Poker’s four color deck

For anyone that plays online and especially for those that multi-table, (that is simultaneously playing other poker tables in order to get in more poker hands per hour) the four color deck is pretty much mandatory, as missing the possibility of a flush or misreading the board in such a way that you don’t take into account that you or your opponent may have a flush can be devastating to your bankroll and to your confidence.  Additionally, besides the fatigue on your eyes in which you must discern whether the black card that is displayed is either a spade or a club, or the red card being shown is either a heart or a diamond, there is the mind fatigue of yet another item that you must pay careful attention to, within a split second, when you are playing poker online.

Consequently, I suspect that most players default to using the four color deck while playing online, whether they multi-table or not.  After all, there are four different suits in poker; it only makes logical sense that each of those suits should have a separate color.  Unfortunately, for reasons that I find hard to fathom the four color deck has not transferred to live poker games in casinos around America or for that matter, the world.  It is conceivable, that in today’s world, poker has succumbed to the illogic that tradition knows best, even when technology clearly shows that this tradition should, in fact, change?

Because poker is a game that has few winners, and many losers, I have heard that casinos are reluctant to change the color configuration of their decks because they fear upsetting the clientele that frequent their casino.  I have also heard it reasoned that some players enjoy the fact that their opponents may misread or not see a potential flush on the board and they enjoy having that extra edge.  Obviously, neither of these are good reasons why a four color deck isn’t used, but perhaps like anything, if at first you fail, you should try again.

While I don’t particularly recommend subterfuge, why not, for the sake of argument, introduce the four color deck during tournaments, without any real notice to the players that have signed up for the tournament.  I mean, my goodness, what player or players would refuse to play under such conditions, when the whole purpose of a player’s entry into the tournament is the opportunity to catch lightning in a bottle.  There is yet another way to introduce the four color deck to tournaments and that is to get some sponsorship money from the manufacturer of the deck at hand, or in absence of straight sponsorship money, a substantial discount on the decks, themselves.  I do believe that if four color decks caught on in tournaments, that the transition to live regular poker games would become far smoother.

I am not, however, in favor of the passage of a law, which simply states that on such and such a date, all poker played within a certain jurisdiction, must use the four color deck.  I do believe that sooner or later we will see that inflection point in which live poker games will switch over to the four color deck and put to rest the two color deck.  What is puzzling to me is why it hasn’t already happened.  It’s as simple as arguing this very basic point, which is, if the game of poker was invented today, would the deck of cards which consists of four different suits, be all of one color, two colors, three colors, or four colors to match the four different suits of cards.  The logical answer is that those four suits would be four different colors.

For those that insist on the two color deck, I would say, get over it, the four color deck is an incremental improvement, and is a net benefit for the game and for the incumbent attraction of new players.

No Trespassing

In general, I don't have a problem with no trespassing signs in regards to private property, especially if that private property was honestly achieved through hard work and toil.  Of course, if I was surrounded in my entire town by property signs that stated "no trespassing" I would probably take offense at that, but in general it's a non-issue, because typically the parks, the streets, the stores, the restaurants, the entertainment facilities are all open to the public and that's basically what I am after.  However, when it comes to government "no trespassing" signs, whether that government is local or national, I do take offense.  While I can understand a no trespassing sign and fencing being utilized to protect the public from areas in which there is a danger involved such as munitions or poisons or unstable grounds, when the no trespassing sign is essentially put there to keep the public out as if it isn't any of their business, as if they are a nuisance, that's wrong.

It's wrong because that is public money, being utilized for the public trust, and as a member of the public we do have not only a right to know what is behind that fence that states "no trespassing", but a right to visit that area, even if dangerous, when providing proper notice and under conditions that are safe.  It is important to recognize that there should never be an impression that there are two countries or two classes in America, such as the class that is privy to inside information and all that it entails, and the class of 'suckers' that are basically fleeced or taken advantage of to pay for it.

I do believe that public areas that are held in trust for the public but that display "no trespassing"  signage to the public should have readily available information as to what exactly is in that particular area and why we aren't allowed to see what is behind the door.  Our government, need keep few secrets from the public, and should in fact have an open policy of providing pertinent information to the people. I especially find disconcerting that "flunkies" are often in charge of scaring off people that are either' trespassing' or too close to "no trespassing" areas in which there is a misimpression that these areas aren't answerable to the people.

It is absolutely critical that the public has the right to roam through their country and to not have to step aside for arbitrary displays of governmental overreach in regards to public access to areas that we should at a minimum have a right to know, and even better a right to travel through.  Anytime, the government is handling something for the public trust, we, the people, should be able to access that trust, to validate it, to understand it, to photograph it, and to experience it. 

This is supposed to be a country for the people and by the people, in which we have a right to know what is really going on in those "no trespassing" areas, and a right to verify the activities therewith.  The more secretive our government is, the more secluded that it acts, the more that we can be assured that something wicked this way comes.

Black Pepper

The two most commonly used spices are salt and black pepper, in which black pepper is known as the king of all spices.  Because of the prevalence of both salt and pepper in today's society and their inexpensive pricing, we take for granted that both salt and pepper are easily obtainable, but that certainly wasn't true a few hundred years ago.  Whereas for salt, it is fairly abundant throughout the world through mining, evaporation of seawater, and salt beds; pepper is a far different story.  Specifically, black pepper was historically indigenous only to a southwestern province of India.  Incredibly, it is because of black pepper, that Columbus was able to receive the funding for his voyages to discover a western route to India in order to obtain this very pepper, in the hopes that by so doing, he would decrease the price for pepper and save Spain a considerable amount of money by negating the need for the "silk road", the historic ground transportation used for this important spice and other trade items. Unfortunately, for Columbus, and for Spain, he was unable to discover black pepper in the new world, but instead brought back the capsicum pepper which although useful as a spice, was not the "black gold" of the real black pepper plant

Pepper is derived from seed berries of the black plant vine that is now grown in several countries, but was originally native to just India.  Pepper is known to us as a flavor-enhancing spice, but it also has been used for medicinal purposes as it aids too in the digestion of foods by increasing secretions, along with its known antioxidant and antibacterial attributes.  Pepper has become commonplace in today's culinary world, in which its ubiquity in cooking and recipes is nearly mandatory, and unlike salt it doesn't contain any meaningful amounts of sodium, so that consequently its usage has little or no deleterious effects upon the body, in fact, pepper is effective in helping to reduce constipation, and aiding in the removal of toxins from the body.

