American Capitalism has failed

It has been said that capitalism is the worse system in the world, except for everything else.  There may be a lot of truth in that statement, but that doesn't mean that capitalism as we know it, can't be improved upon, can't become more equal in its distribution of income, and can't be fairer than it is as currently structured.  When we read in the newspaper or see on CNBC that some new entrepreneur has become a billionaire, seemingly overnight, because this previously private corporation with venture capital funding has had a extremely successful public offering, our applause should be held, not so much because we are envious of another's success, but because one man's net worth should never be at the ratio of one billion dollars to less than one dollar (25% of Americans have zero or negative net worth).  Not only is that wrong on the surface, it's just plain wrong, period.

There is a lot to be said, about employees or employers or people in general that they will often perform better when they have "skin in the game" but money, or the pursuit of money is not the same nor has it ever been the same as the pursuit of happiness.  There are things in this world or outside of this world that are of far more significance than money, so it is inimical to a human soul, let alone humanity in general, when the few have so much more than the many.  The superrich will often justify their wealth based on their perception that they have played the game fairly or perhaps through some extraordinary effort or skill or invention or innovation or inheritance or even plain luck, they have climbed the mountain of wealth that America's land of opportunity offers, but more often than not, their shouts of praise or approbation ring absolutely hollow.

American capitalism has failed, because as this nation as a whole, has become the richest nation in the world, by aggregate wealth, this wealth has not lifted all ships, in fact, you can make a very strong argument, that the great wealth of a very select few, has effectively sunk the ships of so many in America.  For instance, Apple Computer, who could if it so desired, manufacture its iphones and ipads and ithis and ithat, right here in America, or close to our shores, because Apple's profitability and gross margins are stunningly high, does not.  Instead, it makes sure to assembly its iphones in China, where labor and labor laws are cheap and compliant to Apple and its perceived needs.  Additionally, Apple sources work out overseas to save themselves massive amounts of money from being corporately taxed by the United States.  So in short, the jobs that could be created here in the United States are exported to other countries, and the fair amount of taxes that should be paid here, aren't paid at all or are paid at substantially lower rates than they should fairly be.

Consequently, American capitalism is a system that is entirely "gamed".  If you are a major corporation, you have the best attorneys, the best accountants, and the best lobbyists, all of these are small expense to pay in order to save on your respective tax bill or to achieve tax avoidance.  The people that end up paying the tax bill for America are the "dummies" or the powerless that can't snake away from it, essentially the middle class and the sorta-rich, and because America runs such a massive deficit, generations yet unborn get stuck with the bills produced today, while the rich truly get richer and the poor get bread and cheap entertainment.

American capitalism and free enterprise would do themselves a massive favor, which is in lieu of being forever enthralled to profits, or what is in it for me, if they considered instead that they have an obligation to be something bigger than "mine, mine, and more mine" and recognized that a honest man's labor is worth an honest wage and a fair deal to begin with.

The power of the Gun

I recently watched on HBO the "Terror at the Mall" a documentary, which was able to tell the story of four terrorists from Somalia, aligned with Al-Qaeda, that strolled into a hi-end shopping mall, known to be popular with foreign residents, and assaulted its' customers and workers with grenades and assault rifles in Nairobi, Kenya.  The documentary was able to tell the story through the use of video footage from security cameras that were utilized in strategic spots throughout the mall.  In this terrorist attack, some 67 civilians were killed, and 175 more were wounded, to which neither courageous off-duty police nor Kenyan military forces were able to successfully engage the four terrorists, before finally some forty-nine hours later, a highly explosive shell was launched into the last known location of the terrorists, essentially incinerating them.  It is important to recognize that within a mall that contained in the neighborhood of 2000 civilians, four terrorists were able to effectively control it all without any of them being stopped by anyone which is effectively the power of the gun.

When Europeans first set foot on America, they were vastly outnumbered by the Native Americans (Indians) that already resided here, just as the Spanish were far outnumbered by the Incas in South America, yet in both cases, the native populations, despite their numerical superiority, their knowledge of their own homeland, were over a period of time either annihilated, decimated, or vanquished by these invaders.  While there are a multitude of reasons why this became so, none are superior to the advantage and the killing power of armaments that the Europeans brought to these shores.  The power of the gun is the power to change history, and while might does not make right, might is often the force that conquers those that do not have it or fail to comprehend it.

We live in a world to which the smuggling of armaments, and the availability of armaments, is a certainty for groups of people that do not have our best interests in mind, but instead wish to assert their own power, or to disrupt ours.  There is little that can be done to interdict these weapons from reaching the hands of our enemies, and while I do not recommend the resignation to this fate, the reality of the situation is that our enemies are armed and ready for action.  Fortunately, in virtually every case, we have superior weapons, superior training, superior intelligence, superior experience, and superior technology, to respond in a manner that will maximize our safety while also allowing us to exploit their weakness and to conquer them. 

There are a lot of legitimate ways to deal with terrorists, by which not all of them involve violence; therefore we have a moral obligation to seek all reasonable ways to rectify or to negotiate our differences that will not involve the sacrifice of human life.   However, when terrorists or any group of individuals crosses the line and puts innocent civilians, women and children to the sword, the response from any nation with any sort of self-respect must be swift, it must be sure, and it must be true, or else you have negated the power of the gun.

The Importance of the Virgin Mary

Jesus the Christ is accepted by Church doctrine to be not only free of original sin, but to have been conceived through the Holy Spirit and not by carnal man, instead He was brought forth onto this good earth by His mother, who carried him in her womb, the Virgin Mary.  The Virgin Mary, herself, is not happenstance, it is not conceivable that the Son of God could be conceived in a non-religious family, not just so that Scripture could be fulfilled, but that the Son of Man must Himself be brought through a vessel that is too, free of original sin, at one with His greatness, as was the Virgin Mary.

Great gifts are given only to great souls; it cannot be any other way.  While there is no need to make a pantheon of great spiritual guides or great spiritual heroes, it is inconceivable that the Virgin Mary, in of herself, could ever be lesser than being the most Magnificent of all incarnated female souls.  Not only was this an honor for the Virgin Mary, it was an honor earned by her exemplary life, brought to fruition in this material world, and based upon her faith, her works, and her dedication to our Lord.

