It's a Positive Matter

 IT'S A POSITIVE MATTER

A recent piece in the Newton Daily News extolled the benefits of "positive thinking", or in current context, "positive control of thoughts" or "positive mindset", all of which appear to denote the same idea.  When I encounter this type of material, my thoughts automatically go back to the days of "self-esteem".  

If one recollects, it was extremely important for one to not only have "self-esteem", but to increase "self-esteem" in oneself and to develop it in others.  One could only describe the whole concept of "self-esteem" as a contagion infecting the whole of society with special effects on Departments of Human Services who closely monitored the homes of those with inadequate income or of those using illegal substances in which poor "self-esteem"  was clearly the cause.

The contagion moved on, as most contagions do.   The "power of positive thinking" also has a long history.  Many books have been published on the subject and again the whole idea advanced broadly.  One was absolutely required to be positive in one's thoughts, or to think positively, or to act positively, or some such thing.  The lack of "positive thinking" has many of the same aspects as the lack of "self-esteem" both of which can be the source of inadequate income and the use of illegal substances among many other deficiencies.

Both of these ideas have been around a really long time and never to my knowledge have actually been established as anything other than motivational spectacle. Both "self-esteem" and "positive thinking", having now been given economic value, apparently makes them necessary for a successful life here in the modern world. The article recently published extolling its positiveness lists the benefits as (1) helps overcome obstacles, (2) helps motivation, and (3) prevents giving up.

One could not describe the reason for a war dance before battle any better than for the increase of self-esteem and positive thinking when they help overcome obstacles, increase motivation, and prevent giving up. When an effort is about to be made to pillage a neighboring village and kidnap a few women if possible these attributes come in handy.  It helps to think not only highly of your own abilities but the lack of those same abilities in the denizens of the neighboring village about to be pillaged.

So in closing, I must confess both "positive thinking" and "self-esteem" are anything but new, having a really long history dating back to premodern times which shows the  current thinking on the subject is anything but revolutionary or novel and hasn't changed much.  

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Election Directive

 ELECTION DIRECTIVE

A little noted executive action, upheld by the Supreme Court by the way, was the firing of three of the four members of the U. S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent commission designed to assist state election officials with various issues that may come before them.  The fourth member, a republican, resigned.  The commission had two democrats and two republicans as would be the number insuring some form of nonpartisanship.

This is a good thing too!  We need to build up our ability to contest any election where a democrat prevails.  The last thing we want is a congress able to interfere with whatever our president wants to do, which is just about anything, if you know what I mean.

So let's face it.  After contesting elections in 2020 without success since there was no evidence to support the allegations, we need to ensure that we can successfully contest any democratic victory without evidence now, in 2026.  After all, you learn by experience.

We are already hearing that many elections will be rigged and the fact that they are all where democrats may win is simply coincidence.  We are in the process of establishing coincidence as an evidentiary principle.  There is absolutely no reason that one can not conclude that there is election interference if a democrat wins.  It simply stands to reason and the overwhelming social media opinion supports this.

And one does not need other evidence when one has coincidence.  This must be our guiding principle going forward.  What adds credence to such a conclusion is the fact that our president and other high officials say it is so.  I mean what more do you want than the president claiming election interference and democrats winning elections.  The facts speak for themselves.

This presidential claim of omniscience in his projections of the rigged elections of 2026 and hence the preparations underway to combat election fraud wherever it appears a democrat is winning are simply necessary. Getting rid of a nonpartisan election commission was not only a good idea but also a requirement.  Nonpartisanship is simply an impediment to proper election results.

The FBI and Department of Justice should be ready to instigate immediate investigations where democrats manage to get more ballots than the republican candidate and there should be serious discussion now of seizing ballot boxes where necessary.  Intimidation would have an impact as one more tool in fighting rigged elections and may conceivably reduce the actual number of elections needing a different count.  

So in closing, we must plan ahead which this administration is certainly doing.  As mentioned above, a democratic congress would be a serious impediment to whatever it is our president would like to do next and he and his appointed officials will be making any effort to see that it doesn't happen, which I am most certain a vast number of the public supports.  Besides, this democracy of ours is getting stale anyway and it may be time to ignore it altogether.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Again It's Crime

 AGAIN IT'S CRIME

Our legislature, true to form, has once again addressed one of  their two obsessions: crime.  The two stalwart areas of legislative action, crime and sex, give you an inkling of the minds of our legislators.  They apparently have a never ending fixation with these two areas of human endeavor.  From this  legislative impulse one must necessarily conclude that this is what they think about and which surely constitute unhealthy obsessions.

One of the accomplishments of this last legislative season was a revision of the bond schedule.  For those unfamiliar with the criminal process, a bond is the money that it will cost you to get out of jail pending the disposition of your criminal charges (there are usually more than one).

Bondsmen, or the individuals that will pay money to have you released from state custody are members of  one of the two oldest human professions - - bail bondsmen and prostitution.  One would think that we, as a species, would have come to terms with both of these two endeavors long before now, but alas it is not to be.

As I have mentioned previously, in medieval England, one can imagine that if you were charged with a crime, it would be possible, and maybe even probable, that you could simply disappear and hence cheat the hangman from his lawful employment.  Currently in modern America, it is rather difficult to disappear and it is becoming more difficult continuously. Hence, do we really need to take money from people  to get out of jail?

Coming up with the money to get yourself out of jail raises several questions that are simply ignored in maintaining this ancient tradition of requiring surety to be released.  First is the unquestionable fact that if you are arrested and being removed from home, family, and employment, you are being punished.  And this occurs only with an allegation.  

You say, this doesn't concern me: I'm not a criminal, I'm not going to commit a crime.  My response to that is there are hundreds, if not thousands,  of crimes.  Our legislatures makes new crimes every year.  I assure you that if you committed many of these crimes, you would not know you were committing a criminal act.  None of us know all of the crimes that exist and this is done on purpose.

Also, as I have said previously, you are presumed to know the law, i.e., what constitutes a crime.  This is how the government gets you.  You can't use ignorance as a defense.  So once you have been charged with a crime and taken to jail, you have to pay to get out whether you did the crime or not and if you can't pay, there you sit waiting for your case to be disposed of.  This results almost necessarily with lost employment, failure to make the rent or pay other bills that come due plus possible loss of pets and children.  And so what you normally do is plead guilty to something whether you did it or not just to get out of jail - a simple cost-benefit analysis.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo