Good Boy

According to Wikipedia.org in America "more than 1.2 million households currently live in public housing of some type." The reason that so many households must live in public housing has everything to do with their lack of income and their lack of opportunity.  In fact, most major cities have waiting lists for people that are qualified for public housing but lack accommodations and/or the budget for these impoverished people.  When it comes to public housing, do not think for even a minute that the playing field is fair, because it clearly favors one type of citizen over other types.  The rules for public housing assistance make it very clear that their preference is households in which there is not a history of any criminal activity.  In fact, a felony conviction for any member of your household often results in your eviction or disqualification from public housing, with frequently the further restriction that if a relative or friend that is a convicted felon visits your residence, than you are subject to immediate disqualification from public housing which will many times lead to your eventual eviction.  More perplexing, a mere arrest or a series of arrests for criminal activity can trigger your eviction or disqualification for public housing under the guise that this represents a "history of criminal activity" and although it appears that higher courts have upheld the standard that an arrest without a conviction is not criminal activity, most public housing authorities ignore this rule.

The foregoing makes it very clear that the government offers public housing to a certain segment of the population which is predominantly non-male head of household, since the male incarceration rate by gender percentage is 87-88% in the United States.  Additionally, the most frequent crime that people are convicted for in America is drug related, to which thinkprogress.org states that "…almost half of federal inmates – 48 percent – were in prison for drug crimes."  Consequently, perhaps half of people that are denied public housing based on criminal activity are essentially being denied because of past drug crimes in which typically there isn't any victim since one party is merely providing to another party a product that they desire or indulging themselves in a drug that has been criminalized..

Clearly, the government is primarily interested in providing public housing to those people of the population that are docile and obedient to their arbitrary rules and laws, people of a certain personality, of a certain gender, or certain characteristics, often lacking in ambition, or similar.  While, no doubt, the make-up of these poor citizens includes good people with big hearts, good morals and good purpose that have been denied fair opportunities or a good education, none of that really matters to the public housing authorities as ultimately all they care about is that they are simply able to follow the prescribed rules.

When it comes to the public housing authorities and their rules and formalities, their purpose is quite straightforward, if you are subservient to the Man, keep your eyes down, know your place, aren't uppity, show your respectat all times to those that are above you, and proper consideration for their superiority and wisdom, you will do alright.  The public housing authorities aren't looking for men, they won't really allow you to be a man, they are looking for boys, and as long as you are a good boy, a really good boy, you will do just fine.

Driver's License Magnetic Stripe/Barcode

As far as I can determine, every State of the union has either a magnetic stripe, or a barcode, or both on the back of your driver's license in America.  Ostensibly, this is done so as to provide a service to the police when you have been pulled over or are being questioned, so that they can simply swipe your driver's license or scan your barcode to ascertain quickly whether there is anything about your identity that would necessitate them taking a more meaningful action against you or in theory, to protect and serve you.

First off, what exactly is contained on your driver's license barcode or magnetic code?  Essentially what is contained is in digital format all of the pertinent information on the front of your driver's license with the exception of your actual picture and because this information has been scanned, any company or person utilizing equipment that can scan your license will also have the capability of storing or maintaining this information too, whether they are legally entitled to it or not.  In some States, there are laws that preclude companies or individuals from doing so, but in some States there are not.

The next logical question is why any company or individual would actually need to scan your license when the information that they are looking for is clearly in their view, right in front of their eyes.  While you can make a somewhat weak argument that the license needs to be scanned to cut down on "fake IDs" or as easy way to verify the age of someone buying liquor for employees that are incapable of figuring out your age based on your birth date, the real reason can only be for their own marketing, targeting, or nefarious purposes. 

Now let's go back to the ostensible reason for barcodes or magnetic stripes in the first place which is for the ease of use for police or other civil authorities.  The bottom line is a barcode or magnetic strip isn't necessary for law enforcement, because each driver's license, just as each passport, or each social security number, is unique in of itself, with its own individual identifying number.  Folks, it just isn't that complicated to type in a number, verify it against the driver's license, and then read your screen to see if there is any actionable information on it.

What is really happening here is that your driver's license is becoming more and more like a national ID card in which your personal activities can be monitored and tracked not only by government and civil authorities but also by stores or organizations that you have to frequent as a matter of course.  It is one thing to make this type of tracking, voluntary, by your use of a loyalty card, or a membership card, and it's another thing entirely to make it compulsory.

In short, people have a right to be left alone, people have a right to privacy, people have a right of discretion, people have a right to not have to live their lives inside a fishbowl, and people have a right to not be monitored, they need to be able to have a sanctuary.   

Credit Card Store Fees

In today's world, unless you are dealing with a mom and pop store, you are able to purchase your goods whether online or inside the physical store itself with a credit card.  Virtually all stores that accept credit cards accept Visa and Master Card, with most merchants also accepting Discover and American Express.  Those are four biggest players in the credit card issuance and acceptance world, with any other players being far, far behind.  Out of those four companies, Discover Financial Services has the lowest market capitalization at approximately at $28 billion; Discover also has the lowest merchant fees of these four credit card providers.

The use of credit cards within stores cost the stores themselves millions upon millions of dollars in credit card fees that they have to be paid to Visa or similar for the privilege of accepting this form of payment.  In other words, when you purchase a product at a store for $100 utilizing your credit card, the store never gets the full $100, but instead has to give up somewhere around just under 2% to 3.5% on each transaction which is huge percentage taken directly from the top line of these companies.  Of course, ultimately most of that cost is passed onto the consumers, in the form of higher prices for the privilege of utilizing the convenience of their credit cards.  Credit card consumers get some of the extra purchase price rebated to them from credit card bonuses, cash-backs, and the like, which means the consumer that loses out the most is the consumer who purchases his merchandize with cash or cash equivalent, which typically is the poorest segment of America, who aren't considered to be credit worthy.

In an era of high-technology and sophistication, it is surprising that the credit card issuers are able to charge such a high fee to stores without any real fight back.  It is well to remember, that companies such as Visa are in actuality, middlemen, of which they certainly provide a service, but the fee for that service seems wholly out of order with the risk and the service provided.  Additionally, those fees don't appear to be in any downward trend, to which one could make a very strong argument that the economies of scale alone of these credit card issuers should allow them to lower their fees and still maintain a nice, healthy balance sheet.

