Smoking at Age 21

The United States allows States, counties, cities, and towns to set their own age limits on the legal age to purchase cigarettes, so that merely crossing from one county line to another country line, or leaving one city to another city nearby, or crossing State lines, will change the legality of whether you can purchase cigarettes or not.  For the most part, the purchase age for cigarettes is at age 18, but this like many laws that the "nanny state" plays with, is in the process of change and flux, so that the law essentially changes depending upon where you are physically located.

In America, you legally become an adult at age 18; although for some people through marriage they can become emancipated at an age under 18.  Consequently it is the height of hypocrisy to have one set of laws for certain ages of adulthood, along with other separate laws for certain ages of adulthood, which in essence means that there are different degrees of adulthood, which logically is absurd, because either you are legally an adult with all the attendant risks and rewards or you are not.  But here in America, for certain things, despite being 18 or 19 or 20 you are treated as if you are a juvenile, even though legally you are an adult for most everything else.  This is incredibly bad law, a gross injustice, and indefensible.

To be an American, to be your own person, implies free will and choice, but too often in today's society, there are those that will use or create law to make crimes of things which should never be criminalized, because these certain "do-gooders" believe that they know better than you do, and consequently what you should or should not be doing.  The crux of the matter is that the law should not be used as a cudgel to effect change, but instead the law should be equally applied to all, so that the setting up of special laws for adults that are at the ages of 18-20, is fundamentally a violation of the 14th Amendment which stipulates that all persons are subject to "equal protection of the laws". 

For those that are so focused on the evils and dangers of smoking, do what a reasonable and fair person would do, make your argument in the public square, and devote your resources, your time, and your money to activities that support your viewpoint.  To utilize instead, oppressive, unequal and unfair laws, that allow the majority to dictate to the minority, is a pox upon this country and for what it stands.  Quite frankly, if those anti-smoking advocates are unable to persuade smokers to cease and desist, perhaps they need to consider that there are a multitude of factors that are involved in people's decision to begin smoking in the first place, and unless those factors and influences are replaced with something of equal interest to the smoker himself, the activity will probably continue.

There are far too many people that when they see an activity that upsets them, disturbs them, or annoys them, believe that there "ought to be a law", but alas, they should instead understand: "Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite… "(Matthew 7:4-5)

Naked Short Selling

The average investor believes that there is only one bet that you can make in regards to the stock market which is to buy a stock and hope (or pray) that your particular equity goes up in price over time, and thereby allowing you to reap profitable returns.  That is probably the most common type of trade but it certainly isn't the only way to play the market.  For instance, there are other people, who are naturally pessimistic, or perhaps don't believe in the particular hype of a certain stock, or are contrarians for one reason or another, that also want to play the stock market, but do not want to buy a stock that they hope will go up, but instead would like to invest in some manner where they can bet that a stock will go down in monetary value.  Not too surprisingly, since Wall Street desires to accommodate all comers, that type of investment is known as a "short sell", which basically means that you are borrowing the shares at today's price, which gives you thereby the option of purchasing the shares later, at what you hope to be at a lower price, and subsequently garnering a profit.  In summation, when you go long, you for example  purchase 100 shares at $12/share, and if you later sell the same stock and all your shares for $15 share you have made a profit of $30 ($150 sell price - $120 buy price), which doesn't take in account any commissions that you may have paid.  When you short a stock at let's say $12 share for 100 shares, that means you have borrowed the shares, when you later actually buy the 100 shares at $10 share and thereby close out your position you have made a profit of $20 ($120 sell price - $100 buy price).  Again, the concept of selling short a stock is your belief that the stock will fall, so you borrow the shares from your brokerage company at the higher price, and then return the same shares at the lower price, pocketing the difference.

All of the above is perfectly legal and fairly routine, as the fact that an investor can bet on either the "long" or the "short" side of a particular security allows investors to place a bet per their volition. The key thing to remember is that when you purchase shares of a stock, those shares are issued to your brokerage and assigned to your account, whereas when you short shares, you are borrowing shares from your brokerage company that you will replace at a future point at your discretion.  The difference between naked short selling and short selling is that in regards to naked short selling, the actual shares themselves are never borrowed in the first place.  While that might on the surface just sound like quibbling, the problem with naked short selling is that these phantom shares can be utilized by sophisticated traders in certain stocks, to artificially push down the price of a stock, because this oversupply of phantom shares disturbs the normal equilibrium between the actual shares of stock being bought as well as the actual shares of stock being borrowed or sold, and too many sellers at the same time will have a strong tendency to lower the price of the equity.  So that with naked short selling, because you do not have borrowed shares and are in fact in a position in which in actuality you will "fail to deliver" the actual borrowed shares of stock because you are naked short selling, this increased volume of sellers, will in essence corrupt the equity system, and typically result in the equity price being lowered, and consequently when you close out your phantom position, you will have made money at the expense of legitimate stockholders.

While naked short selling is a financial crime, it is also a crime that is hard to discover, and also hard to prove, consequently the practitioners of naked short selling ply their trade, recognizing that the lure of easy money far outweighs any ethical concerns that they may have or legal concerns that might worry those of a different ilk. 

Cell Phones and the Police

On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that police officers must have a warrant in order to search a suspect's cell phone. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in regards to cell phones: “They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers.”  You would think that this Supreme Court decision would mean case closed with a correspondent great and grand victory for those that believe in the Fourth Amendment that protects one against unreasonable searches and seizures but when you have an object as common and as sophisticated as a smart-phone, which contains incredibly detailed information about your calls, conversations, contacts, location, and your browser history to mention just a few of its attributes, the police will absolutely never allow this proverbial treasure trove of information to just simply be ignored.  To the police, cell phones are the holy grail of data that contain the very basis of actionable information to arrest you and/or other people, or and at a minimum to better understand your life and position, to which their review of your cell phone data gives the police an almost God-like understanding of what you are about.

There are way too many people that believe that their lame password somehow protects their cell phone from prying eyes, while this may be so in a few certain circumstances, for the most part the typical cell phone security lock is only there to give you the illusion that your privacy is protected when in actuality it is not.  America is a high-technology country and for just about everything created with a pass-code, there is a device that can break that code and subsequently allow another person or department to peruse your cell phone contents completely and unobtrusively.  For instance, police are well aware that mobile forensic devices will accomplish a complete and thorough extraction of your cell phone data typically in a matter of minutes either out in the field, or back in the home office, to which, in theory, these extraordinary police actions might be overturned in court, or be found out by the public or media to their disapproval, or on the other hand be considered exigent exceptions to the warrant requirement, or simply never discovered by anyone outside of those that are in the know.

The bottom line is that certain police departments will never willingly desist from extracting actionable data that rests in plain sight when they believe that they are dealing with a perpetrator or someone of that ilk.  If police were given a choice between using enhanced interrogation techniques or the unlimited access to cell-phone data they would choose the cell-phone data.  If police were given a choice between a warranted search of a suspect's home and all of his possessions with the exception of his cell-phone, as compared to justa search of the specific cell-phone itself, they would select the cell-phone data. 

Cell phone data is the ultimate temptation for police departments, few will willingly resist, and virtually all will desire it, consequently one can say with a certainty, that Supreme Court decision or not, police departments will do what they will do and let the chips fall where they may.

Bar Mitzvah

Bar Mitzvah is a wonderful Jewish ceremony and celebration (Bat Mitzvah for females) to which upon turning thirteen, the subject young man comes of age, and is according to judaism.about.com "now morally and ethically responsible for his decisions and actions."  While many of us are familiar with the celebratory aspects of bar mitzvah, the young initiate is often required to do all or some of the following:

                1.  To lead as well as to read a specific prayer during the religious service, often                                                                                           encompassing a traditional chant.

                2.  Giving a speech or a particular reading to the assembly

                3.  The completion of a charitable project

For most Americans, secular or not, turning thirteen is a non-event, it typically means the end of kid meals discounts if not before, as well as discounted amusement park events, yet it is still too early for a driver's license, however it does signify the very first year of becoming a "teen"-ager, which could if of itself, be a reason for a ceremony or celebration and probably should become one.

While there isn't necessarily anything wrong with treating teenagers between the ages of 13-17 as juveniles, especially in a legal sense, there are very valid reasons why they should be expected to be more responsible and more cognizant of their decisions and their actions.  It is a grave mistake and a grand disservice to teenagers to treat them as if they were perpetual children, when they most certainly are far wiser, more manipulative, and definitely knowledgeable on a fundamental level of right as opposed to wrong activities and behaviors.

I love the concept that before the age of 13 in the Jewish culture, it is the parents that are held responsible for their children's actions, whereas after that age, it is the person himself that is held accountable for their actions.    The bar mitzvah ritual is of immense importance and significance, in allowing and permitting those that are now 13, to take and to make their own way in this world.  In fairness, too, bar mitzvahs are not thrust upon those that receive them, but are events that are knowingly anticipated far in advance of their time, so that the skills, maturity, and preparation needed can be attended to for the successful application thereof.

It is said that success is when preparation meets opportunity, and therefore you should not readily expect success if the time and the attention needed is not spent with your children to prepare them to one day to become good and responsible citizens.  While it can be said that lessons can be learned on any given day and while there is truth to that, there is more truth in knowing that if the goal is clear, the steps taken to achieve that goal are knowable and subsequentlya pathway can be properly built stone by stone to bring about this success.

As a parent you can, should you desire, simply let the chips fall where they may, but why hope for the best, when you as parent can help guide and to formulate the moral, ethical, and foundational principles that will allow your children to become or at a minimum have the opportunity to be the better part of your goodness.  When you birthed your child, there was tremendous joy, yet there is even more joy when your child grows up and becomes truly that apple of your eye.

Antibiotics, Growth, Breeding, and Chickens

As published in a study for Poultry Science three different chicken strains were compared from 1957, 1978, and a commercial Ross 308 strains (2005) at the University of Alberta.  Each of the chicken strains was fed the same feed under the same conditions, and their respective weights were measured at 56 days of age.  Part of their conclusion was that: "From 1957 to 2005, broiler growth increased by over 400%," which means that over the last fifty years, the poultry producers have figured out how to through genetic modification increase the size of their chickens over 400%, which is simply stunning, through selective breeding and genetic genius.  To the consumer of chicken, this means that the price of chicken is cheaper, in fact significantly cheaper than what it would be if this unprecedented growth had not occurred, and for the producer of poultry this means significantly less money spent on chickens per the yield of chicken meat and a more efficient utilization of space for the farming of chickens themselves.

The poultry industry is big business so that commercially bred poultry for mass production are virtually in all cases not free-range chickens but bred instead inside long, low, and dark sheds which are filled with chickens and more chickens that have difficulty in even walking due to lack of space and the disparity of the weight of their breast meat and overall body to their legs.  Under these conditions the main concern for poultry producers is not the comfort of the chickens themselves, but the constant assurance that there is no imminent danger of a contagious chicken-borne disease that would decimate the population of the chickens, consequently most poultry producers make it a routine practice to add antibiotics to their animal feed so as to assure themselves of the continual good health of their product.

For poultry producers antibiotics are that "perfect storm" of correct animal feed because not only does the antibiotic control or reduce infectious diseases to the birds themselves, it also produces increased weight gain for chickens, so that this type of dual benefit seems like a gift from the gods.  However, like anything that is routinely used to fight or to stave off diseases, bacteria itself will develop over time resistance to these antibiotics, to which when inadvertently transferred over to humans, endangers the safety of human beings because of their resistance to typical antibiotic drugs which could result in extensive hospitalization or even death.

Not too surprisingly, poultry producers are reluctant to correct or to change the very things that have allowed them to make massive profits over the years as well as providing to consumers a product that is both cost-efficient and extremely popular.  Consequently, the only hope of making meaningful change when it comes down to antibiotics in our poultry feed is transparency along with specific rules and regulations passed by the FDA that would apply equally to all.  However, pharmaceutical companies and large agribusinesses along with the respective logistical chain organizations that are utilized to provide us with cheap poultry have a vested interest in keeping things the way that they currently are, but this type of short-sighted thinking does a grand disservice to the public at large and puts ultimately human life and health at risk under the banner that the lust for money rules all.

Who is Jeanette Rankin?

I have always had and will always have a great deal of respect and admiration for those that are willing to stand up for principles of real merit, especially when their viewpoint is out of the ordinary, out of the norm, against the mob, against unenlightened public opinion, while often being the voice of reason, of justice, and of love, which I find even more poignant when that voice is the voice of just one.  In any country, in any person, justice loses out and begins to erode, when people that know better, that have been blessed with uncommon wisdom and insight, let their voices be silenced for whatever reason or whatever purpose in order to just get along.  Jeanette Rankin, was a two-term congresswoman from Montana,  the first woman to be elected to congress, who served terms from 1917-1919, and from 1941-1943, in which in both of her terms she would be called to vote on the resolution of war by her nation.  The United States declaration of war on Germany in 1917, was somewhat controversial, especially considering that President Wilson had run for his second term under the banner of "He kept us out of the war", nevertheless when the votes were tallied, the Senate voted 80-6 for war, and the congress voted 373-50, of which Congresswoman Rankin was one of the dissenters.   However, after the "day in infamy" in regards to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, when Franklin D. Roosevelt asked congress for a declaration of war on Japan, the vote in the Senate was 82-0, and in the House the vote was 388 in favor to which Congresswoman Rankin was placed under enormous pressure to simply state "present" when it came for her turn to vote, as that non-vote would not be counted for or against the war resolution, effectively making the call for war unanimous in both houses.  Congressman Rankin would not be dissuaded from her vote, making her vote the only dissenter in World War II and making her the only congressman to have voted against the resolution of war in both World Wars.

Jeanette Rankin was a pacifist, who voted against war as a matter of conscience, and who believed strongly that without the influence of women in the polling vote as well as in public office, that war with its attendant destruction and devastation of human life, property, and the senseless sacrifice of men would continue to be the lot of humanity.  Congresswoman Rankin came to power in the time of woman's suffrage and was famous for saying, "the first time I voted, I voted for myself."  She believed strongly that in giving women the vote, that then, there would be a real opportunity for more peaceful resolutions to be taken seriously and acted upon.  She well understood that a mature and responsible country should lead by example and consequently should act in a manner becoming their Constitution and the intended legacy that they wished to leave for humankind and generations yet unborn.  She recognized that countries have a responsibility to live up to their ideals, to practice what they preach, and to not do so, is an inconsistency that in of itself tells the true tale of that country.  Congresswoman Rankin believed that the United States should be that beacon of hope, of liberty, of freedom, for all, and in order to accomplish such noble goals, should demonstrate mature forbearance in times of trouble rather than becoming quick to anger, quick to judgment, and quick to war.

Where are the Affordable Electric Cars?

It seems just about everyone has heard of Tesla, considered to be the premier American manufacturer of electric cars.  But what of their cars, for instance, their cheapest entry into the market, their Model S, retails for a base price of around $70,000, hardly a price that would entice most Americans, except for those that are making amounts of money that far exceed the median of American income.  When one takes a more detailed look at electric cars in America, it is the pricing of these cars that is the most shocking, as none of the electric vehicles offered has a reasonable price point, with the Nissan Leaf, the most popular electric car in America, retailing for nearly $30,000.  Not too surprisingly, the sales of the Leaf are the best of any electric in America, at a ballpark of 25,000 units per year, which is robust for electric cars, but anemic overall.  The lack of both affordable electric cars and sales is especially troubling because of all the tax incentives and benefits that are setup to "goose" their sales, such as the $7500 federal tax credit, up to an additional $6000 State tax credit in States such as Colorado, free charging stations for new electric cars for up to two years, free HOV lane access, car insurance discount, electric vehicle supply equipment tax credit, and parking fee exemptions or privileges, with most of these benefits dependent upon the State that you reside in.

The most basic reason for the sales of electric cars being so poor, to which the Obama administration is on record of stating that they desire to see 1 million electric vehicles on the road in 2015, can be contributed to both the performance and the price of the vehicle itself.  For instance, to get a brand-new economical electric vehicle will cost you close to $30,000 and easily way more for most models, whereas a brand-new gas powered car or even a hybrid can be had for about $15,000 or even less, an incredibly substantial difference.  Then there are the tax credits for owning an electric vehicle, to which all of these credits are set up for people that make really good money.  In order to avail yourself of the full $7500 federal tax credit, you will have to have an income of over $52,000, to which only about 25% of all Americans make that amount of money or more in a given year.

The real reason why there aren't any affordable electric cars is that the manufacturers of said cars can't make them affordable, that is to say they simply cost a lot more money to manufacture than gasoline or hybrid vehicles.  That, in itself, doesn't bode well for the industry, so despite Consumer Reports prostrating themselves at the foot of Tesla, cars that are manufactured for the elite, aren't deserving of any special accolades.  If, on the other hand, car manufacturers are really interested in producing and selling electric vehicles in the low millions of units, they will have to recognize first, that it cannot be done without manufacturing cars that are affordable and practical for the masses, as opposed to a selected section of the American population that buys these types of cars because it makes them feel that they are contributing to keeping the planet more green. 

Despite all the financial incentives, gimmicks, and hokey "feel good" nonsense, today's electric vehicles are simply not attractive to mainstream America, who neither has the time nor the money to unduly waste on all flash and no real substance.

The Minimum Wage Battle

Most people do like the fact that a floor has been set for a minimum wage, so that at least they know when they are working  that their wages can't legally go lower than that.  There are a lot of positives to say about having a minimum wage and for fairness in general when it comes to paying a wage, but at the same time, one must consider that you cannot just legislate or dictate or demand your way to prosperity.  There are a lot of factors that help set the wage that you work for, such as age, experience, reliability, work ethic, work output, sociability, and so on, with the important caveat too that employees are free to look for employment elsewhere, so that as long as you are not essentially in a one-company town, each side has some degree of power.

In recent times, our President has requested that the federally mandated minimum wage be lifted from the current $7.25/hr to $10.10/hr but there is really no realistic hope of this passing.   The fact of the matter is that labor costs are a critical part of a company's ability to maintain an appropriate gross margin and to remain competitive in their respective industries.  Additionally, the raising of a minimum wage always has unintended consequences.  For instance, if the minimum wage was to be raised up $2.85/hr you would have all those short of the new minimum wage receiving the full additional $2.85/hr, plus all those that were in-between in pay of the old minimum wage and the new mandated minimum wage would received their respective increase, and those that were previously making $10.10/hr or a little above that wage, would be asserting their own pressure, that their wages needed to be increased in order to create a gap between their old pay scale as compared to those that were merely just making the new "minimum".  The consequence of all this, depending upon the industry, could range from a minimal impact, to something of a truly massive concern to the enterprises' bottom line, or even towards its entire business operation and continuing successful operation.    The upshot, is that these companies would take a long and careful look at their labor staffing, to which in all probability positions would be terminated, hours would be sliced and diced in such a manner as to reduce staff during slow periods and to only ramped up during busy periods, and further a careful study would be made as to determine whether additional equipment or machinery could replace human labor.  In essence, as always, this would mean that those that were least qualified for the new minimum wage mandate, would be the first to be let go or not hired in the first place, while those that received the increased wages would clearly benefit from this program.

There is another way, however, that might be able to best satisfy all parties involved.  Currently, our National Government offers an Earned Income Credit (EIC) for lower income families and while this credit as currently structured is primarily for benefit of families as opposed to just individuals, it could readily lend itself to some basic modifications.  For instance, the EIC could be restructured in such a manner, that if you worked, for example, 2000 hours at the wage of $7.25/hr, that our government would provide as an EIC credit the additional $2.85/hr for you so that you would in essence have earned $10.10/hr.  This would provide the dual benefit of raising wages for the poor, as well as providing incentives for disadvantaged people to find employment.  Additionally, this particular EIC credit could be set up quarterly, rather than annually, to provide the money to individuals in a timelier manner.  The only real fly in the ointment for this proposed plan is that there would also have to be employer penalties or respective credits set up so as to make sure that employers didn't "game" the system, meaning that steps would have to be taken so as to preclude employers from using the government EIC to make up for any shortfall that they should have provided in fair labor pay. 

This proposal seems practical, fair, sensible, and purposeful for all involved.

The Important of Attentive Listening

Talking is a great communication skill, a wonderful way to get across instructions, information, and to impart knowledge to others, but in order for this to occur there has to be a receptive person on the other side that is actually engaged in listening and responding to us as opposed to simply going through the motions of a kind of listening.  Too often we don't actually have conversations, but simply people taking turns talking to which neither side pays full or even much attention to what the other person is saying, because they often are too concerned about themselves and what they want to say to put forth the effort or to have the desire to actually listen to what the other person has to say and this results in a pathetic version of communication.

Listening is a skill, to which some people are naturally more adept at listening than others, but it is a skill that can be developed in all.  The first part of listening is to acknowledge that in order to effectively do so, you have to remain both calm and focused.  There are a high percentage of people that believe that they can effectively listen while multi-tasking, so they blithely go about their business, mutteringthings such as "uh huh", "hmmmm", and "yes, I see", during lulls in the conversation as if that feeble attempt to demonstrate that they are listening is actually valid, but alas it is not.    Also, it is not possible to listen well if you are overly excited, impatient, upset, or lacking in respect for the speaker, as most of their words will simply travel in through one ear and then out through your other ear.  Sometimes too, when in a classroom,  for instance, despite your best attempts to actually listen well and to comprehend what is being said, the subject matter that is being discussed is beyond you, of little interest to you, or too mundane for you, or the speaker goes too quickly from point-to-point for you, so that you fall behind, lose interest, or simply become lost and thereby your attention to this speaker drops down near to zero.

The main reason that listening is so important is that it translates into being able to learn better, to comprehend better, to achieve more successful communication, and for being receptive to accepting wisdom.  Reading is a form of listening, meditation is a form of listening, quietness is a form of listening, and all of these are necessary in order to hear that quiet, still voice that stirs within your heart, your soul, and your mind.  You can never hear the words of our Lord, if you do all the talking; you can never rise above the material, if all you ever contemplate or think about is the material.  In the quietness and silence of our environment, we are in those moments most susceptible to receiving the bliss of eternal joy and recognizing that in this ineffable serenity we are able to for the very first time to reach out and touch the very finger of God.

The Call for Great Souls

We are spiritual beings encased in a physical body, to which, for so many of us because of the lure of this material world or the entrapment of it, there is the erroneous belief, that we are our body, without a spirit.  That mistaken belief about our true identity is probably the primary reason why there is so much strife, hatred, and uncaring on this planet, for if you believe that this is all that will ever be, life becomes not a mission of love, but one of survival and drudgery, and a visceral belief that this is a zero-sum society and thereby wars are fought for self or country aggrandizement.

Even before our cries reach God as to why and to what our purpose is on earth, He has already anticipated our deepest and most heartfelt desires.  That is why, deep within us, is that yearning to find our way back to our Lord, who is pure love and everlasting justice.  Unfortunately, for so many of us, the pathway to our most inner freedom, is either unclear or fraught with wrong turns, obstacles, and detours.  It isn't so much that we lack the desire or the initiative to mine the pure gold of God's wisdom; it is more than we lack a great leader to guide and to encourage us in our sacred quest.

 However, God give us no task without providing us too with the tools and the wherewithal to accomplish this very assignment, for is it possible for the blind to lead the blind?  While it is true too, that in the land of the blind the one-eye man is king, even more so, in a land of delusion and deception, the man with the all-seeing eye is the true King of them all.  God derives no pleasure from our missteps, and He greatly desires that we be accorded the opportunity to, of our own volition, to seek his love and justice.  For these reasons as well as for many more, great souls are incarnated here on earth, in all places and in all times, for our benefit, for our sanctuary, for our inspiration, and for our salvation.

These great souls come to shake loose the cobwebs that surround and inundate our mind, to enlighten us about our true mission and of God's love for all people no matter their status or situation.  Great souls always lead by example, their courage, knowledge, and foundational truths, enraptured us because their words and actions resonate so deeply inside of our very being, as if we are truly seeing as for the first time.  Great souls testify to the truth and their penetrating insights will compel us to truly reflect on who we really are.

Great souls remind us that: "The harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few," Matthew 9:37.  The rudder of the ship is metaphorically like a great soul, guiding the ship of humanity forward to where it needs to go.  We need too great souls to be that Northern Pole Star to help lead us back to the promise land.  That is why great souls come to us over and over again, because God has not forgotten His creation, He yearns for our return, and he provides us, even now, with the means, the way, and the desire to walk back to Him.

Same-Sex Marriage

In America today, an incredible 32 States permit same-sex marriage.  This is a stunning reversal of fortune for the traditional institution of marriage in this country, to which this reckless charge for same-sex marriages can, for the most part, be placed at the judicial branch of government.  The fabric of traditional marriage, which had previously been defined as the legal union of one man to one woman was first overturned by Massachusetts that argued through its supreme court that the Massachusetts Constitution "…forbids the creation of second-class citizens."  In dissenting opinions, one judge wrote that "… this case is not about government intrusions into matters of personal liberty." "Is is about whether the State must endorse and support their choices by changing the institution of civil marriage to make its benefits, obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them."  Another judge dissented with this opinion, that the "power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary."

Had it not been for the Massachusetts judiciary decision, which was bad law incorrectly applied to the constituents of the State of Massachusetts, it would not be likely that same-sex marriage would be in the state that it is today, as 21 of the 32 States that have allowed same-sex marriage, the ruling has come from the judiciary and not by the State legislature or by popular vote.  The most significant problem with judicial decisions on institutions as profound and meaningful as marriage, and what it should or should not be, is that a very minute group of individuals, of perhaps five to seven judges should be in the position of no more than explaining, expounding, or interpreting Constitutional law, but instead we find that certain active judicial branches are making new law with profound and disturbing effect upon the population.

The changing of the fabric of marriage within the United States is a poorly thought out experiment that will have overwhelming and deeply felt consequences that will reverberate throughout the entire infrastructure of this great country.  While supreme courts of certain states make new law, that assert incorrectly that same-sex marriage is a right, and that essentially any two adults should be able to marry each other with the blessings of the State institution and apparatus, what they have in effect done, is to bastardize the institution of marriage itself, to cheapen the meaning and the significance of what marriage means, and to disenfranchise traditional marriage and thereby to marginalize and to secularize opposite-sex couples.  Additionally, and of extreme importance, one of the most important functions of traditional marriage, is to legitimatize and to validate the children that the parents have procreated.  Same-sex couples cannot physically have children by copulation, in the case of two males it is not possible at all, while with two females, a child can be birthed by either of the females, by either insemination by a physical man (but not their marriage partner) or artificially.

Children that are brought up with same-sex parents will live under conditions that have not been tested nor tried in the history of this nation.  Proponents of same-sex marriage want you to desperately believe, that children from same-sex marriages will be just fine, and will easily fit into the American milieu, but children are not adults, they are children. 

While proponents of same-sex marriage want you to believe that all they have done is simply to have leveled the marriage playing field, asserted their civil rights, and that consequently all is fair and right, what they have done instead, is to degrade what marriage means, so that it will in effect result in our country having annihilated the nuclear family, to replace it with a State apparatus and governance, that will monitor, control, and rear our children, and our children's children.

Respect and disrespect

Watch enough reality TV and one of the most common themes that you will encounter is the participant's perspective on respect and disrespect.  There are very few comments about how respectful various people are to one another, but there are a ton of comments about how so-and-so disrespected a certain individual and how wrong or intolerable that this behavior was.  When it comes to being disrespected which occurs to everyone to some degree from time-to-time, there is a wide range of responses, from one of blithe and serene unconcern, to a violent and visceral reaction, with everything else in-between.

The first thought about disrespect, is that the people that complain most vociferously about being disrespected, are typically not all that respectful of a person to begin with, along with often having problems with their own self-image and confidence.  That is to say, only someone of the most childish personality insists that everyone does things "his way or else", as if their command should always be obeyed.  That type of attitude lends itself to being disrespected, because it is of itself, not worthy of a mature person's respect.

When it comes to respect and disrespect, it should never be a zero-sum game, to which your attitude cannot be that "I will give respect to others only when they have given respect to me".  Your attitude should instead be of being respectful to all to the best of your ability, with the understanding that by giving respect you will often gain respect, but not always will this occur.  In point, some people aren't going to be respectful, some people are ignorant about respect, some people are having a bad day or a bad week or a bad life, so you cannot expect total respect, but by doing your part, you make the world a better place.

Respect may also come down to power, that is to say, those in power, expect as a matter of course that they will be accorded more respect than they dish out, because they have "earned" it.  This type of thinking has two serious flaws, to which firstly, there are way too many people that perceived themselves as being "mightier or holier than thou" when in fact their perceptions are way off-base. The second issue is that respect and disrespect should be perfectly balanced, as you shouldn't insist on one standard for you, and a completely different standard for another.

Another very important aspect of respect is too often there are those that are respected that wrongly believe that this respect that they receive is because of their good works, their intelligence, their gifts, or whatnot, when, in fact, the respect accorded them should really be marked down to mere servility.  True respect comes from the self-discipline to show honor to another out of one's own volition in tribute not so much to the person himself, but to the institution or to social graces themselves, it is a voluntary submission done as a part of good social intercourse.  

Too often those that cry out that they have been "disrespected" are in fact, crying out that they lack the belief in the good judgment of others to perceive the situation for what it is, or that they have "lost face" with their peers so that this allege disrespect must be rebuked.   This sort of rash judgment to overturn an act of disrespect often ends rather poorly for all involved, whereas a more self-assured and confident person could readily play it off with the grace of a wise and knowing man.

English as the United States Official Language

About half of the countries in the world do not have an official language, such as America, such as Australia, to which English and its particular local dialect modifications exist as the de facto language of the country, but is not in fact by law the official language of the country, in contrast to countries such as France and Spain that do have an official language, which obviously respectively is French and Spanish.  Perhaps it is questionable as to whether the United States needs an official national language, as the country seems to operate just fine without it, but this doesn't mean that it couldn't run better, or be better off, with an official language.

In fact, 31 of our 50 States have declared English as the official language of their respective States.  The primary reason that they have done so is so that the population as a whole will more easily and more readily assimilate English as the language of choice and subsequently be able to communicate better and for all thereby to better understands each other.  Declaring English as the official language of an individual State doesn't mean that somehow other languages are outlawed; instead it means that the State apparatus may conduct its business in the language of English, as opposed to being compelled by law to furnish materials in languages other than English.  Of course, in America, it has already been adjudicated that Federal law trumps over State Law, so for Federal regulations, States would still be under Federal law language requirements.

The language used most often after English in America is Spanish.  While it is understandable that people that know only Spanish, or come from a Spanish heritage, would prefer to speak and to read, in their pleasure as well as in their work, and to conduct overall their life in Spanish, that does little or nothing to properly assimilate these residents into the very fabric of American life.  Language is the way that we communicate with each other, and it is important for a united country to be able to communicate effectively.  Additionally, there should never be two countries within a nation, or three, or even more, we should all be one country, united, under one flag and with one purpose.

In truth, we do our fellow citizens a grand disservice when we permit, aid and abet them, and encourage them to speak in a language that is not the true de facto language of choice in America.  We should instead do everything that we can to see that instead of living within a nation on self-imposed language-created crutches, as they strain to understand English, or, much worse, ignore English as a language, that they are instead given the opportunity to learn and to excel in English through tools and programs that are specifically built around accomplishing these worthy goals.

The United States is still a nation with prejudices, and with quick judgments, to which it would far better serve residents of this great country, to put forth the effort to become proficient in English so as to put a sword through the lie that they aren't "real" Americans.  This country needs more bi-lingual people, because America is the international leader in commerce, and believes itself to be first in peace and desires greatly to be the beacon of light of freedom for all peoples to aspire to in this world, no matter their creed, color, sex, or preferred language. 

While it may not be necessary to make English the official language of these United States, this country knows the virtue of literacy for all which makes for a greater nation of people knowledgeable in their own affairs, knowing English should also be part of that firm foundation that strengthens the ties that bind us into one nation, whole and indivisible.

Chemical warfare and Indiscriminate Bombing

Men have been killing other men since the advent of civilization.  Not too surprisingly, countries at war are always looking for better and more efficient ways to kill or to destroy infrastructure during times of war, especially if those means of warfare will place their soldiers and equipment less in the line of fire.  During World War I, the interminable trench warfare, led itself to the "solution" that instead of endless battles that never seemed to allow either side to gain ground, it was thought that chemical agents released into the air and placed in the direction of the enemy, would be able to "clear up" the trenches.   This modified form of warfare was essentially taking previous chemical weaponry, such as poisoned arrows, and modernizing in such a massive way that properly applied it would either incapacitate for a long period of time the enemy, or kill him.  From that perspective, chemical warfare was extremely effective; enemies suffering from the noxious gases were effectively incapacitated with blindness or severe lung damage or a painful death.   

For whatever reasons, and there are several valid ones, chemical warfare was essentially banned by all civilized nations in the aftermath of World War I.  There are plenty of valid arguments that make logical sense as to why chemical warfare was banned, such as the inhumanness of its effects, it also being an in-discriminatory weapon that kills or disables all life, whether animal, civilian, or military, and importantly since poison gases are subject to wind to which wind directions can be suddenly changed in ways not expected, chemical warfare fell quickly out of favor for warfare. 

Yet, chemical weaponry is still used by most combative nations today, typically in the form of riot control using "tear gas".  The reason why a chemical agent such as 2-Chlorobenzalmalononitrile (tear gas) is able to get a pass from the chemical weapons ban, is because it is perceived to be only an short-lived irritation which exhibits just a temporary disabling effect.    However, tear gas is banned from international conflicts and is thereby only legal to be used in domestic disputes.  This, in of itself, should be a warning flag that tear gas is not as innocuous as its name implies, which is true because tear gas incapacitates respiratory functions, can create skin lesions, severe vomiting, possible death, along with the implied tearing up and significant irritation to your eyes and consequently your vision.

While chemical warfare is banned and considered to be a crime against humanity, if used, indiscriminate bombing in which civilians and military targets are not properly segregated from the destructive force and wanton release of enemy bombing should be banned, and it is banned in most countries through Protocol I of the Geneva Convention of 1977, but this Protocol has not been ratified by the United States or Israel, along with a few other countries.  This means that countries such as the United States can claim justification for indiscriminate "carpet bombing", which essentially is a callous disregard for civilian life and property, all for the nebulous gain of controlling or clearing land without proper regard for strategicneeds or humanity. 

It makes no logical sense to on the one hand ban chemical warfare, while on the other hand allowing the indiscriminate bombing and its attendant destruction of infrastructure and population.  The main difference between the two is that chemical warfare is something that most countries can ramp up to in a very short period of time, whereas aerial bombardment necessitates a multitude of tools, monies, experience, expertise, air support, and probably the purchase of said weaponry and training from a Western Nation.

Blacks Use to Own Farms

The Emancipation Proclamation was made effective as of January 1, 1863, freeing all slaves that resided in the States that were still in a state of rebellion, while later the critical Amendments of the 13th through 15th to the Constitution were ratified upon the conclusion of the War Between the States, prohibiting slavery throughout America, granting citizenship to all those born or naturalized in the United States, and granting the right to vote to all citizens of the United States.  Of course, mere words, no matter how elegant and meaningful, have ever been enough to rectify pass practices or wrongs, nor was this the case in America, but these measures most definitely created new law, protecting and freeing citizens that until that time were often in a state of involuntary servitude or worse.

Because blacks were primarily utilized on plantations for the raising of crops such as cotton, corn, and rice, it was no great surprise that blacks developed then great skills and knowledge of how to work and to manage land effectively across America.  Additionally, farming is an industry, that doesn't necessitate great scholastic skills, but instead favors those that are industrious, diligent, and dedicated to their craft.  In truth, farming is an occupation that just having "book smarts" may not be of any great benefit in the practical application of the tasks needed to succeed on the field level, whereas "knowing" the land, its habits, its proclivities, and its feel is a specific knowledge held in a very high regard.

According to Black Farmers in America:  "In 1920 black Americans made up 14 percent of all the farmers in the nation and worked 16 million acres of land," whereas today, " black farmers account for less than 1 percent of the nation’s farmers and cultivate fewer than 3 million acres of farmland." This is a modern-day tragedy, as farming has essentially reverted back to the province of an almost exclusively white male dominated industry, dominated not only by just whites, but dominated by massive agri-businesses on a unprecedented scale.  While we can admire the great productivity and skills of our modern day farmers, and cropland producers, to which our output is the envy of the entire world, we must also hold our heads in shame that this is done at the expense of minorities, most notably blacks, but also those of Hispanic origin.

There are a significant amount of black grandparents in the south, or great-grandparents, that are able to tell stories of the land, crops, and/or livestock that they use to have on their family farms, but unfortunately their children's children typically aren't living on that same land or even able to really identify with the stories that their forefathers are still imparting in the twilight of their years.  That would not necessarily be a tragedy if today's generation were far exceeding past generations by virtue of their income, their property ownership, and their status in their respective communities, but far too often the farm that was once in the black man's hands are owned, once again, by someone else, and the net proceeds from the sale of that land has been spent or extinguished with little or nothing to show for it.

Historically, the ownership of valuable farm and croplands has not been conducted on a level playing field.  Additionally, the subsidies, considerations, connections, and political ties for croplands all favor the privileged class often at the expense of minorities.  The lack of diversification in the ownership of our farmland translates to the reverting back to antebellum days, to which in those days the man that owned the income-producing property, owned the lion's share of the wealth, and well understood that he who owns the property is his own master.

Tickets for Everything

What does fighting in public, a dog trespassing on a neighbor's property or off of its leash outside its own property, a man standing in a particular place for too long, and the picking of flowers on public property have in common?  They are all potential crimes, misdemeanor offenses, to which the police officer will, at his discretion, ticket you for the offense.  Our city, country, and states have so many ordinances and offenses listed on their books it isn't even possible for you as a citizen to even be aware of all of them.  Additionally, many so-called misdemeanor offenses are already covered well enough under general laws, so it isn't necessary or appropriate to add additional trivial nuisance laws.

For instance, most fighting in public shouldn't be a ticket for a lot of reasons, mainly because the public isn't being hurt by it and might instead be entertained or interested in it because Americans pay good money to watch fighting on TV.  However, if the fight becomes some sort of riot, that would be a crime, or if the fight ends up causing true bodily harm, that also could be a crime, depending upon the circumstances, the fairness, and the extent of the harm.   The fact of the matter is that fights are going to happen in order to protect your reputation, over a girl or a boy, over a perceived insult, over a bad day in general, to test your courage, or your stupidity, and so forth.  While fights can be a very bad thing, they can also be a testing ground and a lesson to be learned, so ticketing the participants in a fight basically resolves nothing while annoying virtually everyone else.

The ticketing of a dog for trespassing on a neighbor's property by virtue of the fact he escaped his own backyard is ridiculous unless the damage is of some significance, or the ticketing of a female dog that is "in heat" but off of her leash outside her property is absurd ye these tickets are issued.  Receiving a ticket for walking off of a designated trail in a city park doesn't seem fair or even to make a whole lot of sense, because you shouldn't just be limited to walking within the trail to begin with, because either the park in its entirety is public property or it isn't and you are a representative of the public.  Additionally, there shouldn't be any tickets for loitering on public property, because unless you are actually committing a crime, you should be able to contemplate life at your own leisure.

Frankly, the real impetus for tickets on misdemeanor offenses is to harass and to also control the public, additionally to increase revenue by the income these tickets produce, which you are not going to be successful in overturning.   All of this breeds an us v. them mentality, to which we know for a certainty that these tickets and misdemeanors are really initiated to catch and fine certain undesirables while on the other hand ignoring discriminatory or wrongful behavior by the elite and privileged classes who are served their evening drinks and meals by undocumented aliens in the quietude of their neighborhood.

The Looking Glass

There are probably a multitude of items that Americans just takes for granted on a day-to-day basis to which if we didn't have these items, we would certainly notice them missing from our lives.  Take, for instance, your ordinary mirror, which comes in a variety of common ways, from your traditional bathroom mirror attached to the wall, to your handheld mirror usually located in your bathroom, to your full length dressing mirror found often in your bedroom, to your pocket mirror that most women wouldn't be caught dead without, and to the rearview mirror in our automobiles.  This doesn't even take into account the industrial uses of mirrors, which encompasses spotlights, flashlights, telescopes, and cameras, along with many other usages.

Humans are visual creatures to which you will spend your entire life, never once seeing yourself physically from outside your body, only through the aid of an mirror will you be able to see your face and that face will have a left/right reversal to it, and only with the aid of another mirror will you be able to get a true look at your backside.  Since humans spend an inordinate amount of time looking at others, gazing at others, to not have a mirror to see yourself on a routine basis, would be a stunning reversal of fortune.  In point of fact, the first mirrors were bodies of still water that could capture your reflection under the right lighting conditions, to which in Greek mythology we are told of the beautiful and proud Narcissus, who lead to a body of water by Nemesis was able to see his reflection for the first time, fell in love with this image, not realizing that it was his own, and unable to receive reciprocal love from this image, despaired and committed suicide.

Fortunately, today mirrors are common items, but if they weren't, most people would be shocked, appalled, or distressed upon seeing the image of their face for the first time, not so much because they would instantly notice their flaws, while ignoring their beauty, but mainly because of all the time they had previously spent staring, grooming, and examining others while making in their mind's eye a composite sketch of their own face, which would invariably be found to be in error.  There would therefore be that initial disbelief that the reflected image must be a lie before an ultimate resignation that the face they saw reflected back to them was indeed their face that the public and friends had always gazed upon.

Billions upon billions of dollars are spent on cosmetic products yearly, mainly because we can see ourselves through our mirrors, as contrasted to our ability to simply see others.  If mirrors or the looking glass for some reason didn't exist, our humility would probably be a lot higher, and our vanity would most likely be a lot lower.  Instead, through the looking glass, our pride has swelled up; our envy for those that are more beautiful than ourselves fills us with wrath, we lust for others or even for ourselves, we are greedy for more of everything that will boost us up, yet often we are too lazy to put forth the effort to do so, and finally when all else fails, we find solace in excessive wine and food.

Surnames that keep getting longer and longer

There were 56 signatories to our Declaration of Independence, to which none of them had names that were more than three syllables, and while last names of one-to-three syllables are still common in the United States, they aren't as common as they use to be.  Instead, you have names such as Warszawski, Mihhailov, Papadopoulos, Giordano, Kavaliauskas, Olajowon, Milosevic, Iglesais, Shevchenko, dos Santos Aveiro, and so forth.  There was a time when Eastern European immigrants or other immigrants would anglicize their name, or abbreviate it, or simplify it basically to fit in more seamlessly with the mainstream of America.  This would then make it easier for them to be identified more in a manner consistent to the American way of life, but this is far less likely to occur in the 21st century. 

