“God helps those who help themselves.” After all, it’s in the bible, right?

Wrong.

It is nowhere to be found in the bible. If you disagree, please feel free to consult the text or your favorite bible sources and experts and come back to me.

But just because that isn’t in the bible, does not mean that we are not called to the task of helping those who help themselves. In fact, it is one of the two main callings, one of the two main parts, of the Revolution 2.0 belief set

Normally we leave these two rules, or teachings if you will, for the end of our twice-a-week time together, but today it is appropriate to go directly there. The two main tenets of what we believe at Revolution 2.0 are:

Personal Responsibility; practice it, teach it and

Be Your Brother’s Keeper.

Clearly, point 2, being our brothers and sisters keeper, is our focus right now. But don’t forget point 1, the personal responsibility part, because part of point 1, personal responsibility, is to practice point 2, being our brother’s keeper. These two principles work hand-in-hand.

As we look at our responsibility, our privilege, of helping others, let’s not forget the “who help themselves” part. They, the people we can help, also have the twin responsibilities of taking personal responsibility themselves, and in turn, of helping others. The phrase “who help themselves” can be seen as part of the others taking responsibility. Said differently, perhaps more simply, we are responsible for meeting our obligations, and we are called to help others. Those others are are responsible for meeting their obligations and, in turn helping still others. When two those simple things happen, things work.

What do we do when those others do not help themselves? Do we still have that Brother’s Keeper obligation? Yes. And we need to do some kind of triage. Triage is necessary because all resources, ours, the government’s, all resources, are limited. And all needs are unlimited. This clearly means that we must prioritize. We must prioritize our personal resources, and when we vote and otherwise engage in the political process, we must work to prioritize the public’s, our government’s, resources. Remember: our government has no resources--not a dime, nothing--that does not come from taxpayers--from us--by taxation. I want this point to come through so very clearly; we have our own personal resources, and the government has only the resources that it gathers from the people--us. When we talk about resources that are used to address needs, all resources come from people, from individuals--us. (No, this is not the time to debate the false claim that “corporations are not people.” But I do invite the discussion.)

Given that all resources come from people, the rules for triage, for prioritizing resources, in this case the resources needed  to help others, are the same for government and individuals. Our government has more resources than we do, but it is only the size of the resources that is different. The rules should be the same.

Medical triage originated in World War I. Wounded soldiers were classified into one of three groups:

Those who could be expected to live without medical care,

Those who would likely die even with care, and

Those who could survive if they received care.

So, let’s look at how this definition can guide today’s discussion.

Brother’s Keeper Triage:

Those who do not need help.

Those who are beyond any reasonable help. Steeped in being angry victims. Blaming others and taking no responsibility. Demanding and not producing, taking and not giving. N. B. There are very few of these irredeemable people. Some, yes, but not many.

Everybody else. Including you and me.

The way I have opened all of our podcasts is, “...with today’s personal, financial and political Thought/Action message." At the outset of this podcast effort. This communications mission, was my desire to communicate three different sets of rules, ways of thinking, required for success in each of those three areas; personal, financial and political--politics increasingly affecting all of us. The more I thought about it, the more it became clear that the basic, the fundamental rules were the same in all three areas. Things like hard work, taking personal responsibility, having a win-win attitude, and helping others when they are working hard to help themselves, apply everywhere. Sure, we can use specific rules like the rule of 72 when investing, starting with the outside fork in a fine dining setting, and knowing that you need to raise a ton of money to win a political campaign, but the core rules are the same. Like in baseball; hit, hit with power, run, throw and catch. Those are the basics. And there are basics we need to practice in order to succeed in all of life.

Let’s work together to get this topic Handouts right. Hands out vs Handouts? Having your hands out means that you want something. When we talk about handouts, it usually means that someone else wants something. And it is not a complimentary term, usually implying a request, even a demand, for unearned and undeserved cash, products or services. Remember the term “Welfare Queen?” That was quickly countered from the other side with, “Yeah, but what about corporate welfare?” The two sides would rage on, like two televisions broadcasting at each other. And if the other TV showed no signs of listening, the volume got turned up. And up. Extending this metaphor, today we can see rows of TVs, people, lined up on opposite sides of a street, shouting at each other. Like TVs, everyone is on broadcast, incapable of listening. And you can see where that is getting us.

