Metadata and Photography

There has probably never been a period in time when so many people take photos and exchange them, post them, or develop them, as we see in today's present world.  The ease of taking pictures, the fact that you can take photos with your phone camera, or with your digital camera, and the reality that your pictures do not need to go through the step of being actually developed by a photo-print shop, means that people are taking more photos than ever.  The bottom line is once you obtain your phone camera, or dedicated digital camera, with the exception of storage space, you can snap as many photos as you desire, without having to worry about absorbing any additional monetary cost. 

While the above is all well and good, there are general privacy concerns that most people are oblivious of when it comes to the photos and the data that is stored.  I suspect that most people, would take it as a given that the camera that records the shot, also records the date and time, along with probably recording the camera type and speed, as well as the aperture size.  There may be some people that definitely know that their particular camera will also record their GPS location, and thereby love their camera for that feature, because it allows them to shoot a lot of pictures on, for instance, a traveling excursion, without having to wonder exactly where they took that picture later, when they try to piece it all back together.  Finally, for more professional type camera users, they understand the importance of metadata in protecting their copyrighted images and hence would be strong supporters of any metadata associated with their photos.

So what exactly is metadata?  When it comes to photography, metadata is all the data that is stored, and usually hidden behind the picture, that is invisible to the picture while containing the properties of the picture and ultimately storing all the pertinent data of the photo, which includes but isn't limited to: date, time, camera used and possibly its S/N, dimensions, pixel resolution, exposure time, focal length, GPS locale, lens used, and so on.  The details behind each photo that you have taken then are both highly comprehensive and quite specific, and consequently should be something that you may want to consider seriously before sending or posting photos, as the sites that you post or send your pictures through, may or may not remove some or all of your metadata behind your photographs.

As with most anything, metadata can be your friend and aid, as well as your enemy and downfall.  For those that take photos as well as for the people that are captured within the photos, the photographer must take responsibility for protecting the privacy of the people that he has captured within his lens.  Most pictures today that are posted, tell a story, and not just the story contained in the photograph in front of you, but the story that is contained hidden behind the picture.  That data can be used by law enforcement, stalkers, creeps, and weirdo's in such a way that you may well be faced with a situation which was wholly unintended yet comes with disastrous consequences to yours or to other's personal s well-being.

Law should Rule over Rulers and not Rulers over Law

There is no more important document in the annals of American history, than our Declaration of Independence, to which these immortal words were written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  These words are the very foundation of the legitimacy of our nation, and of the nation's laws which apply specifically to all men, not certain men, or some men, which means that these same laws must, by definition, apply to those that are our rulers who should thereby not be considered to have the imprint of the Divine Rights of Kings, but instead to be in the position of stewardship. 

Further to this point, since we are all entitled to the same unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that same Law, that same Right, should rule over our rulers, and it should never be that the rulers make law that undermines this very foundation and furthermore places the rulers and their cohorts in a position to which they interpret, distort, or bend the law in a manner that favors the elitist few, at the expense of the masses.  The laws that this country has should always be in the form that restrains the rulers from asserting arbitrary law and injustices upon the population as a whole.  This means that forever more, the Divine Rights of Kings, that they are the law as appointed and sanctioned by God, has been placed into the dustbin of history, to be replaced by law, right law, as being applicable to all.

As America has grown older, its wisdom has dissipated, and it has bastardized its very foundation, misunderstanding that the people were never made for the rulers, but that rulers were made necessary as an adjunct to the people, in order to provide more benefit, equal justice, and security for the people.  How many in our government, in our justice departments, and in leadership positions, understand these words: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27).   This does not mean that our leaders, that our rulers, must bow down to the people, but instead that our leaders must be great stewards to their awesome responsibilities to provide to their charge, the tools and wherewithal so that they can be all that they can be, to the betterment of themselves, to the betterment of their families, to the betterment of their communities, and ultimately to the betterment of their country.  No country can be greater than their own people; the rulers therefore, must lead by example, by being principled leaders, unparalleled in their vision, their wisdom, and their strength.

The gift of our leaders to their people is the gift of helping to provide the means, and the guidance for the people to perform acts of goodness as opposed to pure selfishness or evil and thereby for the people to garner the will and the desire to succeed in so doing their good deeds to the best of their given abilities.  Great leaders are fair, prudent, just, and honorable in their actions which are done both as a service and as an exemplar to and for the people.  A righteous leader understands implicitly as well as explicitly that he too must answer for his actions, even more so, than you or I, for with great powers comes great responsibilities, as our Creator is no respecter of persons and will not be fooled.

If there really is a God, then let Him strike me down, right here, right now

Those words I did never speak, but in my teenage years we were about to start a basketball game and one of my friends, said words to the effect, "There is no God, and I challenge this fake God that only fools believe in, to strike me down right here, right now, and to prove your existence and almighty power, because If you do not, than you do not exist."  I am not sure whether my friend, (and here I should better describe him as my school friend, not a close friend, as I don't believe we ever did anything together outside of seeing each other at school) was having a bad day, was frustrated, recently experienced a lost, or perhaps was in need of love, but wasn't feeling love.  I do remember that there was silence when he spoke those words, and quite frankly, I, for one, was concerned that God might just strike us all down, accidently taking us innocents to Kingdom Come, because of guilt by association, and there indeed was an uncomfortable silence for a little while.  My erstwhile friend was pleased as within a minute or two, he declared victory over this pretend God and soon we got down to the business of playing ball, but I know that for myself, I was feeling a little uncomfortable about playing the game, and very uncomfortable about any future games with this particular friend, and further to the point, I was also wondering why God didn’t just turn him into a pillar of salt, I mean, he did, after all, ask for it.

Because I was young, I certainly lacked wisdom, and consequently I actually thought that God might or should take up my friend's challenge, but I know now that isn't fundamentally the way that God behaves.  First off, despite the words that my friend used, it does not mean that those words on the surface are actually the words in his heart.  For instance, there are many people that strike out with intense frustration when their will is thwarted, or that have a provocative personality, or simply are ignorant, or angry, or just like to say mean things because it's easier to hurt someone as oppose to helping another.  God recognizes who we really are, he knows our heart, "….but God knoweth your hearts…" Luke16:15.  Additionally, you cannot test God, nor tempt him, as the devil tried to tempt Jesus in the wilderness, He responded, in Matthew 4:7: "Jesus said unto him, it is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

There was a time, however, when blasphemy or even the hint of blasphemy could cost you your life, and while that is no longer true in this country, it still remains true in certain civilizations of today, that the State has the power to enforce religious law as they perceive it to be.  Exodus 20:7, one of our Ten Commandments states: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."  This commandment is taken very seriously by certain peoples, be they Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, in fact, for certain orthodox Jews, the proper name of God cannot be written or spoken, because of the fear that by doing so, they will inadvertently take the Lord thy God's name in vain.

For my friend on that day, he lived to fight another day, and many other school days; I do not know, however, where he is today or how he is even doing.  I suspect that he forgot about the incident many years ago, and perhaps it made no impression upon him even on that day.  It did make an impression upon me, as provocation is generally not a wise move, especially against He who is all knowing and all powerful, nor is disrespecting God smart, but even if we never directly take our Lord's name in vain in our words, by our actions most of us do so every day, as how many of us can honestly state that we live up to these words of Luke 10:27: "And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."

English is the Universal Language

To the victors, go the spoils, and so essentially this is the most significant reason why English is the universal language in the world.  Before the United States became the most powerful and the most influential nation on earth, there was the empire of the United Kingdom, which took its language to Australia, to India, to the Caribbean, to Hong Kong, to Egypt, to Canada, and yes, to America.  America was not just founded by English speaking settlers, but also French, as well as Dutch, as well as Spanish, but it was the English language that became dominant in this country, because more English speaking colonists than any other colonist came to America, as well as the fact that Great Britain in conjunction with its colonists was consistently victorious over the French and its colonists in America.

Whether English is the "best" language, isn't really relevant, it is, with the exception of your native language in your country of origin, the most important language to have knowledge and proper use of as it is necessary and most conducive for diplomacy, for business, for the internet, and for education, to which it is beneficial for all parties involved.  This does not mean, however, that you can't be successful without knowing English, of course you can, what it does mean is that it is far better to know and to be able to apply English for those that are motivated to be successful and worldly wise.

The Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, to which the inhabitants of earth, were of one accord in language, but had also demonstrated their willfulness and obstinacy against God, ended with the confusion of not being able to understand each other, because they dared to defy God, and the Lord "… confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." (Genesis 11:7).   Consequently, today, there are over 6,000 spoken languages in our world, whereas for ease of communication and understanding it would be far better to have a common tongue that all could relate to.  That language exists today, in the form of English.

Language is incredibly important tool in order to not only properly communicate from one party to another, but also for ease of understanding of what the other party is trying to communicate to us.  While one can demonize another for myriad reasons, it is far easier to do so, when the other person not only doesn't look or behave like us, but doesn't communicate in a tongue that we can understand, making it easier to dismiss the other person as uncivilized, stupid, or nor worthy of our respect.  This type of disrespect and misunderstanding can lead to fights, to disputes, and even to war.

In America, we have done a poor job in learning other languages, to which most native born denizens know and can only speak English; to which I suspect the basic thinking is that since English is the universal language, why bother.  Languages, however, do rise and fall in popularity and usage, so rather than being that "ugly American", it would be better to obtain and put forth the effort to learn another language, so as to do our part to make this a smaller and more pleasant world.

Cuban Trade Embargo

The United States doesn't like to lose and for the most part doesn't need to lose in virtually any of its actions, whether they are diplomatic, trade related, charitable acts, education, or war.  Cuba was once a country that was in the United States satellites of nations; after Cuba, as well as Puerto Rico and Guam were lost by the Spanish to America in 1898.  Thereby the Cuba-American relations were close until the time of Batista's overthrow in 1959, by Fidel Castro.  The United States subsequently participated and planned the ill-advised and disastrous Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, and then in 1962 discovered ballistic missiles in Cuba, that led to a showdown between Soviet Russia and America, to which an agreement was reached, and the removal of such missiles from Cuba was performed.

In the fifty-odd years since then, the United States has maintained an embargo against Cuba, which quite obviously has hindered Cuba and its economic development.  Consequently, from a strict punishment perspective, one could say, that the embargo itself has been effective, but the people that it has mainly hurt, have not been the government of Cuba, the power brokers of Cuba, but the masses of Cuba, who have suffered from the lack of material wealth, lack of economic opportunity, and poor overall healthcare.  The mark of a great country is never to be seen in the suffering that they impose upon innocent civilians but in their magnanimity and generosity towards those that are less fortunate.  As Cuba is located only about ninety miles from the United States mainland, this is a great shame upon us, and completely unbecoming of the world leader in freedom, economic success, and liberty.

President Obama's recent announcement of full diplomatic relations with Cuba, and the beginning of normalizing relations between these two nations, is certainly something to be celebrated by all true Americans.  Of course in the political world that we live in, to which there are vested interests on both sides of the aisle, a mere announcement of normalizing relations does not necessarily translate into it actually happening, but it should.  Let us do well to remember that there was a time when America, was not afraid to take the big initiative, as it did when Nixon began the process of normalizing relations with China back in 1972, to which by 1978, diplomatic relations had been restored, and thereby has consequently seen the rise of China economically in the world.  The United States conducted this action with China, yet was still able to maintain its special "unofficial" relations with Taiwan.  Based on this great diplomatic success, how is it even possible, to consider nothing less than the same for Cuba, a situation which is far less complex, and with a country that we previously had a successful diplomatic relationship with.

The best way to ensure that war and ill feelings towards one country to another does not occur, is to have both open diplomatic as well as fair trading channels.  It is far easier to demonize a nation when you turn your back on it, and refuse to engage them as one mature nation to another.  The bottom line is a more successful Cuba will be better not only for Cuba and its people, but also for the United States, as well as demonstrating to the world at large that America is a gracious, forgiving, and merciful nation, that leads by example, rather than by empty words.

Usain Bolt -- Football

Most people do not pay a lot of attention to track and field events, but when you have a man as talented and as dominant as Usain Bolt has been in track and field, he is the name that comes off of people's tongues.  It also helps that Usain Bolt is the perfect name for a sprinter, and that he is personable and a likeable person.  Mr. Bolt famously commented that he would like to play for Manchester United in the Premier Football (soccer) League.  While I don't doubt that Usain Bolt has the capability and the potential to be a fairly decent soccer player, the problem with the position that he would be seeking, which is the striker (forward) is that the striker has to do two things exceedingly well.  First, he must be able to have the competency and the grace to control the soccer ball onto his foot at pace, and further, even more importantly, the ability to put the ball into the back of the net and thereby score goals as there are many soccer players that excel with their footwork but find themselves to be non-lethal in front of goal.  But certainly, Usain Bolt would pose a perplexing problem for defenses in which he would typically run off the "shoulders" of the defensive players in order to get behind them, receive the ball, and to put his shot on goal.  Still, that's a lot to task for any man, especially one that hasn't grown up through the academy at Manchester United or similar.

There is another sport, also known as football, that would probably be better suited for Usain Bolt, and that is American football (NFL).  The best player to have translated his previous success from an elite sprinter to a highly successful wide receiver was the future hall of famer Bob Hayes.  In his day, Bob Hayes, was considered to be the fastest man alive, as is Usain Bolt in his day.  It is difficult to translate Bob Hayes' speed into present day times, because when Bob Hayes ran sprints he did so on dirt tracks with running shoes that lack today's sophistication.  Additionally, Bob Hayes ran the shorter distances of 60 yards and 100 yards, with his personal best for 100 meters beingan impressive 9.91 seconds. 

The nice thing about football for a person that doesn't have experience in it is that it involves for a wide receiver the ability to run patterns, something that is easily taught and learned.  The difficult part of football is catching the thrown football, while also having to deal with the physicality of getting tackled and hit by defensive players, which relates to the overall fear factor of the sport.  Usain Bolt's speed as well as his height of 6'5"would provide him with impressive credentials that defenses would have difficulty adjusting to.  So that because of his impressive winning credentials, his name recognition, and abilities, Usain Bolt would certainly be worth a try-out for a NFL team.  At age 28, Usain Bolt, cannot afford to wait any longer and while they say that Bolt's speed is "late speed" that translates very well to the NFL, because that would mean that once he is behind the defense that they will never catch up with him.

The Semantics of War

The War Department of the United States was responsible for our Army as well as for our Navy, until 1798, when the Navy became separated into the newly formed Naval Department.  In 1947 the Air Force of America became formally known as the Department of the Air Force, as well as the Army becoming known as the Department of the Army, in which the Army, Air Force, and Navy, became part of the National Military Establishment, which later became what we call it today, the United States Department of Defense in 1949.  There is a massive difference in the definition and meaning between a War Department and between ourpresent-day Defense Department, that is to say that the Army, Navy, and Air Force can most certainly be utilized for defensive means, but they are always aspects of actual war.  Consequently, the Department of War or the National Military Establishment are properly labeled, whereas the Department of Defense is a poorly worded deceit, especially considering that the United States is the sole military superpower in the world and that it has not declared a Congressional War since WW II, yet in actuality it has been an active agitator in many wars since the conclusion of World War II.

The United States has been recently involved in two protracted wars, although undeclared formally, with Iraq and with Afghanistan that have lasted for a considerable amount of years, with the Iraqi war entitled "Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the Afghanistan war entitled "Operating Enduring Freedom".  In neither case are these wars in any way, form, or manner, about actual freedom for the Iraqi or for the Afghanistan people.  Instead, these wars are specifically about locating, attacking, and killing certain peoples that are designated as enemies of the state, whether or not they are actual combatants or enemies to our state.  Therefore the use of the word freedom in this given context is especially galling, because in actuality America is actually trying to create not Free states of free people in these countries, but simply servile people, susceptible to our using their natural resources as our own.

In less than two weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on United States soil, the United States combined various Federal Department and agencies into the newly formed and created master department, our Homeland Security.  To some people, just the name Homeland Security sounds creepy, as if somehow just outside our borders we are surrounded by waves and waves of foreign bogeymen that we need to protect ourselves from.  Additionally, the term Homeland sounds like a foreign term, poorly placed and more akin to something that Germany would use back during the rise of Hitler, to which Hitler referred to his country as needing to: "take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."

Then there is the USA PATRIOT Act which was signed into law in 2001, to which this act essentially gives new, powerful, and invasive hi-technology tools to governmental agencies to effect domestic spying on its own citizens, all under the guise that this is needed to protect our country and its citizens from terrorist attacks.  This act is hardly patriotic, in fact arguably it is the "doublespeak" of patriotism which is better defined as having the courage to stand for right when you are in the right, in the defense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, while also having the grace to admit when you are in the wrong and thereby to correct one's actions or to suffer the indignity of making a stand on the soils of shifting sand.

The Homosexual Headline

It is surprising to see headlines in a respected national newspaper or national media outlet that state, for example: "Tim Cook: Apple CEO comes out as gay", in which one can easily question the relevancy of such an admission or the newsworthiness of the item itself in the first place.  At least in Tim Cook's case, there is some relevancy, as he goes on to say that being gay has allowed him to feel a:  "…deeper understanding of what it means to be in the minority" and  "…more empathetic".   However, my complaint with these sorts of headlines is that you never see a headline that reads: "John Doe of Mega-corporation is heterosexual," I mean why not?  I suppose most people would answer that since this is the norm that consequently this isn't news, but I'm not convinced that a person's sexual orientation is relevant to the business world or most public-forum environments in the first place because sexual activities are typically quite private, no matter the given orientation.

The fundamental point is that if a person's given sexual orientation is not germane to the work that they perform, and in most instances it certainly is not, it shouldn't be discussed in an admired and credible media outlet, because it isn't relevant to the subject at hand.  There is no merit in "outing" someone when it has little or no significance to that person's public life.  What adults do behind closed doors sexually should be their own private business and nobody else's. 

Most people do not or would not care to be defined via a headline as per their sexual orientation, because although sex may be an important part of their life, it is typically a very private part of their life, and necessarily so.  Therefore what should define a man via a headline is in fact, their public persona, the way that they represent themselves through their employment, through their charity, or through their public activities.  There are very few people who upon being introduced to you in a public forum, would say something to the effect, "Hi, nice to meet you, I'm gay," mainly because it would be considered to be a faux pas.

There should be a limit to what isn't or what is considered relevant and appropriate for being reported through the media and not everything that one becomes aware of should be considered to be fair game.  The problem that too many media outlets have is their wanton race to the bottom, to expose the most dirt,  the most titillating, the most salacious news items and the most negative things that they can find out about a given person, without ever really considering the consequences or the purpose of such "news". 

All of us should be much more concerned about the content of their own character, as opposed to being concerned about surface/shallow things or activities of others that are done with discretion and conducted in private.    A man, any man, should be able to take off his hat at the end of the day, and just be able to relax in his own domain, and his own castle, and not have to worry that the barbarians are not just at the gate but actually have overridden it.

Owning Common Stock

Approximately 47% of Americans own some common stock, usually through a retirement account of a particular mutual fund or funds, although you can also trade on the stock exchange for shares of common stock that appeal to you for one reason or another.  But what really does common stock represent?  I mean what is it that you are receiving for providing your hard-earned money to a mutual fund or for buying shares of Apple? 

First off, as you might expect, there are different types of stock, for instance, you might work for a company that issues you restricted stock, which typically means that until you have worked for that company for a certain number of months or years, that restricted stock is not available to you, because you have not accomplished the criteria for the restricted stock to be vested, but once vested, those restricted shares will become in essence the same as you owning common stock in said company and consequently material assets to you.  Additionally, there is preferred stock , as you might suspect just based on the name alone, preferred stock has more rights than common stock, such as the fact that in any insolvency of a company, it is the preferred stockholders that must be paid before any common stockholders receive a dime; additionally, whereas dividends are paid to common stockholders at the discretion of the board of directors to which they can increase or decrease or suspend the dividend, for preferred stockholders the dividend is paid regularly, and should that dividend be missed for any reason, because that dividend is guaranteed by the virtue of owning preferred stock, preferred stockholders will receive any mandated dividend payments before any dividends can be paid to common stockholders.

Companies may also issue different classes of stock, to which one stock class "A" will have greater voting rights than another stock class "B".  Although both classes of stock will have the same claim upon the profits of the company and its dividend payments per share, having less of a voting right, usually substantially less at perhaps a 1:100 ratio, means that company insiders have typically majority control over the company's voting rights, and consequently means that they are never in a position to which their aggregate vote can be challenged by any outside parties, including especially the lower class stockholders.

So at the end of the day, what does the typical common stockholder really own, when he buys stock of a particular company?  He essentially owns the right to receive his just due from any dividends approved and issued by the Board of Directors of said company, voting rights per his ownership and share class status, typically the right to attend the corporation's annual shareholder meeting, also the right to a copy of the company's annual report, as well as the ability to trade in or out of the particular stock at his own volition.

So why buy shares of common stock in the first place?  Usually, this is done because there is a belief that said company will make more often than not a profit, demonstrate growth in sales, and issue dividends that in whole will push the stock price up so on an annual basis the overall return of your common stock will be at a greater rate or a better return than other investments that you could select such as CDs or bonds or real estate or whatever.  

Music is our Universal Language

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow said that: "music is the universal language of mankind."   When the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" came out in 1977, the five-tone motif created was used in order to communicate and to demonstrate that the culture and life on planet earth was universal in nature and that it was a given that an alien culture in its mother-ship would be cognizant that the tonality of these notes were indicative of a civilization that was advanced and not primitive.  Previously, to this movie, who can forget the menacing warning of the two note musical pattern, from the blockbuster movie, "Jaws," indicative of an impending attack and stalking of the great white shark, which is absolutely unforgettable.

One must remember that there are myriad ways for mankind to communicate with one another, and that even the human language when spoken contains its own melodies or cacophony.  What is clear though in any conversation is that the tonality of the words being spoken and how they interplay with each other is extremely meaningful to the audience receiving these words, over and above the actual words themselves.  Music can express all of the basic human emotions such as love, amity, happiness, conflict, strife, disgust, and fear.  Hearing these emotions in music allows us to comprehend what the artist is trying to convey and to appreciate their effects upon us.

Music creates a sound, which comes to us as a vibration, creating the acoustics that we both hear with our ears while also relating to these vibrations with our mind.  While most music today is created by musical instruments, before the advent of these instruments, the music that was created previously was done by the chanting of our voice alone.  These chants were used not just as a communication device from one person to another or in conjunction with another, but as a voice chanting to our Godhead, to help to focus and to touch our higher consciousness.

The beauty about music is that it is understood almost innately by humans, that is to say, in general, if music contains consonant melodies we associate it with pleasure, whereas if it contains dissonance it is perceived as unpleasant.  It is music that we listen to or that we create that enables us to feel or to experience or to have expressed emotions that mean something intrinsically consequential to us.  It is music that allows us to feel that ineffable joy of being conscious of what we are and to proclaim that feeling or emotion to others or to our God himself.  Music is far more than mere entertainment or an expression of joy; it is the essence of the cosmic vibration that through our understanding of and devotion to allows us to become one.  Music is that universal language for us because it crosses all cultures and all peoples in its ability to impart basic emotions, feelings, information, and devotion from one party to another from this world to the next that is both ineffable and sweet.

Low Oil Prices

You would think that oil as a commodity would not be as volatile as it is, year after year, but oil, almost behaves more like a low-beta stock, as opposed to the most valuable commodity that the world has ever known.  For instance, taking a look over the last ten fiscal years, from 2005-2014, the average price of domestic oil in America on a yearly basis has ranged from a low in 2005 of $50.04/barrel to a high of $91.48 in 2008, with 2014, because of the recent precipitous slide in pricing estimated to be on track to be lower in aggregate price than either 2008 or 2013.  To get a better perspective on the price of oil, recognize that in 2005, the average price of oil as reported by inflationdata.com was $50.04 a barrel, which was the first year in the history of oil that the price of oil had exceeded $40/barrel on an annual basis, let alone the price of $50/barrel.  The recent sudden drop in oil prices is consequently not historically unfamiliar, nor should we expect this volatility to go away anytime soon. 

While there are some pundits that will argue that a reduction in crude oil pricing does both harm to our economy as well as to job creation, their reasoning is based on the premise that America produces a considerable amount of oil each year, employing indirectly or directly a few million people, there are fundamental factors to be acknowledged as to why this position is basically wrong.  For instance, in 2009, Exxon/Mobil made a profit of $19.42 billion, while this was a considerable drop off from 2008 in which their profit was a record $44.06 billion, this speaks volumes though about  the real cost of extracting oil and the profitability of the business in aggregate.  It also indicates, that large corporations, such as Exxon, recognized that because the price of oil can go up as well as down, that it behooves such a company to "hedge" their oil prices so as to normalize their earnings expectations.   It is this type of hedging that should be a matter of policy and principle for America's oil, shale oil, and fracking producers, and for those that haven't learned the lesson of the prudence of doing so, they will, one way or another.

Additionally, most people simply look upon lower oil prices as equating to lower gasoline prices and while this is most certainly true, the price of oil and its massive importance to our economy and to the pocketbook of Americans has far deeper ramifications than just gasoline for our vehicles.  For instance, crude oil, when refined and processed, will become plastics, detergent, heating oil, jet fuel, synthetic rubber, synthetic fabrics, fertilizers, food additives, medicine, paints as well as cosmetics.  All of this basically means, that the price of oil affects the pricing of the foregoing products and consequently lower oil prices is an almost certain unmitigated good.

Finally, while America which was once the greatest oil exporter in the world has recently found ways through hi-technology, equipment, and fracking to increase its domestic oil production to rates not seen in a generation, it is still a nation of petroleum importers.  According to the EIA.gov the "…the U.S. imported approximately 10.6 million barrels per day of petroleum in 2012 from about 80 countries. We exported 3.2 MMbd of crude oil and petroleum products, resulting in net imports (imports minus exports) equaling 7.4 MMbd."  Clearly, the United States is still a massive importer of petroleum products and consequently anytime that the price of oil drops, it is beneficial for Americans, because it leads to lower fuel prices as well as to lower pricing for petroleum based products.

He, who lives by the sword, must die by the sword

"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52).  This biblical passage carries an important lesson, both metaphorically as well as literally.  The fact that Jesus the Christ, could at the time of His hour, recognize and impart the truth that in His mission there was no place for Simon Peter to bring his own version of vigilante justice, but instead it was imperative that Peter understood the wisdom and placed his faith in God's law and justice, and not to rely on a tit-for-tat philosophy, demonstrated that Christ understood the fallacy of ever believing that the ends justify the means, or that fight was necessary to prove right.

Those that take up the physical sword in response to a perceived injustice, are destined to follow the sword's path which can only lead to further violence and bloodshed as well as often involving innocents into this display of arms that leaves a devastating trail of tears for many.  The Messiah wishes to impart the spiritual truth that man's way is often impulsive, retaliatory, quick to judgment, quick to justice, and lacks wisdom and faith in God himself.

There are many people that do not believe in the metaphorical wisdom that he, who lives by the sword, must die by the sword, because in their life they do not see this happening.  For instance, in everyday life, they may see a select few elites running riot over others, or an obvious physical injustice being perpetrated by one man against another, or the smooth talking of a slick con artist which fools a simple man.  All these are examples of people that are living one way, but appear to not to be suffering the consequences of their wrongful actions, in fact, they appear to be directly benefiting from them.

One must remember, however, that God is not a God that can be mocked, that for every wrong action there is an appropriate right action, and for every wrong, there is a path for righteousness.  Those that believe that you can fool God and God's law will in the end, receive their just desserts, as God's law is never subservient to man's designs or trickery.  So rest assured that the man that fooled and deceived you to get his way unjustly will ultimately face the music, one way or another, as God sees and comprehends it all, whereas man often only can perceive bits and pieces and thereby lacks knowledge of the bigger picture and of ultimate truth.

Peace and justice do not enter into the doors of this world through unjustified violence or knavery.  While there may indeed be a time to take up the sword, those that become beholden to the sword, miss the point that the sword in the hands of erring humans will often be used unwisely and to their ultimate destruction, should they not have the knowledge and wisdom to sheath the sword when its appropriate duty has been performed.  Our Messiah needed no human hands or weapons to defend Him, even to His death onto the cross, because the physical is never lord over the spiritual, as one is material and finite, while the other is indestructible and infinite. 

Choose today what you shall live to, as this becomes you.

E10 mixture vs. regular gasoline

Years ago when you filled up your vehicle with gasoline, the fuel that you bought was 100% gasoline.  However, upon the implementation of the Renewable FuelStandardAct of 2007, our gasoline has become blended with ethanol ,so that nowadays when filling up your car with gasoline, it is no longer just gasoline, but in actuality a blend of ethanol and gasoline, to wit the sign at the gas pump will state something to the effect that the gasoline that you are pumping "may contain up to 10% ethanol,"  which is known in the trade as E10, meaning that the blend is 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline.  While there are many arguments, pro and con, as to why we should or shouldn't be using ethanol as a fuel in America, that is a subject for a different day, instead the question being raised is E10 blended gasoline with an octane rating of 87 the same as regular gasoline at the octane rating of 87.  The answer is no.

First off, in order to create an octane mixture of 87 with regular gasoline, that mixture actually would contain gasoline at an octane rating of 84, blended with ethanol which has an octane rating of 113.  The fact that ethanol has a significantly higher octane rating than gasoline must imply that ethanol is the superior fuel, but in actuality octane does not equate to more power, more fuel efficiency or superiority in any way, but instead refers to the ignition quality of the gas, or in lay terms, the "knocking" of your car engine or the compression ratio necessary for your vehicle's sparkplugs and pistons to generate horsepower.  The octane that is necessary for any particular vehicle is listed in your owner's manual and while you can always trade up in octane, there isn't any valid reason to do so, whereas going down in octane from the recommendations of your owner's manual, will increase your risk of engine damage. 

In America, most vehicles that are sold run on an octane rating of 87, to which most of that gasoline that is sold for that octane, is a blend of 10% ethanol at an octane rating of 113, with 90% gasoline at an octane rating of 84, making for a combined octane rating of 87.  However, the fuel efficiency of an E10 gasoline blend is significantly less than the fuel efficiency of regular gasoline, a fact that most people are not cognizant of.  As reported by the midwestenergynews.com, the E10 blend has a lower BTU than regular gasoline, to the tune of 96.67% of gasoline's BTU, which means that E10 will get less gas mileage than regular gasoline and consequently should you be able to find a gas station that is actually selling regular gasoline without any blends to it, you can pay approximately 3.44% higher for that gasoline to achieve the same value for your dollar. 

In summary, E10 blended gasoline is not the same as regular gasoline in regards to fuel efficiency, it is inferior by about 3.33% which is the discount that you should receive for utilizing this fuel in your vehicle as compared to regular gasoline.  This means that your E10 blended gasoline will consistently get less gas mileage than regular gasoline, because this blended gas is inferior to regular gas for fuel efficiency.  America consumed 134,506,764,000 gallons of finished motor gasoline in 2013; one would hope that the environmental "benefits" of ethanol has made up for its inefficiency as a motor fuel.

Diego Garcia Island

As reported by the http://www.telegraph.co.uk the Diego Garcia Island is: "… a 17 sq. mile horseshoe-shaped atoll in the Indian Ocean's Chagos Archipelago. It has a tropical climate with thick jungles and white sand beaches."  Initially, upon reading this, one might suppose that this must be some sort of tourist destination catering to the rich and famous and hardly newsworthy.  Unfortunately, it isn't, instead, from the years 1968-1973, the native Chagossians were forcefully deported by Great Britain which had become the principal colonial power of the Diego Garcia, upon the implementation of the Treaty of Paris in 1814.  Like anything, the immediate question to ask was why the approximately 1,500 Chagossians were deported from their island of residence?  The short answer is that the United States strongly desired to have a strategic presence in the Indian Ocean that would allow their military vital access to the Middle East and Southeast Asia.  Therefore the deportation of the peoples there was primarily done with the purpose of establishing an important strategic base without the annoyance of the indigenous people populating the island interfering with the base, and also creating possible compromised communications or inconvenient protests.

Since the time of the deportation, the Chagossians have lived in exile, and although they were given some money as a settlement for being re-located, they have also pursued various lawsuits in the fight to return to their land of their birth.  Not too surprisingly, the Chagossians have not been successful in their lawsuits and based upon the vested interests of both Great Britain and the United States, they will not be succeeding in returning to their homeland anytime soon, if ever.  Perhaps therefore one should simply look upon this incident as just another injustice perpetrated against innocent civilians, all for the purpose of the so-called "greater good" or simply for the convenience of Great Britain or its proxy, its designated lessee the United States being able to take possession of a strategically placed desirable location so that timely military force is capable of being applied against countries in the immediate region.

In a modern world in which colonial powers have voluntarily or through pressure relinquished their power and control of colonial countries and governments, the Diego Garcia deportation incident should follow this same pattern and consequently the Chagossians should be masters of their own fate.  Once and for all, the Chagossian people should be given a choice to return to their homeland with appropriate compensation and materials to rebuild their homes and lifestyle or instead to voluntarily surrender their right to return to their homeland on an individual basis.    Instead, Great Britain pushed through a Marine Protection Act for the Chagos archipelago which in essence, will preclude Chagossians from ever returning to their homeland, because the environmental protections of the marine reserve will stop them from being able to effectively fish the waters of their native land, should they be repatriated to their homeland.

In the United States lust for empire, it has no guilt, nor compunction, asserting itself against other sovereign peoples as if their way is the only way, the right way, and God's way.  It isn't.

Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech

No doubt, most people are unaware of who Alexander Stephens was, but he was the first and the last Vice President of the Confederate States of America, who on March 21, 1861, at the Athenaeum in Savannah, GA made a extemporaneous speech which in its words and in its effects describes the founding principles of the Southern States and for what they stood for.  This speech puts to rest, forever, the so-called "lost cause" of the Confederacy, to which the South claims that their cause was both noble and chivalrous, and further that the South lost the war not because that they were in the wrong, but only because they could not overcome the uncouth North's numerical and industrial advantages which brought wanton destruction and depredations upon the South, that forever destroyed and upset the traditional and genteel ways of Southern life.

At the time of Stephens' speech, Abraham Lincoln had just been inaugurated only two weeks earlier in the month, so that when Stephens bragged that the "revolution ….been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood," the Southern attack upon Ft. Sumter had not yet been made, so that the absence of blood that Stephens referred to would be plentiful enough for the next bloody four years.  Further, in order to justify the Southern secession from the Union, Stephens drew upon the founding fathers of our country and was surprisingly candid in stating fairly and profoundly that: "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. …Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."" Stephens makes two essential and critical admissions, the first is that our founding fathers believed completely in these words that "all men are created equal", and further that the Southern states upon ratifying the Constitution were in agreement in principle that slavery would over a period of time fade away from this great land, to which the Constitution stated that a tax or duty on the importation of persons may be permitted, beginning in the year 1808.  Subsequently to the enacted Constitution, a further Federal act was passed in 1807, forbidding the importation of slaves in 1807, which became effective in 1808.  In fact, slavery was in continual decline in the United States from the inception of our Independence until the advent of the cotton gin, which changed the economics and importance of slavery in fundamental ways.

Stephens went on to state that: "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition." This self-serving statement is demonstrative proof of the delusion of the South.  The United Kingdom had in 1833, outlawed slavery throughout the British Empire, in a time when the sun did not set on this empire.  The mistake that the United States had made was in their enactment of our Constitution there was assumed that over a period of time, and additionally through taxation and later through the prohibition of slave importation that slavery as an institution, would become marginalized, outdated, and outmoded, but instead new technology and the inherent greed of money making put a lie to that noble purpose.

The South, far from having a meaningful "lost cause" instead when defeated at the ballot upon the election of Abraham Lincoln, decided to rebel in order to skirt its attendant obligations and duties, and to instead impress upon people who had done them no wrong, that they were born to be forever enslaved to the Southern cause and to the Southern way, so that the Southern man could live well upon the bread and blood he had extracted unjustly from his fellow man.

Your Personal Computer is very personal in a very bad way

Seemingly, no matter what you do, even your own personal computer and its peripheral devices act as if it is your "big brother", most of the time without you even remotely being aware that this is happening.  For instance, most everyone has a printer in order to print out and to document items of importance, but that color printer, depending upon its make, inkjet or laser, and sophistication of said printer may easily have an invisible code that identifies that printer to the actual user.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) discovered that certain laser printers contained a coding pattern of virtually invisible yellow dots placed into an arrangement that shows: "…which printer was used to print a particular document, and sometimes also shows when it was printed."  The ostensible reason for the large conglomerate printer manufacturers to add this hidden tracking device onto their color printers is so as to help identify and to convict money counterfeiters, but in reality this sophistication can just as easily be used for sophisticated domestic surveillance and consequently to stifle or to compromise legal civil dissent that our government finds to be "inconvenient".

Most computers have a combined CD/DVD burner to which whenever a CD or DVD is created (burned) that CD or DVD probably will contain as part of that burning mechanism a unique sequence of numbers that identifies clearly the source of the CD or DVD which can then be consequently verified and cross-checked against the CD/DVD burner that resides within your personal computer.   Further, most blank CDs or DVDs contain within the center of the disc itself, coding information, that enables a government agency to determine where the batch came from, and subsequently perhaps even where they were purchase from or a general idea thereof.

Microsoft Office is America's most popular word processing and document creating platform, but contained within Word are tools that track the creation of a document which when unmasked will show changes/comments/corrections and dates that are all contained within the details of the document itself, which will also feature as wellthe original author information, and additionally in all probability a unique number or coding sequence assigned to the document which will probably identify the Word document against the purchased copy of Word itself. 

If you use your computer to download documents or media files, you may not be aware that this too is tracked by your Internet Service Provider (ISP) to which the very fact that you have downloaded a file will be part of their database, identifying you through your unique Internet Protocol (IP) address that is assigned to your personal computer upon signing up for ISP service.  This means that should you download a document that is copyrighted, you may receive a warning or worse from an agency or company demanding payment or the possibility of a lawsuit for the violation of federal copyright laws.

None of the above items fit the description of items that consumers would be clamoring for while purchasing and subsequently using a PC but they are all there to track you, to monitor you, to harass you, to compromise you, and to convict you.  Your personal computer is an evidence gathering machine whether you like it or not.

Why Does Apple Inc. Issue Corporate Bonds?

Apple Inc. has a staggering market capitulation of $660 billion dollars as of the autumn of 2014.  Additionally, Apple has somewhere around $150 billion in cash or cash equivalents on hand, which would, by definition, mean that they would not have any need whatsoever to issue debt such as bonds, yet in the last couple of years, Apple has done just that.  There are two significant reasons why Apple has gone to the bond market, to which the most compelling reason being that Apple has just about $138 billion of its cash assets held overseas, which they cannot repatriate back into America without suffering huge tax consequences, consequently Apple deliberately utilizes legal tax havens overseas, effectively lowering their United States tax rate immensely because the taxes that they pay in the States are based on profits made in America.  The other reason for the bond issuance is that the credit worthiness of Apple at AA-plus is the same as United States treasuries, with Apple being able therefore to issue debt at yield rates to investors that are just modestly above US treasuries, assuring themselves of an incredibly low debt cost and therefore a very enviable low cost to service borrowed money.

It is important to understand that In order for there to be fairness and justice, law must be equally applied and applicable to all, but when you are dealing with literally billions of dollars, and recognizing too that every dollar that you pay in taxes is a dollar that disappears from your corporation piggy-bank; as a corporation, you may well take the position, that it is in your company's best interests as well as in your stockholder's best interest to do everything imaginable to lower and thereby to reduce your tax consequences, while still being able to state with pride that your corporation pays all of its legal taxes, but this same corporation cannot also truly contend that it pays all of its taxes within the "spirit of the law".

Apple too recognizes that with the cost of money being at historic lows and with their credit rating being equivalent to US treasuries, that thereby by definition their credit rating is higher than all but nineteen nations in the entire world.  This therefore translates into Apple's ability to issue bonds that will be well received, if not oversold, at incredibly competitive rates, which in actuality as compared to US treasuries are just basis points above them.  However, Apple has demonstrated in 2014 that they are even smarter than the smartest guys in the room, because in 2014, they were able to issue additional debt which according to Reuters results in:"eight-year notes issued in Europe, Apple's bonds will yield 1.082%, while 12-year notes will yield 1.671%."  This means that Apple's new bonds will yield considerably less than equivalent US Treasures in which the 10-year US treasury currently resides at 2.32%.  Apple is able to accomplish all this because bond yields in Europe are even lower than in the United States.

Consequently, because Apple is so successful at their bond issuance, they therefore have the capital and flexibility to pay out dividends at a satisfactory yield to satisfy stockholders, to make planned purchases of corporate stock in buybacks to either help support their stock price or to appreciate it through the attendant increase in earnings per share and return on equity, to take advantage of the deductibility of debt interest, and finally to have the flexibility and wherewithal to make investments into instruments that yield or will produce returns higher than the debt that they are paying.

There will never be an IPO like Apple or Microsoft Again

Financial news magazines, pundits, television commentators, love to talk and to talk and to talk up IPOs ad nauseam.  It makes you wonder, if IPOs are so glorious, so good and such an easy path to easy money, why anyone that is an insider at these IPO companies would ever even consider selling a share.  While there have been some phenomenal IPOs, such as Google or Apple there have also been phenomenal flame-outs such as pets.com and etoys.com.  Whether an IPO is a good investment or not depends on a lot of factors, such as the underlying value of the company, its growth rate, its return on equity, its market share, and its cache.  The one thing that you seldom heard about is that IPOs and the astonishing returns such as Apple or Microsoft have generated will never occur again, or at least, will never occur again with the likes of Facebook or Google.

To get an appropriate picture of IPOs of today, we should compare them against a few from the previous century, starting with Apple Computer.  When Apple's IPO came out on December 12, 1980, its market capitalization after the first day of trading was higher than any other IPO since Ford Motor Company of 1956, and the market capitalization of Apple was $1.778 billion at the close of business that day, making it a resounding success.  Today, the market capitalization of Apple is the largest in the entire world at a staggering $669.94 billion, which is a percentage increase of 37,579%.  Microsoft's IPO came out in 1986 and at the close of business on its first day of trading its market cap was $778 million, to which its closing price was substantially higher than its IPO offering of $21 whereas it closed at $27.75 a share.  Today, the market capitalization of Microsoft, which at one time had the largest market capitalization of any stock in America, is $408.72 billion, which is a percentage increase of 52,434%.  The stock that generated the most insane media frenzy during the 20th Century had to be Netscape, to which people were literally salivating to get in onto the deal.  Netscape closed at $58.25 in 1995, making it the very first stock to more than double its IPO price on its very first day of public trading and giving it a market capitalization of $2.9 billion.  However, over the next few years, Netscape essentially stagnated in the market, before being bought out in an all stock deal by AOL for $4.2 billion in 1999, or a percentage increase of 45%.

In the 21st century, there have been some mega IPOs but none of these will reach the heights and returns of Microsoft or Apple.  For instance, there is Google which after its first day of trading in 2004 finished with a market capitalization of a very impressive $23 billion, today its market capitalization is $373.96 billion, which equates to spectacular 1,525% return.  Facebook's IPO came out in 2012, in which after its first day of trading its market capitalization was $104.2 billion to which the underwriters of Facebook struggled all day to keep the stock above its IPO price, to which it was later to fall significantly under, only to recover quite strongly so as of today, it is worth some $209.4 billion, a percentage increase of 101%.  Finally, there is Alibaba, the largest IPO in the history of public offerings, which upon its 1st day of trading in 2014 had a market capitalization of a simply unfathomable $231 billion, and currently is at $286.6 billion, a percentage increase of 24%.

Obviously, the IPOs of the 21st century have had not the longevity of Apple or Microsoft, but comparing Microsoft's IPO v. Google's IPO, over each of their first ten years, shows Microsoft cleaning Google's clock with a return of 9,151% to 1,525% which is an astonishing difference, especially considering that Google has been a monstrous success.  The problem that Google, Facebook, and Alibaba have is simply the law of large numbers, that is to say, because their market capitalization was so high to begin with they will never reach the returns of Microsoft or Apple, especially in regards to Facebook and Alibaba in which any hope of matching these aforementioned titans is surreally pathetic.  This doesn't mean that Facebook or Alibaba are necessarily bad investments, to date they have done quite well, what it does

mean is that there is no possibility that you can take a "toothpick" of an investment in them and hope to get anything of real substance in return.  For instance, with Microsoft an investment in 1986 of 100 shares at $27.75 would have cost you $2775.00 + commission, but today after all their splits and even without taking into account any dividends that you would have received while owning Microsoft you would have a stock value of $1,424,448 or thereabouts with a corresponding dividend yield of 2.51% which equates to $35,754 annually in dividend payments just for the pleasure of owning the stock.  

The Power to Tax is the Power to Own

It has been said that the power to tax is the power to destroy, which is true, but I find it more meaningful to state that the power to tax is the power to control and ultimately the power to own the labor of others.  If you think about it, if your labor is taxed at 100%, you are effectively a slave to that taxing authority, so while 100% taxation is slavery, than it follows that 0% taxation is complete individual freedom without attendant social or government obligations, so somewhere in-between these two numbers should be a happy medium.

A great revolutionary war was fought in this country to protest that there shall be no taxation without representation.  Yet you would find few people today that can honestly claim that their current state of taxation is represented well or even fairly.  Taxation in America ranges from property taxes, to user taxes, to sales taxes, to local taxes, to State taxes, to Federal taxes, and then there are the indirect taxes which aren't even called taxes.  The tax laws and the tax books in America are so long, so convoluted, with so many exceptions and exemptions, that two people can be making the exact same income and have wholly independent tax obligations depending upon their interpretation and their sophistication in regards to our tax code.

While there are many reasons why our tax code is so convoluted and so messed up, most of that blame can rest on lobbyists and legislatures that stumble through a strange symbiotic relationship.   The only thing that is clear in regards to our tax codes is that those without power, without special interests or influence, will ultimately pay considerably more than those that are connected.  This means that the present power to tax is in fact, the power to control and to take from the labor of unwitting others, to which the government taxing authorities specialize in wringing the bread from the laborious sweat of honest men's faces.

The fact that one's labor is taxed to begin with is the fundamental crux of the problem in the land that claims to be the land of the free.  The taxing of labor or the taking of income from labor by legal taxiing authorities is a form of enslavement to the State apparatus.  In point, the labor that you create, should be the labor that you keep, as the State has a multitude of ways to effect income, such as through lotteries, import duties, and excise taxes. 

There is, however, one more form of taxation which is fair to the people as well as to the State, and that is the estate (death) tax.  While you are alive you should definitely be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor, but upon your death, there are extremely valid arguments as to how a significant portion of those monies accumulated should be sacrificed to the State, and not to be gifted indiscriminately to your designated heirs.  The man of great wealth cannot use this material wealth in the world to come and should not either be permitted to still wield earthly power through delegated agents while he resides in the undiscovered country to which such passage is free of monetary taxation.

The Dangers of Remote Control Access and P2P file sharing of your Computer

There are plenty of computer programs that allow you to control or to access your desktop or other computer when you are visiting a client, residing at home, on vacation, and so forth.  These programs, such as logmein or gotomypc actually work quite well so that you are able to essentially get inside your main computer and copy files, manipulate files, utilize files and programs, and overall to conduct work as if you were actually in front of your main desktop.  There are other utilities that one can use for peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing which allows you to share files such as music, picture, or video files, from one computer to another.  All of this appears pretty wonderful, the fact that you can share or swap files remotely and routinely, work on tasks remotely, and so on, but this assumes that you live in a Mr. Rodgers type of neighborhood but in fact, you don't.

Anytime that you open up your computer to remote control access or to P2P sharing, you have basically opened up Pandora's Box, and things that you think are under your control, are not.  Sure, there are always controls, protocols, security codes, crosschecks, and so forth that will in theory protect your information and ensure the integrity of your computer, but all of these can be compromised.   Every P2P network as well as remote access programs will tout its protections and integrities, but they are all vulnerable to hackers that know how to exploit them and once a hacker gets into your computer through security leaks or bots or through cracking passwords or through malware, your files are vulnerable to being copied and exploited.

As bad as remote control access and P2P networking can be to the integrity of your computer and to yourself, the simple fact that you utilize the internet, and further that your internet is up 24 hours/7 days a week, means that your entire computer and its contents are vulnerable to being exploited and attacked at any moment, whether that attack is done through a backdoor malware attachment, a network phishing expedition, a "false-flag" website that will initiate malware, or a peripheral device setup to look and behave normally but containing malicious software that activates upon installation.

The basic fact is that once your computer is accessed by an outside computer, whether intentionally or not, that monitoring computer will through a skilled technician hands have the ability to wreak havoc within the subject computer itself, to which it can monitor, copy, or compromise the target computer as if it was by actuated by you, or perhaps the attack will be considerably less invasive depending upon a multitude of conditions and efforts submitted.  This in essence means that any government agency, foreign or domestic, or criminal consortium, or hacker can in all probability readily keep track or compromise your activities on your computer, the websites that you visit, along with the documents that you create, both private and confidential, the web chats that you have, and the exact identity of who and what you are.