.

It’s similar to Facebook, if you post more than a handful of posts in succession, they’ll tell you to slow down or be blocked for a period of time as punishment.

This happens to me often, since Facebook stopped automatically posting my posts from Word Press to my profile page.

They only post by automation to my Facebook business page. Everything else has to be manually posted. So, I wait a bit and do my manual posting all at once – which is more efficient for me, given I maintain eight websites, plus engage in social media, which invariably leads to warnings, then I stop. But then I also forget to get back to it, because I’m doing a zillion other things.

So my posting behavior is corrupted by Facebook, interrupting my free speech rights that they claim to support, based on their machines selecting me to be discriminated against, based on the biases of their programmers’ judgment on what constitutes a spammer. I’m not a spammer. Never have been, wouldn’t even know how to do it. Have no desire to do it.

Bias sounds like a more neutral word and process than prejudice, but it isn’t.

Machines are the middle man from the past. Everything goes through the middle person. There’s the maker of the product (programmer) the distributer of the product (machine) and the buyer of the product (you).

If you program a bias into a procedure the machine or procedure will produce a biased result.

Most biases in business are based on statistics. In trying to make one size fits all, you end up with a size that doesn’t fit anybody very well. ‘IT’LL DO’ is their statistic mantra. It’ll do us fine. We’ll make money on most people not being satisfied, but it’s not so bad. The outliers on the ends of the continuum, well that’s why we have disclaimer labels and instructions for dos and don’ts.

People want to buy and they want to buy cheap. There are so many odd sized humans all over the globe with odd sized multiple needs, that we have to settle.

Everybody settles to get their product out. Many settle too fast in order to beat the competition, but then they have to regroup and redesign a product that was released before it was fully developed.

Sometimes that works if a segment of buyers are forgiving, but just as many times they’re not forgiving until years later when they try the product again. Imagine the sales lost due to the premature release of a product?

I got side-tracked a little here on bias, since it just occurred to me that it is a gentler, kinder way of addressing what we all were created to do anyway: judge, judge and prejudge.

The word prejudice has become loaded and bogged down with everybody’s agendas, to the extent that it’s difficult to discuss its process or access its value in any given situation or condition.

There are values to some biases. Although there are also values to some prejudices; it has become impossible to discuss them without people going off the rails.

So I’m going to shelve prejudice for a while and focus on bias.






PowWow This

Just because there’s no science to support a particular claim, doesn’t mean the claim is not true or accurate.

‘No science to back it up’ many times connotes a hidden agenda to maintain the status quo by advertently keeping the science out, which in turn becomes beneficial to a particular ideology, group or individual or business.

Agendas are rampant in the scientific community – hidden or not. Look how long it took for the scientific community to finally connect cigarette smoking with lung disease, particularly cancer? The USA still does not ban the manufacture and sale of cigarettes, even though they are deemed poisonous to the body.

The Insurance Industry powwowed with the Tobacco Industry and then they both powwowed with Congress to make a deal whereby all sides benefitted, except the smoker, except anybody who ever smoked even one cigarette, except anybody who was ever in the same room with anybody else who smoked a cigarette.

If it’s a killer ban it. If it costs billions of dollars a year for health services, lost wages, lost families ban it. If it’s that bad, and all now agree that it is, then stop manufacturing cigarettes. If nicotine has a medical benefit, then find a different delivery system than an inhalant.

Why are nicotine patches so expensive? Why is nicotine-laced gum so expensive? Don’t these industries have enough money? Can’t they come up with a more creative way – like the marijuana industry did – to deliver their drug without having to inhale it?

Because the tobacco industry wants to grow tobacco. It’s the tar that destroys the tissues. They know it, that’s why they invented electronic cigarettes, but there are too many glitches and people still go back to the smoke, because it’s still sold everywhere.

Oh, and they export cigarettes to other countries, wanting to addict them and make them keep wanting that which makes them sick, so they can keep profiting from their tobacco fields. Of course if they sell it abroad they have to sell it here. They don’t want to look like hypocrites.

I’m seeing too many circles here.

You can’t keep having it all ways, every way, your way. Let tobacco go the way of the dinosaur. Extinct it. If a person wants to grow tobacco in their own yard, then okay, let them do it their way. It’s a plant. They can shove it up their noses if they want to, but Not For Sale. Not to make profit from another person’s harmful-to-the-body addiction.

The Insurance Industry needs to stop punishing smokers when they’re the ones who made a deal with the Tobacco Industry that keeps them in business. Congress bought into all of it. Take the blame away from Tobacco, Insurance and Congress. Keep tobacco growing in the fields, keep manufacturing cigarettes, keep the poor slobs addicted, raise their premium rates and punish them financially forever – even if they smoked even one cigarette their entire life, because the Insurance Industry found the science that supposedly proved that one cigarette could cause cancer – even if you smoke it fifty years ago. So they can deny you benefits based on their science.

You smoke at your own peril. After they addicted you, they drop you flat. No one gets punished except the smoker or quitter or those exposed to second-hand smoke.

What’s the first thing that shows up on your medical record under your name? Your smoking history, which means you are discriminated against by the Healthcare Industry based on your smoking history. Doctors are trained to trick you when asking about that history. When did you quit smoking is the question, not do you smoke?

No one asks you, when did you quit drinking alcohol or coffee? No one asks you about drugs, since that’s what doctors do, they prescribe drugs, not cigarettes, alcohol or coffee. But then again, no one tries to smoke alcohol or coffee either. Maybe there’s a way, but it’s not in the public domain yet. They both do a lot of harm. But the harm is downplayed.

So it looks like if you can drink it, it’s okay. It’s both legal and encouraged.

Let’s make some nicotine drinks then. Good sell. Great idea. People love to drink. They can’t stop drinking. They always have a beverage of some sort in their hand.

Make it healthy with a healthy dose of nicotine. Varying doses. Do it before Canada does it.

NIC-O-TEEN TEA. NIC-O-TEEN JUICE. Not tiny little bottles that they sell at the check out counter. Those make you look like an addict. Build a display in-store on the floor, end cap. Sell sell sell.

Contain No Animal Products. That’s the deal-breaker.

Then ban the production and sale of cigarettes in the USA inserting the personal use clause. If you really don’t want to be a hypocrite, that is.

I think I could benefit from nicotine. Old people, especially. I would definitely give it a try.






 

EXTRAPOLATING THE FIVE PRINCIPLES

You don’t have to like old people just because they’re old.

You don’t have to dislike old people just because they’re old.

Not all old people are the same.

No they’re not.

Old prejudice leads to new disdain.

Disdain leads to new discrimination.






 

WHAT’S EASIER? YES OR NO.

There’s a reason why it’s easier to say no than yes – universally easier.

It’s easier to change your mind from no to yes, than from yes to no. It’s a con move.

Reject then accept ends in happy.

Accept then reject ends in angry.

Acceptance (yes) is positive. Rejection (no) is negative.

Initially saying no leaves room for negotiation. Anything is better than no. Even if I get a little it’s better than getting nothing.

Initially saying yes leaves no room for positive movement. Any movement will be regarded as negative.

No, until I think about it, means somebody is going to gain something.

Yes, until I think about it, means somebody is going to lose something.

It’s a con reaction that universally is used and accepted as valuable.






 

THE HORSE SAID, GET OFF MY BACK

Vegans are always lamenting over the bad treatment toward nonhuman animals by humans (the human animal).

We’re all animals, so why no camaraderie toward other species? Why no professional courtesy?

The vegans trolling Facebook are always angry at the human, why, why, why, followed by bad-name-slinging and insults. Yet, when they’re criticized they can’t handle it. They run like the little mischief-making trolls they are back to a safe place.

If these trolls are really vegan – and you know that in this world they weren’t always vegan and even when they became vegan – they slipped up plenty of times just because it’s impossible to be totally vegan in a world that has yet to accept it.

So all they had to do was retrace their own steps. Retrace the process. Then go back and think about how they wanted to be treated before they even knew anything about other animals deserving rights.

They think, erroneously, that abusing a person will make that person do what they want them to do, while at the same time wanting to be their sponsor. It’s like raping someone then asking them out for a date in a rape culture.