People have a tendency to forget, or to take for granted, the importance of trade and exploration in order to receive the benefits, and the low-cost, of items that we assume have always been there or are readily available.  Wars have been fought over essential minerals and items, monies and great exertions have been made in order to find them, to replicate them, or even to steal them.  Black pepper is one of those spices in which all of the above has occurred and with good reason.  It is the master of all spices and is an essential ingredient for any spice cabinet, for food, and for your health in general. 

Edward Gibbon stated in ‘The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ that black pepper was: “a favorite ingredient of the most expensive Roman cookery“.  Now, rich or poor, we too are able to reap its multitude of benefits, most of us, though, clueless of the path it took to get to our palates.

9-11 lucky shot

There is a tendency to give the 9-11 hijackings and their terrorist attack too much credibility in regards to their brilliance and their audacity for their planned attacks on their intended American targets.  While, there was definitely pre-planning and serious preparation made by Osama Bin Ladin’s al Qaeda faction, the plan itself perhaps in retrospect and also because of its awesome success appears stunning, but upon further careful reflection and contemplation seems more like that long shot, or lucky shot coming home to fruition.

In order for al Qaeda’s plan to succeed you needed the following major items to go off without a hitch:

1.       Hijackers entry into America without any real notice

2.       Hijackers successful completion of pilot training without any real notice

3.       Hijackers successfully boarding each of the airplanes on 9-11

4.       Hijackers not backing down or aborting the implementation of the plan on 9-11

5.       Hijackers successful in taking control of all of the airplanes (though lost control or were compromised on United 93)

6.       Hijackers successful in reaching and hitting their target in 3 out of the 4 airplanes

7.       The utter destruction of the World Trade Center and other peripheral buildings.

First off, and critically, the hijackers were fortunate that our hijacking training scenario was such that airline personnel had previously learned the “common strategy” tactic for which the crew members were advised to comply with the hijacker’s demands and thereby not try to escalate the tension or to thwart the hijacker perpetrators.  The belief at that time was that by getting the plane back on the ground safely and thereby allowing security forces and a negotiation team to work with the hijackers, that more lives would be saved.  Obviously, this strategy had a fatal flaw when dealing with hijackers who mistakenly believed that by committing suicide, that they would reach martyrdom and paradise.

Unfortunately, for America, we had not updated our hijacking policies despite the fact that al Qaeda had made it previously clear that they were actively engaging in suicide missions, although at that time, none were of the airplane variety.  It was this fatal misconception which contributed to the success of this terrorist attack on September 11, as America was woefully unprepared for this new line of thinking. 

Additionally, and this is very important, despite the fact that the terrorists who had taken over the airplanes, had never flown a commercial airliner, but had instead simply and primarily been trained with flight simulators, yet consequently they were able to target the world trade center buildings and the pentagon in which they then incredibly hit their targets is simply amazing.  Now maybe I have it all wrong, maybe it’s easy to hit a specific building while flying a plane that is traveling at 400 miles per hour but I seriously doubt that this is easy to accomplish for an inexperienced pilot, yet somehow these hijackers were able to hit their targets.

The other problem with the airplanes, that hadn’t previously been taken into consideration, was that the high flammability of their fuel had tremendous destructive power because of the high heat component of that fuel being burned, and in addition the massive quantity of fuel in these nearly full tanks of the airplanes itself.  Still, I did not think, nor do I suspect that most people thought, that these great edifices of the sky would in fact burned so intensely that these structures would end up “pan-caking” uponthemselves, yet they did.

So the terrorist attacks were far more successful, they were far most destructive, than even the most optimistic man at al Qaeda could have envisioned.  Al Qaeda was lucky, it was their lucky shot that came to fruition, in which just about everything worked out ideally, and had to, for this day to go down in infamy. 

History has invoked a lot of criticism of what America should or shouldn’t have done, known or should have known, but in actuality, on that day, the gods simply did not favor us, something or somebody favored them.

Take the profit out of war and save American lives

Business is pretty straightforward, if you don't make any money, you will go out of business, if you break about even, you can continue in business, and if you make good money, not only will you continue in business, but you will have the opportunity to grow your business, become more influential because of your business, and reap all the ensuing benefits of having your business.     Additionally, businessmen aren't stupid, they and their money will gravitate to areas in which they can make money, the gross margins are good, the account receivables are solid, growth rates are promising, and the money is steady.

Uncle Sam pays exceedingly well and is the biggest player in the pond by far.  Doing business with the US government and other government entities is an almost certain way of getting paid consistently and well, with solid profits to boot.  But not every enterprise should be structured as a profit-making business, in some cases because it's unseemly to make money, for instance, in a charitable or humane based causes. However, somewhat remarkably, war is one of those enterprises in which profit is made, but really it shouldn't be, because the primary business of war is death and destruction, and that isn't something that should be profited on.

The question must be asked, how is it that the most powerful country in the world, which is realistically threatened by nobody or no coalition of countries, seems to get into war after war, incursion after incursion, year after year after year.  This only happens because there is profit in it, a whole lot of profit in it, for the business of war.  American defense entrepreneurs are in the business of making money and maintaining growth in both earnings and size, with Uncle Sam being the enabler of these enterprises time and time again.  These companies can always come up with something bigger, better, more accurate, more state-of-the-art, more modern, and so on, because man's ingenuity isn't limited by much of anything.  Our biggest defense contractors will never tell the government that they are fresh out of ideas, no longer in need of any additional funding and they will never walk away from the money that Uncle Sam has in abundance.  These enterprises want their fair share, in fact, they demand it.

However, if your take the profit out of war, you will change the paradigm.  While there may be myriad ways to take the profit out of war, the simplest way is merely to keep things exactly the way they currently are, with one fundamental change, a law that is enacted which states straightforwardly and to the point: "The dollar amount of defense contracts accrued within the current fiscal year at said company will be divided into the total amount of dollar sales for that company as a whole.  This percentage figure will then be multiplied against the ordinary business income of said enterprise, in which that final dollar amount will be forwarded as the rebated compensation to government agencies in proportion to the specific government contracts accrued within that subject fiscal year."

While, no doubt, the enterprises being impacted will raise a stink and cry about the unfair taking of their profits, it would only be fair to point out, that they shouldn't be in the business of profiteering on the real-world blood, sweat, tears, injuries, illnesses, sacrifice and ultimately the death of our American soldiers.

Supreme Court 1962 and Prohibited Prayer

The New York State Board of Regents added a prayer in the 1950s for all New York public schools, which stated: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."  The prayer itself was voluntary for all students, and hardly worthy of any controversy, yet it was considered a violation of our First Amendment rights by a few parents and a court case ensued.  The New York Court and the New York Court of Appeals sustained the prayer as being constitutional.  Incredibly, the parents then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which somewhat surprisingly decided to take the case.  The fact that the Supreme Court would make a ruling would mean, that whatever decision that they made, would be applicable nationally.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that this voluntary prayer, which most people would be hard-pressed to see as controversial, or in violation of our Constitutional principles, was ruled to be unconstitutional. 

It is always disappointing when the Supreme Court gets it as wrong as they did in the Engel v. Vitale decision; it is especially disappointing that there was just one dissenter, Associate Justice Stewart.  The majority that ruled against the voluntary reciting of this innocuous and short prayer to open up each school day are the same type of judges that would rule against using common sense and upholding our American heritage.  In essence, the effect of this ruling was to replace God from our public schools with the State then becoming our new god.  After all, if you remove God from the equation, it is only a short, logical and small step that since God is vacated from the American lexicon, our new god is now the State that we are dependent upon, and that we should supplicant ourselves to. 

The movement that has been made over the last few decades in America is a new and unprecedented acknowledgment that we no longer need give thanks to God, but instead we need give thanks to the State, to our omniscient judges, to our bureaucrats that run our welfare system, to the bankers that issue us our loans or money, and to our employers who so gratefully employ us.  Apparently we no longer need a higher power because we are that higher power, but alas this is the falsehood of man's error and of his arrogance.

Justice Stewart correctly pointed out that we are a religious people, dependent upon and historically appreciative of our divine Providence.  Stewart asks, why it is"…that the Constitution permits judges and Congressmen and Presidents to join in prayer, but prohibits school children from doing so?"  Perhaps the answer is because those that oppose religion as well as those that support it, recognize that: "Train up a child in the way he should go:  and when he is old, he will not depart from it."  (Proverbs 22:6)

We would also do well to remember that if and when God is eliminated from American jurisprudence, our rights will no longer come from God, but they will be dictated, instead, by the State.

President Kill

President Obama never served in the military, he is not the first president not to have served his country in this capacity and he probably will not be the last.  For example, Presidents Coolidge, Harding, and Wilson also didn’t do service in the military.   It does seem strange, though, for an academic to gravitate to the position in which Obama was quoted as saying in the book: Double Down that he was “…really good at killing people,” in reference to drone strikes performed by USA forces against enemy combatants as authorized and approved by the Commander-in-Chief. 

Perhaps in today’s day and age, becoming President necessitates that you must kill other people, by any means necessary, even Americans, if it is perceived to be in the country’s best interest as decided by the President, but this definitely seems wrong.  The taking of another human life should seldom be celebrated and certainly is not anything worth bragging about.  Additionally, and more importantly, the President of the United States should not be our designated Mafia chieftain, or our Godfather, especially in a country that purports to represent to the world: freedom, democracy, and a Constitutional republic.

The other very perplexing thing which is very hard to get one’s hands around, is how do you take a middle-age man, who hardly seems the warrior type and morph him instead into someone that is just fine with killing not just the “bad” guys, but all the collateral damage that goes along with this, which obviously includes civilians who at worse are at the wrong place at the wrong time, or sadly are wrongly targeted in the first place.  None of this should even be necessary or contemplated since the United States is not under attack by any other country on our soil, nor are we being invaded, nor are these killings being done on American territory, so this is hardly a conventional defense of our liberties.

What is it with this rush to judgment, this rush to take the life of our perceived enemies?  Apparently, with the technology and sophistication of our weaponry, our drones, our intelligence, it is fairly straightforward to target individuals or groups of individuals with some certainty that they do match the description of the target that we are intending to eliminate.  The use, however, of lethal force to take out these enemies is hardly becoming of a great country, especially since it is invariable that innocent parties, including good Samaritans, will also be injured or killed and the arbiter of who lives or dies is in the eyes solely of the United States, and no other principalities or powers.

To make these sorts of judgments, these sorts of decisions, obviously has consequences to our country, to our people, and to our future.  After all, how difficult is it for another country to argue, if targeted killings are good enough for the United States, they are good enough for us.  These types of killings also make a mockery of international tribunals and international law, if the United States believes that it is, alone, above the law, than there effectively is no universal international law. 

The saddest thing is that these targeted killings will never stop, as there will always be one more, and one more, and one more.  And for all this, we get justice, security, and peace?  Never, and the President knows it.

Powdered Wigs

If you watch or see something often enough you get use to it, so seeing paintings of prominent kings that are wearing powdered wigs (perukes), or TV programs in which barristers with those British accents have on powdered wigs, you just take it for granted that these things exist.  However, in a time of reflection, you may ask why?  After all, kings are important people, a court of justice is typically a somewhat solemn and serious affair, yet prominent people within these institutions are wearing wigs that rather than making them look dignified, appear just a little ridiculous.