So the current situation is one in which the stores are giving up income to the credit card issuers, and the consumer is having to pay a higher net price because of the credit card fees that stores pay, with only the middleman coming out like a true winner.  This means that, for instance, the biggest retailer in the world, Wal-Mart must ask the question whether they want to issue their own national credit card that could be used in nearly all stores in the United States, as Sears did with the issuance of their Discover card in 1986 or whether they might instead make a bold and leveraged buy-out of Discover Financial Services in order to quickly level the playing field in short order.

If Wal-Mart was to buy the Discover Financial Services and thereupon encourage other retailers and consumers to utilize this credit card as their card of choice, they would have to noticeably knock down fees, perhaps 50% from the current 2% of so, which would most definitely take significant market share from the industry leaders, this would in turn, force Visa and the like to lower their fees in order to be more competitive.  The net result would be a win for retailers in general, for all consumers, and would force the biggest credit card providers to be more nimble, agile, and reasonable in their efficiency and fee structures.

Adults ordering kids' meals for themselves

Most fast food restaurants have a separate category for kids, usually for those that are age twelve and under, in which they offer kids' meals and many sit-down family restaurants also offer kids' meals.  I would assume that restaurants offer akids' menu for a variety of reasons, such as to make therestaurant more affordable for families, to appeal to kids and their simplified tastes, to bring more families in because there are reasonably-priced kids' meals, and to match what the competition is doing.  None of this is especially surprising or earth-shaking, and there are probably some families that stretch it a little bit in regards to the age requirements, but all-in-all this formula appears to work out for everyone involved.

However, I later discovered that some people, usually female, like to occasionally order the kids' meal for themselves.  The simplest way to do so, is at the drive-up window, in which quite frankly, it seems reasonable to order a kids' meal to go and even if the restaurant was to suspect you of really ordering it for yourself, there isn't much that they would want to do to preclude you from doing so.  In regards to sit-down family restaurants, this issue is far more problematic, to which some restaurants will simply allow you to order off of any portion of the menu, as a matter of customer retention and satisfaction, and others are fairly adamant that if you are not a child, you aren't going to be able to order off the children's' menu.

Is it wrong to order a kids' meal for yourself?  Basically, there are three thoughts on this.  First off, most restaurants make it clear that this is age specific, and if you are not part of that age demographic, it seems pretty obvious that you shouldn't be able to order from that menu.  Secondly, there are woman that aren't all that hungry, they are petite or perhaps even in a hurry, and consequently it isn't so much that they are trying to "get one over" on the restaurant as that they would prefer to be allowed to order only what they feel that they can eat in one sitting.  Therefore it then follows that for certain people, since there isn't a half-size option for an adult meal, that ordering an adult meal simply doesn't make sense and/or would become a temptation for them, because of dietary concerns, or calorie counts, or the like.

The problem for restaurants, though, is that the kids' menu is primarily there as an enticement for adults with their families to frequent the restaurant and to help increase business as opposed to the restaurant being built around kids' meals and their much lower selling price point.  For the fact of the matter is the profit margin on kids' meals is considerably less than for adult portions so most restaurants would be displeased if too many adults consistently ordered kids' meals for themselves.

While it is clear that adults are not kids and consequently do not qualify for purchasing kids' meals for themselves, in this era of entitlements, some adults with our without a good reason, will do so.

Why are the Reddest States in the Deep South?

With the primary exception of Florida, the traditional south invariably votes Republican, in the Presidential, in the Senatorial, and in the Gubernatorial. This doesn't make a lot of sense to which according to Gallup.com the non-Hispanic whites are 35% republican, 38% independent/I don't know, and 26% democrat, whereas non-Hispanic blacks are 5% republican, 29% independent/I don't know, and 64% democrat.  As for the other minorities, none are greater than 18% republican and none are greater than 36% democrat.  A straightforward interpretation of this would imply that states that are heavily non-Hispanic black, would invariably be democratic states, since non-Hispanic whites lean republican but aren't invariably republican.  This however, isn't the case whatsoever.

The states with the highest percentage of blacks are as follows: Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia.  Since 1980 in the Presidential election, with the exception of Clinton twice in Louisiana, and once in Georgia, each of these states has invariably voted Republican.  In regards to the gubernatorial elections, each of these states from the time just after reconstruction until the year 2000, and almost without exception elected Democratic governors, since 2000; however, each of these states has had one Democratic governor for one term, and the balance of those years have been Republican governors.  The same voting pattern essentially holds true for Senatorial elections in each of these states in which for over 100 years after reconstruction the Senators from these states were Democrats, but just like the gubernatorial voting pattern, they have now since 2000 primarily been electing Republicans.

This can only mean that somehow that white voting patterns in the Deep South are not the same as they are in the north or other parts of America.  While the Deep South is certainly different than other sections of the country, especially in the importance of traditional religious values, the difference in voting must be substantial to overcome black votes in the south which are inevitably for the democratic candidate.   This means, essentially, that whites in the Deep South are overwhelmingly voting Republican irrespective of their party affiliation because they believe in core values such as pro-life, pro-military, anti-illegal immigration, anti-Affordable care act, anti-Union, and pro-Defense of Marriage.

That isn't the complete story though.  Unfortunately, the other aspect of white voting habits in the Deep South resides in the prejudices of mankind.  It isn't so much that the whites in the Deep South want to keep the black man down, although there is truth there, it is as if they don't want to support anyone or any program that would allow blacks or other minorities to overcome them in the pecking order of the society that they envision, and further to the point that they don't particularly care to be trifled with by those "damn Yankees" or "bleeding heart liberals".

Therefore the secret for the Democrats when it comes to changing the voting habits of the Deep South, is to recognize that since you already hold all the core Democrat votes, you must modify your pitch and your programs to appeal to the unique interests of the whites of the Deep South, which probably means being more accommodating to their values without compromising the big picture itself.