It doesn’t work that way. Even if it worked for some of them, it won’t last, because all it does is make the abused want to abuse others like they were abused. It eventually becomes nothing about the cause and everything about the ego of the individual human wanting to be the one who forces change, because change was forced on them.

Yes, some actually treat the adoption of veganism like the adoption of sobriety or getting clean. They can’t stay a vegan unless they’re sponsoring other might-be vegan candidates, helping them along the process, but doing it in an abusive way. Vegan humans, like alcohol and drug addicted humans, fall off the wagon – a lot. They prefer to call it cheat. But it is what it is – a giving into temptation. And temptation is everywhere, more so than alcohol or drugs. I mean it is everywhere.

You don’t need to go to confession by telling the whole world you had a non-vegan meal when you ate out at a restaurant, because they didn’t serve vegan and all your friends wanted to go where the crowd goes and they like the food and drink.

When you’re brought up your entire life eating, wearing, using, other animals, and after you see the light of reality upon your own awakening, and everybody else is still doing what you now know to be horribly wrong, and you can’t convince them, because they haven’t woken to your understanding, because they do what they’ve always done, and nobody is going to tell them not to, because they can’t tolerate being wrong, then accept your role as the awakened – not the awakener.

Nobody awakened you, no matter how vehement you are in your own knowing, that a specific event was responsible for you becoming a vegan. That is extremely rare.

That would be like you not paying attention to any part of your life, because after all animals were apart of all of it, for your entire life, and suddenly some external event like being kissed by a toad woke you up to the rights of animals?

Oh it was a film. What? you blindly went to see a film that nobody talked about prior to you seeing it, you didn’t know the title nor what it was about, somebody blind-folded you, kidnapped you and planted you in a movie theatre and forced you to watch a movie about animal rights? They even had a gun to your head?

Wow, why didn’t you add that part to your story? It would have been a lot more interesting. But I’m sure that once safe, you forgot all you promised to your captors in order to gain your release and have only bad memories and worse nightmares about the entire encounter. You did fear for your life didn’t you? Blindfolded, kidnapped, guns, forced to watch a slaughter movie?

Did your kidnappers all want to be your sponsor, tell you how to withdraw from the flesh and blood, especially milk that makes the cheese, seemingly all by itself in the back of the grocery store?

Did they say they’d be there for you, and how healthy you’d be, and confident and slim and fit and the animals will love you, and this is really all about compassion, and they’re sentient beings, after all.

[You really need to scratch that elitist word. Non-vegans don’t know what it means. It’s not your job to send them to a dictionary. Feeling animals, emotional animals, animals with nervous systems, animals who feel pain when abused. Anything but sentient. Stop being so lazy with language, where you want only one word to describe a complex process.

Why don’t you call humans sentient beings?].

Did they tell you where the animal-eaters anonymous meetings are held on a regular basis – in your town? Did they all give you their cell phone numbers to call them when you’re tempted?

It was an indoctrination.

Do you like being abused? Do you like it when people rub your nose into the dirt, when you’re wrong about something?

Do you have a conscience? Oh, you’ll stop abusing them when they become vegan?

Please, please, all they have to do is stop hurting the animals, and I won’t hurt them. I’ll even help them?

I don’t know who came up with this theory of change and how to make others do what you want them to do, but I can guarantee that the government played a role, for the purpose of failure not success. The elite are the most easily manipulated.

Psychological torture, physical torture. You’re a long way on the continuum of the Five Principles: prejudice leads to discrimination; discrimination leads to enslavement; enslavement leads to torture; torture leads to slaughter if left unchecked.

You’re all the way to torture. No prejudice, discrimination, enslavement, torture and slaughter. These principles developed by Sharon Lee Davies-Tight are a proven reality of cause and effect, action and reaction.

The first thing you can do to continue on your vegan journey is to get off that high horse you’ve been sitting on for way too long. That horse doesn’t belong to you. The horse belongs to itself. That horse does not like you.

I rest my case.

Don’t ask me. I don’t want to add lazy to your list of flaws. Figure it out for yourself. If you can torture, then you can find a non-torture method to achieve the same end.

~ Sharon Lee Davies-Tight, animal rights activist