Are GPS trackers in cars really good?

Are GPS trackers in cars good?  They -- that being the experts -- say it is, and that it should be mandatory for our own good. They say that they can be used to know if you were speeding prior to an accident.  They say it can be used to find you if you get lost.  It can be used to solve crimes.

But it also makes it so the government knows where we are at all times.  It allows companies to keep track of employees.  So it can be good, they say.  And it's true, it can, or at least has the potential, to be beneficial..

But it can also be used against you.  It can be used by your boss to say, "hey, you said you were here, but you were not here."

Students have been found guilty of keeping track of kids, when they were at home in their rooms.  Is that a good thing?

The government can use it to know how much you drive, and they have already talked about making laws to tax you per mile that you drive.  Is that good?

Bottom line: proponents of making GPS trackers in cars say it is for your own good.  Opponents of it say it is yet another effort to take away more of our liberties.

Is Google violating our personal liberties?

I love Google.  I have a Google Chrome book, use Blogger, use Google Word, I use Google web browser, and use Gmail.  One day, however, I noticed that there were a bunch of libertarian and conservative books advertised on the right side of the computer screen.  I thought, "Is libertarianism gaining in popularity?"

Then I realized, "No, they are marketing to me.  They know I love liberty."

So they know, from what I search for, or what sites I go to, what I'm interested in. If I'm Googling shoes, I might get an ad for shoes "even while I'm in the store."

I suppose this could be good in a way, but it is a violation of my liberties.  It is a violation of my right to privacy.  Because I know that in order for those ads to appear, Google is selling my information.  They are getting rich by selling my information, and all I get out of it is an ad.

I'm sorry to say this, but I think this is a scary thing.  If my information is that available to advertisers who want to profit off me, then it's probably also available for governmental officials to spy on me (If I was offered a choice, I wouldn't be so concerned.  If I was offered the option of payment, I might consider).

The only way to get people to stop tracking you is to stop using Google, stop using your iPhone.  But Google makes everything they offer free.  If I want to keep blogging, I have no choice to use Google.

I suppose, in a way, the fact it is free is Google's payment to me.  On the other hand, the fact it is free also traps me into the system.  It's similar to the government offering free schooling so they can use that platform to brainwash our kids.  It's scary.

For all the privacy I have lost while being on the web, I wouldn't give up what I do for anything.

Is it time to impeach Mr. Obama?

Okay, so I have never been an advocate of impeaching a president.  I think the idea is repulsive and counterproductive.

So you impeach a president and then what? You get his vice president as president, and he now has a fresh hold on the presidency and all the power that goes with it.  You have a potential, then, for eight more years of these guys being in power.

No!  That is not good.  But that's not even my main reason for being against impeaching a president.  In fact, back when there were arguments for impeaching President Clinton for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinski, I was opposed to the idea then.  The reason:  it looks bad for America.  As a person who loves my country, I do not want my country to look bad.

So now we have a few people talking about the possibility of impeaching Obama. You have people saying that the first thing Congress will do if people vote republicans into a majority in November of 2014 is to impeach Obama.

As noted, I have been completely opposed to this, until Obama released four of the world's biggest, most evil, villains in the world, giving them right back to the evil Taliban to which they came, in exchange for a person who appears to have been a deserter and not a prisoner of war.  Or, you could say it was one of our guys for four of theirs.

To me, this latest action makes all the suspect actions of Obama in the past several years make sense.  If Obama is making a four for one swap, releasing four Taliban leaders in the process, it's a sign to me that he does not see the Taliban as the enemy.  It's a sign that he sees his own country as the enemy.  That, dear readers, is an impeachable offense.  It's something I wrote about under my pseudonym even before Obama was elected.

Well, actually, what is impeachable is that he was, by a law that he signed, supposed to give Congress a 30 day notice for any prisoner swap.  But did you know that he tried to make this same deal back in March of 2012. The only reason this went public is because he briefed some members of Congress about it, they found it a repulsive idea, and so leading democrat and mega Obama supporter Dianne Feinstein put her country first an leaked the story to Foreign Policy magazine.

So this time Obama didn't want that to happen, so he bypassed the law and made the swap without telling Congress.  He broke the law.  This, by the way, is an impeachable offense.

However, we must temper any enthusiasm here.  The idea of this blog is not to be one sided, or blind sided, so we must take a look at all the facts before we come to any conclusions here.

Charles Krauthammer, in his June 5 column, notes the following:

There is strong eyewitness evidence that Bergdahl deserted his unit and that the search for him endangered his fellow soldiers. If he had served with honor and distinction, there would be no national uproar over his ransom and some of the widely aired objections to the deal would be as muted as they are flimsy. For example:

1. America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.  Nonsense. Of course we do. Everyone does, while pretending not to. The Israelis, by necessity the toughest of all anti-terror fighters, in 2011 gave up 1,027 prisoners, some with blood on their hands, for one captured staff sergeant.

2. The administration did not give Congress 30-day notice as required by law. Of all the jurisdictional disputes between president and Congress, the president stands on the firmest ground as commander in chief. And commanders have the power to negotiate prisoner exchanges.

Moreover, from where did this sudden assertion of congressional prerogative spring? After five years of supine acquiescence to President Obama’s multiple usurpations, Congress suddenly becomes exercised over a war power — where its claim is weakest. Congress does nothing in the face of 23 executive alterations of the president’s own Affordable Care Act. It does nothing when Obama essentially enacts by executive order the Dream Act, which Congress had refused to enact. It does nothing when the Justice Department unilaterally rewrites drug laws. And now it rises indignantly on its hind legs because it didn't get 30 days’ notice of a prisoner swap?

3. The Taliban release endangers national security.
Indeed it does. The five released detainees are unrepentant, militant and dangerous. They’re likely to go back into the field and resume their war against local and foreign infidels, especially us.
The administration pretense that we and the Qataris will monitor them is a joke. They can start planning against us tonight. And if they decide to leave Qatar tomorrow, who’s going to stop them?

So that was Krauthammer.  I think we can see he is equally concerned about this swap, although, because Congress has failed to show indignation at any of Obama's other unconstitutional moves, then how can he justify taking action on this most recent illegal move.  This kind of points the finger at the idea that neither the republican nor democrat party gives a hoot about the constitution.

However, I must note, that I recently watched the Untouchables starring Robert De Niro as Al Capone and Kevin Cosner as Eliot Ness.  This great movie reminds us that it was not that Capone was a famous mobster, nor that he sold alcohol illegally, nor that he killed hundreds of men in his attempts to get his way, that landed him in prison. No!  It was one small detail he considered to be minute:  it was tax evasion.

The fact that Obama has gotten away with illegal acts, acts that have weakened our economy, our borders, our national defense, our national resolve, and our confidence did not get him impeached.

He opens our borders and allows millions of illegals to cross our border, illegals who are prone to take low paying jobs and not bring in new ideas and technology to America, and illegals who will, more than likely, put themselves on the government dole and vote for democrats and their progressive ideals.

He allows guns to be sold near the border and to end up in the hands of Mexican drug lords to be used against American's trying to protect the border.  This was what many refer to as "fast and furious."  Obama wanted people to think drug Lords were crossing the border and purchasing guns at American stores, and he wanted to use this as a reason to get gun laws passed.  But, as it turned out, Obama is the one who allowed those guns to be sold.  Yes!  It all makes sense now why he would do it: he hates America.

It all makes sense now.  It's like I've had an epiphany of sorts.  All of these actions, when you put them together, all made America worse off.  It put us down to size.  Sure, Obama took hits. Sure, his popularity plummeted.  But, bottom line, he did what needed to be done: "fundamentally change America."

But this later action tops all of them, and should be the straw that breaks the camels back. It should be the action that causes -- forces -- Congress to take action.

I believe that he knows now that he no longer has the support of Congress, nor the people. For this reason, he is going to do whatever is in his power, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, to continue his efforts to, as he put it, "fundamentally change America."

In other words: Impeach Obama.  Don't give him another 2.5 years to continue to destroy our country that he obviously hates.

Capitalism creates success, progressivism creates chaos

Wherever liberalism has been tried it has failed. On the other hand, wherever conservatism has been tried it has succeeded. In fact, conservatism has made life so great in America that many people take it for granted; they have little concept of how hard life was before it existed.

By the way, the liberal movement in the U.S. used to be called the progressive movement. Of course a name is just a name. They'd probably use Communism or Socialism if those names weren't already tarnished. For the sake of simplicity, we'll simply refer to them all as progressives.

On a similar note, conservatism is the same as capitalism. So, for the sake of simplicity, we'll just refer to it as capitalism. So we have capitalism verses progressivism.

Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, gave us the following quote: 

"Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man."

I love that quote.   It explains why countries that embrace capitalism prosper, because people have freedom and liberty.  It explains why countries that embrace progressivism fail, because no one can get anywhere.

In progressive nations you have to be a member of the party, and the party steals and loots what you earn in order to redistribute it.  By taking your money, you become imprisoned in the system.  You are forced to stay in poverty.  In order to gain anything you are forced to steal and loot, just as the system does to you.

Capitalism frees people to provide services and products people are willing to pay for, and if you hit it big, you get really wealthy. If you don't hit it big but do reasonably well, you'll do reasonably well.  Countries that exist under unfettered capitalism prosper, and examples of this are the Harding/ Coolidge economy of the 1920s, the Kennedy economy of the 1960s, the Reagan economy of the 1980s, the W. Bush economy of the 2000s, and the current Chinese economy.

Capitalism is made up of people who are forever dreaming about coming up with ways to make life better. Capitalism is about improving the quality of life, improving the standard of living for as many people as possible.

Progressives try to make everyone the same, and when everyone is the same, you have no wealthy people.  When you have no wealthy people, you have no incentive to improve your lot in life.

Lacking the opportunity to improve your life, people become lazy.  No new jobs are created, and therefore everyone is equally poor.  That's fine, because the goal of progressivism is equality for everyone.  In other words, progressivism creates poverty.  Poverty creates desperation, and desperate people loot and steal.  

Capitalists know it's impossible for everybody to be the same. It creates an environment for, if you are willing to take risks, you may become wealthy. When you have people with money, they will take risks that create jobs. When people are working and making money, they are happy and content. When people are happy and content, they are not desperate and do not have a need to loot and steal.

Progressives create an environment that stakes one group of people against the other, and it is from here that class envy develops: the rich hate the poor who are stealing from them, and the poor think the rich are making money at their expense. The poor think it's unfair the rich have all that money, so they devise ways to steal it from the rich. So the government solves this problem by trying to create an idealist world where everyone is the same, and where they all make the same amount of money. But all this does is force people to steal and loot in order to survive.

Socialism is a never ending cycle.  They say they are doing it "for your own good."  They assume people are too stupid to make wise decisions with their money, so they devise ways to take it from you and spend it for you.  Yet since they are paying your bills, they believe they can tell you what you can eat so you can stay healthy.  They say they are doing this "for your own good," but it's really to keep their costs down.  

Progressivism sounds good to the people; it feels good.  But when it's put into place, all it does is create little train wrecks wherever it is instigated.  They take over healthcare so more people can have it, but in return healthcare gets worse. They take over economies to redistribute wealth, and all they do is create an environment where groups of people hate each other.  

Progressives never elevate the people at the bottom.  They always try to penalize the people at the top and take away from them and blame them for the inequities and the problems in society.

But it doesn't stop with economics. They go after what people say. You can't say things that hurt people's feelings, and you definitely can't judge people for bad behavior.  

They have to make sure that anything that creates human triumph is discredited, because that sends the wrong signal to a liberal or socialist or communist government. You can't have exceptions on the plus side.  You can't earn wealth while there are still people in poverty.  You simply can't.

They hate God, because God is the antithesis of their form of government.  God teaches freedom, liberty, personal choice, individualism, and conservatism. They can't have that; God sends the wrong signal to a liberal or socialist or communist government 

They also try to keep people uneducated and lie to people . They twist history to suit their own agenda.  They create medial fairness laws, and never allow conservative voices to be heard.  And, most important, they don't want their people to see how well people live in other nations, because that would make them want capitalism for themselves.  

That's why the Chinese Government controls the media and the Internet.  Once people see freedom their whole system will be defeated, it will crumble to the ground, so they keep people stupid by lying to them and preventing them from becoming educated. If a person learns too much he is thrown in prison or murdered. A good example of this is the Tienanmen Square masacre. 

In Russia, under the Soviet leadership, Russians were told how bad it was in America, and because they had no way of learning the truth, they believed it. People who became educated, or who learned how well Americans really had it, were murdered amid what the government would chime as a mass epidemic of disease.  They were able to mask the truth because there was no world media.

Some actually even credit, along with the arms movement, Hollywood for the fall of the Soviet Union. Hollywood showed the Soviets how well Americans had it under this thing called "capitalism." 

When there wasn't television Stalin could simply murder people and get away with it, but because he couldn't do that anymore, there was no way to stop Russians from watching TV and seeing what Hollywood offered.  Of course, when watching TV, they also saw American news, and were alerted of what was really going on in America; that Americans weren't evil and wicked, their own government was. So the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Another thing that helped Stalin's movement was the fact that the progressivess in the U.S. controlled the media, and so they were able ignore the failures of the same movement in Russia.  Yet advancements in technology made it so the media became worldwide, and so the modern media made it so Russian leaders could no longer hide the failures of communism, the progressive movement in Russia.

Progressive leaders can no longer kill to get their way.  They can no longer control the media to get their way.  So the only method left is to make it so people don't make much money.  If you take away their money you take away their freedom. They accomplish this by by taking from anyone who makes money and redistribute it to the poor.  

It's for this reason socialist/ progressive/ liberal leaders constantly attack the rich, and it's for this reason they encourage class warfare and envy for achievers.  They attack corporations, and they attack rich people (except rich people who donate to their causes like George Soros). 

Capitalists make it so people can make money serving other people. Serving means making iPhones, televisions, cable TV, Internet, fast food, medicine, cars, etc. It means easy access to food and other essentials of life.

In socialist nations the food is aplenty, but no one wants to harvest it, so the people go hungry.  Hungry people are forced to steal and loot in order to satisfy basic needs.  

When socialists see something needs to be done, the government has to force people to do it.  Because the government takes any money people make, no one wants to do it.  

In a capitalist society, when someone has an idea, a product or service that will benefit others, he he has incentive to make it work because he knows he will get to keep any money he makes, or donate it to charities of his choice.  

Capitalism allows people to harness creativity.  It encourages creativity. Creativity is the main source of productivity.  All the good in the world today, therefore, was caused by capitalism/ conservatism.  

Despite this, too many people are tricked into believing the cause of it all is government.  Yet all government does is take away prosperity.  All government does is destroy wealth.  The only time the government rewards you with wealth, the only time it lets you keep your money, is when you use it to support the cause. 

Capitalism is always evaluated against dreams. Progressives/ Socialists/ Liberals/ believe that, if you do as they say, they can create a Utopia.  Utopia is a dream. It's a fantasy where everything's perfect; where there's no pain; where there's no suffering; where everybody has whatever the socialists/ liberals/ progressives think is important today.  In their Utopia, in their dream world, everybody's got health care. Everybody has a house, has an electric car. It's a dream. It doesn't exist. It's an idealistic dream.  

Capitalism is hard, cold reality. There's no question it is by far and away the best economic organizing system of human beings there's ever been.

So capitalism, which is a proven, demonstrable, there hasn't been any other legitimate world superpower, economic and everything combined, except the United States of America. Although some people in America today, the progressives, the liberals, are trying to make it so America no longer is a superpower.  They think this will help them create their perfect world.

There have been wealthy societies before America, but very few people participated in that. The rest were slaves or common, ordinary, everyday nothings who made all the wealth possible but never shared in it. There's been wealthy places but there's never been a wealthy superpower.

The United States developed, fed, clothed, protected, defended, provided for, took care of disasters, the world over. No other country has ever been able to do that.

And yet there's this constant battle in this country. The United States is unfair, it's unjust, it's racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, it's immoral, it's run by white guys. None of that has ever been true.

But let me ask you a question. What else has a chance when evaluated against a fantasy or a dream? Let's say, for example, you have this fantasy of the perfect woman or man, and you really think she or he exists. I mean, every aspect of your dream, every aspect of your fantasy, you hold out for it. Guess what? Your life is going to be miserable because it doesn't exist.

Take any other fantasy, any other dream, any other figment of your imagination where there is perfection and then evaluate that against reality, and I guarantee you reality is gonna lose every time.

Capitalism is reality and it's got more to recommend it than any other way or system. But compared to the Utopian dreams of liberalism and socialism and communism, it is always going to come up short with the dreamers and the fantasizers. And when those people end up in power, like now, then you end up with real problems. And we have them. But we'll come out of it.

So capitalism, the very idea that created this superpower, is said to be a failure because it's evaluated against fantasies. There never has been a successful socialist country. There's never been a successful communist country.

So when progressives talk to the people, they always talk in terms of "what will happen" if we continue charging "forward." In fact, "Forward," was Obama's campaign slogan in 2012, the same slogan that was used by another famous progressive by the name of Mussolini.  It was also used by a famous evil progressive in Germany in the 1930s.

Anyway, they keep talking about how, if we continue to do what they say, we will eventually get to, move forward to, this Euphoric world they always talk about. But we keep doing what they say, keep being tricked into believing it, and all that happens is chaos.

Yet that doesn't matter.  Progressives continue saying things like, "The only reason progressive ideas have failed in the past is because of capitalism." But when they are in charge, when they get their way, they destroy everything they touch.

The bottom line is, no progressive nation has ever succeeded.  The only thing progressivism succeeds at is failing and creating chaos.

In fact, you can always tell when progressives are in charge because of the chaos they create.  While the progressive agenda aims for a euphoric world, the only euphoria ever seen is when conservatives are in charge. 

Why do progressives hate the founding fathers?

Ever wonder why it is that progressives do not seem to like the founding fathers, and constantly try to diminish the founding documents?  Well, it's because the founding fathers were all conservative.

Now that we understand this, it's easy to see why progressives, or at least those who are pushing the progressive movement, say that the Constitution is a living document that must be changed and updated.  It is why they say the Declaration of Independence is dead.  It's why they ignore the Constitution to make into law what the people do not want, but what is essential to advance their agenda.  

A perfect example here is the fact that many progressives use Thomas Jefferson as a perfect example of a founding father who was an atheist who was for a large government.  

Why do progressives in the U.S. constantly say that Thomas Jefferson was for big government and that he wanted the Bible out of government?  Well, it's because he was really a conservative, and if people knew that they might want to become conservatives.  For this reason, they twist the truth to make Jefferson what they need him to be in order to advance their agenda.  

Neither of these are true, by the way.  Jefferson, although he may have been a deist, still understood the importance of God and the conservatism he preached. Jefferson, in essence, was for a limited government.  

Chuck Norris actually covered this topic in his April 13, 2014, column "Three myths about Thomas Jefferson."  He sites the following quote from Jefferson:

Jefferson was actually for smaller government, less debt and fewer taxes. About eight years after his two terms of president, Jefferson wrote, “We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.”

Thomas Jefferson probably was a deist and not a Christian, although he also understood the importance of God in a functioning government. It is for this reason, in various letters to John Adams, he discussed why he thought it was important for a government to inculcate the values and morals taught through the Bible.

Jefferson wrote that he believed, that since the new nation could not afford a militia, that something else was needed to keep Americans in line.  Jefferson understood, perhaps by reading books from his own library, that fear of God and the Devil are all that is needed to encourage people to love and respect their neighbors.  That it was important for the government to encourage Bible study.

It is for this reason the founding fathers -- Jefferson, Washington, Paine, Adams, Madison, Franklin -- used God's name so frequently.  They understood, that in order to maintain a functioning society, God is essential.

Here is why progressives want to get rid of God in society?

In order to understand any argument for or against the Bible, there are only four elements you need to know: 

1. The Christian Bible teaches conservatism
2. The founding fathers were all conservatives
3. Conservatism is capitalism
4. Capitalism is individualism

Knowing this will help you understand why the Bible is essential to the conservative movement, and why the Bible is the antithesis of the progressive movement.  

For the sake of simplicity here, any movement that teaches that redistribution of wealth is essential for a functioning society is progressive.  So, therefore, all of the following movements are, in essence, progressive.

1. Liberal
2. Progressive
3. Socialist
4. Communist
5. Collectivism
6. Fascist
7. Totalitarian

So, for now on, for the sake of simplicity, I will simply refer to any of these as progressive.  Since the Bible teaches conservatism, it, therefore, is the enemy and must be eliminated.  