Tobacco-Free Campuses

Smoking has been around since time immemorial in one form or another, additionally tobacco was our first successful exported cash crop in America, and furthermore the smoking of tobacco is a legal activity within America.  Therefore, it's extremely disappointing to see that many college campuses have enacted a tobacco-free rule which treats collegiate students as children.  The negative information about smoking is so prevalent, that if somebody decides to smoke, that is their decision to make, and therefore college campuses should not make it their policy to preclude somebody from indulging in a substance that provides them some sort of pleasure, need, or comfort.

The call from some that "secondhand smoke" in an outdoor environment causes or can cause cancer is a red herring of the highest order.  This is sham science at its absolute worse, and if this charge is actually true, that secondhand smoke creates or causes cancer than there would be actual verifiable scientific studies that demonstrate this beyond a reasonable doubt, but in fact, according to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and their study of over 76,000 woman over a decade, the result was as reported by forbes.com "… found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke."

The real issue about tobacco-free campuses, which by the way, applies to all tobacco or tobacco related products, such as electronic cigarettes (which contains no tobacco), is their control, the primacy of your body as opposed to your spirit, the supremacy of science, and the degradation of your mind and soul.   The message that college campuses that support tobacco-free laws is that your physical body is all that you will ever be, which kind of defeats the purpose of going to college in the first place.

These colleges aren't interested in you actually thinking about what this country stands for,  or especially what this country was founded on, they care only that you obey them and their edicts, even if they are unconstitutional, unfair, prejudicial, and poor law.  There are several nails in the coffin that colleges are prepared to use; tobacco-free is just the beginning of this onslaught.  If you can't smoke, you shouldn't be able to drink alcohol either, nor should you be able to eat or consume any sugar products, or have a BMI greater than 20% for males or 25% for females.  If you're less than 5'6" for males, you shouldn't be admitted to a college campus because as Randy Newman put it: "short people got no reason to live", and if you're too tall or too talented or too good looking you should be treated as Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron was as "under-handicapped" and thereby be regarded as an enemy of the state.

Tobacco-free campuses are just another significant step in the direction of one size fits all.  We should all be the same, even though we aren't, we should all think the same, even though we don't, and we should all achieve about the same, that way we're interchangeable.   What colleges should be about is engaging the mind and the spirit to think, to contemplate, and to accomplish great things of real worth to mankind, with or without the smoke.

The two diverging paths of marijuana

There are multiple worlds for marijuana and its use, depending upon the State that you reside in.  For instance, there is the onslaught of marijuana being available for medical purposes in which prescriptions for its usage are handed out like candy, there are two States that have legalized marijuana (Washington and Colorado), additionally we have the ongoing decriminalization of marijuana in other States, and for those States that still criminalize marijuana usage a jury of their peers are becoming more and more reluctant to convict marijuana users despite clear evidence of their guilt in a court of law, which effectively negates laws against marijuana usage in those States that have not liberalized their laws.  However, despite our Constitutional Amendment that gives rights not accorded to the Federal Government to the people or to the State, respectively, the history of America over the last half-century is clearly a history of the Federal Government dominating and asserting itself into the peoples’ and State rights. 

Because of the Federal Government’s power and Federal judiciary that often aids and abets this power, States that have liberalized their marijuana laws face the fear and are subject to the Damocles sword that the Federal Government represents.    There is no doubt that a collision course is in process between the States and the Federal Government and the sooner that this is dealt with and it is resolved the clearer the path will be.

I, for one, am at a lost as to how marijuana stores in Colorado and Washington are even able to operate in good faith, when it would appear that they are in danger of being dealt out of business by the Federal Government at any moment.  For instance, banks which are heavily regulated will not readily accept the transactions of these businesses, which means therefore that these marijuana stores do all their sales in cash and consequently have to deal with the inconveniences of having a lot of cash on their premises that needs to be secured on a day-to-day level.

The Federal Government does not seem to comprehend that a legal business will essentially drive out the illegal business of marijuana sales, even if the legal price of marijuana is substantially higher than the illegal one.  We can somewhat judge the validity of this statement by taking a look at alcohol sales and activities during prohibition in which the illegal distilling and distribution of alcoholic goods is virtually non-existent at this point.  People, for the most part, are willing to pay a premium to be both on the right side of the law and to rest assured that the goods that they are procuring meet a certain particular standard.

Nothing about the popularity or the prevalence of marijuana should come as a surprise to the Federal Government and simply issuing an edict that the Feds will not stand in the way of the States when it comes to this issue would be all the clarity that the States would need, yet the Federal Government is reluctant to legislate this issue once and for all.  It is not for me to judge whether marijuana is any better or worse than alcohol, suffice to say, they are not the same thing.  What is clearly apparent, though, is that even for those folks that don’t smoke marijuana, or don’t believe that marijuana has any real positive value and the like, aren’t exactly clamoring for the continuing criminalization of marijuana,

The battle for the hearts and minds of America in reference to marijuana is over, the Federal Government has it wrong, the people have spoken, let the people in each State therefore make their choice, as that should be their prerogative.

Something worth dying for

If you haven't found something worth dying for, then you probably haven't found the true meaning of life itself.  The fact of the matter is that none of us gets out of here alive, in which all of us will suffer the death of our physical body, no matter how much we might not want to think about that process, or whether it will happen, or why it has to happen, it happens, to the good and to the bad, to the rich and to the poor, to the religious and the irreligious.  Since the bell will indeed toll for everyone it behooves us to discover something worth dying for, because in finding that, we will probably discover why we are living here to begin with.

There may be some in which when put to the test, will state, that there is absolutely nothing that they would suffer death for.  Perhaps they are very rich, or been bless with many pleasures in life, no doubt they are totally self-centered, egotistical, feel a certain invincibility, and are untouched in any way by pain or suffering.  The problem for this type of person, is circumstances will change, in which they too will be put to the test at some point and unprepared for this experience, will be found wanting.

There are others that can hardly find a thing worth living for, never mind dying, in which their dejected lives are already defeated, deflated, hopeless, and filled with the hunger pangs of injustice.   For these poor souls, they too often see a world of disappointment, hatred, violence, and pain, in which death is not treated as an unmitigated evil, it is seen more as a welcome reprieve,  or even as a final celebration from the cords of our earthly life. 