The Virgin Mary should be worshipped by all who are either professed Christians of any of its many faiths, in addition to those that venerate avatars of uncommon gifts and deep spiritual convictions.  To be a mother for any child, is a monumental responsibility, to which none can be more distinguished than being not only the birth mother of our Messiah, but the exemplar to Him of a life lived in accordance with God's divine will and guidance, represented by her obedience to our Lord, her surrender to Him, her chastity, wisdom, faith, and love.

It was the Virgin Mary, her husband Joseph, and their extended family, that created the environment that nurtured and aided in the development of Jesus to His ultimate mission that of being God's ordained Son to which He would show the lost sheep of this world the pathway for salvation and for eternal life.  None of this could have occurred without the Virgin Mary, one cannot be without the other that is why it is told that Anna, who conceived Mary, is considered to have done so immaculately. 

In Luke 7:28, we read these words from Jesus: "For I say unto you, among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."   I submit to you, that the Virgin Mary was herself brought forth from the kingdom of God, because only a Queen can beget a King, which entails the sacrifice, the dedication, the mission, and the testimony of the Virgin Mary. 

Man is given a choice each and every day, to use his free will for good or for evil, for God or for someone or something else.  The Blessed Virgin Mary was too given that same choice, to which during her Annunciation she was informed of her Divine mission, to which Mary accepted this mission as the consecrated handmaiden of the Lord.  To Her be the honor, now and forever more.

Private Browsing is a Misnomer

Any of the major internet browsers, have a feature for "in private" or a similar name for those that wish to browse websites and to not have those websites show up in their history file, and in theory not to place "cookies" onto your computer, or to utilize cached items.  While this is an improvement, in general, to just browsing through the web "willy-nilly", your activities aren't really truly private, since your location, and the websites that you visit, are still tracked by your Internet Service Provider (ISP) to which your home is assigned a specific ISP address, that is specific to the contract that was made between your ISP and yourself, and thereby contains your name, and your address.  While it is true that your ISP provider cannot tell to whom is surfing a particular website, because all the occupants of the house will be utilizing the same ISP address, nor that they can they tell whether a visitor is using the web, nor a friend, nor whomever, patterns will be easily determined over a period of time, that will often easily be broken down through sophisticated algorithms so as to determine the most likely demographic makeup of your household.

While there may be some people, perhaps even lots of people, that really don't care whether they are tracked or monitored or not by an outside source, I suspect a significant amount of people may find it truly disturbing that your ISP knows for a certainty the websites that you visit.  The information that your ISP has, is something that can easily be put together to put a profile on you or your loved ones, and also can be an integral part of prosecuting you for certain crimes, such as the illegal downloading of copyrighted material and the like.  Additionally, cyber-savvy police officers are known for using the internet to track alleged child pornography files to the actual ISP addresses that have downloaded the files, so that using your browser in a private mode, will not save you from being found out.  While many Americans will applaud this type of forensic policing, there are absolutely disturbing qualities about how this police work is actually being accomplished, and questions must be asked as to whom does the police compel or advise to work with them, whether legal warrants are provided, whether there is entrapment involved, or whether any files have been misidentified or mislabeled, all of which should worry average Americans. 

The fact that your web browsing is not truly private, that it is in fact out of your control, unless you use different programs or workarounds to "mask" your browsing habits, is disturbing, because it is yet another reflection of how "big brother" monitors everything as if the monitor was actually inside of your house, watching you at all times, monitoring you, instructing you, and taking away your basic freedoms of choice, your expectation of privacy, and even your freedom to think outside what may be the given norm of society in general. 

While the worldwide web offers us all sorts of things, both good and bad, it should not be in the hands of either private enterprise or big government, to monitor what we do in our own house, under our own power, that is clearly a step too far, and it should not be permitted.

Post Office Deficit

Goods don't magically show up at your business or your place of residence without someone physically driving that piece of mail or package to you, and that requires fuel, labor, logistics, and effort.  Whereas Federal Express (despite the name this is not a government-owned business), UPS, DHL, and numerous other small delivery services are able to make it their business to deliver packages and other items efficiently, on-time, and to be on-going and self-sufficient corporations.  This would strongly imply, that our USPS should be able to somehow provide the same sort of service without any net taxpayer cost, but this is hardly the case, despite the fact, that since 2006, the cost of 1st class postage for regular mail has increased by over 25%, and for the first 3 ounces of packages, that increase has been over 300%.

Another significant problem for the USPS is that their volume of mail has declined precipitously from 2006, when they delivered over 213 billion pieces of mail to around 160 billion pieces of mail in 2013. In any normal business environment, this would be a clarion call that business as usual should desist, and that fundamental changes are mandated.  The bottom line is that USPS is not as efficient as it could be and changes need to be mandated as soon as possible for the benefit of the taxpayers and for the industry in general.

For instance, there has been discussion off and on, for several years, about eliminating Saturday delivery, and the time to implement that change is now.  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this change would save somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-2.5 billion dollars per year.  However, I do believe that starting from the Saturday after Thanksgiving and ending on the Saturday after New Year's Day, Saturday service by the USPS should be continued, since this is the busiest time of year.

Additional savings could also be realized by mandated 10% reductions in staffing, in postal offices, and the freezing of wage and retirement benefits, until such time as the post office either returns to a breakeven status or to a surplus, to which in order to provide incentives to do so, a bonus pool could be constructed just for this particular contingency.  It is high time to look upon the post office as an unnecessary government monopoly that should be put on a tight leash, by which, if they are not able to right the ship within the next three to four years that more stringent steps should be taken to perhaps privatize the entire industry. 

There is little doubt, that companies such as UPS or Federal Express, in conjunction with local services, would be able to ramp up and take over the duties and responsibilities that are currently performed by our postal service, without necessitating subsidies from taxpayers.  Perhaps, our current structure of mail being delivered to our mailbox Monday through Saturday, would have to be modified, amended, transformed, or changed, but whatever those changes were, certainly, the burden upon the recipients would not be much, and in all probability the overall service would be better.

It isn't so much that our post office is currently run poorly or incompetently, it is the fact that it can't seem to perform without running massive yearly deficits which it did to tune of nearly $16 billion in 2013, whereas UPS made a profit of $4.4 billion, even though their respective revenues were relatively comparable.

