

How you look at things really depends upon which shoes you wear. We all think we know everything, and yet we actually know very little. Even those of us who have many years of advanced education know very little, and if our advanced education was any good (because nowadays the “goodness” of the education being presented is really in question), the first thing it should have taught us is that even when we’re experts we actually know very little of what there is to know.
My Doctoral adviser told me, when I first started my Doctoral studies, that none of the professors wanted to know my opinion about anything until I had the letters after my name. What he was saying, and he did articulate this directly, was that the word I should be absent in my papers, that the professors were only interested in valid research to support any thesis presented. He was careful to assert the necessity for balance at the same time. When one looks at an issue, one must look at all the research, not just one strain. When one ignores the opposing point of view and its valid research, the balance scale is tipped and the end result is often skewed if not visibly ridiculous.
So what my Doctoral Adviser was actually saying was that there are rules to research that must be followed and that when the rules are not followed the research and findings are generally not valid.
A good example of this is the climate change issue in America. When all the research is funded by the agency (the US Government) and the researchers’ funding is dependent upon findings which support the best interests of the agency’s position (in the Obama administration it was that climate change was our biggest problem and concern), there’s a good bet that all the research is going to reflect the agency’s position. Compound this with the Attorney General and many State Attorneys General literally prosecuting researchers whose findings contradicted the government’s position—yes for those of us with short memories, which our government officials count on us having, that is what happened—it becomes a really safe bet that the research, its findings and premises then being sold to us by people with political agendas is very skewed and imbalanced.
This does not mean to say that none of the research is valid or that climate change is not an issue. It is only to attest to the notion that research needs to be balanced to actually aim toward discovering truth. When people in power rewrite the rules of research to obtain the results they want and use the powers of money and litigation to suppress differing research, we’ve got a real crisis and it’s a good bet they’re not interested in truth.
A good example of balance is when Al Sharpton and Newt Gingrich went on the road together in support of supporting failing schools in the cities. Sharpton and Gingrich on the road together. Now those two don’t see eye to eye on much, but when from their differing viewpoints they come to the same conclusions, it’s a good bet that overall they were heading toward a truth. In this case it was that there is a real problem with inner-city education.
So which shoes do you wear? There are many different viewpoints in many different areas, and none of us really know anything compared to what there is to know. When we start acting like we know everything and are right about everything and we use power to demand others see it our way, we’re in real trouble.
Take a look out there. Maybe stop and think sometimes before you cut and paste something on your social media whose veracity you haven’t checked out. It’s time to get back to real research and move away from believing our politicians (on both sides) who continually spout all or nothing arguments. Anyone who knows anything about debate knows the all or nothing argument is a fallacious one.
Einstein said: “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”
By Peter Weiss

Hard to believe that we’re living in America. Hard to believe that we’ve come to here, to this point in our country’s development, the point where I can’t say what I believe or feel.
It’s nothing really new. I was a teacher in New York. In case you hadn’t noticed about New York… In case you hadn’t noticed, the UFT and AFT have been in the Democrats’ pocket forever, so there in the Bronx where I taught anyone who did not sign-on to the left-wing shenanigans had to stay quiet, to form a kind of secret society where they could speak their minds.
America?
Not really!
Here where I live now some five or six years ago I made a comment about something political that leaned toward the right. A bit afterward, one of the people in a supervisory position at the place where I made the comment approached me privately to tell me they (gender purposefully not indicated) agreed with what I said but would I please be careful not to let anyone know and to refrain from outwardly making such comments in the future.
America?
Not really!
Well, so… You can’t put a Trump sticker on your car or a sign out in front of your house without worrying about being harassed and vandalized. You can’t state any opinion other than the current mob-think ridiculousness without putting your job I jeopardy, fear of ostracism or even maybe persecution or prosecution.
America?
Not really!
Not the America I envisioned or once thought I lived in.
By Peter Weiss

I like to think we do things that are representative of us and of how we are. I like to think that our actions count for something and that our words represent rather than belie our actions.
I like to think that some things stand for other things. I’m talking about bigger metaphors than those like A=B without using like or as. I’m talking about one action standing for a whole group of actions.
Here are a few past examples. One I’ve mentioned before is Harry Reid lying and saying that Mitt Romney had not paid taxes in ten years. It was a lie but Romney could not get out from under it and other mistruths cast by those wonderful Democrat leaders we have.
Later, Mitt Romney having lost, of course, Harry Reid was called out for lying and he said, so what, he lost didn’t he?
That act of lying while pretending to tell the truth has become the overall metaphor in the Democrat playbook.
It would be pointless to go over the past four years because the sides are drawn. Nearly seventy-four million people believe the Democrats stole this election and that says it all. In fact it is a good metaphor for the division in this country.
That said, going back to Harry Reid and the Democrat lying playbook, Joe Biden said he would never take a vaccine developed under Trump and he used that to help his plight in this past election, as a tool. As he said it, as he proclaimed to the people that Trump couldn’t be trusted, he knew all the precautions and measures that had to be taken for a vaccine to be declared usable.
He was lying.
Then he was first to take that vaccine developed under President Trump.
Metaphor for the Democrats, lie as you see fit, even when you know you are lying. And then do as you do.
Metaphor.
Biden is lying all over the place and the media is covering up for him.
We deserve better. We deserve a better metaphor to live by, to be led by, maybe ones established by the likes of Jesus or Martin Luther King Jr.
