Fraudulent Vote Counts and Baseball’s Stats in the Steroid Era: We May Never Know the True Results

Featured

For more than a decade beginning sometime before the baseball lockout of 1994, many players were taking improper steroid supplements. Some offensive statistics were undoubtedly inflated, notably home runs. This presents very real problems. For example, how many of those players now in the upper echelons of home run totals really deserve to be there? How many of their new records are real? We will never know.

At least one report came from this year’s election night that some ballots arrived to the vote counting center after that battleground state’s 7PM cutoff. These late ballots, according to a witness, were mixed with those which had arrived on time. Another worker claimed to have been told to back-date the arrival time of some ballots. Even in the absence of these reports and others, the probability of vote contamination cannot be dismissed given the multiple instances of Republican observers being denied access to monitor the mail-in vote counting process in contentious states, especially in the city of Philadelphia.

Baseball allowed the steroid problem to sneak up on them and then were irresponsible for ignoring it for so long, especially after the lockout – when interest in baseball dropped and MLB needed to get the fans back. Baseball careers cannot be replayed, but that doesn’t mean the fans must recognize the validity of some of the sport’s top home run hitters, respect their statistical achievements, or recognize their possible enshrinement in the Hall of Fame. Names like (Barry, definitely not Bobby) Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, and others should have a cloud over them indefinitely.

The pandemic’s arrival could not have been prevented.  However, as in the case of baseball, more could have been done by those in charge of this election to prevent serious doubt of its results.  Even the the Supreme Court added to the problem with its 4-4 vote before the election allowed the state of Pennsylvania’s procedures to be played out without change resulting in a quagmire of legal chaos in the presidential vote counting. 2

Unlike baseball, the media had a hand in not properly reporting improper benefits received by Joe Biden’s family (and possibly him) during the Obama Administration.  Our country is too big for a re-vote to be practical and in time for January’s swearing in ceremonies… Just as in baseball, that doesn’t mean all of the voting citizenry will believe the results.  The name of Biden is also assigned its cloud indefinitely.

1https://www.gloucestercitynews.net/clearysnotebook/2020/11/video-project-veritas-interviews-michigan-postal-employee-regarding-back-dating-ballots.html, 11/5/2020.

2 – “Supreme Court Allows Longer Deadlines for Absentee Ballots in Pennsylvania and North Carolina,” by Adam Liptak, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/us/supreme-court-pennsylvania-north-carolina-absentee-ballots.html, 10/28/2020.

2020 Election: Are We Willing to Exchange Innocent Lives for Subsidized Health Insurance?

Featured

Health care has been an important issue in many presidential campaigns.  Sometimes it even includes contradictory programs such as taxpayer supported pre-natal care as well as taxpayer supported killing of babies!

In our current Trump vs. Bidenharris [not a typo] contest we are presented with another stark moral dilemma: are we willing to sacrifice the lives of the unborn in a trade for pre-existing health insurance coverage which is subsidized by tax dollars and by continued exorbitant premiums and high deductibles for those who do not benefit?

To be clear, coverage for pre-existing health conditions is an important issue.  It is also a difficult issue to make fair.  Being unable to obtain health insurance for pre-existing conditions can be devastating, especially when some health issues are simply a matter of the luck of the genetic draw.  Unfortunately, some candidates create a 3-part opportunistic scenario where “the end justifies the means” is deemed necessary in order to remedy this.

This takes us back to Trump vs. Bidenharris.  The President wants to modify the (Un)Affordable Health Care Act because it is severely unfair to many.  Under the current Obama plan, those with pre-existing health and economic conditions are covered and assisted.  No decent person would reject that, EXCEPT the means by which it is currently being accomplished.  Part of the additional expense is covered by tax revenue.  The efficiency and the constitutionality of this process is debatable and should be discussed in order to be sure it’s appropriate. 

The other parts of this Act, which Bidenharris supports and promises to expand, are not appropriate.  While President Obama promised his program would provide so many benefits to all Americans, it did not (and he knew so before it passed through Congress 1).  One was cost.  This writer and his wife know firsthand the combined premium increases and decreased coverage caused by this Act.  Not only did premiums rise tremendously, but in one year, none of the three hospital networks in our part of Ohio were covered and during the next only one of the three (and the least desirable of the three) was included….. for very high premiums and mountainous deductibles. 