Most people, however, are in-between these two worlds, finding plenty of things to be happy and joyful for, and finding also plenty of things to feel sorrow and to be fearful of.  Death for most of them, is a subject that isn't readily discussed, it's best avoided or put off to another day, a day therefore to which the can has been kicked down the road, but the road and that can keeps coming back into their field of view and nudging them to pay attention to it but they won't, because to do so will make them have to face themselves as they truly are and that confrontation must be avoided at all costs. 

Still we are left with the fact that the true purpose of life is to find something worth dying for.  Perhaps for some people they will be willing to suffer death for their children's sake, or for their parents, or for a true friend, of for a country, or for love of another, or love of God, or even to correct an injustice done to another.  Each of us has a cross to bear, each of us must face that moment when we must relinquish our self from this earth, from this body, and from this time. 

For those that have found that something worth dying for, than they are already prepared to meet their Maker, come what may, to them no bullet can steal their soul, no whip can take their spirit, and no madman can annihilate their true self.  They are immortal, created by their Maker, and to Him they will return.

Rights and Privileges

Our Declaration of Independence declares that our Creator has given us "certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  These are just some of our implicit rights and our Declaration of Independence goes on to state that in order to secure these rights our government is instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.  Additionally, when our Constitution was passed into law, an integral part of our Constitution, was the ratified Ten Amendments, also known as our Bill of Rights, which further stipulated specific rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of the press, rights to be secure against searches or seizures in our persons or our houses, and that we have rights retained by the people not specifically enumerated by the Constitution, to name just a few of our most important and precious rights.

Rights however, are not the same things as privileges, in which privileges are government-issued and government-sanctioned activities which can either be granted or revoked, according essentially to government dictate.  Consequently, a country that has inherent and implicit rights which are unalienable and granted by our God is by definition, superior and safer to the individual and his rights as opposed to a country that within its government laws, police, and judicial actions, makes its own rules according to what it believes to be best for the people or for the government at large.

The more power that the people cede to government, the more their lives will be dependent upon government fiat and less on their own initiative and effort.  Additionally, just because a Constitution has been created and enacted which recognizes the sovereignty of God, above man-made laws, does not mean that in actuality this government, or any government, will not in practicality, become effectively the ruling law of the country.  To wit, a citizen may have specific unalienable rights, but a Government may be no respecter of those rights, if it is poorly run, poorly administered, corrupt, misguided, or worse.

However, having unalienable rights that have been formally recognized in both our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution gives us a solid foundation in which to do battle against our government and unjustly enacted laws which are suspect in their application and their constitutional legality.  Without those unalienable rights, we would be at the mercy of a government which can determine that night be day, or day be night. 

Too many of us get caught up in the benefits that the government grants us, such as healthcare, social security, Medicare, food stamps, welfare, marriage, business licenses and the like, but these are all privileges which can be modified or revoked at a moment's notice by the government itself.   There is a severe misunderstanding that these forgoing items are rights, but they are not, they are more akin to assistance or gifts from the government's largess. 

It is well to remember that privileges are dispensations, that you are not legally entitled to have any of them, should those edicts change, therefore a life built around privileges is a life built on sand itself.  On the other hand, your rights are built on solid rock, yet you must fear the government huffing and puffing its way against your edifice, and therefore eternal diligence and constant vigilance is the tax you must pay to maintain your rights.

Little Wars

According to Wikipedia, there was somewhere around 15,163,603 to 17,989,982 deaths which can be attributed to World War I, in which this number also included civilian deaths due to military activity, crimes against humanity, and war related famine or diseases.  A mere 21 years later was World War II, in which Wikipedia estimated that there was around 60,000,000 to 85,000,000 deaths attributed to the worse war in the history of mankind.  It has now been nearly 70 years since the end of World War II and we have yet to have World War III and it doesn't appear all that likely that this will occur in the near future, for this mankind should be eternally grateful.

Since the ending of World War II, there have been plenty of wars in and around the world in which many people have died, been injured, or displaced.  Yet, these wars have been getting smaller and smaller and more localized as time has gone on.  The last big war in the sense of casualties for the United States was Vietnam and that ended nearly 40 years ago in 1975.  Since that time, America has been involved in numerous foreign wars but the footprint of these wars have been relatively small in both scale and time, with the exception of our recent incursions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but despite the length of time we have spent in these two countries, our casualty numbers are significantly lower than either Korea or Vietnam. 

Most of World War I and of World War II were fought on European shores, but countries such as Germany and France, that have historically been enemies for centuries, are now both members of NATO, and France is Germany's top exporter of goods.  While America and Russia suffered through a "cold war" for over 40 years, there was never an actual war, and through effective diplomacy along with the dissolution of the old Soviet Union, the cold war faded away in 1991.

Perhaps the biggest change over the last 25 years is the ascent of China.  China is most definitely the "wild card" in the geopolitics of potential war, as the things that China needs for its continued growth and strength are similar to what we desire as well as other countries.  China imports oil, chemicals, machinery, technology, and has a massive population to feed and to care for, to which continued economic progress and expansion is critical for its ongoing success.  Because China has a population of over 1.3 billon peoples and an oversupply of males because of their "one child policy", it seems logical that China might get involved in some localized disputes with other countries, such as is has with Tibet, as well as other neighboring nations that they could flex their muscles on.

There isn't a lot of doubt that as China becomes more of an economic powerhouse it will desire that its global influence become greater than it is today.  However, this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that it is oil that runs the economic engine of China and therefore it is in China's best interest that they actually work hand-in-hand with United States, NATO, and other nations to assure themselves that the safe transportation and ready availability of oil continues without any undue interruption.

Therefore it can be stated, that war is bad for business, and as long as the access to oil and other important minerals, chemicals, and technology is smooth and continual, World War III is not possible.

Good Advice

Good advice is something that nearly everyone wants or desires to give to others.  But how are we able to determine that the advice that we are receiving is good advice in the first place, or in turn that the advice that we are giving is actually any good for that person?  The best place to start is to consider the source that is providing you with that advice and the more facts or information that you are able to substantiate about that source, the better feel that you will have of the validity of that information.  For instance, if you are talking with someone that has a law degree, is successful in his practice of law, and you ask him for his advice in his field of expertise, that advice will probably be quite valid, depending of course upon how much he actually knows about you and your motivations.  However, if you ask the same advice from a friend of yours, that isn’t all that savvy about the law and they respond with something like “yeah, you should be a lawyer, you’re smart”, that advice isn’t really worth anything to you at all.  In fact, it is hardly advice it’s more akin to just being polite.

When people ask you for your advice, in order to be of real service to them, you should qualify your advice with an honest appraisal of your perception of its validity and you must also take into consideration the real information and understanding that you have about that particular person.  After all, even if you have a great expertise in a certain specific area, it may not be relevant to that person, because they don’t have the capability to act upon it. 

Receiving or initiating good advice is something that we owe to ourselves and others.  When we receive good advice and act upon it, it can literally change our life, because we may be hearing what we need to hear, as opposed to hearing what we want to hear, and there can be massive chasm between those two things.  When we give out good advice it is a service that we owe to others, because it shows our solicitude, and our concern that we have an inherent obligation to be of service to others in their pursuit of happiness and success.

Unfortunately, not all advice that is given is well-intentioned, good, or of service to others.  A few words from the wrong person with the wrong motivations can break your confidence, take you down the wrong path, take advantage of certain character weaknesses that you have, and the like.   Therefore, it is wise for you to always remember that you are sovereign in your own person, therefore that you must take the time to contemplate or to ignore advice that is given you, whether solicited or not.

The funny thing about advice is that sometimes the advice that you receive, is rejected, unwelcomed, and discarded, only, somewhat incredibly, at a later time, and upon further contemplation for you to now conclude, that the advice when first given was in fact, valid and correct.  There are many of us that will spurn good advice because we are unwilling to acknowledge that we are not as wise as we wish we were. 

It's fair to say that true wisdom syncs much better with true humility, but not a humility that denounces oneself, but a humility that recognizes that we are fallible and have our need of good advice in order to help us stay on that straight and narrow path.

Food Stamps for Cash

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), but better known as food stamps, is a godsend for people that are suffering from unemployment, ill health, low income and the like, because it is a program that provides an (Electronic Benefits Transfer) EBT card to individuals and to families that allows them to purchase food from their local grocery store.  On the surface, this sounds like a wonderful thing; after all, food is necessary for the body, necessary for good health, and seeing that the United States is the "bread basket" of the entire world, almost an obligation that the United States must provide to its less fortunate denizens.

There is a significant problem with this program, though, in which there are obvious winners and losers within this institution along with the $79.6 billion dollars that was doled out through SNAP in fiscal year 2013.  Some of the biggest winners aren't necessarily the obvious ones, such as farmers, distributors, truckers, lobbyists, and the grocery stores themselves, yet the fact of the matter is, the more money that the government "gives away" in a certain industry, the more money that business and its respective constituents will reap.   That is to say, of course people need to eat and to purchase food, but if there is an extra $79.6 billion or a subset of $79.6 billion that is added to the pie, that will make an appreciable difference to all of the players in the food business industry.

Another problem with the food stamp program is that food stamps are sold, transferred, and bartered all the time.  The average selling price for food stamps in my neighborhood is 50 cents to the dollar.  One might ask how is it possible that impoverished people could even contemplate selling food or the equivalent of food for cash and at such a significant discount.  While there are lots of answers depending upon individual circumstances, quite commonly the biggest reason is that the recipient of the food stamps doesn't need all that money-equity locked into food stamps, in which they would prefer to have discounted cash in exchange to purchase something else of more worth to them.

This would strongly imply that our current food stamp program is too liberal in its benefits and is consequently being abused by some of its intended recipients.  In fact, the average monthly participants receiving food stamps has nearly doubled over the last ten years, which is an astonishing increase for a country that has in theory, recovered from its economic recession.  A sensible bill has been proffered, in which food stamp recipients would be required to have their photo ID attached to their EBT card which would undoubtedly cut down on these types of third-party sales and consequently on the fraudulent usage of food stamps, but the passage of such a bill seems doubtful, since the status quo would much prefer the structure as it currently is.

Of course, you could make a very strong argument that when you place what is in essence the equivalency of money, even discounted money, into the hands of people, that they will use said money as they see fit as opposed to what the intended usage is.  This is the essential problem of a handout which can be monetized as compared to a handout that is merely a bridge to get a particular good or service.  So when it comes to our food stamp program, expect more of the same, after all it does help to pacify the underclass as well as providing extra revenue to important powerful institutions.

Drug Possession with Intent to Sell

I don't particularly care for crimes of the "mind", in which the government takes the position that it is God, and therefore knows what you intend or notintend to do with a particular controlled substance.  The fact of the matter is that selling is selling and that possession is possession, but the government wants to carve out a huge middle ground in which by virtue of you having on your possession a certain specific arbitrary quantity of a controlled substance that this, by itself, is worthy enough of being charged with the "intent to sell".  It seems to me that just because you like to possess drugs in "bulk" or in a higher quantity than what one usage might require, does not, on its own, indicate that you are intending to sell it.  For instance, when I go to Sam's Club, Iby definition buy in bulk, with absolutely no intention of eating all that food at once, nor do I intend to sell or distribute it to a third party.  Why should a person be subject to more severe criminal penalties for purchasing or possessing drugs in bulk with a trumped up charge, such as intent to sell?  The fact of the matter is, if the government is so sure that this person is a seller or a dealer in this controlled substance, why not catch him in the actual act and be fair about it?