Most of us see others as the ones with their hands out. Rarely do we see ourselves that way. Let’s look at that together.

As we, correctly, criticise the excesses of the welfare state as unfair to both taxpayers and the recipients, taking unnecessary money from the former, and robbing the latter of important life lessons, loss of dignity, and helping to launch generational poverty, let’s also look at:

As we age, do we demand that Social Security remains “as promised” even with the massive, unanticipated changes in demographics? When the first Social Security check was issued in the amount of $22.54 in 1940, the eligibility age at the time was 65; life expectancy then was less 62. In other words, most people were not expected to draw a single check, even a small one. Life expectancy in the US is now 78, and more benefits are being paid to more types of recipients for far longer. Would we support changes, reductions, actually, that would lessen the huge additional amounts now needed to be paid out under the original rules if those changes gave us less money? Or do we want it all? If we do want it all, aren’t we asking for/demanding a handout from our kids and grandkids? They are the ones who will get the bill.

If you are on a taxpayer-supported defined benefit pension plan that is woefully underfunded, and they are all massively underfunded, are you going to use the political power at your disposal to, again, have things delivered “as promised?” Unlike private company pension plans, taxpayer-funded plans are not negotiated between two parties, each of which have a direct financial stake in the outcome. Politicians, often financially supported by the very unions seeking the benefits, are not spending a dime of their money. And their compensation is not tied to negotiating a fair, but cost-effective plan. They are promising taxpayer money in exchange for individual pension-recipient votes and, when present, union support.

In an earlier podcast, 19 episodes ago, Obedience and Discipline, we looked at the valuable lessons we can learn from a Poodle. Today, we are doing to learn from crabs. Yes, crabs.

A single crab in a bucket or cooking pot can easily escape. If there is more than one crab in the container, the other crabs won’t let him out; they will pull at his legs making it impossible to exit. And we humans often do the same thing. And we are acting like crabs, modeling crab mentality, with increasing frequency and mounting negative consequences.

We are all familiar with the phrase that misery loves company. That’s frequently true, but there is more than just that going on here. If we have, for example, flunked a test, suffered a broken relationship or lost a job, there is a part of us that takes some comfort in not being the only one to suffer; not being the Lone Ranger. Misery can indeed love company.

But crab mentality is far more complex. Crab mentality promotes failure, rewards it, and punishes success. The Resenting Success podcast will add to this part of the discussion.

Specifically we have all seen the crab mentality reaction when someone from a group identified as oppressed supports successful people, and the concepts, e.g., personal responsibility, hard work and entrepreneurial capitalism that made those people successful. They are vilified, boycotted and accused of being traitors. By the way, traitors to what? Traitors to being unsuccessful? Are these people really being accused of turning their backs on the type of thinking that leads to failure and being accused of--yes, accused of --embracing thinking that leads to success. Yes, sadly, they are. Think about that; that is exactly--exactly--what is going on. In crab mentality thinking, no crab can be allowed to escape for fear that the other crabs will get ideas. What happened when Kanye West tried to leave the bucket? Or when it was discovered that a large number of women had voted Republican? He and they were scorned and criticised. And the disparaging comments were not based on facts and reasoning; they were focused on the inexcusable action of these people leaving the bucket. West, a black man, left the black, anti-Trump bucket. Boycott him. Women voting Republican were leaving the feminist, anti-Republican bucket. They must have been duped by the self-serving men in their lives.

Ben Carson, is Yale and Michigan Medical School grad. This famed neurosurgeon pioneered the first successful neurosurgical procedure on a fetus inside the womb, performed the first completely successful separation of type-2 vertical craniopagus twins, and developed new methods to treat brain-stem tumors. He became the youngest chief of pediatric neurosurgery in the country at age 33. Today, he is the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development--HUD. But to those with crab mentality, Dr. Carlson, MD, who is black, is dismissed as an Uncle Tom for leaving the poor, black and fatherless at a young age bucket.