The second part of this health care “deal” (a favorite word of the older half of the 2020 Democratic ticket) is taxpayer money used to kill the unborn through Planned Parenthood and other organizations.  Without addressing all of the moral objections, let us bring up one scientific fact: the unborn child is, without a doubt, a separate human as made evident by his/her unique set of chromosomes.  To eliminate this life because of the myriad of rationalizations is frighteningly in line with Hitler’s philosophy of human life — someone whom Democratic supporter Antifa claims to be against!

Improvements in social issues such as health insurance and its effects can be accomplished through non-governmental charitable organizations, already in existence, which assist the less fortunate with money and physical necessities along with well-considered federal and state programs which are fair and constitutional (aspects not normally scrutinized by politicians when they are pleading for votes).  There’s no need for a political party to hold its citizenry hostage by declaring that health insurance coverage cannot be improved without also having to accept the use of taxpayer money for killing the unborn and robbing innocent taxpayers through increased premiums, made worse with reduced coverage.   

   1 – “Obamacare architect discussed misleading public in 4th newly uncovered video, by Jake Tapper, CNN Politics, https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/13/politics/tapper-gruber/index.html, 11/13/2014.      

The Left Has More in Common With Hitler than It Realizes

Featured

For starters, both take it upon themselves to decide who deserves to live.  Hitler eliminated Jews and anyone with disabilities he did not want propagating.1  Margaret Sanger, founder of what is now Planned Parenthood, also wanted to remove those unwanted by the elite.2  Now the Left continues her legacy by facilitating the killing of “unwanted” babies as well as assisted suicide for those who are terminally ill or who feel depressed.

Hitler established a Ministry of Propaganda which censured and deleted opinions opposed to the chancellor.3  President Trump may berate news services in an “unpresidential” manner.  He does not, however, ban opposing views as most college campuses do4, 5   nor does he delete material contrary to his position as does the left -controlled social media.

President Trump does not believe in a master race6 as Hitler did — or in a leftist elite which steers the masses as proponents of socialism must inevitably charge toward.

Antifa doth protest too much, me thinks.

1 – “On July 14, 1933, the Nazi government instituted the ‘Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases.’ This law, one of the first steps taken by the Nazis toward their goal of creating an Aryan “master race,” called for the sterilization of all persons who suffered from diseases considered hereditary, such as mental illness, learning disabilities, physical deformity, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, and severe alcoholism. With the law’s passage the Third Reich also stepped up its propaganda against people with disabilities, regularly labeling them ‘life unworthy of life’ or ‘useless eaters’ and highlighting their burden upon society.”  From “People With Disabilities,” https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/people-with-disabilities

2 – “Sanger’s eugenics creed is clearly stated in her speech ‘My Way to Peace’ (1932). The centerpiece of the program is vigorous state use of compulsory sterilization and segregation.  The first class of persons targeted for sterilization is made up of people with mental or physical disability. ‘The first step would be to control the intake and output on morons, mental defectives, epileptics.’  A much larger class of undesirables would be forced to choose either sterilization or placement in state work camps.  ‘The second step would be to take an inventory of the second group, such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection and segregate them on farms and open spaces.’ Those segregated in these camps could return to mainstream society if they underwent sterilization and demonstrated good behavior.  Sanger estimates that 15 million to 20 million Americans would be targeted in this regime of forced sterilization and concentration camps.  In Sanger, the humanitarian dream of a world without poverty and illness has deteriorated into a coercive world where the poor, the disabled and the addicted simply disappear.

2 – “Sanger’s eugenics creed is clearly stated in her speech ‘My Way to Peace’ (1932). The centerpiece of the program is vigorous state use of compulsory sterilization and segregation. The first class of persons targeted for sterilization is made up of people with mental or physical disability. ‘The first step would be to control the intake and output on morons, mental defectives, epileptics.’ A much larger class of undesirables would be forced to choose either sterilization or placement in state work camps. ‘The second step would be to take an inventory of the second group, such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection and segregate them on farms and open spaces.’ Those segregated in these camps could return to mainstream society if they underwent sterilization and demonstrated good behavior. Sanger estimates that 15 million to 20 million Americans would be targeted in this regime of forced sterilization and concentration camps. In Sanger, the humanitarian dream of a world without poverty and illness has deteriorated into a coercive world where the poor, the disabled and the addicted simply disappear.
“…’The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.’ In her autobiography she proudly recounts her address to the women of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, N.J., in 1926.”
From “Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. Why are we still celebrating her?” by John J. Conley, S.J., https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/11/27/margaret-sanger-was-eugenicist-why-are-we-still-celebrating-her, 11/27/2017.