In general, crimes should never be about intent; they should instead be only about actual physical evidence and action, not supposition.  I realize that in some cases, such as in methamphetamine laboratories that the evidence may appear to be so overwhelming that the drugs being manufactured must be for sale, but if you aren't able to catch the perpetrators in the actual sale or distribution of the drug itself, that really isn't good enough.  The prosecutor and the State will say that they know the intent of the criminal, but in actuality, they don't, because the fact of the matter is, that people have intentions all the time, both good and bad, some of those intentions are not exercised, despite the appearances that they were going to be exercised.  People do change their minds; people do change their behavior, even at a great personal cost or at great personal peril.  Epiphanies can happen in an instance and through that epiphany a previous intention may be nullified.

The penalties for large drug possession of controlled substances in this country are high and stringent enough already that adding on subjective charges of an intent to sell, is an unfair burden to the defendant.  Intent as a crime is a very slippery slope with no benefits to most members of society at all.  The most likely beneficiaries are policemen that don't do their work diligently, intelligently, or suffer from a woeful lack of being able to outthink criminals, and the prosecutorial arm of the Government that utilizes additional charges to make their role so much easier in getting the alleged perpetrator to plead down to a lesser charge.

Basically, just because you intend to sell something, doesn't mean that you're actually going to find a willing buyer, or even if you do that you will receive in return the terms that your desire, and consequently in the end, you might not even make the sell.  After all, businesses fail all the time for lack of sales, even with the intent to sell, and if you don't sell it, that shouldn't be a crime because it sure the heck isn't a sale.

Civilization and capital punishment

As a modern country, the leader of the free world, with democracy in action, and a nation founded as a Republic, it is a bit unusual, even strange, that capital punishment is still permitted and practiced within the United States, which definitely makes our country appear as an outlier to the balance of the civilized world, especially considering that the 8th Amendment protects us from "cruel and unusual punishments", in which the death penalty clearly is both cruel and unusual. 

The most obvious reason to put someone to death is to preclude that individual from mounting a counter-offensive against a regime, against other individuals, and as a punishment for crimes that they have committed.  However, when a government or a court enacts this reckoning, they have done so after a deliberate calculation, perhaps even with a show-trial, to set forth their reasons for the execution of said prisoner. 

Another valid reason for capital punishment is to demonstrate to the population that certain crimes are punished with certain death, and consequently to make these executions public so as to set forth an example of what happens to those that disobey edicts. 

Still the fact of the matter is, that civilization, has quite clearly become less blood-thirsty when it comes to the deliberate execution of its subjects, in which this form of punishment was meted out far and wide for hundreds of years, encompassing the lowest of the low to kings and queens, who were executed for being on the wrong side of important or politically sensitive issues.

However, there are a multitude of problems with executions.  First off, they are irreversible, so that if you put to death an innocent man, or a man misunderstood, or a man of a real value or need, you cannot bring that man back to life.  Additionally, if you execute people for frivolous reasons, the population as a whole, will rebel internally and possibly externally, because they will not recognize nor respect an agency performing such a deed.  Finally, the taking of another man's life, is to certain degree aggrandizing to you, God-like powers, but unfortunately, this power is only the power to destroy life without the appropriate balance of bringing forth life, which means that this tool is solely a negative power, and will ultimately undercut your regime and its moral authority.

Fortunately, civilization has matured over the years, and we have grown in our understanding that how we treat those that are less fortunate than us, less able than us, less wise than us, is the true definition of our compassion to humanity.  Today, there is a much better understanding that within all of us is a combination of both good and evil traits and actions.  In most countries, the unnecessary taking of another man's life, cold, calculated, and final, is now seen as not necessary for justice to be served.  That is not because we are weak, or that we don't seek justice for crimes committed against others, but because we recognize that within each man is a reflection of ourselves, and that that image should be respected.

The value of a human life is more appreciated today, that is the mark of maturity and of a more civilized and reasoned society.

Think

There was a time when you walked into your local or campus library and you would notice a placard hanging on the bookshelf that simply stated one word: "Think".  I don't see those signs around any longer, perhaps they are around, but I suspect they are in libraries that are seldom utilized in distant outposts that haven't been updated to today's misguided world.  I miss that sign greatly, because the sentiment is so profound, so powerful, and so meaningful.  Instead, at my local library, there are now placards of celebrities encouraging one to read.  Celebrities?  Reading?  That just seems like the wrong way to get across the message that reading and knowledge is vital for society.

The problem is our government no longer wants us to think for ourselves, instead it would much rather have us subservient and to "obey".  That is the fundamental difference between a true democracy which encourages the free exercise of speech and all that entails, as opposed to a government that just wants everyone to shut up, adhering to and following the company line, and most of all to be obedient.  Thinking is inconvenient for governments, as it adds an inherent "wild card", whereas governments are essentially about control and stability to their rules.

God has gifted us with the ability to think, this ability should be developed and exercised, and if it is not, it becomes relatively atrophied.   Some of us live lives in which we try to escape from actively thinking, but that isn't the way a life is suppose to be lived.  Thinking involves choice, examination, contemplation, effort, and experience, and it is by the virtue of thinking that we are enabled to see possibilities and to come up with solutions to various vexing problems or challenges. 

To think is the pathway to knowing God, and subsequently to understanding the meaning of life. "In the beginning was the Word…" (John 1:1), in which God spoke or thought his consciousness into existence into our planet and ultimately to our humanity itself.  It is through thinking that we are able to know ourselves, to learn, to develop, and to grow. 

Thinking comes in all sorts of varieties and flavors, from the concentrated studying on a particular subject or phenomena, to the listening and absorbing of wisdom from others, to hard work and dedicated effort, and to the quiet and still contemplation of He who is the master of all knowledge and truth.  By our thoughts and by our actions, we will be known to others in this world.  It is through our thoughts that we process information and it is this comprehension that we pass onto others as well as to ourselves.

Thinking is our way to touch the very Hand of God, as we are in a certain sense lesser gods, but capable of tapping into and become one with God.  Our thoughts are our creations, creations that can be used for either good or for evil.  Inside our mind, and through are actions, are written who we are through the skeins of time.  Our thoughts are us, uniquely us; you should examine them, appreciate them, contemplate them, and utilize them for your own betterment and for the betterment of mankind itself.

