Economic Multipliers (164)

Do you know what these are?

They help CREATE wealth in systems.

RELEVANCE is an economic multiplier (No. 1)


A standing President of the United States has the opportunity AND obligation to help identify a qualified Supreme Court candidate when any vacancy arises. The United States Senate then has the opportunity AND obligation to vet the nominated person and ‘confirm’ whether they are qualified to serve.

Although the process is relatively simple, it can be very difficult to find a candidate who everyone believes will ‘protect’ the nation.

For young people or those who don’t traditionally pay attention to the political process, 2016 and 2017 could be two of the best years you’ll ever have to assess whether the people ‘in politics’ have (or ever had) the capacity to lead and possibly whether they seem to have ever grown up.

As an example, for ‘Republicans’ and ‘Democrats,’ abortion has traditionally been a ‘litmus test’ for the Supreme Court. Ask yourself whether these RELEVANT questions are being asked:

  • If a woman is raped and ends up pregnant, do you feel that anyone (other than her) has the right to decide whether any additional ‘life’ should have continuity? Would your answer be different if the man was an alcoholic with a history of violence and mental and physical health problems? Would your answer be different if the man was a physically fit and (originally) highly respected member of the community?

  • If a drug-addicted woman who drinks and smokes gets pregnant and subsequently gives birth to a child with multiple addictions and an array of other subsequent health problems, do you feel that states can mandate that the woman’s tubes be tied?

A comedian has been in the news recently who denies having non-consensual sex with women. He doesn’t deny having sex with LOTs of women (AND using drugs in the process). Ask yourself whether these RELEVANT questions are being asked:

  • Would you support legislation which would require recent testing for transmittable diseases prior to any individual engaging in an intimate relationship with anyone … even a ‘first partner’?

  • Would you support legislation which would require that anyone in a ‘committed relationship’ (marriage, shared living quarters or some other sort of ‘promise’) notify their ‘committed partner’ if they’ve been ‘busy’ outside their relationship and get tested for transmittable diseases prior to doing anything which might put their partner or any children at risk?

  • Since the medical profession is finding out that some transmittable diseases can ‘hide’ and others can cause birth defects, would you support legislation which would ban a person from engaging in any sex outside of a committed relationship (if there is one) if recreational drugs and/or alcohol have been used in the past 24 hours? (Obviously this wouldn’t prevent ‘adultery’ … it would merely give it a ‘frame of reference’ … that both individuals must be ‘clear-headed’).

  • Would you support legislation which automatically defines ‘sex’ as reckless endangerment and a possible attempt to commit murder if a person does not notify any ‘partner’ of any known ‘risks’?

Most people in ‘media’ consider ‘free speech’ to be a ‘right.’ I like ‘free speech’ myself. And that is why I consider these questions to be RELEVANT when selecting any Supreme Court judge.

  • Would you support a small ‘damage tax’ (perhaps 1%) on any media sold and/or made available to individuals who are younger than 18 that ‘commonizes’ behaviors which are known to be harmful to young people and everyone else? Media would include anything which promotes unprotected and untested (for STD’s) sex and anything containing violence and/or the promotion of violence. (Know that a lot of ‘humor’ and cartoons fall into this category).

  • Rather recently, some adults in Tennessee apparently thought that an assault of a freshmen high school student fell more so into the category of … ‘kids will be kids.’ In assault cases, as a citizen, I consider it RELEVANT to know if a prospective Supreme Court justice would support an equivalent assault on ANY adults who expressed the ‘don’t prosecute and mess up their lives … kids will be kids’ view so those adults could be asked after the fact whether they thought the ‘incident’ prosecutable: Certainly anything that is merely ‘funny’ should be ‘easy’ for any ‘kids will be kids’ adults to deal with. To illustrate how much damage can occur in a community (other than an assault), imagine if a police officer’s child was assaulted and the district attorney was the ‘kids will be kids’ adult.

  • Would you support a larger ‘damage tax’ (perhaps 2%) on any media available to adults which ‘commonizes’ destructive societal behaviors which at one point in time were not considered ‘common’? The legal profession could start identifying the materials as they work on cases you’d never want to see in any society and interview individuals you’d never want to see in jail. As an example, what if people are learning how to commit crimes by watching crime shows and detailed news reports?

Collected ‘damage taxes’ could be used to help pay for medical costs and preventive testing, counseling, legal fees, incarceration costs, programming and programs which help teach individuals how to build strong communities, costs of investigating ‘incidents’ and ‘other damages.’

I’d also like a Supreme Court justice who would support legislation assessing a ‘damage tax’ (perhaps 5%) on ‘performance enhancing’ drugs which could create problems for ‘partners.’ If a medical condition ‘limits’ an individual’s performance, is it not RELEVANT if greater societal problems crop up for other people as the result of someone using some drug? I’m sure the medical profession could find an appropriate use for the money.

Have you ever noticed that the media (the ‘let’s party!’ component) rarely contains any dialogue related to possible pregnancies, the transmission of diseases, what individuals should be learning from and communicating to medical professionals and their ‘partners’ and a whole host of other things that are RELEVANT in real relationships and real lives?

The new Supreme Court justice should be a RELEVANT adult.

I wish I believed that most 12-25 year-olds had the basic judgment to know that an inappropriate photo they may take or share of themselves and/or someone else could potentially get them or another person assaulted and possibly even killed (and there is no statute of limitations on things that get posted on the Internet). I do believe that judgment is lacking because our society no longer has a critical mass of adults with good core judgment.


When any Presidential election rolls around … particularly one where a Supreme Court seat is at stake … the citizens of the United States have an opportunity to ask whether the questions being asked are RELEVANT. They have an opportunity to think about whether the topics being talked about are RELEVANT.

Although the Supreme Court does not write laws, they do weigh in on whether any laws are RELEVANT.

I may have more to say about this issue of RELEVANCE.