Political Hatred Fills Our Social Media

  I read down the news feed on my Facebook page,  post after post ridiculing the political position of others, condemning, spewing hatred, and expressing contempt.
  I think back on the Mueller Report, and of how it warned the Russians are propagandizing, feeding us on social media with bites to incite us against each other, and to divide us. If posts I am seeing are not them, then what are?
  A sick feeling crosses me. I feel sad and sickened. Wanting to do something, I post the following on my Facebook page:

  Here's a challenge to my FB friends. 

 Look at your last 10 posts and see how many of them 

conveyed hatred or contempt for others.

  Political hatred? Does hatred become okay when it is of the political variety? When you are hating presidents or Congress members, or movie stars -- does hatred then become okay?
  I think on my own Facebook posts, wondering if I am a hypocrite and have also posted comments full of contempt and hatred toward others. I search down a  short ways, and find none, but think of how I have been negative toward President Trump. I do not go down far enough to find them, to review them. But, I hope that if I did, I would find that while they disagree with the president, they do not reflect hatred or contempt.

Is it Communist Conspiracy or Charity?

  It is a communist conspiracy that immigrants are coming to America. So goes the argument. Or, at least, some argue this. Others don't lay it on the communists, just on big foreign money. Some big financier, or financiers, are behind it.
  I have an old newspaper sitting on my table, The Epoch Times, that suggests it is a communist thing. And, it seems Vice President Mike Pence might once have suggested someone must be financing the rush of immigrants.
  You don't just get these big caravans, and so many people rushing to come unless someone is pushing them to come.
   I think on the recent Mueller probe, and of how we were told the Russians try to disrupt our elections. If they are doing that, would they stop at the elections, or would they try to disrupt American life in other ways, as well?
   I think it not impossible that they would go beyond the elections, and try to disrupt America in other ways. Immigration, then? Would they do that? I doubt they are, but I leave the possibility open.
   For my part, I think it just as possible, if not more, that they are behind  -- can we call it a conspiracy? -- to divide America on the issue of immigration. For my part, I would not be surprised to learn they are forwarding the line that George Soros is financing the immigration.
   George Soros, that dirty, rotten guy. He is behind all this. You can stay mad at all the immigrants for coming, because it is liberals like Soros who are sending them.
   Well, I don't know whether I ever finished The Epoch Times article all the way through. And, I don't believe that when they say it is a communist conspiracy, they are referring to the Russians. Are the Russians even considered communists these days? It is possible Trevor Loudon, who was interviewed in the article, is referring to "communists" within the U.S. government when he speaks of communists forcing immigrants upon us.
   But, I do know there is at least one other possible factor behind why the immigration might seem orchestrated: Social workers. Social workers in Guatemala, Columbia, and the other Central American countries might be directing the immigrants here.
   Social workers.
   I read a story in the Deseret News, telling how social workers go into the streets of one of the cities down there. The story spoke of how the social workers would give food to the children living in the streets in order to get them to listen to them as they tried to persuade them to come to their shelters.
   I don't think it so far-fetched that if some social workers are talking children into coming to their shelters, there are other social workers who are directing the children to America.
   Today, I read another article in the Deseret News, a column by Savannah Hopkinson, suggesting that one of the drivers behind the immigration into America is domestic violence. The migrants come to America, in part, to escape being beaten up by their husbands and fathers.
   I think of the children who come unaccompanied, and with adults who are not their own parents. If these are those living in the sewer-invested streets of South America, and if some of them are on those streets because they are being abused by their fathers, are not some of them showing up with parents who are not their own?
   I will not say that some of these children are not being brought here to be trafficked. We should study that, find out how many. Childhood trafficking is about as terrible thing as there is. Yes, we do want to do all that we can to stop that.
   But, it would seem at least some (and maybe many) of those coming with adults are children fleeing the sewer-riddle streets, and fleeing the domestic violence of their fathers. Some are probably matched with adults by social workers. And, yes, those social workers probably know that adults with children might be given advantages.
  Still, if some of the immigrants are bringing children who are not their own for this reason: to liberate the children from living on the streets or from being beaten by abusive fathers, they deserve our thanks, not our condemnation. To us, they are but committing fraud, but we consider not on their charity.
   So, all the rush of immigrants? All the children coming on their own or with adults who are not their parents? Conspiracy? A George Soros-financed plot?
  I only know many of those coming come with reason. They do flee oppression. They are living in a land of sewer-filled streets. And, we look at them, and say: "No, no, no. You must go back where you came from. Your being here is a communist plot. And, those of you who bring children not your own are committing fraud. And, you little ones also go home. You are as wrong to be here as the adults."
   Whatever level of communist conspiracy pushes some of the immigrants here -- if any at all -- is matched by those who come with real stories of horror. We would turn them around, saying, "March right back where you came from," and treat them all like criminals?

The Knee is a Tell-Tale Indicator

   The knees might be an indicator of how the whole body is doing. And, a person walking loose and easy and painless might generally live longer than those whose legs and knees are tight.
   Here's maybe one reason why: Wear-and-tear, and pounding, and stress (and maybe toxins) are the things that bring aging, as much as anything else. You can see that pounding in the knee (and hip) quicker than in other parts of the body. It is more evident, because the knee takes more wear-and-tear than other parts of the body.
  This theory assumes that at least a good portion of the wear-and-tear affects the whole body. When you run, the knee is affected the most, but the other portions of the body also take wear-and-tear from the same run.
   Is running then bad for you? Does it shorten the years of your life? I hate reading this. I found it at

https://www.huffpost.com › running-too-much-health-study_n_5079707.