On a broader scale, people trying to leave the dependency bucket are being aggressively pulled back by those with crab mentality. Victimhood is a tool used by the crab mentality crowd. “You can’t leave the bucket” they say, “Don’t you know that victims can’t leave?” Their fear, their dread, is that is some crabs leave and others will see it and want to do the same. And the crab mentality crowd can’t have that; its leaders are preaching the truth and finality of victimhood, the inescapability of poverty, the permanence of an early poor education so that they, the crab mentality leaders, can lead lives filled with attention, approval and financial substance. The very things they seek to deny those in the bucket. And the saddest of all, are the crabs in the bucket who buy into this lie and stay there. We are humans, not crabs. We can get out. And help others to do the same. In turn,

If you have heard this phrase, you’ll know that it is intended to divide the world into those three categories: Wolves, the predators--and not the ecologically necessary ones. Just plain bad guys; perhaps even evil. Sheep, the wolves’ victims. Not always the weak and unwilling to fight back; just powerless against their wolves. And the sheepdogs; those of us who protect the sheep from the wolves.

This phrase, this concept, is often associated with the military or law enforcement. They are legitimately seen as sheepdogs. And being a sheepdog, the projector, is often associated with the male’s traditional role in our society. And these roles are often seen as static; we are one of the three, and that’s just part of who we are. As useful as this three-part concept is in helping us to understand our world, we need to understand that these roles are fluid, not necessarily gender-specific, and anyone can be any one of the three today. And a different one tomorrow.

And it is not just individuals who can legitimately occupy these roles. Hitler was a wolf, and an evil one at that. Poland was a sheep. Eventually, the Allies became the sheepdogs. And inside Poland, there were wolves, the collaborators; sheep, those who felt helpless in the face of Nazi terror; and the sheepdogs, those who did not feel helpless, and joined the Resistance. It is not hard to imagine that in some Polish families during that time, that all three categories, wolves, sheep and sheepdogs, were represented by different family members.

The most timid Father could become a sheepdog if his family’s home is being invaded. The quietest Mom could become a sheepdog if her child is not receiving needed medical attention. And any sibling could become a sheepdog if another sibling was being bullied.

So, Will, I get it about this. What I don’t get is why we are talking about it. Why? Because we all are surrounded by wolves. The wolves include massive and mounting debt caused by runaway spending at all levels of government. Politicians who advance their careers by ignoring painful problems that require immediate, but unpopular, solutions are wolves. Anyone in the public eye who is pretending to be dealing with issues by leaning on cliches, slogans and half-truths. Identity politics is a wolf. And the growing number of people and organizations with their hands out, demanding something they did not earn, and do not deserve.

Those are the wolves. And we are all in danger of being the sheep. Who among us will step up to being a sheepdog? Not the kind of heroic sheepdog who gets admiration during the action, and high praise and rewards afterwards. No, I am talking about the continuous hard work, the satisfying hard work, of fighting these wolves, and making for better communities and a better America. And with that, a better world.

This is a lot of what Revolution 2.0 is about; identifying the wolves and calling sheep to be sheepdogs to protect us from the very wolves our society has created.

Two main tenets of the Revolution 2.0 belief set:

Personal Responsibility; practice it, teach it and

Be Your Brother’s Keeper.

Tenet no. 1. Applies here because we are not called to be sheep. This is different than being a sheepdog. You can, and must, take personal responsibility and resist being a sheep without necessarily taking the extra step of being a sheepdog.

Tenet no. 2 If you have time and talents to offer, be your Brother’s and Sister’s Keeper by being a sheepdog. If you have the capability, and many of us do, I don’t see this as optional. The sheep, your neighbors and fellow citizens, need you. Step up to being a protective sheepdog.

Suggested link: Common Sense and Politics.

Now, as always, please do contact me about anything. Respond in my Revolution 2.0 blog,

“We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.” At the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Founders, the signers, the revolutionaries, not surprisingly seen as traitors by the British Crown, George III, would all be hung by the neck until dead, unless they hung together, somehow managing to rally this tiny, new country sufficiently to defeat the mightiest military power on earth. The mightiest ever seen. The odds against them were staggering, but the deep-seated yearning for freedom motivated them to step up, and, by signing the Declaration, put their, “lives, fortunes and sacred honor” on the line for America. And us. Yes, you and me. We are the descendants who inherited the freedoms they all risked all to attain.

And it was far from easy. The Declaration of Independence had to be debated for days, starting out with most who were  in attendance either against it, or understandably nervous and skeptical. In the end, it was unanimous. They all lined up to sign. They found a way to come together--enthusiastically. Each member proudly stepping up to affix his signature, pledging his, “life, fortune and sacred honor.” And if you look back on the history of the Revolutionary War, in summary: We lost, we lost, we lost, we lost...and then we won. And they never gave up.