3 – “Shortly after Adolf Hitler rose to power in 1933, he established the Ministry of Propaganda with the goal that this agency would control all forms of mass communication in Germany.[18] At its peak of influence, the Ministry employed 1,500 employees spanning 17 departments.[19] Censorship policy was produced and implemented by the Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. As such, Goebbels oversaw the publication of all media that was to be widely distributed — literature, music, newspapers, and public events.[20] Any material that threatened the reputation of Hitler’s government or spoke ill of the regime was immediately censored and retracted.[21] Additionally, books that were already in circulation and written by Jewish authors were collected and burned.[22] Nazi bureaucrats saw their work and information control as necessary. It was, in their minds their duty to protect the German public from the harms of ‘undesirable books’.[23]

The control of information among young people was especially vital to the German government. On May 10, 1933, shortly after the Nazis rose to power, the government burned one-third of the total library holdings in Germany.[24] As soldiers burned at least 25,000 books in the center of Berlin, Goebbels spoke of the evils of literature and encouraged massive crowds to say ‘No to decadence and moral corruption!’.[25] This event began a widespread effort to illustrate government control and align public opinion with party ideology.

The aim of censorship under the Nazi regime was simple: to reinforce Nazi power and to suppress opposing viewpoints and information.[26]   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany

4 – For example:  “Dis-invited: 4 Conservatives Not Welcome To Speak On College Campuses,” by Arissa D (Future Female Leaders cabinet member and a student at Yale University, http://futurefemaleleader.com/disinvited-conservatives-not-welcome/, 4/16/2017.

5 – “https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/its-unfortunate-that-many-universities-are-digressing-to-particularities/

6 –“3,100 inmates to be released as Trump administration implements criminal justice reform,´ by Matt Zapotosky, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/3100-inmates-to-be-released-as-trump-administration-implements-criminal-justice-reform/2019/07/19/7ed0daf6-a9a4-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html, 7/19/2019.

I Didn’t Know Plastic Bags Can Jump Into Rivers for a Swim

Featured

The Democrats have been condoning and promoting various intrinsic evils for a long time. To convince us of their moral authority, they try to prove how enlightened they are by putting effort into more mundane issues of less eternal impact.  

One such Cause du Jour is the elimination of one-time use plastic bags.  This writer agrees that in some cases, this can be the wasting of a non-renewable resource.  “In some cases” is the key.  Plastic bags provide a cleaner and safer means to transport frozen or wet items than renewables like paper bags.  To protect the environment and not waste these items made from a non-renewable resource (petroleum), many stores provide opportunities for recycling their bags.  Customers can either make the small effort to take them to collection sites within the stores, or decide not to bother and put them in the trash.  Either way, it’s impossible for plastic bags to mysteriously leap into our streets, parks or waterways as is implied by those who wish to ban the bags completely.

Like with most social issues, the Party of Controlling the Masses ignores the behavioral cause behind the problem and pushes for a ban which punishes responsible users.  Instead of an all-out effort to improve recycling and reuse opportunities, they implore their minion Big Brother to ban all plastic bags at checkout lanes in stores because that’s the only way to stop these items from ending up as litter in our communities and waterways.

In conclusion, this writer will join the “ban the bag” team only if he witnesses his collection of plastic bags for recycling open the front door and walk to the street for a nap or dash to a nearby stream and dive in looking for the nearest river or ocean to pollute.

Governments Trust Us to Gamble on Sports, But NOT to Secure Our Retirements

Featured

If Andy Rooney were still with us, he might have said this:

“Here’s one thing I don’t understand.  State governments are pushing legalized sports gambling where we all know the ultimate odds are in favor of the gambling houses.  Yet, Big Brother does not want to entrust us with investing as little as one-half of our Social Security funds even though the odds are greatly in our favor that our money is safer in our control than in theirs.