Apparently, in the 16th century, which was far before the age of penicillin or antibiotics, London was suffering under an epidemic of syphilis, in which one of the side effects of syphilis was a patchy loss of hair.  Another, more important reason for wigs, was that head lice was a common problem in those times so that by shaving one's head, and then adding a wig onto the top of your head, you could take care of the problem of head lice and have an acceptable or even fashionable accessory to wear.  Then, of course, there are some people whom suffer from premature balding or graying, in which for vanity purposes they preferred to wear an elaborate wig.  So powdered wigs served both a practical use and were also de rigueur in those times.  What is somewhat incredible, however, is that powdered wigs are still used in a court of law in most Commonwealth countries till the present age.

The current usage of powdered wigs is best looked upon as a symbol that those that wear these wigs belong to an exclusive club or guild, in which commoners aren't permitted to wear things of this sort.  The powdered wigs are a bit ridiculous on purpose, because they are not worn for everyday walking or strolling through the streets but to designate the wearer as an important erudite and educated person of some prominence and to identify themselves one to another.   This means that those that wear powdered wigs will, almost by nature, even if on opposing sides of a political or judicial matter, treat each other with a bit more respect and deference than they would if they didn't wear this symbolic emblem on their heads.

Perhaps powdered wigs will be consigned to the dustbin of history in the near future, as, after all, there isn't any necessity for the wearing of them, but I suspect those that wear them have no real interest or intention of seeing this occur, as powdered wigs are an important status symbol in which in this day and age, most status symbols can be copied or imitated by others who have achieved little or nothing.  To wear today's powder wig you must essentially be a barrister, judge, or a member of parliament commemorating a special occasion, this therefore gives you a status in which it is clear that you are a person of some importance, of some worth, and of some respect.

Neville Chamberlin -- Peace for our Time

Most people don't pay a lot of attention to history and consequently they come to simplistic conclusions about complicated events which have multiple interpretations and controversies within them.  Neville Chamberlin, under trying circumstances, was able to negotiate and achieve from Hitler in September of 1938 an agreement in which in exchange for ceding the German portion of Czechoslovakia to Germany, known as the Sudetenland, that there would be no war and no further aggression from Germany in regards to this territory. 

The demands by Germany weren't in actuality that unreasonable, since that portion of Czechoslovakia was primarily German speaking, and the state of Czechoslovakia itself was created out of the ashes of World War I and the disintegration of the Austro Hungarian Empire, and the hope of the Munich Pact was that this annexation would appease Hitler and would prevent war.  History tells us that this didn't happen, but it did delay war for one year, or until September 1939, when Germany attacked and invaded Poland.  None of the above means that Chamberlin was a fool, a poor negotiator, a liar, or a knave, because Chamberlin did the best that he could do in an attempt to avoid and to avert the terrible destruction and carnage of World War II, and for this he should be commended.

To put things in perspective, in 1938, Europe was not just challenged by the aggression of Germany, but was also challenged by the aggressiveness and territorial ambitions of the Soviet Union, these two great powers created an interesting and challenging dynamic for countries such as Great Britain and France.  With World War I and its devastating destruction in regards to both men and materials, still in its rear view mirror, Great Britain was hardly in neither position nor eager to once again have to devote time, soldiers, money, and infrastructure to yet another great war.  This, in of itself, was reason enough to desire peace, to argue for peace, and to want to achieve peace for our time.  

Additionally, and importantly, Great Britain knew that Germany and the Soviet Union were natural enemies in which there was a strong argument to sit still and let events take their course, as the west's natural antipathy to communism was significantly higher than their distaste for Nazism.  Also, fundamentally, the German war machine would have a need to run on oil in which Germany had no ready access to this most vital energy resource which, in theory, would interfere and hinder German ambitions and its fearsome war machine.

Diplomats and countries have an obligation, a calling, to avert war, and to try to achieve peace when it is possible, to the best of their ability.  A country is great, not because it goes to war, and conquers another for a time, but because it is big enough to recognize that it is not always right, that might certainly doesn't make right, and that we have a moral obligation to try to understand others, to find common ground, and to recognize that we are all truly in this together.

To be angry, and to want to wage war is easy, to restrain oneself, to recognize the rights and validity of others, is maturity, for blessed are the peacemakers.

Moderate cigarette smoking is fine

The United States gets it wrong over and over again, in regards to certain health hazards, recommendations, and beliefs.  Whatever is currently in favor is praised, and whatever currently is out of favor is vilified, whereas the truth is either set aside, ignored, or exaggerated to make whatever point serves the purpose of the government and its mouthpieces.  A case in point is cigarette smoking, in which, if you were to believe the government, smoking cigarettes appears the be the single worst thing that anyone can do to their own body or to anybody in the vicinity of their smoking.  For the US government and its guileless citizens, smoking is wrong, a weakness, and should be eliminated, in which upon the cessation of smoking, everyone will be so happy and complete.  Rubbish.

While I do not argue for excessive smoking, I do understand that there are certain reasons why people might want to smoke.  First off, people like to smoke, because smoking helps to ease their discomfort and loneliness in certain social situations.  They also like to smoke because cigarette smoking suppresses their appetite and allows them to concentrate better on tasks.  Additionally, there is a certain pleasure in smoking which helps to relax an individual.  What the critics never seem to understand, and never seem to get right, is that there is no ongoing social situation or peer pressure which would get people to smoke if there wasn't any benefit or pleasure from the act of smoking to begin with.

There are plenty of ways to die, and certainly dying from lung cancer, or emphysema, or cardiovascular disease, is not going to be a pleasant experience, in which excessive cigarette smoking is a significant reason why these diseases may ravage your body.  However, many things that are done to excess or are ignored are not going to be good for your brain or for your body, such as excessive alcohol consumption, excessive consumption of unhealthy fats and sugars, excessive stress, and the total lack of exercise.  Your diet, your habits, your personality, your genes, your decisions, and your luck, are all going to be factors that are involved in your overall health.

For those that believe that cigarette smoking and lung cancer, or cigarette smoking and lifespan are inexorably linked and that the conclusion is obvious, that smoking truncates and ends your life, prematurely, that conclusion is called into question by studying other countries and their cancer rates and lifespan.  For instance, Japan's consumption of cigarettes far exceeds the United States, in which Japan's consumption of cigarettes is nearly 85% more than the United States, in fact, many more Japanese smoke than Americans, but Japan's lifespan is the 2nd highest in the world, significantly higher than the lifespan of the United States.  Incredibly, as reported by nih.gov in November of 2001, the United States incidence of lung cancer is "…six times higher than in Japanese relative to community controls."