Our country has a history of coming together. Lincoln famously put together a Cabinet of disparate individuals known as a Team of Rivals. And it took the best these highly different individuals had to offer to win the Civil War--a war that had to be won. Imagine a divided country, where slavery was still legal in almost half of it. Less famously, but just as importantly, FDR put together another team of Rivals during WWII. Once again, it was the different strengths of these oh-so-very different people that added greatly to the strength of the team. Were those teams messier that than teams where the members are more like minded? Of course. Is the team of rivals approach better--does it produce better results? Absolutely.

As Americans, we face threats--existential threats as serious as those posed by the British in the 1770s, and the slaveholding states that wanted to break way in the 1860s.

In a sense, the Revolutionary War was us against us, all being British citizens, and the Civil War was indeed us against us, sometimes literally brother against brother. Yes, the conflict was geographically defined, but if you look a political map of the US today, you will see similarly clearly geographically drawn political dividing lines. And we are greatly divided.

Abraham Lincoln taught us that any existential threat must come from inside. “From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.”

More colloquially, but just as powerfully, comes the observation from Pogo, a Swamp Possum in the eponymous cartoon drawn by the late, brilliant Walt Kelly, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Exactly the same sentiment; if we the world’s oldest democracy and the most powerful country economically and militarily the world has ever seen, are to be done in,  brought down, or even simply made less than we are today, it will be by our own hands. And if we, you and I do nothing, we are just a responsible.

What is it that could bring us down? Tribalism, sort of. Identity politics, well, again, sort of. “I’m right because I’m me, and you’re wrong because you are not me.” That is the core of it. We, individually and as a society,

How many remember that phrase? I meant a cup--a mug, actually, of coffee and a plain donut that was dipped in the coffee before each bite. That was my practice back in the day. And that practice seemed downright elegant compared to some of my coffee experience in the field in the Army. I can clearly remember being in the field using Signal Corp wire and a no. 10 (large) can to use grounds for the third time to make truly horrendous coffee over an open fire. And I remember the event with a certain fondness. The coffee, if you can call it that, was frightful, but the experience with the guys with clearly memorable. This memory had nothing to do with the quality of the coffee, but the quality of the experience. “Liberating” the wire from supply, rigging the can to hold it over the improvised outdoor fire. Loud discussions of how long to boil these already over used grounds, using a metal canteen cup holder for the scalding coffee, and, finally, coming up with ever more interesting ways to describe the horrid, acidic taste. The first few who announced their descriptions did not stand a chance; each successive description was more colorful, and had less to do with the muddy liquid than the unlovely setting for all of this, the hour, the overall quality of food and coffee in the Army, and the Army itself.

But we connected. In fact, some of those men are still in my life--and I in theirs.

Today when I want coffee, I sometimes find myself ordering a “Tall Flat White.” And I don’t really know all what’s in it. But it tastes good, I can put it in my travel mug where it will stay hot longer, and I don’t feel like I am embarrassing myself in that upscale environment by ordering a Cuppa Joe and a Sinker. They might know what a Cuppa Joe is there, but they haven’t sinker in the house. Perhaps I should try a “Grande Joseph, and Floating Croissant.” But it just doesn’t have the same ring. And the Tall Flat White and a croissant is about three times as much.

But I am getting the upscale experience, right? But what is that? Well, it is truly different from drinking terrible coffee sitting on the ground in an open field in the Army. And it is different from having a Cuppa Joe and A Sinker at a coffee and donut joint. The upscale environment has better seating, better Wi-Fi and a much wider variety of foodstuffs. And it all comes at a price. Not only are we paying more in terms of how many hours of our work time each week we need to invest in our monthly coffee and a snack habit, but in terms of human interaction. When I go into those upscale coffee environments, almost everyone is on the Internet or asking for the password. Put simply, we are trading human connections for Internet connections. And we actually think we have made progress.

Most of us have seen pictures of the rare small restaurants that have signs reading, “No Internet. Talk to each other.” You mean to a live person in front of me? You mean like to others in my group? Or a stranger? What if I don’t like that person? How can I be cool with someone who may not like me? How can I say something witty or snarky and then be on my way? Where is the Unfriend button? How do I block them? How can I make my winning political point anonymously?