  "A number of earlier studies have suggested that people who run more than 20 miles a week or an an average pace of 7.5 miles or faster are more likely to have shorter lifespans than those who run slower over shorter distances."
   But, I take hope for what is reported at the end of the article.
   "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that adults engage in at least 75 minutes of vigorous activity (like running or jogging) or 150 minutes of moderate activity (like brisk walking) every week.
  Note added 9/8/19: Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the legs are a tell-tale indicator, not just the knees and hips. Or perhaps just say the ability to walk is the indicator. Look at the elderly, and see how many of them become hobbled. I don't even need to point it out, as we all notice as much.
   Not every thing that goes on in the heart is related to the leg, nor does every affliction of the leg reflect what is going on in the rest of the body. Still, there is enough in common that you can look to the legs as a pretty good indicator of the deterioration of the body.
   It could be noted that the ability to communicate is as also a key indicator.
   And, someone will suggest that it is obvious the ability to walk and ability to talk are indicators of age, so why even blog about it?

The Yawn and the Lymphatic System

  The simple yawn may be but part of the lymphatic system, and is but the body's way of moving lymphatic liquid to places where it is needed, like maybe even to the brain.
  What I say is theory and postulate. A quick word search helped me not find the answer.
  But, we do know this: The lymphatic system does not have a pump, like the blood circulatory system does in the form of the heart. No, the lymphatic system is dependent -- largely and maybe entirely - on body movement to trigger its liquid's movement.
  A yawn is a small movement. Does it trigger liquid movement to the brain?
  I notice I yawn at two times: One, when I am tired, an two, when I am waking up. I wonder if when I yawn from tiredness, it is but the body saying the mental pounding and wear has jammed all the liquid into one spot. And, when I am waking, it is not that the day's activity has pounded the liquid into one spot, but that the liquid has drained from or needs stirred to be activated or whatever. I'm wondering if yawns from tiredness and yawns from waking up might be just a little different.
  I may yawn at night as I go to bed -- yawning from tiredness and overwork -- but I wonder that as I settle in to go to sleep, the yawning stops. Yawning is not part of the sleep process, itself. Or, is this incorrect? Do I yawn in the middle of the night without partially waking up? I don't think so, but maybe.
   At any rate, the yawn can be triggered by two opposite things: One, All the work is has done while being awake, and, two, the lack of work from being asleep.
  I have not spent much time at deathbeds, watching the coming death of the children of earth, but I do wonder if they yawn much at that point. If they do, it does not disprove what I have written above. But, if they don't, it it a further indication that yawning is a rejuvenation of the body -- a way of turning systems on, not turning them off.

Separate Guns from Those Who Argue and You End a lot of Violence

  If you are one of the many Americans wondering what do about violence in America, I have a suggestion: Take guns out of the hands of those who argue.
   An argument is an argument until a gun is involved. Then, it is settled by death. A disagreement is but a verbal altercation until a weapon is introduced. Then, the tongue is silenced by the gun's loud crack.
   If you would seriously curb gun violence, take the gun out of anyplace where there will be an argument.
   I read that about 70 percent of all gun homicides grow out of arguments. Oh, this statistic is not easy to come by. I find little on the topic as I search the Internet. The only thing I find, is this comment:
   "In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant." -- https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-america
  Seventy percent? Would it be true, then, if you found a way to separate guns from those who argue, you would end a good share of the homicides?

There are Two Types of Thought Patterns

   The minds of humanity can be divided in two types: Those that dwell dwell in fear, and those that seek its escape.
   Yes, thinking comes in two varieties: One, Analyzing and selecting measured and constructive reaction to the fears of life. Two, Dwelling on the fear -- letting the fear repeat and repeat in your mind, weighing more and more until you fly apart.
   One though process brings peace, the other despair.
   So, divide the minds of the world in just these two classes: Those that seek an anecdote, an answer, and those that see no answer, just the problem, itself.
   In which class are you? Do you have a mind that freezes, or one that responds?

Guns and Arguments and Dances and Death

   I read a story about two ministers' wives, and of how they got in an argument, and one of them was a concealed carry holder -- and, fetched her gun and shot the other.
   Somewhere in thinking about all this, it occurs to me that about as much gun violence probably results from arguments as anything else.
   If you'll stop to think about this, this is one of the biggest reasons for not filling our nation with guns. Without a gun, an argument is an argument. But, when weapons are present, a disagreement can be deadly.
   We have 1.2 guns for every person in the U.S.? That's a lot of guns for a nation that likes to argue.
   And, we ought to eyeball what could happen from a lot of the talk today. Word is, you need to have citizens with guns right at the scene if you are going to stop a mass shooting. The police are not going to arrive in time.
    And, that might be true.
    But, think of what might happen if everyone starts packing. And, if arguments break out.
   And, this isn't just church. What if people start bringing guns to parties? Can you imagine the danger if half the crowd at a dance brought guns?
   There's a party I wouldn't want to go to.
   America is dancing with danger in suggesting everyone should pack. If everyone at the dance has a gun, you won't need to swing your partner; You can just shoot her. That might sound a little much, but there will come a time it happens.
   And, along the way, there will come a lot of other violence.
   We can listen to this mantra that everyone needs a gun. I fear it. I do not know where America is headed. But, I hope it is not this direction.