Rather than act like little children and cry out that the sky is falling, such as Chicken Little, the United States should stop hiding behind lies, deceptions, and deceits.  That is the inconvenient truth about smoking and yes, moderate cigarette smoking of around five to six cigarettes a day, is just fine.

Hunger

There are fundamental things that each human being must have in order for their physical body to live, such as food, shelter, water, and health.  While more than this that is required to complete a man, such as a sound mind, religious spirit, purpose, love, and wisdom, our most basic need begins with the physical requirement for nourishment or else our body will wither and die.

Civilizations, governments, and countries are well aware of our fundamental need that we must be fed and have some sort of shelter from the elements and those that have the power or the influence to control the distribution of food and/or shelter have a tremendous hold on the population.  When that power and influence for food and shelter is held in the hands of the people commensurate with their efforts and labor, a given people will then be free from the vagaries of incompetent and corrupt governments.  However, there are a multitude of governments that control the distribution of food, of employment, of shelter, and this easily creates an environment that is unhealthy and untenable for the general population.

Never in the history of the world has the production of food been able to have been achieved with the efficiency and economies of scale that we have acted upon today.  Not only is it commonplace for food to be grown or developed or herded in one area of the world and then be distributed virtually all over the world, but this logistical brilliance and output shows no signs of having maximized itself in its effect or in its usefulness.

Yet despite the fact that it has never been easier or more accessible to feed our worldwide population, there are literally millions of people starving to death or suffering from malnutrition each year, in which somewhere around 13-18 million people die from starvation or starvation related diseases each and every year.  One of the most disappointing things about food and its abundance, but also its uneven distribution, is never have we had so many people that are clearly obese or significantly overweight as we do today, such as in the United States in which it is estimated as reported by policymic.com that over 160 million Americans are overweight. 

While great strides have been made to distribute food to the needy around the world, there is much more work to be done.  Unfortunately, there are also roadblocks in the way for the distribution of foodstuffs to those that are most lacking, and tragically the main blockage comes from within the corrupt government structures and the civil wars and strife within these impoverished lands.  The food, water, and sanitation often do arrive to these countries port-of-call, but instead of being provided to those that are most deserving of this aid, it is instead taken by the government or its cronies for their use, bartering, or distribution.

Humanitarian aid must take into account the corruptness of certain regimes and rather than continuing business as usual, begin to implement sophisticated airlifts to population centers that are clearly being underserved.  One such idea is to take drones and adapt them in such a way as to provide emergency food items to areas that are inaccessible to conventional means of transportation. 

The hunger is real; it is for us, the living, to find that way to feed those that hunger.

Guns and Butter

Providing to your country both guns and butter, that is, war and destruction, while also providing the necessary food and material needs for your country is something that isn't possible without running some amount of monetary deficit.  Anytime that you take people and resources away from producing and creating items that have utility and purpose to instead procuring labor and material to produce munitions and armaments, you have essentially traded food for guns, and warmth for bloodshed.

There are times when it is necessary to make that transfer to guns instead of butter, especially when your country is under attack, or when the world is in an unprecedented and dangerous peril.  However, the decision that should be made is either guns or butter, not both, and the reason that the decision should be made that way is so that the people will readily understand that war has enormous material, spiritual, and sustenance costs.  If, on the other hand, you deceive your people, by providing guns, while also providing butter, you will give them the misimpression that war is just another miscellaneous expense and its subsequent cost to society is little or nothing, whereas the truth isfar different. 

Additionally, while these far-off battles are being fought in the here and now, the cost for these often unnecessary excursions in the form of payback, money and interest will not be borne by today's generation, but instead will be passed down the line to future generations whom neither voted, nor participated in these battles.  This then also does not take into account the human waste, the psychological destruction, and death of the participants in these wars, in which all of this takes a huge toll on our country and the countries that we wage war upon.

In the meanwhile, no sacrifice is demanded or implied for our citizens as a whole, and since most members of American society are not part of our armed forces, they don't pay any particular attention to our oversea wars, and they simply are disinterested since it apparently costs them nothing directly, and more importantly all the bread and circuses are still available to them. 

All this is done deliberately by our US Government, as it wants its citizens to believe that we live in some sort of Mr. Rogers ' neighborhood, in which all is well, we are taken care of, and that we all get along, except for those bad people that are far away and are dealt with by our professional forces using all appropriate means. 

Guns and butter is a very bad story sold to us by our government to give us the misimpression that we can bring truth, justice, and the American way to the world by force, while fundamentally lying to the American people about what is really going on.  Wars have consequences and should never be lightly engaged in.  Wars also have tradeoffs and long-term costs, in which our government prefers to take shortcuts and to be disingenuous to its citizens. 

The real reason why we have both guns and butter is that the government fears that if given the either/or choice, the public will desire butter, but the powers-to-be in government prefer war.

Field goal kickers are underpaid and underappreciated

In general, field goal kickers are underpaid in the NFL, and the elite kickers are significantly underpaid.  Not only are they underpaid, field goal kickers are primarily anonymous in which a casual fan might find difficulty in listing even one field goal kicker, but wouldn't have a problem with coming up with a couple quarterback or running back names.   The fact of the matter is that field goals are a major component of the game and its inherent strategy, and therefore consequently having a field goal kicker that is at the top of his profession is absolutely mandatory for serious NFL contending teams. 

For instance, every field goal attempt at less than 20 yards was converted in the NFL for 2013.  Out of 239 attempts at a distance of 20-29 yards, 233 of those were successful for 97.5%.  For 2013, a record 863 field goals were made and an overall conversion rate was 86.5% for all field goals, in which the conversion percentage of 67.1% was made on field goals of 50 yards or greater.   Additionally, 25.4% of all NFL games were decided by 3 points or less, and 49.6% of games had a deficit of 3 points or less at some point in the 4th quarter. 

All of this points to the fundamental fact that since field goal kickers contribute so many points to a team's score, that strategies are built around getting the football to a point on the field in which 3 points are either virtually assured or alternatively have a high percentage of success as opposed to trying to score a touchdown, especially when 3 points will essentially provide the team with the lead or enough points to make the game a 2-possession or a 2-score game.

The most frequent margin of victory over the last 20 years in NFL games is 3 points, of which this happens 15.38% of the time, nearly double the next most frequent margin of victory which is 7 points, at 8.04%. It is no coincidence that 3 points is the most frequent winning margin, as the object of the game is to win, and the 3 points that a field goal gives you, with a very high percentage of success, is frequently enough points to take care of business and to secure the victory.

In the scheme of things, field goal kickers are consistently at the bottom of the pay scale from a positional basis on nearly all teams, but their influence on whether their team wins or loses is either the highest or 2nd-highest to the quarterback in every case, because field goals are so often the game decider in close games and strategies are built around the success of field goals.  Of course, it goes without saying that field goal kickers are specialists, they are only on the field to kick field goals, but their impact is exceptional, and because of their influence on a game's outcome and its strategies, you should want the absolute best at this position, especially since they are underpaid significantly against their true worth.

Last year, the individual field goal success rate ranged from a low of 70% to a high of 96.2%, in which one player (Matt Prater/DEN) made good on every field goal of 49 yards or less, with just one miss out of seven on field goals greater than 50 yards.  Because there are only 16 regular season games in the NFL each game is of critical importance, having a field goal kicker than can virtually assure you that you can bank the points is invaluable, he should be actively sought out, and he should be well compensated.

Don't criticize the hand that feeds you

As more and more people are employed by government agencies either directly or indirectly, the free flow of ideas, criticisms, advice, and open conversations, is reduced considerably.  Man, naturally has an inborn desire of survival, which virtually supersedes most everything else.  There is a strong component in most people's lives that taking care of one's family, one's livelihood, one's career, is the first and foremost responsibility that a man has.  Consequently, in this need, one is going to be somewhat reluctant or reticent in actively or vocally criticizing the very powers that are providing your employment, or your housing, or your benefits, or your health, or your food.

Wrongly or rightly you are hard-pressed to knockdown or to desire to remold the edifice that provides you with the material necessities of life.  As more and more Americans are dependent upon government welfare for their survival or for their aid and assistance, their voices are often united in their requests for the continuation of what they are essentially dependent upon, and those that work for those government agencies providing such services are only too eager to comply with their requests as government agencies have a self-serving desire to maintain, if not to expand or in essence to grow each and every year.

As the people will always have needs, the government agencies will always have ways to justify their necessity in fulfilling these needs, especially when each of these entities are able to call upon the public dole for more, more, and more.  It is then no wonder that the growth and reach of our government continues to expand.  Additionally, each side of the equation has a vested interest in the continual success of the other party; as the government wants to believe that only they can successfully and fairly resolve societal problems to the underclass, and society appreciates a hand that gives out while asking for little or nothing in return.

But our present system has a very fundamental flaw and that is, those that either are paid directly or indirectly as government employees, and those that receive either directly or indirectly their particular handouts, have no vested interest in criticizing or changing the system, and the more people that are involved on both sides of this symbiotic relationship, the more ingrained that it becomes.  You cannot expect that those that benefit from our current way of doing business will argue for its replacement or for its destruction and therein lays the problem.

It isn't too surprising then, that those that benefit from the public dole are going to be wont to criticize it.  In fact, you can expect them and their compatriots to vociferously proclaim all of the benefits of their programs and none of the downsides.  Those that work or benefit from the government are not going to bite the hand that feeds them.  Instead, they will eagerly get down at the feeding trough and slurp and slosh their way to satiation.  For them, they see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil. 

Things in motion have a tendency to stay in motion, until such a time as it is hit by an unbalanced and unexpected force.

Would you kill to become free?

Freedom is not free, seldom remains free without eternal vigilance, and freedom requires sacrifice, leadership, courage, wisdom, and bravery in order to remain free.  Some of us are fortunate enough in being born into this country, a land known as the land of freedom, others came here as legitimate immigrants, others arrive in that gray-area of immigration, and still others are clearly illegal upon their immigration to America, but all come in appreciation of freedom and opportunity.

I have a very good friend, who was born in Laos, who aided and abetted the American cause during the proxy and civil war in Laos, and was ultimately on the losing side of that war in which reprisals for those that fought on the American side were severe and often deadly.  He decided to pursue his freedom by making his way to Thailand, no doubt with the awareness that a successful escape to Thailand offered real hope that he would ultimately be re-located to America, a country that he had never seen, but only heard about.

There probably aren't any easy escapes and his was not one of the easy ones.  Years later he told me, with obvious meaningful emotion, that he was placed into a position in which it was "kill or be killed", as simple as that.  To me, in those types of situations, you must have already made up your mind as to what you will or will not do before you face that actual situation in the real.  The other man would not back down, nor would my friend, the choice was clear, and his choice was final, as he shot and killed another man all for the sake of his freedom.

Killing for freedom, does this make sense?  Yes, it does.  While there are lots of reasons for war, as there are conscripted wars, wrong wars, wars in which neither side is right, and perhaps wars in which both sides are right, there are times in which there are wars that are clearly justified.  You have a right to live, in which you are judged by the merits of your character, and not by the color, creed, or your heritage.  In circumstances in which your freedom or livelihood is going to be severely curtailed or wrongly taken from you, you must consider other options.  The decision by my friend was clear and he also felt that America had a moral obligation to lend him a hand since in their war in his country he had assisted them.  America kept its promise to my friend and my friend did what he felt he had to do in order to obtain this promise.

Even many years later the death of another man haunts him, he clearly didn't like talking about it, or thinking about it, or discussing it.  That is a good thing, as to take a life of another human being, an enemy, but a man nevertheless in which circumstances may have forced him to face you down, in which under other conditions you may have been friends is a difficult thing to do. 