Social media is a type of safe space. It is a world where we can be in contact with hundreds or thousands of people in a necessarily “low touch” way. Lots of contacts, but only in a glancing blow kind of interaction. How do we learn/relearn to successfully handle the physical world, with far fewer contacts but in a “high touch” context. Real people, right there in front of me. With their need to be heard, to be understood, to be appreciated. As people, not just as contacts. They want to be seen and heard as people, just as you and I do. And we can’t do that if we are on the Internet and not looking around. Looking for eye contact, looking for human contact.

I am in the beginning stages of a 16 day road trip, taking my fun, if impractical, second car, intentionally traveling on “back roads” from my home in Colorado Springs, to my first destination, Chico, to visit my eldest son and his family.  It is my second night on the road, staying in a quaint, down home hotel, in a small, down home town in the middle of nowhere on Hwy 50. In the middle of nowhere, going from no place to the next place. Ah, but the people in these no places are unique. Open. Friendly. Trusting. And maybe more than trusting, simply not suspicious enough not to trust on first sight. Instead of, “Why should I trust you, we just met.” it is, “Why shouldn’t I trust you, we just met.” And it is more than just giving a stranger the benefit of the doubt, it is a positive belief that unless proven otherwise, people are pretty good.

When I was checking into my hotel for the night, I was asked for my car license plate. When I replied that I did not know, the woman checking me in asked me the make of the car. “Porsche”, I replied, at which point she said that was good enough for ID--they don’t get many of those around here. Her son, who turned out to be 18, was hanging out visiting Mom, the lady who was checking me in; he went out to look at the car. When he came back in, he said, “Someday I am going to get to drive one of those.” “Why not today?” I responded, and off we went. We put the top down, and with Gavin behind the wheel backing out as his Mom, the hotel’s GM, took his picture. We went off to visit a good friend of his--then went to see the abandoned gold mine in town. Gavin said that most people who come through don’t even know about the mine, much less actually drive up to look at it through the fence. Huh. I certainly would not have. More importantly, I got to know a little about Gavin and his ambitions, and touched lightly on the importance of setting goals to get what you want in this life. Gavin was clearly thinking about how to imitate the success he saw as being behind the ability to write a check for a really fun car. And, yes, we did talk about not buying things that depreciate on credit. And speaking of trust, how many places in the US do you know of where a total stranger would be allowed--with Mom sitting right there--to take an 18-year-old out for a drive unescorted? How many? I was blessed to have been in one.

Now, let’s look at a different conversation. “I don’t care how long it takes, as long as everyone has to wait the same amount of time.”  I heard this statement made by a single-payer supporter on a talk show debate about health insurance. So, if everyone had to wait, say 3 months, instead of the wealthy and fortunate waiting one week and the poor and the less fortunate waiting one month, he’d be OK. His clear resentment of the kind of even modest success that was once required to have private health insurance was so great that if the poor had to wait longer under single payer than prior to single payer, he would be okay--as long as everyone had to wait the same amount of time. He wants not only equal access under the law, which is wonderful and just, but equal, flat if you will, results--also mandated by law. I call this the new Flat Earth Society. Legal access mandated by law--equal--flat--results, also mandated by law.

Resenting success, and preaching that success is due to some sort of inherent injustice, is certainly easier than working hard. But it cheats everyone out of the cellular-level satisfaction and joy that comes from succeeding despite the obstacles. And yes, deep satisfaction can aslso come from just the struggle--even without hitting all of your goals--or even any of then--if you have done your best.

Those who practice and preach resenting success seek to negate the positive consequences of success, and, at the same time, eliminate the negative consequences of failure.

This is a highly controversial subject, but it should not be. Using simple common sense, it becomes so very clear cut.

In the United States alone, we perform/allow over one million--one million abortions each and every year. I start with this concrete fact to alert all of us to the critical nature of this discussion, and to the vital importance of getting the answer to this much discussed and controversial question absolutely right. The core of this question is life and death on a massive scale. Many times bigger than all of our war deaths, gun crime fatalities, deaths due to alcohol and other drugs. Anything.

Given the magnitude of this topic, let’s put away all of our preconceived notions, and ask the the only two questions that need to be and must be asked and answered:

When does life begin and

When is it acceptable for the state to sanction the taking of a life?

And don’t we need to know exactly when life starts; I mean with great precision? Without being able to pinpoint the moment when life starts, we are clearly left with an agonizing grey area. As in the grey area when the fetus might be a life, and then again, it might not be. Is it a non-viable tissue mass or is it a human? In this grey area, aren’t we obligated to give the benefit of the doubt to the fetus, and treat it like a living human? We can’t be willing to abort a fetus if it might be a living human any more than we would fire a shotgun into a darkened room, not knowing if anyone was there or not. Hey, in baseball a tie goes to the runner because we do not have the technology in close calls to know to the nanosecond if the runner was safe or out; the runner gets the benefit of the doubt. We can do at least as much for the fetus--yes?

Now that we know that we need a precise moment, what is that moment? Using trimesters doesn’t give us a precise moment. Cutting the cord is a precise moment, but we clearly have a child by then, so that does not help. Is it when the entire baby emerges, or just the head? And if we call the baby fully emerging the test for the precise moment, what is so special about the feet? And how do you handle your thinking with breech babies and C-sections? The only precise moment in the whole process is conception. That’s when human life begins.

Now comes perhaps the more important question of when it is appropriate for the state to sanction the taking of a human life. Wars, law enforcement and self-defense are accepted examples. Capital punishment is more controversial. Now, what about the taking of a life for economic purposes? As in the prospective parents cannot afford to have that child? Or convenience, as in it would be a 20-year burden to have this child. Or because the child might be mentally challenged. Or the wrong sex. What about when it is highly likely that the child will grow up with few--if any--advantages--and be born into the middle of a drug-infested, gangbanger neighborhood? Is it OK to kill the child under any of these circumstances? Because that’s exactly what we are doing now. We don’t want this person, so we pretend that it is not a person. And when convince ourselves that a class of beings is not human, we have given ourselves permission to do anything we want with them. Blacks were not seen as human, so it was OK to enslave them. Jews were declared not human, so concentration camps were OK. And now the issue is the child in the womb. If it is judged not to be not human, it is OK to exterminate it. But it is a child, and if we, as individuals or a society, want to do away with it, let’s at least say out loud what we are doing, taking a human life, rather than pretending that, “There’s nothing of interest here. Move along.”

Most of us have a very hard time imagining the twisted logic and moral void that would have been required to see either blacks or Jews as non-human--and then act on that belief.

Or should it be Common Sense as opposed to Politics?

Common sense is no longer common; it is now so uncommon as to be a superpower. Ironically, it is so easy to see what the common sense approach is in any situation--and to act on it. Let’s talk about how.

Everyone has a place they can go to in their heads to hear themselves tell the truth. There may be a physical place you go to that helps in this process, but all it really requires is some quiet, and an attitude of listening for the truth without bringing in any notions or biases to cloud the listening. We take no agendas with us in here, save listening for the truth. And if you have not already discovered what place is for you, look for it. And look quietly and easily. You’ll find it.

Let’s apply common sense to some of today’s controversial issues. Ready? Remember, we are going to relax, quiet down, and listen to the truth as it comes to us. Not the thinking we indulge in when we are looking for reasons to support our various preconceived notions. The Bible advises, “Be still, and know that I am God.” Here, just be still and rely on your instincts, your inner wisdom, the core of you to guide your thoughts.

Simple sayings and stories can often provide deceptively powerful advice. We’ll look at some of them together. Do you remember the story about the scorpion and the frog? They both needed to cross a river, and the scorpion asked the frog for a ride. Fearing what might happen, the frog demurred, with the scorpion promising, oh-so-sincerely, not to sting and kill the frog. The frog relented. After ferrying the scorpion safely across, the frog saw the scorpion aim his lethal stinger and plunged it directly into him. The frog’s last words were, “How could you? You betrayed me!” The scorpion, replied, “No”, I did not betray you. You knew all along that I was a scorpion.”