Shakespeare asked the question, "what's in a name," and for the most part the answer seems to be that other countries have certain traditions or naming conventions that necessitate the lengthening of surnames.  For instance, in many countries patronyms or sometimes matronyms are the basis for the formulation of a given last name.  Basically, a patronymic naming convention takes the name of the father and combines it in such a manner as to display the lineage of their family.  So a name such as Kowalczyk means "Smith's son" and Jansons means "son of Janis".  Another naming convention is a reflection of the trade of the father, so that Lakatos means "locksmith", and Schneider means "tailor".  One's surname can also reflect the part of the country that you are from, such as Van Der Meer which means "from the lake".

Then there are countries that seem to just add on suffixes to names, such as "ski" or "owicz" which at one time might have signified that the person hailed from nobility, but today doesn't signify that at all, because surnames were often only given to nobility back in days of nobility and serfs, but as a middle class developed, the middle class gained surnames, which eventually found its way down to the common folk, and logically in order to identify ourselves, surnames were created that either displayed lineage, or a trade, or the township that the person was from.

In America, one of the naming conventions that has gained some traction over recent years is the combination of a two names into a combined or hyphenated last name, such as when two people get married, to which the last name will then become, for example, Hopkins-Wilson.  In most Latin American countries it is common to have double surnames to which they are not hyphenated and for everyday usage only the first surname is used.  The creation of a surname typically contains the father's first surname being used first and the mother's first surname being used second, so that when Pablo Sanchez Rodriguez has a child with Maria Garcia Lopez, their child's surname will be Sanchez Garcia.

Because America is such a melting pot, we have quite a variety in surnames, in their naming conventions, and in their traditions.  The fact that people today have a tendency to maintain their surnames consistent to their heritage helps us to recognize that America is far more inclusive than it has ever been.

Licenses and Permits

America is full of regulations and petty laws that seem in most cases not to be of any benefit or of a good purpose for the population at large, but simply another form of taxation and/or regulation of the citizen.  While you can make a strong argument that all people who drive automobiles should be mandated to demonstrate their competency in their understanding of traffic laws as well as in their ability to drive, mainly because vehicular accidents can involve bodily harm and even death, there are on the other hand plenty of other licenses and permits that just don't really make any good sense, and certainly aren't necessary for the population as a whole.  For instance, there isn't any good reason why you should need a tennis permit to play tennis on a public court in New York City, to which the seasonal permit costs $200 for adults age 18-61.  Additionally, there are some States that require a cosmetology license or similar to shampoo hair, or to braid hair, or to apply makeup, or to thread eyebrows, to which all this essentially accomplishes nothing more than raising the cost of entry for budding entrepreneurs.

Licenses and permits in America aren't necessary at the levels that we currently have them at and fining or punishing citizens for their lack of knowing that some obscure law applies to them isn't right.  Government bureaucrats, busy-bodies, and businesses game the system by creating barriers of entry which leads inevitably to a witch's brew of unnecessary licenses, to which it is the citizen that comes out invariably the loser.  The proponents of more licenses and permits are all too eager to point out how these laws will protect you, or are fair to the public as a whole, or necessary, but it really translates down to that they want to micro-manage you and the population as a whole.

After all, the more barriers that you put in place, the more roadblocks and signage that you insist upon, and the more "learning" that you mandate for items to which common sense and the sovereignty of the individual could decide just as well as to what is right for him, and further where and how he wants to spend his money and his time, the more you have infringed upon a man's right for his own pursuit of happiness.   In a free country, mandatory licenses and permits would be few and far between, to which if a business or individual found that it was conductive for his credibility to prove his worth in a certain area of expertise, a pathway for a certificate or similar could or would be created, of certain standards, which would be voluntary of behalf of that individual or company.

The main issue with licenses and permits is that it never seems to end, that is to say, once the process is started, it just keeps on going and growing, to which it could be argued that just about everything and everyone could be setup for a license or a permit.  For instance, why allow just anyone to be a doorman in NYC, shouldn’t he have taken training in civility and courtesy?  Perhaps also all cashiers and bank tellers should be required to have a permit that allows them to handle US currency and so on. 

In reality, licenses and permits are for the most part really just another way to monitor and to control the population, to make this a country not of innovators and free thinkers, but a country of sheep, and meek permission seekers from a godless and misguided bureaucracy.

ID and Alcohol

The United States allows each State to set their own standards in regards to alcohol sales and the identification required to demonstrate proof that individuals are of age to purchase alcohol whether in a liquor store, a grocery store, a retail store, or a restaurant.  The fact that the identification law isn't consistent from State to State, from county to county, from store to store, is part of what makes America great, because often establishments can set their own standards as to what makes the most logical sense for them and their customer service.  However, in certain States as well as in particular counties within a State, the State or county authority may designate very specific standards of identification that will or won't be acceptable for the purchase of alcohol.  Further, those States or counties may take perfectly valid forms of identification such as a military ID or a passport or a foreign driver's license or an out-of-State driver's license and stipulate by law that these forms of ID are not meeting their particular requirements.  Further to this point, and especially galling, there are some counties which make it a policy that all individuals, no matter their age, must show valid ID to purchase alcohol or the respective sale will not be made. 

As always, when counties and States pass laws they ostensibly do so under the guise that this will protect the community and its citizens.  This would presuppose a couple of things, one being that before these laws were passed, somehow the community was in some sort of greater danger and further that asserting the arbitrary authority of the State or county against a mere individual is always a good rule of thumb.  The fact of the matter is, if a person wishing to consume alcohol is of age, the laws that mandate that only a certain particular piece of identification is acceptable, serves only the purpose of making it more difficult for particular peoples within a community to purchase alcohol.  For instance, not everyone has a car, not everyone has a valid driver's license, not everyone is a legal resident in America, not everyone carries ID with him 24/7, yet typically we know that those that lack a driver's license and consistent ID on their persons, are invariably those that are underserved by their community to begin with, so strict identification laws are really, in essence, just another way of harassing or interfering with an individual's pursuit of happiness and general freedom.

Additionally, and very important to the whole format of having to constantly display one's ID to employees of establishments is the meaningful fact that your driver's license is the very road that an indiscriminate person could easily take advantage of.  Your driver's license has your real and full name, your real and full current address, your real age, height, weight, and a unique identification number assigned just to you.  All of these are the very tools that nefarious persons would love to be able to get their hands on in order to perhaps harass you, harm you, stalk you, or to become you.  So that you can easily state, that the routine handing over of your ID to people that have no real justification for having it, is a potential and real menace to your own health and safety.