Now, with that understood, can tackle some of the greater questions, such as: 

• Why are progressives always trying to get rid of God in our lives? 
• Why do secularists care that non-secularists share God's word? 
• Why is it so important to get God out of schools? 
• Why can't we have Nativity scenes in public places? 
• Why did Stalin say getting rid of God was the most important part of advancing Communism?
• Why do progressives say Thomas Jefferson wanted a huge government

To answer these questions all you have to do is understand that the Bible teaches conservatism.  What is conservatism?  It's capitalism and individualism.  It's limited government and free choice.  It's personal responsibility and accountability.  It's values and virtues.  

Through His Bible, God teaches that those who believe, those who work hard, will reap the rewards of their crops.  That they can keep what they need to feed their families, and decide for themselves what to share with others.  The Bible teaches love, hope and charity, so people learn the importance of taking care of their neighbors. 

A good example of this is the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving. Progressives teach in schools that the first Thanksgiving was all about Thanking the Indians for helping the Pilgrims grow crops.  They teach this because if people knew the true story they fear they would become conservatives. 

Conservatives teach the complete, and true story.  They teach that the purpose of the first t thanksgiving was because the Pilgrims tried socialism for the first few years they were on American soil, and it failed. It failed because even those who did no work got the same amount of profit and the same amount of food on their tables. It failed because there was no incentive for people to work.

So the Pilgrims ultimately decided to try what the Bible preaches: hard work, i.e. capitalism. Under this new system, crops flourished. So after abundant crops were harvested that year, they decided to throw a huge party to offer thanks to God and his Bible; they wanted to thank got for teaching conservatism.  

Of course there were Indians there, Indians who taught the Pilgrims how to manage the land.  The Pilgrims appreciated the Indians and knew that God had sent them to help.  Yet thanking the Indians was not the only reason for the great celebration: the reason was to give thanks to the Lord, God. 

It's understandable that progressives would want to teach their own version.  It's essential to advance their agenda.  They know that in order to make the progressive movement look good they must tell their own version of history; they must lie. 

Since most kids are taught the progressive version of the first Thanksgiving, kids do not learn the failure of socialism and the success of capitalism.  They do not learn this great lesson.  Progressives do not want you to know that Progressivism has been tried again and again and again throughout history, and it has failed every time.  They do not want you to know that, so they rewrite history.  

Think about it.  This is exactly the same reason why communist nations do not allow people to do to church, because God teaches capitalism, the antithesis of communism.  This is why Stalin got rid of all the churches in Russia.  He knew that the lessons of capitalism taught in the Bible could not co-exist with communism; that you cannot have both.  

By understanding the four elements, you can also understand why progressives in the U.S. consistently talk bad about the founding fathers, and want to change the three original documents, all of which mention God. 

So, why is it that progressives work so hard, so adamantly, to prevent children from learning about God?  It's because what God teaches is conservatism, the antithesis of liberalism. 

Put down the electronics, pay attention to your priorities

So I sat down for lunch in the cafeteria at work, and observed that everyone at the table but me was looking at their iPhones.

My parents came back from Florida for a weekend, and we visited them at their Manistee home.  My dad observed my son was looking at his iPhone, and said, "What's so interesting on that phone?"

It wasn't that my dad had a problem with my son having an iPhone, it was more him implying in a polite way that "I am right here, and you haven't seen me in three months."

I don't have a problem with people pulling out their electronic devices, as I'm guilty as anyone.  I don't have an iPhone, but I love my Google Chrome Book.  I spend no time on Facebook, but I spend a lot of time blogging.  Still, there is this thing called prioritizing.  It goes something like this:

1. God
2. Wife
3. Children
4. Other people
5. Other things

I think other things can be broken down like this:

1. Work
2. Hobbies

The idea is when you get any of these out of order nothing works right, or you create little train wrecks, such as people getting mad at you.  

I think as a general rule that when there are other people around you should put them first, and put your electronics away.  If you have work to do, put your electronics away, unless it's part of your job.  

I mean, it's just common sense here.  

While we're on this topic, I think it's interesting that a recent study reported on by CBSNews suggests that parents spend an average of 11 hours a day on electronic devices, and this comes at the expense of time with children.  

The report noted: Researchers at the Boston Medical Center observed 55 different groups of parents and young children eating at fast food restaurants. The study found the majority pulled out their mobile devices right away, and, in turn, their kids tended to act up more.

It's common sense, folks.  If you get your priorities mixed up, your life will be mixed up and your kids messed up.  Electronics are great, although we must be careful not to get carried away.