“Why is that?  Could it be that they are jealous that Las Vegas is a better game than our federal government?  We lose money to the city of bright lights and seem to like it.  When the feds take our money, we fuss and scream.  (pause)  Maybe our elected officials in Washington D.C.  have a point.  After all, from the looks of the election results of the last few decades, we’ve been consistently snookered by the “House”…  and the Senate, for a long time.  Maybe we should stick to gambling and let Big Brother lose our money.  He’s better at it anyway.”

Upside-Down U.S. – Parents Can Kill a Child, But in Some States May Not Decide About Vaccinations

Featured

Our nation is truly confused.  In all states, parents may have an unborn baby killed by “terminating a pregnancy” and, in a growing number of states, may elect to have the child from a failed abortion murdered or be left to die in some way.  However, in four states, these same parents are not permitted to decline vaccinations for their children for religious or philosophical reasons.More states and cities are considering similar legislation.

The same Time article gives an example of the diminishing respect for human life: “92% [is] the minimum vaccination required for ‘herd immunity’ against measles, mumps and rubella.”

That sums it nicely.  The prevailing view of societal engineers is that we are viewed as being on the same level as cattle – a usable, living resource to be managed (as described in a previous CartaRemi post2),  Yet, many of these world re-inventors believe animals have rights in the same way that humans used to. 

Perhaps the much-discussed Earth’s magnetic poles shift has already occurred and took human logic with it.

1 – “The Vaccine Battlegrounds,” Jeffrey Kluger, Time magazine, 6/24/2019.

2https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2019/06/18/human-resources-took-the-person-out-of-personnel/

“Human Resources” Took the “Person” Out of “Personnel”

Featured

Euphemisms can be either more polite versions of a word or a way to camouflage a bad deal. “Human Resources” fits the latter.

The term Human Resources was advertised as being a more respectful way of calling an organization’s department which dealt with employee issues and concerns. Ironically, it does the opposite. By eliminating “personnel” (which contains the word “person”) and referring to employees as a “resource,” it relegated workers to the same status as those inanimate materials used by a business to produce goods and services. A Freudian slip?

“Human Resources” surfaced in the 1980’s and it coincided with employers’ very real need to rein in the escalating cost of health insurance benefits. Many employers tried to soften the blow of greater paycheck deductions for health insurance premiums primarily with non-dollar benefits elsewhere. True, psychologists are correct in their conclusions that workers respond to more than just financial incentives. However, in many cases, the pendulum swung the other way and financial carrots at the end of a stick shrank noticeably. Thus, “Personnel” became “Human Resources,” employees became “team members” while net income in real dollars has remained flat for over forty years. 1,2

The business world isn’t the only one using clever words to put people in their demoted place. The federal government’s philosophy behind the “Common Core” educational scheme was that people are to be prepared to fit their assigned positions as cogs in the economic machine, not to learn to think objectively.

With all of this, why are employers and politicians so surprised when individuals seem to lack the loyalty they feel is due to them? Unlike many of the roads in the Capitol, respect is a two-way street.

While the name change of Personnel Departments is not the cause of increased worker disloyalty, Human Resources’ unflattering tone means it ought to be discarded if employees are to feel valued again.

1

2 – This is not to say that a federal minimum wage of $15/ hour is sensible either. The cost of living varies greatly from East Coast to Middle America and the South, to the West Coast. Thus, imposing the same minimum wage in lower cost of living states like Florida and Mississippi will cause more pain through loss of jobs than the few who might endure to receive the higher wage.

To Mason High: Competing for Academic Honors is a Preparation for the Real World

Featured

Mason High School, north of Cincinnati, has eliminated the practice of recognizing class valedictorians and salutatorians.  It was done “in an effort to improve students’ mental wellness” and ”it would help curb the competitive culture at the school and permit students to focus on other things.” 1   

Competition is good for mental wellness just as exercise is good for the body.  In the same manner that excessive exercise does harm to the body, extreme competition is bad for a person’s psyche.  Moderation is the key to every beneficial activity.  The practice of recognizing academic achievement should not be dropped because some take it to an extreme.  Learning how to prioritize might as well begin when one in school.

 Competition is Essential

 “Life without competition is life without progress; a static society where the cream does not rise to the top because there would be no goals and no desire to march to the different drum beat and take something farther than it’s ever been taken before.”  2

What about the “dangers” of receiving awards? 