We know that the leaders of both Iran and North Korea are scorpions. And we know the same about Hamas in Gaza. Now stop, if you are at all tempted to raise your voice in defense of any or all of them, pause and think. North Korea is a third-generation hereditary dictatorship. It is basically a prison camp of 28 million people, with only the elite having anything approaching an acceptable life. Iran is a theocratic, Muslim, specifically, dictatorship. Remember: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” John Dalberg-Acton. What part of common sense would lead anyone to think that either leadership could be trusted with anything that is not checked and doubled-checked on a routine basis? And none of that checking is worth anything if you cannot swiftly punish infractions.

Hamas is only slightly different in that it was elected. But, then again, so was Hitler. (Did you know that?) And like Hitler, Hamas used an election to establish dictatorial powers. And unlike Hamas’ neighboring opponents who use their military to defend its citizens, including women and children, Hamas puts women and children in front of its military; partly as a shield and partly as a heartless political and public relations ploy to exploit them when when they are harmed.

No matter what they say, administrations like those of Iran, North Korea and Gaza will sting you as soon as they can without harming themselves. Like the scorpion in our story, they will sting you, attack you with everything they have, as soon as they no longer need you. Remember, the frog was not an enemy--just no longer useful. But the scorpion was always a scorpion.

Now let’s take three examples that are closer to home. We’ll start with Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Isn’t there only one common sense explanation as to why anyone would go through the not inconsiderable added cost, time and inconvenience of having and maintaining their own private server when your employer had all of the required hardware,

Let’s start with today’s key point: Tolerance is not always a virtue. In fact, tolerating what should be intolerable is a vice. But, then again, neither patience nor compassion are always virtues, but today we will talk about tolerance.

Let’s make an important discussion: Intolerance born of ignorance as opposed to intolerance born of discriminating thought. The former, intolerance born of ignorance, is simply inexcusable; intolerance born of discriminating thought is absolutely necessary.

And intolerance born of ignorance needs to be further separated into two parts: The old, represented by classic racism and historically built-in biases and the newer, more recently created dislikes and hatreds. The older, historical intolerances born of ignorance are almost too many to count; they can be based on race, gender, geography, politics, and well, just about anything that we could use to segment others into easy to identify--and detest--groups. These mindless prejudices led to the persecution of Jews, blacks, gypsies, homosexuals, Catholics, Protestants, and the mentally deficient, among many others, for millenia.

The newer, more recently created, intolerances born of ignorance are also almost too many to count; they too can be based on race, gender, geography, politics, and well, just about anything that we can use to segment others into easy to identify--and detest--groups. BTW, did you notice that I just did a cut-and-paste? The “old’ and ‘new” prejudices have almost everything in common. The older prejudices, which most of us dismiss because their vile natures, evil origins and widespread devastation have been revealed and utterly rejected by any sane person.

Rejected, yes, but only to be replaced by newer prejudices also based on group identities. Exactly the same type of thinking that led to, among other horrors, the Inquisition, slavery and the Holocaust is now being used to create the evil of identity politics and intersectionality. Intersectionality, a newly created political concept rallying disparate interest groups together on an ad hoc basis, relies on a dangerous old saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The new prejudices, formulated and preached in the name of social justice and political correctness, will, if unchecked, cause the same type of widespread horror that the older prejudices did. We have simply swapped hate targets in the name of progress.

Well, now let’s turn our attention to the kind of discrimination, intolerance if you will, that we all need to learn and embrace. BTW, the word “discrimination” here does not mean anything like racial or gender bias; it means critical thinking. Discernment. The ability to tease concepts apart for yourself and come up with your own conclusions. Tolerance must end where harm begins. Shutting down free speech is harmful; someone saying something you find to be wrong or even reprehensible, is not. Denying women basic human rights in the name of religion is harmful; denying a transgendered woman access to a woman’s restroom is not. Inconvenient, but not harmful. Indoctrinating our youth while providing a deteriorating quality of education is harmful; teaching the classics, albeit written by white males, is not. Giving capable people handouts over time is harmful; insisting on personal responsibility and a strong work ethic is not harmful.

Tolerance must end where harm begins.

Here’s today’s key question: Why do we tolerate the harmful things going on in our society? Do we simply not care? I truly, truly doubt that. Do we tolerate the intolerable in the name of tolerance? That is far more likely. We have been duped into being afraid of speaking the truth. Now, let’s decide what we will tolerate, and what we simply cannot tolerate. Remember, tolerance is not always as virtue. And tolerating what should be seen as intolerable is a vice.