Penal Colonies

The United States leads the world in the incarceration of its own citizens for crimes such as murder, robbery, burglary, rape, drugs, fraud, and so many other criminal offenses, to the tune of over two million Americans that are in a state, local, or federal prison system.  There is a cost to society for imprisoning all of these people, not just to the pocketbook of the taxpayers, but to the collective psyche of our nation, to the convicts themselves, and to the testimony of our country and the foundation upon which it rests.  I do submit to you, that is not possible to declare America the "freest nation on the earth" when it incarcerates the most people in the world, and this is a disgrace to this country's principles and to its own motto, that believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Placing human beings into what are essentially cages, dehumanizing them, punishing them, discarding them, treating them as unworthy, and showing a lack of concern or compassion to them are not the acts of a nation that believes that they are their brother's keeper.  America is better than its current situation of incarcerating so many, so often, for reasons that have more often to do with bad circumstances,  bad laws, weak minds, and corrupted situations, than that America is a nation, unique, that just seems to breed criminals at a much higher rate than any other nation on earth.

Perhaps criminals should be manhandled, punished, and mistreated, but it seems that this has already been the unwritten policy of this great nation for too long, that we must instead look at alternate programs that are not only more cost-efficient, but fairer, imaginative, and that have redeeming value. 

Criminals have been around in one form or another since time immemorial, with punishments ranging from death to disfigurement to public humiliation to incarceration and to all things in-between.  Historically, prisoners have also been transported to islands, to countries such as Australia, even America in pre-revolutionary times, or to designated areas within countries that were typically desolate and empty. 

America is a large nation, with many areas of our land that are completely unpopulated, remote, and own by the Federal government or the State government, or held in perpetuity for the people themselves.  While I do not advocate modern chain gangs, I do admire work-release or work programs for convicts, but we can do even better, have even more far reaching consequences, if we take certain designated areas of this country, and provide the space, knowhow, and equipment to create meaningful things in areas of the country that are lacking them, such as fresh running water, roads, electricity, sewage, fencing, crops, infrastructure, or so forth depending upon the circumstances or the situation. 

Virtually every man is capable of doing some sort of work, with his hands, or with his mind, why not provide our prisoners with a real opportunity to be responsible, to take pride in what they accomplish, and to thereby reap the benefits therewith.  In situations to which the convicts are no longer actually locked up, technology can still track them, can still keep them within certain designated areas, through GPS tracking and the like.  Idle hands are the devil's tools, and while giving a man a fish will satiate that hunger for a while, teaching a man how to fish can change a life forever.

Our First Black President - How?

Until President Obama was first elected in 2008, every President of the United States had been white, but somehow Obama was able to turn this fact on its head in 2008, but how?  While we must give obvious credit to President Obama for his intelligence, his persona, his commitment, his education, his adult background, and his political team, he would not have become our 44th President of the United States, if it had not been for those that helped to blaze the trail for him.

For instance, the first black presidential candidate for office, that was at least accorded some mainstream respect was the 7-time congresswoman from New York, Shirley Chisholm, who took a run at the presidency in 1972, to which her campaign really never got much traction, yet she was noticed, received 28 delegates in total, and at a minimum was a voice that was heard.  In 1980s, the Reverend Jesse Jackson with his rainbow coalition, twice made valiant attempts to take down the Democratic nomination for the presidency, to which in 1988, after his Michigan primary win, he was frontrunner in delegates pledged, ahead of Michael Dukakis, further Jackson consistently polled either first or second in delegation contests, winning outright 11 states, and although Jackson would ultimately fall short of becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, yet his run proved the legitimacy of his candidacy.

Another factor that was very important to Obama and to his ultimate success was his media coverage, but not just your traditional television news programs, newspapers, and the internet, but the media also of films and mainstream television.  For example, in the 1990s there were two successful films that portrayed the President as being black which were the Fifth Element and Deep Impact.  In 2001, Fox brought out its very successful television series, 24, with Kiefer Sutherland in the lead role, while the black actor Dennis Haysbert played the President with a commanding voice, who was also seen as decisive, determined, fair, and effective.  These positive commercial media portrayals of blacks in the position of the Chief Executive for the United States were of incalculable benefit for breaking through preconceived barriers.

Finally, there is the general fact that women are more likely to vote in general, more likely to vote democratic and are consequently more liberal in not only their general viewpoints, but are also more liberal in seeing the character of a person, as opposed to the simplicity of judging a person by the color of a man's skin.   Additionally, as time has marched on, the complexion of the voting population has seen declines in the percentage of white voters, and increases in the percentage of minority voters in general, and in particular, people of color.  Also, for many years, blacks have been significantly underrepresented as voters in America, but over the last two generations, their registration numbers have increased significantly.

All of these factors are plausible reasons as to why Obama was first elected President in 2008, and together these were the base that Obama was able to build upon to create and to become our first black President.  Now President Obama, by virtue of having become our first President of color, has for all-time opened up new vistas for people that do not fit the traditional color or complexion or creed that is identified with America.   Instead he has impressed upon us, that this is a country for all Americans, and helped America to live up to its high principles that we are all created equal by our Creator.

Facebook, the Government, and the Super-rich

The market capitalization of Facebook is in the staggering amount of nearly $200 billion.  Mark Zuckerberg, CEO and founder, is worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $33 billion.  These numbers are absolutely astonishing considering that the concept and the construction of Facebook were started not even ten years ago.  Mark Zuckerberg comes from a degree of privilege, as his father is a well-respected dentist and his mother an accomplished psychiatrist.  While the Zuckerbergs’ proper are certainly well off, they are not super-rich, nor especially privileged, what they are in fact are very intelligent, hard working, and dedicated.  Mark Zuckerberg’s greatest asset is his super-hi intelligence and the fact that his parents provided him with a very stable and productive family life.  There is absolutely no surprise that Mark Zuckerberg is quite successful, what is only a surprise is that his wealth is staggering to consider at almost every conceivable level.

Having created this enormous wealth this has also created an interesting paradox for Mark Zuckerberg, as Facebook is no longer a privately-held corporation, but in fact one of the largest corporations in the world by market capitalization to which the biggest stockholders of Facebook have a tremendous and abiding invested interest in seeing that its success continues.  All of this may sound like an exclusive good but it isn’t, because essentially Facebook is in the business of accumulating massive amounts of both specific and extremely personal information about individuals which is a tremendous power in its own right.  While Facebook can state that they don’t solicit this information, that this information is instead provided via the free volition of its users, this is really not the complete truth of the matter.  Facebook and its compatriots are making it their business to accumulate, correlate, and to market their database to those that have a desire for this impressive and comprehensive encyclopedia of personal minutiae while not fairly disclosing this pertinent information to their users.

Facebook's accumulation of information that they may consider being company privileged is, in fact, a treasure trove of information that the government and its agencies have an urgent and abiding interest to be a part of.  At its best, Facebook may behave in such a manner as to try to prevent or to preclude the disclosing of such sensitive information to government agencies, and we can see that they are indeed concerned about this undesired government intrusion because of the recent placement of high political figures, such as, Ted Ullyot, Marne Levine, Joel Kaplan and many others to work at Facebook.  This implies at best that Facebook is trying to “make nice” with the government, and at its worst, implies that Facebook is merely exercising damage control.  No matter how you conclude the former, what cannot be denied are vested interests that in aggregate are more powerful than the CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, will never allow, nor permit the market capitalization and the influence of Facebook to be endangered.  Essentially, this means that what the government wants from Facebook, they will get, sooner or later, in the format that they desire, sooner or later, and Facebook, despite whatever public or private protests that they make, will give in to government agencies, because the only value of making any sort of principled stand against said government agencies, will be for public show, deception, or for their own gratification.

The super-rich and the government or its’ proxies do not and have never opposed one another.  Instead, they have a symbiotic relationship between each other, and while for public consumption it may appear that they are at loggerheads from time-to-time, the end result will always be essentially the same.  A powerful centralized government always gets what it wants, if it doesn’t, you will for the first time understand exactly how much or how little power that you truly have, as the government that controls directly or through proxy the printing and issuing of currency, its treasury rates, and thereby the

vicissitudes of the stock market, are the absolute arbiters of whether they will or will not allow you to continue to play with them.

Every Man A King

There is something about the saying "every man a King" that I have always loved, mainly because it is probably just about everyone's fantasy to be a King or to be a Queen so it resonates deeply inside all of us.  Back in 1934, the Louisiana Senator Huey Long, later to be assassinated the very next year, brought forth his radio speech best known as "every man a King" to which he stated that "when you have a country where there are four men, as in America, that have got more control over things than all the 120,000,000 people together, you know what the trouble is."  He expounded well upon his vision that if we were to share the great wealth of this nation through the means, for instance, of a progressive income tax, and then utilizing that found money for better education, for better pensions, for better opportunity, and for better benefits for the whole of the nation, that this country would prosper as a whole.  Through it all, the point that Senator Long was making was that America was far from the ideal of being a true land of opportunity for all, but instead was a country that favored the very few against the multitude of the many, to which these few perpetuated their wealth and their power from generation to generation.

Fast forward nearly four generations into the present day, and the United States' wealth in aggregate is the greatest wealth in the entire world, to which its per capita income per person is within the top ten in the world at large, and additionally its wealth is by far the largest of any country with a population greater than 100 million, so that it isn't until Japan which has less than half the population of the United States, and is itself a substantial 40% below America on a per capita income basis, that any country with real population is even in the neighborhood of our wealth.  America which has less than 5% of the population of the entire world is the richest country in the world, technologically advanced, well educated, militarily strong, and the de facto leader of the world.  Yet, through it all, its income disparity is shockingly large, meaning that there are Kings in America, but most every man is certainly not one of them.

According to the Huffington Post, in regards to the USA distribution of wealth in 2010, the bottom 40% of Americans have a negative worth of .9% of the overall wealth of America, whereas the top 1% have 35.4% of its wealth.  This essentially means that through all of our government programs, all of our government agencies, and all of our many and numerous tax codes, far from America becoming a country that is becoming more equal in the distribution of income or in the actual sharing of its great wealth, the disparity between the haves and the have-nots is ever growing wider.  While this certainly doesn't mean that America as an experiment has failed, it does definitely mean that America as it is currently structured is inherently unfair, and that this disgraceful disparity will not correct itself without some sort of concentrated action, change, and effort.

For a country that proclaims that we are all created equal, and further that we are all entitled to the pursuit of happiness, it must then live up to these very high ideals, or admit that instead the American ideal is indeed a myth, a fraud, a bad bill of goods, never to be fulfilled.  America has already done the hard part which was the creation of its wealth and the edifice for which it stands upon, but if America continues to insist upon "wringing the bread from the sweat of other men's faces", it will rue the day that it had the hubris to believe that God destined this land to be a Kingdom for His glory, rather than indeed to treat every man as if he was a King, which necessitates respect, courtesy, and consideration.

Child Support

Child support is one of those things that is just as complicated or even more complicated than an actual divorce, primarily because child support can be something that is somewhat unexpected, as in it was not a planned event, which will still carry with it long-term lasting repercussions for all parties involved, including the primary responsibility of taking care of the child itself.  For instance, if you are married for five years, and get divorced, it is reasonable to expect that any alimony payments would terminate at or around five years, and unreasonable to believe that they would extend for eighteen years, whereas for child support it is common or typical that the non-custodial parent will be responsible for a certain financial portion of that child's upbringing until that child becomes legally an adult at 18, or the completion of high school by age 19, whichever is later.  Additionally, in cases to which the partners are not married, there is no spousal support at all, with each party essentially retaining their own personal property and making arrangements to divide fairly communal property.  However, in regards to child support, the relationship between the parents can range in intimacy from as little as a one-night stand, to having a relationship briefly, to living together, to being married, with the entire attendant nuances of relationships in-between these basic categories applicable too.

While each of the fifty states has their own set of basic rules in regards to child support, the general principles are essentially the same, which is that the child requires a certain degree of financial amount of support each year, which is formulated based on the parents' respective incomes minus other considerations as established by each state, with the judge having discretion to award more or less depending upon particular circumstances.  While it certainly isn't mandatory to go to court to establish or to receive child support, if both parties agree to something that is equitable, in many cases one of the parents does go to court, and thereafter the court's decision will be binding by law.

The courtroom decision in regards to child support is something that has long-term lasting ramifications that are not easily amended, and consequences that may not be pleasant for those that are unable or unwilling to adhere to the court's ruling, consequently it behooves those that are involved in child support cases to spend the money upfront to obtain a competent family attorney before the initial groundwork is laid in regards to the child support setup and payments.   The most responsible way to look at a court's decision is to recognize that in most cases the court has made an impregnable decision that you are legally obligated to adhere to, whether your lifestyle, your livelihood, or your circumstances change for the better or for the worse, so that if you lose your job, become shiftless or worse, this will not mitigate against the court taking all responsible actions that they deem fit to compel or to punish you for your failure to make or adhere to your child support obligations.

Child support is a part of family law, to which the courts try to provide a fair and equitable solution that is reasonable for all the parties involved, taking into account that one of the parties, the child, should not be a victim or a casualty of the vicissitudes of a failed adult relationship.  It is also a reminder that adults have both a legal as well as a moral obligation to take care of their own offspring, and to a certain meaningful extent, to put their child's welfare ahead of their own.

Are government contracts fair and efficient?

There are many businesses that count on and need government contracts to maintain or to thrive as a business, to which government contracts obtained may be city-issued, county-issued, state-issued, or federal government-issued.  The nice thing from their perspective about said contracts is that the government’s ability to pay is extremely reliable and almost a certainty in nearly all cases.  Having a value client that is known to pay their bills is always a high desirability, made even more valuable by the fact that government contracts can be suited, in some cases, almost exclusively to a given vendor.

The structure of government contracts varies from fixed price, to cost plus fixed fee, to time-and-materials, to a truly negotiated contract with a multitude of contractors that are eligible to bid on said contract.   Government contracts can also be set up in such a way that only one possible vendor can win, simply from the basis of the Statement of Work, or also through nefarious avenues that eliminate any other potential rivals.  In situations to which the government contract is essentially sole-business set aside, there are massive opportunities for corruption on both sides of the table, and it is human nature to expect such shenanigans to happen.

The best government contracts have a clear Statement of Work, that allows for more than one vendor to quote upon the nature of the work, with a given transparency to the public so as to show the winning bid and the justification behind the winning bid, if, for instance, the contract is awarded to a vendor that has a higher price or for some other reason that justifies some explanatory words.  It is also clear, that the more transparency that is provided to the public or to its constituents that are knowledgeable about the nature of the work, or to the press in general, the better the chances are that the contract being issued is, in fact, fair.  The corollary to this is also true, in circumstances to which information about a given contract is obscure, designated as a "secret" for security reasons, or the like, you can rest assured, that the taxpayer, in general, is getting a raw deal.

I am always amused when I am driving around town and see some road sign to the effect that the work being done is an example of "my tax dollars at work".  As a taxpayer, you do not want to take these things on faith, instead you want to believe that the "invisible hand" of the marketplace is doing its efficient job, but that can only occur in a truly open and competitive marketplace.  Unfortunately, it is often up to the public to monitor and watch their public servants, because too often, these servants of the State, far from having an abiding interest in doing the right thing for their constituents, find it more to their liking to work hand-in-glove with corporations and contractors in such a way, that the benefits accrue to them while on the job, in addition to setting the table for future consultation or employment with these entities when they retire from public service.

My experience is that when dealing with other people's money, or other people's property, your interests are not going to be aligned the same way as they would be as if the money was your own, consequently openness, knowledge, experience, and transparency are the only hope of achieving some degree of fairness and efficiency.

Your Soul Survives

"Your Soul survives". These three words should mean the world to every man and every woman on God's good earth.  You are eternal, you will never die, and you will never be vanquished, destroyed, forgotten, or abandoned.  Your soul, the true you, is eternal, created by God, out of God, and is you. There was never a time when your soul did not exist, nor there ever a time when it ceases to exist.   Your soul is changeless, yet through its experiences it may take on many forms, much like water filling the vessel that it is poured into, or water changing in its constitution for a time as it becomes ice, liquid, or vapor.

Although too often mankind believes that its battles are of this earth, for this earth, in defense of their property, or their family, their life-body and their country, while actually battles on earth are solely based around your soul and its battle to return to its First Essence, anything that is accomplished here on earth that is gainful of that objective is a step taken forward which brings you closer to the throne of God.  In Matthew "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"  God Himself can build a hundred million worlds, all is in His power, and consequently our earth merely represents a proving ground, an opportunity and a test; nothing more, and nothing less.

Every time that you look into the mirror and truly believe that your physical body is all that ever was, and that is all that ever will be, you are living in an illusion, a mirage, a chimerical existence, debasing yourself in the false belief that from dust you were first created and to dust you will return.  That is only true for the physical form which cannot escape its physical destiny which is to return to its first essence, no matter how valiant a stand that you or others make, it is an universal law, that your physical form will disintegrate, decay, and suffer entropy over time, despite all that you do to extend it beyond time, your efforts will ultimately be futile, as time is your physical master and never your servant.

Great prophets come to this earth, incarnate for a purpose, which is to essentially teach or to remind all of us of the same lessons, the same instructions, again and again.  That master lesson meant for our salvation is that we are all One, one brotherhood, one God, one essence, and that all we seek for so diligently, that eternal happiness that we long for, the liberty that we are willing to die for to obtain, is contained in our Creator, He is that beacon of light, He is that hope, He is the alpha and the omega.

Governments may take our physical life, man may do the same, our health may fail us, accidents will occur, age will eviscerate us, bad things will happen, but through it all, forever, one law will never change, one law will never be superseded, one law no man nor principality can conquer, and that is our soul, which is us, our soul which is indestructible, everlasting, remains our true essence.  Remember well, these words, when the bell tolls for thee, in a twinkling of an eye, upon physical death you will break through the bonds of your physical encasement to recognize that your soul survives.

The Unending Length of our Modern-Day IRS Tax Code

I am not aware of any taxpayer that has actually read the entire tax code, nor do I suspect has anyone done so that is employed by the Internal Revenue Service, although I concede it might be possible.  However, simply reading nearly 4,000,000 words is not the same as comprehending the impact and the immense permutations of said words. By definition, our tax code should not be greater in length than the entire Bible, which comes in at just over 800,000 words and is arguably the greatest story ever told.  The IRS tax code, on the other hand, is something that is an amalgamation and an abomination made up of inputs from bureaucrats, lobbyists, busybodies, politicians, lawyers, malicious individuals, and just plain fools.

Anytime you come across something that is purposely complicated, filled with double-speak, in addition to endless loops and loopholes, you must seriously suspect that there is an overriding reason for such garbage in the first place.  That reason is as follows, which is that our tax code is meant to ensnare the unsuspecting, the unconnected, the average American, while on the other hand it serves the purpose to liberate particular corporate industries, certain protected individuals, and those that are masters of influence and manipulation. 

When a code is so complicated that the people that have to enact the law, don't really understand it, this is all that is needed for sophisticated lawyers and accountants to either create exceptions for their solicited clients to take advantage of, or to cast doubt as to the validity of a certain tax code in comparison to another tax code which negates it or contradicts it.  The long and short of it is the suckers pay their taxes in full, while the real players of this country do not.

Not only is the tax code long and convoluted, the tax code itself is never stagnant, and instead it is always changing, mutating, and being re-interpreted.  This is great for those experts in sleight-of-hand that are able to modify or amend certain portions of the code for their benefit, without the purveyors of the tax code itself, really understanding what they have just done or enacted. 

The bottom line is, our tax code doesn't need to be nearly 4,000,000 words, and it doesn't need to be played with, toyed with, twisted, turned, or tossed around.  Our tax code, instead, should be straightforward and to the point.  However, there is one significant problem to the simplifying of our tax code; the vested interests of our land would never permit it.  This essentially means that there will be no relief for the common man now or in the near future from the tax mess that must be dealt with on a continuous basis.  While some may argue that the tax code is fair to our Constitutional principles, because it is our tax code, issued by our government and approved, or at a minimum accepted by the people,  the truth is far, far different.  The truth is that our tax code is not uniformly applied in a consistent and democratic manner, but instead it is a code that favors some and bludgeons many.

The middleman bureaucracy and our Welfare State

America is a country that has morphed over the years to which it has embraced the "New Deal" and "the Great Society", to which it believes wholeheartedly by its actions in the merit of the welfare state and therefore in the re-distribution of income.  For all practical purposes, assets cannot be created out of thin air; they must come instead from the productivity and output of the people of the United States.  Consequently, America has made it their policy to provide social welfare to those indigent poor that are in need of or require subsidized assistance for services such as food, shelter, and healthcare.  These programs are ultimately funded by the taxpayers of America.

America is a wealthy nation, but wealth is not something that grows on trees, it requires effort, right thinking, and perseverance.  Additionally, America is considered to be a generous nation in regards to its charitable donations, its volunteers, and its concern for its own citizens as well as the denizens of the world.  Therefore, in principle, most Americans do not have an issue about helping their fellow man that is down on their luck, unhealthy, unemployed through no lack of effort, and so forth.  When it comes to the actual welfare state in action, however, many Americans, have concerns about its efficiency, its effectiveness, its purpose, its bureaucracy, its corruptness, its desirability, its needs basis, and its overall long-term plan.

Let's face it, the most effective donation, the most effective transfer of aid, is the direct transfer of cash from one person to another.  That is to say, when you come across someone begging on the streets of America, and you hand over to that person $5, you know for a certainty, that $5 was handed directly to that individual, so as to use it as he best sees fit.  You may not know this person, but there are millions upon millions of people on welfare that you do not know either.  You may not know this person's true needs, but again that is true too of millions of people currently on welfare.  The recipient of the money that you have donated may not use this money wisely, that also is true, but at least he now has the opportunity to do so.

There are great charitable organizations that have very low administrative costs, meaning in these particular charities that over 90% of the monies collected are actually utilized on the programs and services that they are meant to perform, and less than 5% is spent on administrative expenses.  There are also various new ways of providing charitable aid, such as is done with "Give Directly", which as it name does imply, donates the cash directly onto the recipient's cell phone to be utilized at their discretion.  Then there is our present welfare state, with our myriad programs, rules, bureaucrats, sycophants, and the like, that places their heavy thumb onto the scale of welfare, cheating both the recipient and the giver. 

Our welfare state should be far simpler, far more local, and far easier to administer.  The bureaucrats should be reduced to an absolute minimum, and the recipients of said welfare should receive far more aid in the form of cash or cash equivalent to be utilized as they best see fit.  The objective should be to cut out the middleman and instead to allow the aid to get directly to those that are most in need of it.  The tools to effect this change are already with us, our government has issued each American their own Social Security #, each state has its own Driver's License #.  The Internet is intuitive and powerful, so are today's smart phones.  Through these tools, transfers of aid would be far more seamless than they are performed today, making it more akin to a  banking-like transfer, simpler to process and simpler to use.

No Country for Men of Integrity

When you look at America today, do you say to yourself, honestly, that this is still a country of the utmost integrity, from the chambers of the judges who decide or rule on law, to the legislatures that create and pass law, and finally to our executive rooms that negotiate treaties with other countries, in maintaining the defense and standards of our country.    If you look carefully around today, this appears to be a country that is in a moral freefall, that if it still leads by example, the example is often poor, that if it still leads by action, the action is either self-serving or misapplied or misused.  There appears to be no great leaders in America today, few men of integrity, of which nobody is actively willing to risk it all, in order to stand on a principle or principles that must indeed be stood upon.

It has not always been this way in the United States, to which our finest moments, and our finest people probably existed at the time of our declaration of our independence, although arguably many fine men stood tall during our civil war, but since that time, too often it appears to be a country disintegrating into a disgrace to the very foundations that it once stood for because far too many people, especially those of power and influence, have absolutely no integrity.

For instance, what sort of demon inside someone encourages you in the belief and later in the enactment that you need to take performance-enabled drugs in order to excel in the sport of your choice, to which perhaps you justify this decision from a competitive standpoint, from a "everyone else is doing it standpoint", to a feeling that you can "game the system," to convincing yourself with the self-justification, that it really isn't cheating when you really are quite aware that your rationalization is pure bunk.  We need only look at the powers-to-be at the very pinnacle of corporations or legislative bodies that do everything in their power to bend the law to fit their needs, to game the system to protect their own, while simultaneously closing the door on all outsiders, to the quid pro quo of trading this for that, without taking into real consideration the public or the stockholders that they serve or are paid to protect.  It is, I submit, an abomination, and we wonder why the morals of our country are unraveling at such a dizzying pace, when our very corruption begins at the very top.

Today we lack men like Washington who serenely walked away from the ultimate seat of power because inspired by Cincinnatus of old, he gave back his Great War powers and his supreme Executive position to the people, to the republic, representing himself all the time as a true servant of our country. We also no longer have men like Henry Ford, who made it a point that the automobile was meant for the people, and not just for the rich, and thereby through his innovations in assembly, cost, productivity, and labor fairness, brought forth reliable transportation that was affordable by all.  Instead, we are left with men like the self-aggrandizing Kozlowski, misappropriating corporate funds as he treated Tyco as his own little private domain to be looted as he saw fit.  As for our so-called political leaders today, none of these men, could possibly hold a candle to Washington, they are instead mere puppets, that dance to the tune of multi-national corporations and the military-industrial complex, never straying outside the boundaries of their puppet-masters' commands.

Majority Rules (the Tyranny of the Majority)

How many times have you heard in one way or another, the "majority rules"?  The statement that the majority rules is not especially profound, since a larger number is always greater than a lesser number and a majority is by definition the larger number.  I suppose in politics there may be some debate as to whether it is even that the majority rules, since in some contests a plurality is good enough to win the election, but the basic concept remains the same.  Additionally, offhand and on the surface, it appears fair in most situations that a majority should rule, since it often doesn't make any sense that the minority should win, when it has lost in the number of votes or in the public arena.

The problem with the majority ruling is that this concept must take into account, that there is an absolute arbiter of law and morals that supersedes the majority, or even the minority, and that is our natural rights, our inalienable rights, given to us by God.  That is to say, that if a particular community should simply vote that it is okay to lynch certain peoples within their community and consequently enact a law that validates this position, this law is inherently a violation of that particular individual's right to life and liberty which supersede the State's power to take away this inalienable right from the individual.

It is critical for all Americans to recognize, that the power of the State, comes from the consent of the governed, and furthermore that under no circumstances should the State ever be allowed or permitted to take away the basic human rights that each of us are born with, and consequently that some things within a given nation are not subject to the rules of the majority and never will be.

Furthermore, I am not necessarily a supporter of the "winner take all" format of American politics, to which a particular candidate or position may be the desire of the majority, but when the result is especially close, it leads to the conclusion that when 50.1% of the population supports one thing, that the other 49.9% don't deserve a say at all.  That hardly seems fair as the 49.9% do deserve to have a voice at the table, irrespective as to whether they "won" the contest or not.

The other aspect of majority rules that is highly disturbing is that a majority run amuck is a majority that will do significant damage to its own population and will effectively be acting as its own totalitarian State.  The concept of the majority ruling can easily morph into a mob ruling the country without any concerns or compassion for those that are its dissenters.  In fact, the tyranny of the majority actually encourages the majority to treat the losers in such a way as to neutralize or to marginalize them even more, so that the majority's power can aggrandize to their own benefit.

While the majority ruling has its place in our democratic State, under certain circumscribed situations, it must also be diligently monitored to verify that it is not infringing upon the natural rights granted to us by our Creator.

Climate Change Hysteria

To doubt, to reason, to think, to ponder, are all part and parcel of being a responsible human being.  Just because an authority, or authorities, or those that resemble authority say something or state something, does not make it a certainty, nor does it make it true.  When someone states that everybody does something, that everybody believes in something, that everybody knows about this something, you can rest assured that there is a hidden agenda involved and often that their reasoning and argument are weak, consequently in order to sell the illusion of their strength, they want you to question as to how you, one person, one individual, can possibly have the gall or the courage to stand up against everyone else!

When there is a massive and well thought out coordination between media, news reports, scientists, politicians, countries, social media, certain embedded corporate interests, you have an obligation to look behind the curtain and ask questions such as: who benefits and who is hurt from this hysteria, why are we being told this information ad nauseam, and what behavior or response are they expecting from us.  Unfortunately, the great desire of far too many governments is for the bulk of its population to question nothing and to simply obey, made far easier if the bill of goods is both well packaged, professionally done, and plays well to the gathering crowd. 

According to clinton5.nara.gov/Initiatives/Climate/last100.html : "Over the last century, the average surface temperature of the Earth has increased by about 1.0o F" and that "Global mean sea level has risen 4 to 10 inches over the last 100 years."  Neither of these facts appears especially alarming, to which you can certainly argue the positives of having a slightly longer growing season for agriculture, while also making the common sense observation that the reducing of populations around low-lying lands and/or augmenting flood controls for lands that are surrounded by sea would definitely be prudent. 

However, like a slowly developing plot on TV, that isn't nearly good enough for those that are drumming up the hysteria of climate change which stipulates that climate change is primarily manmade and therefore can be reversed through a concentrated and sustained global effort, with greenhouse emissions caused by carbon dioxide and fossil fuels often being cited as the main villains.  As humans, we breathe in oxygen and expel out carbon dioxide, which fits in nicely with the true desire of the climate change enthusiasts which is a reduction of the human population, in order to save the planet!  Further to their cause is to change how energy is derived from this planet, with a de-emphasis, the phasing out, or the elimination of all fossil fuels, being replaced instead by the government-sponsored favored "renewal" resources. 

To accomplish these goals will take a massive coordination of populations at large, scientists, contractors, laws, and governments working together in a vigorous manner that will accept no quarter for dissenters.  Additionally, there must also be a reinvigorated and re-energized eugenics movement to eliminate or annihilate population components that are not to be part of this new world vision, this new world order.  This brave new world will consist only of those that follow in lockstep with the propaganda that is disseminated from our one world government, borders and countries will be a thing of the past because climate recognizes no border; and God is dead, welcome to land of your own making, welcome to hell.

Changing the Audio on your Sports Broadcasts

The thing about watching sports is that most people aren't watching sporting events for the sheer poetry or action of the particular sport in play, but instead find that they prefer to root for one team or possibly root against another team to make things more interesting, in particular in order to captivate and to excite themselves.  Additionally, most people are partial in favoring the team of the city that they reside in or perhaps they favor their collegiate hometown and so forth, while still others may have a vested interest in the outcome because of their fantasy league or their monetary bet or the sporting pool that they participate in.  That is all well and good, but often times during the season, a fan's interest may wane because his team is not all that good, after all, for every winner, there must be a loser, and in the end there can only be one champion, which is often not your team.  Additionally, fans may or may not buy into the commentators on the broadcast, they may prefer their own hometown broadcasters, they might prefer some other broadcasters, or they might not really care for any of the traditional broadcasters at all.  For instance, there are some circumstances to which I mute the TV, because the announcers are annoying the heck out of me and are either taking away from my enjoyment of the game or frustrating me. 

I do believe that there should be an alternative for those that would wish to hear a different audio to their TV sports programs.  This audio wouldn't need to be authorized by the major sport leagues; it would just need to be tolerated.  Probably the best commentators for this type of audio broadcast would be announcers that really love their team but prefer to be able to provide some real "color" commentary which I suspect would be welcomed by their listening audience.  I mean, how often, do you really want to hear the words that your team truly "sucks" while the traditional commentators are using just about every euphemism and metaphor around while simplicity itself knows that the action on the field could easily be summed up into just one word!

One of the problems with traditional broadcasts that mainstream media has is to trying not to offend anyone, whereas the audience really is actually wanting to hear something that is either truly meaningful, funny, poignant, offensive, or just plain crazy.   It comes down to the fact that if your team is losing, you at a minimum want desperately to be entertained.  The audio that I envision would be something akin to what is sort of done with the Mystery Science Theater 3000, but in this particular case, it would strictly be a play on the audio portion of the broadcast and not on the video.

I don't believe that the setup or the budget for this sort of audio would be too extensive as the simplest way to accomplish this is to bring the audio to the intended audience through the internet.  The best place to start with this sort of new commentary would be in traditional sport towns that have long histories of losing teams that are still well supported.  I do believe that they would welcome this comic relief at long last as something that salves the wounds.

Betrayal

Have you ever been betrayed or have you ever betrayed another?  There are far fewer things more devastating than the betrayal of someone close to you that compromises you, lowers you, or hurts you.  A betrayal may be so devastating that for some people there is never an effective recovery from it.  Betrayal can be on a personal level, as a wife to a husband, or a professional level as a manager to an executive, or at a military level as to a general to a revolutionary cause.

The very act of betrayal can encompass four of the seven deadly sins, as betrayal itself can be part of avarice, envy, wrath, and pride.  While there are a multitude of reasons why someone betrays another, few of those reasons are ever justified.  However, there are certainly cases to which one betrays another, that are of extenuating circumstances such as being tortured or being put into a situation to which you fear for both life and limb, though most cases of betrayal are premeditated and done by design.

The reason that being betrayed can be so devastating, is because one is betrayed by something or someone that represents both the absolute truth and further that cannot be undone, which often subjects that betrayed person to embarrassment, shame, humility, and possibly disgrace.  Every betrayed person who may have previously been seen as a paragon of virtue is thereby shown as just another human with feet of clay.  While humility has its place, there are few people that appreciate the humility that is mandated because of a betrayal.

Often when you are betrayed there is an opportunity to betray the one that has betrayed you, but not always, and it certainly isn't available in every case or in every situation.  The fact that you may not be able to seek your revenge on your betrayer is probably a good thing, since negative actions and negative emotions do not often produce a positive outcome; however, there is something to be said about wising up about life in general, to the recognition that not every circumstance and certainly not every person has your best interests in mind.  Further, you are far the better man, for not exacting revenge upon another, despite having both the power and the wherewithal to do so, for the downfall of man can be traced along the lines of self-justification and a lack of brotherhood.

Our lives are filled with opportunities to do the right thing or to do the wrong thing.  It is these decisions that build the blocks as to where we are headed in our destiny.  Those that are given the power to destroy but show the restraint and maturity to not do so, have chosen wisely, and those that take the same or similar circumstances to twist the knife into a friend for their own advantage, out of spite, envy, or hate, without first reasoning through the process, without first considering the consequences, without first investigating their thinking, without empathy or love, or the seeking of wise counsel, have written their own epithet,  and placed themselves instead into the 9th circle of Dante's Hell.

Arranged Marriages

Arranged marriages in America appeared to have gone the way of the Dodo bird, but in fact, that really isn't quite true.  Arranged marriages are still valid in America today, to which some of three specific groups of people still maintain this tradition, they are:

1.       Conservative religious people

2.       Highly educated, 1st generation Americans

3.       The rich and powerful (but typically not nouveau riche)

The reasons that these certain people are still abiding by arranged marriages is the basic understanding that rather than "love" being the primary factor in the preferred selection of one's lifetime mate, that there should instead be the careful consideration of the qualities of the proposed mate, which often includes their personality, family background, religious affiliation, economic aspects, political affiliations, heritage, long-term considerations, and the "big picture".

Another factor that isn't quite the same as an arranged marriage is the falling out of favor, of the asking of the permission from the father of the proposed bride, for the hand of his daughter.  This in of itself would do far more to remove frivolous and/or irresponsible marriages from the table to begin with than virtually anything else.  If you're proposed spouse isn't able to stand up to his future father-in-law face-to-face, at the beginning of a relationship which has progressed to a serious and mature stage, taking that time to identify himself and his future prospects, but rather on the other hand, prefers some sort of subterfuge to win the hand of his spouse with our without his future in-law's approval, that doesn't necessarily bode well for the stability or the reliability of the marriage to be.

While there are many negative things to criticize about arranged marriages, such as essentially taking away your right to choose your spouse, and also the inherent interference and complexity of trying to please everyone within the family dynamic, there are many advantages to basically having each party display their intentions and their prospects out and into the open to be reviewed, looked at, and carefully considered.  You can certainly make the valid point, that the more people that are involved in the contemplation of a proposed arranged marriage, makes for more people that have a vested interest in therefore having a successful selection andthereby a successful fruition of said relationship.

While there may not be any highly reliable statistics that demonstrate the success or lack of for arranged marriages, it is probably fair to say that the expectations for arranged marriages are pictured far differently than marriages between couples that simply fall in love.  For instance, marriages between extremely devout religious people, between highly educated and overachieving couples, as well as marriages between the rich and powerful, are marriages that conjoin those forces for a specific purpose and the breaking of that purpose will not be done for frivolous reasons.

While many Americans believe that having the choice of one's spouse, is a wonderful freedom, there are situations to which having too much choice, precludes someone from ever making that choice, as they keep searching and searching for that perfect spouse, only to discover one day, that the party is over, and they have no one left to party with.