My friend killed to be free, as have others, most notably our citizen soldiers during the time of our revolutionary war.  That is reality that is history that is the way that it really is.

Victims and Criminals

The United States incarcerates over 2 million individuals in numerous jails and prisons, but for every criminal incarcerated there is often a human victim.  We read so much about the criminals but fairly little about the victims of these crimes.  The first question that really should be asked is justice for the victim being served properly in our judicial system, as opposed to our current system operation which appears to be strictly about punishment of the criminal.  Not every criminal should be punished with straight incarceration, as punishment seldom solves the underlying problem, and infrequently do victims have a blood-thirsty desire for punishment of their perpetrator because they recognize that punishment will not make up for what they have lost or have had taken from them.

While there are state and federal programs that do provide compensation to victims for certain crimes, a significant portion of that compensation shouldn't come from the taxpayers, but from the perpetrators of the crimes themselves.  Of course, many criminals do not have access to money or income, but this lack should not mean that criminals should not be obligated to make payments to the victims themselves, whether inside or outside the prison.  Consequently, our sentencing structure must be reformed to reflect that true justice includes both the victim and the criminal with the criminal having not only a moral but a legal obligation to make good to their victim.

For instance, in today's hi-tech world, there are inexpensive and effective ways to monitor criminals and their location so that for non-violent offenders,   there should be far more flexibility in placing these people not in prisons or jails, but in work release, supervised released, or probationary release programs.  Not only would the use of these programs decrease the cost to taxpayers for incarcerating offenders, it will also allow these same offenders to learn responsibility, earn money, and to pay restitution to their victims.

Two wrongs don't make a right.  When something is taken from you, when you are hurt or abused and the wrongdoer has been identified, you as a victim should have the right to see that you are compensated for your loss.  As a victim, your loss, your wholeness, should be as important, or more important, than some mandatory sentencing guideline which will remove the preparatory from off the street, but will not remove or will not amend the structure that helps to create the criminal in the first place.

Criminals are not born, they are developed over time, whether through negligence, or circumstances, or lack, or judgment, or a combination of these or other items not here separately  listed,   if we want less criminals and thereby to have less victims, we need to look at the big picture, because if incarceration itself, solved our crime problems, the United States would have practically the lowest rate of crime in the world, because the USA incarcerates criminals at virtually the highest rate in the world.  It hasn't been working.  It doesn't work for the criminals, it doesn't serve justice, and it is an injustice to the victims, themselves.

We owe to victims, to do the right thing for them, and that is to see that they are the first in line in receiving the restitution, care, and graciousness of this rich nation.   Let us be that Good Samaritan and that good neighbor, rather than to avoid doing what we should.

Their last full measure

The United States is involved in far too many wars, logistics of wars, and rumors of wars, for its own good and for the good of its men and women that serve them in our military.  Decisions that are made that put our soldiers at risk, should not be lightly regarded, should not be made unless absolutely necessary, and if made, should be made with an expressed purpose and specific goal.  Instead, the industrial-military complex finds all sorts of reasons for our soldiers to be put into harm's way again and again and again.  It isn't necessary, it isn't American, and it isn't our way.

The United States has so many entangling alliances with so many different countries, it clearly doesn't know that the primary purpose of our government and of our military is to protect our homeland and not to engage in foreign battles far from our shores that puts our soldiers at risk.  The majority of these men and women that fight for us are under the age of 30, in which it is their lives, their health, and their bodies that are put at risk on behalf of the …. the American people?  …Multi-national corporations?  …Military-industrial complex?  I mean is it necessary for our American soldiers to be at risk in Afghanistan, Philippines, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, Sahara, and Yemen, which are all countries which have seen our boots on the ground over the last several years?

Our soldiers deserve something much better.  A war, any war, should be well considered before it is acted on.  America is a country that is a member of NATO, the United Nations, and so many other organizations, in which none of these structures appear to have much influence or ability to rein in American global military aspirations. 

Wars have consequences, and not just for the American men and women that are sacrificed in the conduct of these wars but also for the countries and civilians that are directly involved in the war on their land.  War is seldom the correct answer for international problems in which there are numerous other ways to help to settle differences between countries, within countries or their borders, which does not necessitate actual engaged or extended warfare.

What is often not thought carefully enough about is that killing people, bombing infrastructure, annihilating essential human needs, and disrupting normal day-to-day operations of a country is not a civilized way to take care of disputes.  Communications have never been better for country to country, or people to people, in which a reasonable alternative to war can often be reached if only given the chance and a voice at the table.

There are times when a war is necessary, when it is right to defend yourself and your homeland from aggressive attacks from wanton nations or peoples, but the wars that America fights today are not those wars.  America and our world at large are not in danger of any of these so-called rogue nations creating enough havoc to upend the world as we know it.  The truth of the matter is that we are asking our soldiers too often to give their last full measure in causes that are unworthy of their sacrifice.

It shouldn't have to be.

Property Taxes

If you own your own home, you have to pay property taxes, and those taxes are not only mandatory but they typically are not cheap and are often correlated with the "fair market value" of your home.  The penalty for not paying your property taxes can lead to you forfeiting your home, so property taxes have legal as well as monetary consequences.

Property taxes are most often collected at the county level in which in my community, the amount of money collected from said property taxes makes up almost 60% of the general fund of the county budget so those property taxes are of immense importance to the county at large.  This means that even though the county tax assessor is in theory suppose to tax your property at the fair market value within your community, there are most definitely strings pulling him to be" fairer" to the county and its budgetary concerns at large as opposed to you as a taxpayer. 

In 2010 I was successful in appealing my property tax bill on both properties that I own to properly reflect the collapse of real estate prices falling after the 2008 meltdown.  Recently, however, I received notice that on one of my properties the most current property tax bill would be increasing nearly 23% from the previous year, and while I will admit that there are some areas within the United States that have come back strongly in housing strength and pricing, my community is definitely not one of them.  Additionally, there isn't any transparency as to how the county tax assessor came up with the new value for my home.  However, there is a 45-day window to appeal, which I will do, after I have correlated and processed my rebuttal, but even a cursory glance at zillow.com and with my general knowledge of my neighborhood, clearly demonstrates that the appraiser has it wrong.