“But after the award?  The post-triumph realization that you are now everyone’s target until next year’s award ceremony, and, naturally, the paranoia of realizing that everyone else is questioning why you, of all people, received the award.

“Some will say it to your face, others behind your back.  The award itself does little to quench self-doubt.  If anything, you might begin to question yourself more now that you hold the award everyone else claims they deserve.”  

Welcome to the real world!  Whoever allows his actions to be ruled by the opinions of other suffers from vanity.  The earlier in life we learn to deal with this, the better off we’ll be.

“Life  Isn’t  Fair”

Eliminating academic awards will not shield the young adults from the difficulties of the world later.  “Life isn’t fair, but it’s unfair to everybody.”

After the school years, everyone will encounter many whose main motivation in life is obtaining human acclaim.  Such individuals are willing to do anything, sometimes not always legal or ethical, to receive it.  The problem is not with the recognition itself, but with the individual’s malformed focus on the transient things of this life instead of the eternal. 

Removing  Legitimate  Incentives  Does  More  Harm  Than  Good

Mason High’s decision to eliminate having a valedictorian and salutatorian is right out of the socialist’s handbook.  Instead of working to improve the overall human condition by helping to raise everyone’s capabilities through fair competition, the goal is to create a “feel good” semi-parity by reducing the fruits of achievement.  This inevitably leads to the stagnation and decline of a society.

History shows repeatedly that this doesn’t work:  the “classless” societies which produced the widespread poverty of the former Soviet-bloc countries and  China, the decline of Argentina and, most recently, the crash of Venezuela.  Does Mason High have any non-revisionist history classes to teach this? 

Two  Ways  to  Thwart  “Easy Rides” to  Academic  Awards

The school claims that some students take easier classes in order to enhance their grade point averages unfairly.  This can be remedied by limiting the number of “filler classes” which may be taken for academic recognition and/or by applying a system of weighted degrees of difficulty which would make some high grades worth more than others when used to calculate class standing.  Fair competition in academics benefits all in the long run.

1 – “Ohio high school removes valedictorian, salutatorian, honors in effort to better students’ mental wellness,” by Kathleen Joyce, 5/11/2019, https://www.foxnews.com/us/ohio-high-school-removes-valedictorian-salutatorian

2 – “Life Without Competition is Life Without Progress,” by Charlie Daniels, 4/10/2014, https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/charlie-daniels/life-without-competition-life-without-progress

3 – “Grade Wars: Academic competition has turned high school classrooms into boxing rings,” by Megan Lunny, 5/1/8/2017, https://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/366330fc-34cb-11e7-8b75-8bbc4b841277.html

There are Some Good Reasons to Limit or Ban Styrofoam and Plastic Bags, But Water Pollution Isn’t One

Featured

Banning or restricting the use of styrofoam for fast food packaging has three reasons to consider it. Styrofoam is produced from a non-renewable resource (petroleum), it takes nearly forever to break down and few places are able to recycle it. Paper and paperboard, from a renewable resource, can sometimes be a substitute for these synthetic items as they can be made more water and oil resistant to handle damp and greasy items.

However, the water pollution attributed styrofoam blames the material when the problem is really human behavior. If a material cannot be recycled, it ought to be disposed of properly. There’s no valid excuse for styrofoam to end up in waterways! It does not have an inherent tendency to gravitate to water on its own. This pollution issue can be changed through education and encouragement. It requires a little effort, but like many other social and environmental problems, changing attitudes regarding responsibility is not always welcomed in our “convenience” society.

The grocery store plastic bag issue is a little more complicated. True, the plastic is made from a non-renewable resource which doesn’t like to break down. However, plastic bags have an advantage over paper when it comes to carrying wet or oily objects for an extended time as well as its ability to stretch. The paper can be made more water and oil resistant by the use of chemical additives in the papermaking process, but the manufacture of these additives may have objectionable aspects to some people. While paper can have good tensile and resistance to bursting, its ability to stretch trails that of plastic bags

The problem of plastic bag and styrofoam disposal can be solved with more opportunities to recycle (already established in many grocery chains for the plastic bags) and an inclination to discard properly when recycling is not available. Once again, it requires effort in changing behaviors.

“Disposable” isn’t intrinsically evil. A recycling frame of mind cures a lot of ills. In the absence of responsible use and disposal of these synthetic materials, we’ll have more draconian directives from Big Brother.