Street Drug Dealers

Street Drug dealers are almost universally vilified by the media, politicians, regular citizens, and the police.  The penalty for dealing drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine is per Federal Trafficking guidelines dependent upon whether it's a first offense or not, whether there is serious bodily injury involved or not, what Schedule classification the drug is classified as, and also taken into account is the quantity of the drugs involved and sold.  The penalties for drug dealing are so severe, you could in theory; spend the rest of your life in prison, or no less than five years minimum incarceration, depending upon the circumstances involved.

With the penalties for drug dealing and distribution so high in America, you would think that every drug dealer would already be in jail, or off the streets, but that isn't even close to being the case.  First off, the law is selectively applied by prosecutors and the police to which, to nobody's surprise, those that are most disadvantaged, least able, trapped within impoverished communities and often racial minorities, end up becoming the most frequently targeted people by law enforcement for the selective application of our drug laws.

None of this is even close to being fair, and very few of this makes any logical sense.  When you live in a community in which your transportation is limited, your opportunities are limited, your education is limited, your wholesome family life is non-existent, and there isn't any ready money to be legitimately made, you will create your own opportunities to make do in order to live a life.  Street drug dealers seldom create a need for any drug, they are instead best viewed as enabling other people to pursue and obtain their drug of choice, and they are a facilitator for accomplishing those tasks.

Additionally, street drug dealers interact with basically two types of customers.  In the first case, there are people within their own neighborhood that have a need or desire for drugs, which they will buy from their local purveyor of such products.  It is unfortunate that these drug users will trade money or perhaps their body for drugs, but you must also keep in mind that when you live in a world in which you feel empty, forgotten, and abandoned, to take something or to have something that will allow you to at least temporarily to feel relief, euphoria, or hope, is a trade that you often want to make.  In the second case, there are plenty of people that will travel to you from other communities because they know that they can procure the drugs that they desire from you, and they will gladly trade their money for your drugs.  By doing so, the drug dealer has brought money into his community, which will invariably be spent within that same community or thereabouts.  This is why the drug dealer invariably works, to make money, to have money, and to spend money, to which you cannot do this without providing some sort of service or labor and when the legitimate opportunities are few and ill-paying, people will gravitate to something else that will provide them opportunity and money.

Many people on the outside like to view drug dealers as a terrible scourge or a parasite, but in actuality they are providing a service to their community or surrounding communities.  In order for a drug transaction to take place, there has to be a buyer and there has to be a seller.  As long as there are willing buyers, there will be sellers and not the other way around.  Street drug dealers are the easy fall guy, but it's almost completely unjustified.  When you take away people's hope, their opportunity, their education, and embrace a secular society in which the State has replaced God, this will be the end result.  The real street drug dealers are those that deal out false promises, false justice, false equal opportunity, and a false god.

Religious Section in Newspapers

Newspaper circulation and their incumbent advertising revenue have been in serious decline over the last two decades, yet news reporting and news itself is of importance to significant and meaningful numbers of Americans.  When it comes to news being reported on television, there are only a limited number of topics that they will cover, and for television religion and religious topics aren’t typically on that list, except for certain religious days of the year, but even then the spin from your local television station usually has a heavy secular emphasis.  This isn’t too surprising because TV tries not to be too much of one thing or of another, TV definitely has no desire or intention to be controversial, its main goal is to produce revenue and while newspapers have the same strong desire to produce revenues, they have the added flexibility of the capability of being all things to all people.

The reason that newspapers are far more flexible in regards to media content as compared to TV, is that with TV, the television producers and editors are in complete control as to what you do or don't see, whereas with a newspaper, whether it is digital or print, the reader is the sovereign, and he can decide what articles to pursue or not to read.  Therefore, this means that newspapers have far greater capabilities to provide the entire gamut of the news spectrum, a choice that they should willingly embrace.  Additionally, and very importantly, local newspapers have an absolute obligation to propagate good citizens, as each generation has a responsibility to the next.

Within a newspaper there is plenty of opportunity to provide stories that appeal to all sorts of interests but at the end of the day, it is a community service to also build a solid foundation expounding what the duties and responsibilities of citizens are within a community.  The best way to present this to readers is via a specific religious section and while it might appear that such a section is merely preaching to the choir, on any given day at any given time, people without hope, down in spirit, will end up turning to these very pages to recognize who they really are inside.  That is why it is so critically important that newspapers provide a religious section to their provided content.  We, as a people, are still free to choose, but having that very choice can make all the difference.

Nevertheless, it appears that religion in newspapers is being marginalized into near non-existence at so many newspapers.  This is a grave mistake and a great disservice to the public at large, because the heritage of the United States is as a God-fearing nation, which historically has recognized that our life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and our equal creation came from the very Hand of God.    That above statement is absolutely true, yet today too many of us are ignorant of God, of religion, or of loving our neighbor, so that our country and ourselves suffer for it.

The New York Times motto is "All the News that's fit to Print", but that doesn't appear to really be the case, nor is it the case for so many newspapers.  You remember the old adage, that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it, all I am saying is that newspapers have an obligation to at least provide you with that water and by doing so they will do their community and readership much good.

Nuclear Forbearance

Most of us are aware that the United States dropped not one but two atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945.  The first atomic bomb that detonated was 15 kilotons and the second atomic bomb that hit Nagasaki was 21 kilotons in which the absolute destruction and devastation to these targets was overwhelmingly harsh, inhumane, lethal, and absolutely brutal.  Weapons such as these had never been seen or utilized since our world had come into existence, but incredibility, nearly 70 years later; no nuclear weapons have been detonated against other countries or peoples since then.  This is certainly a modern-day miracle of enormous importance to the entire world, especially considering that the USA since 1949 has not been the sole nuclear nation.  In fact, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea, are all known as nations that have conducted nuclear tests and that also have nuclear weapons.

That list of nuclear weapon carryingnations should be of frightening concern to everybody, especially considering that there are countries listed here that are not known as being particularly civil, safe, or the epitome of democratic values.  Yet, despite this threat, no country has used the nuclear option against another.  This is most definitely a cause to be celebrated and quite frankly to be appreciated as a sign that despite all the wars and troubles that we have in this world, we are civil enough to not bring forth the total annihilation of this good earth.