In my community there are different ways to appeal, in which I have been successful with responding with a value that I back up with comparables in my neighborhood and I subsequently submit this pertinent information with my standard appeal form for the county assessor to review.  For all I know, the county assessor may generally be quite accommodating to those that do appeal, recognizing that the vast majority of people don't ever get around to appealing, so that in aggregate he has been successful in increasing revenue while not upsetting the constituents that do petition him.

That being said, there are more than ten states that have passed various propositions or laws that limits the amount that a given property can be increased to a rate of 1-2% on an annual basis.  In an era of both low inflation and housing malaise, these propositions serve the dual purpose of protecting the home owner from egregious property tax increases and reigning in county budgets from expanding at an unsustainable growth rate.

Ideally, property taxes should be correlated with the price of the home at the time it was purchased, with strict limits on annual increases thereafter, without these limits, county governments will be tempted time and time again to take just a little bit extra or even more from property owners.

No man is poor who has a Godly mother

Abraham Lincoln famously stated that: "I regard no man as poor who has a godly mother."  This pithy quotation coming from a man who was renowned for his common sense and wisdom deserves our contemplation and thought.  In Lincoln's time, a hard-scrabbled existence was part and parcel of the American experience, in which the majority of Americans earned their subsistence and existence off of the land.  This life may not have been an easy life, but it was a life that held for many Americans, opportunity, if they were willing to apply themselves diligently.

Lincoln understood that it was never the money that made the man, but the character of the man that defined him.  But where do we find that character?  I submit that we often find that character developed from the nurturing, care, and love of our mother.  All life begins with our mother, and it is from our mother that we first take in this world.  If our mother is damaged, neglectful, uncaring, immoral, incompetent, or worse, this does not necessarily mean that we will turn out poorly, but it definitely means that we will have additional struggles to overcome in this world.

A godly mother is a mother that has built a solid foundation, based on providing service, works, and devotion to Him who is eternal, omnipotent, and omniscience.  A mother that recognizes that there is something worth seeking that is beyond this material world that can provide us with emotional and spiritual sustenance, moral guidance, and love, is a mother that cares deeply for us.  This world offers enough challenges that it is pure foolishness not to lean on He who can provide all answers and an ever-present helping hand.

There may be times when we are hurting, or in trouble, or things are going against us, in which we desire our mother to be there to comfort us, but circumstances may not allow for this possibility, it is then that our seeking for our godly mother's aid, becomes a seeking for the One that gives all aid, in which His grace and love will never extinguish and will never leave us.

You are never a poor man if you have a godly mother because the wrong scorecard to look at is the card that keeps track of the amount of money in one's bank account, instead we should concern ourselves with the scorecard that keeps track of the amount of grace created in one's blessing's account.  

Good times come and good times go.  You may be born into wonderful circumstances, or you may not be, tough times may or may not often trouble you, but along any path there will be challenges, and there will be decisions that must be made.  A man, any man, must face those challenges and those decisions that define him, and a man that has the upbringing from a godly mother will often find that the decision that he need make is the correct one, because he will not turn away from doing the right thing and for this, he will be a wise man.

Martyrs of the Early Church

You can learn a lot about a man, about a religion, about a movement, by what his followers accomplish, overcome, and perform after his death.  Upon Christ's death, he was resurrected, in which he then passed on to his closest followers his wisdom, his love, and the great commission to preach the good news, before He ascended to heaven to be one with his Father.  The story, however, does not end there, that is but the beginning of a new testament which we live to today.

The faithfulness and belief of Stephen permitted him to perform many great wonders and signs for the people of Jerusalem, but this upset certain powerful religious leaders of the day who rose up and argued against Stephen, but were unable to refute or to overcome the wisdom of Stephen.  This, however, did not stop them by convincing others to falsely contend that Stephen had blasphemed against Moses and God, in a time in which such blasphemy could result in capital punishment.  This ultimately led to a fatal confrontation, in which the crowd stoned Stephen to death, a death in which Stephen proclaimed: "…Lord, lay not this sin to their charge."  In which the unjustified martyrdom of Stephen echoed the martyrdom of Christ.

James believed in Christ's divinity only after His resurrection and later became a pillar of the church that was created, because he was a man that lived his faith in the actions and the accomplishments that he made.  James was quite clear that true faith produces true deeds, that you cannot talk out of both sides of your mouth, that you will ultimately be all of one thing or all of another thing, but not both at the same time.  James was clear that we are to be doers of the word that merely hearing the words and agreeing with them was not good enough.  For his belief, James, suffered martyrdom, "… he killed James the brother of John with the sword."

"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs." (John 21:15). "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…"

(Matthew 16:18).  The Holy Roman Catholic Church holds forth Peter, the rock of our faith, to have been their first pope.  Peter who denied our Lord, three times, who disappointed our Lord on so many occasions was also a man that was after our Lord's heart.  Peter wore his faith on his sleeve, and was always willing to face the truth and the consequences of the truth, so that he left his former way of being a doubter and denier, to become a true rock of a believer who feared no man on this earth and would demonstrate his faith by performing works and miracles on behalf of Christ.  He too suffered martyrdom, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. 19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God…"

Paul, formerly known as Saul, was a great persecutor of the Christian faith until on the road of Damascus he saw and felt the truth of Christ himself.  Paul, thereby, by the grace of God transformed himself into a new man, a man of zeal for the true faith, of determination, of works, of persistence, of wisdom, of miracles, of unjustified imprisonment and bodily harm, in which nothing short of death itself would stop him.  It was Paul that authored thirteen of the New Testament epistles and Paul too suffered martyrdom. "Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;  in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;  in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness."

Each of these great men suffered for their faith, suffered onto death, onto execution.  In Christianity, there are no shortcuts; we live, however, in what is considered to be a more enlightened age, in which Christians are often respected and treated well, but not in every country, nor in every circumstance.  The true measure of a man's faith rests in his willingness to testify to the truth, to suffer deprivations for that truth, and to recognize that one's physical life is no match for our eternal life.