If we were, however, to turn back the clock of time, to be somewhat anachronistic, and to imagine somehow that the nuclear option had been available in Roman Empire times, or during the Crusades, or during our own Revolutionary war, or even perhaps in World War I, this weapon of mass destruction would probably have been used without compunction to annihilate the enemy (to our ultimate eternal damnation), because part of the psychology of war is always to demonize the opposition, to make them appear to be less human than you are, that your enemy therefore is heathen, unclean, ignorant, infidel, godless, or forsaken and it is thereby your noble duty to annihilate "them", as if they were best seen as vermin and nothing more.

Fortunately for us and for our planet, the world has become a smaller and more familiar place, in which most of us do recognize that our enemies, that other countries, and that other people are after all not so different from us, that, in fact, we are all part of the same God-given humanity and although we may have political differences, religious conflicts, and resource-driven disputes, we are in the end residents of the same planet which requires us all to have access to oxygen, water, food, and shelter.

In 1960, Russia successfully exploded a 50,000 kiloton nuclear bomb in a test, a bomb that had it been used against a population center would have been an incredible 3,333 times more powerful than the 15 kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.  We and other countries have the power to destroy the world as we know it, many times over, but have not, because one way or another each country possessing this awesome power knows it has a responsibility to be a good steward and gratefully, despite all of the annoying saber rattling, this remains true as of the present day.

Naval Blockades

The United States has not used a formal naval blockade since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962; although blockades were used during the Gulf War of 1990-1991, this was part of the overall war strategy to defeat Iraq and not a separate action without ground troops.  The United States has the largest navy in the world in both the sense of ships and of personnel and can easily afford to deploy that naval knowhow, manpower, and its various naval ships to any area of the world to effect necessary change, if required or designated to do so.

Although the USA is a signatory to numerous treaties and agreements, it is also a nation that is not afraid to go it alone, or to stretch the legal meaning of words, to accomplish whatever it believes is necessary to be done in the world at large.  One of the primary mistakes that America has made over the last fifty years is not recognizing the power of its Navy and the effectiveness of a blockade that limits both the exporting and the importing of goods within the subject country that the United States wishes to apply pressure to.  More times than not, patience and an economic squeeze are just as effective as the actual engaging of ground troops against enemies but with far less peripheral damage.

In today's world, exporting and importing of goods is absolutely essential for virtually any country of substance, because of the vital materials that are being shipped in by sea, such as oil, steel, fertilizers, machinery, chemicals, and electronic equipment.  As for whatever a particular country is exporting, if they aren't able to export it via sea, in a lot of cases, they won't be able to readily export that particular product and without those essential revenues the whole country apparatus will begin to slowly fall apart. 

While there are attendant risks to any blockade, there are few countries that will risk escalating the situation to an all-out war with America, while suffering from the stranglehold of an effective naval blockade.  Another advantage of naval blockades is it allows both parties in a dispute an easier avenue to remedy a situation before it gets entirely out-of-hand.  Saving lives on both sides of an altercation should be of primary concern to all civil nations and for the United States to have any moral suasion in this world it must lead by example and therefore it should show mature restraint in its disputes as opposed to the iron fist.

In general, the American public will not long support ongoing military engagements with perceived enemies for whatever the reason , unless we as a country are in immediate peril or the world-at-large is staggering to Armageddon.  Naval blockades allow America to get into that "sweet spot" in which they can still apply necessary pressure against rogue nations without the unnecessary cost and bloodshed that a war entails.

Well thought out naval blockades in conjunction with specific embargoes are extremely effective in bringing forth a result that will bring unprincipled nations to the negotiating table.  While blockades are a slower process as compared to unleashing the "dogs of war" it's also a more tolerant and forgiving way to deal with nations that have erred. 

Mandatory Drug Testing

There is a massive chasm between wanting, desiring, and helping people to make good decisions about their life, about their body, and about their choices, as compared to a compulsion to make certain choices or to forego activities that fit a particular construct of the government or of private enterprise which doesn't taken into account your background, or your social economic level, or the arbitrariness of the desired action itself.  I absolutely detest mandatory drug tests in any situation in which you have not been found guilty of a crime that would necessitate you taking such a drug test now or in the future. 

A man's right to privacy is part and parcel of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and should not be infringed upon, even ostensibly for good reasons to do so.  While you can make an argument that for people that have jobs that required the operation of heavy machinery, or the driving of vehicles, should be tested for drug use, that presupposes that having some sort of trace of drug usage within your body is proof positive that you are impaired, incompetent, and a real and present danger to yourself and to other innocent people.  That may or may not be true, it is absolutely situational dependent, and to paint broad paint strokes that put all people that have a certain arbitrary amount of trace chemical in their body as impaired is a step too far.

Additionally, if the real reason that drug tests are conducted is the protection of the general public at large and for the safety of the individual itself, the test and test result must be done in real time.  For instance, using an accurate breathalyzer or similar instrument which is both calibrated correctly and efficient in processing the test results may be something that is worthwhile in certain specific circumstances. 

The main issue that I have with mandatory drug testing is the grouping of everyone into "guilty", unless the drug tests exculpate you, which is exactly the opposite of what this great country represents.  There are also the issues of privacy, of stress, of inconvenience, of cost, and of accuracy which makes these sorts of tests very suspect.  Furthermore, it follows that if you allow or continue to allow mandatory drug testing, you are one significant step closer to mandating brainwave testing or similar, again for the safety of yourself or others.  The point of the matter is once the State determines that it can test you for one thing, it will invariably want to test you for everything, and those that do not meet or satisfy some pre-determined ideal that the government desires will be ostracized, marginalized, and turned away. 

Drug testing is really one of those things that are setup to separate the "elite" from the commoners, in which the elite will never fail such tests because they are the ones that establish the rules of the road to begin with.  The commoners will always be a step behind, under assault, under a microscope, subject to unemployment, banishment, or rejection at a moment's notice; so that their hands are tied and they are placed into a situation in which battling the establishment is an exercise in futility, they will instead simply be used as a tool that enriches the elite and for the recalcitrant ones subject to the elite's disposal or cleansing.