Military, Police, the use of Deadly Force and Administrative Leave

The average age of a military recruit in America is probably just under 21, to which you can with parental consent be eligible to join the military as young as age 17.  AS for police recruits, most police departments prefer that eligible police officers either have achieved a four-year college degree, and/or are veterans of military service before they apply to become a police officer, therefore, the average age of a police recruit is probably in the mid 20's, and is certainly higher than those recruited for the military.  It can be said that there are few military recruits that are ex-police officers, whereas there is a substantial percentage of police officers that have previously served their country as members of the military.

While in both professions, military as well as in police work, you may go your entire service career without having to discharge your weapon in either self-defense or in a deliberate act of deadly force to take the life of another, the fact of the matter is, that the mission of a military recruit, in times of war or combat, is dramatically different than a police officer's mission which is usually stated as being to protect and to defend the community.  A military soldier, will by definition, is given instructions to kill the enemy, whereas these orders, will seldom, almost never, be given to a police officer.  When a police officer actually engages in deadly force, as a matter of public policy, for virtually all police departments, he will subsequently be placed immediately on administrative leave, pending an internal investigation, and upon clearance will return to active duty, having availed himself of mandatory professional psychological counseling as well as peer review.  

However, in regards to a military soldier and his use of deadly force we find that during the exigencies of war, there is seldom even the opportunity for said soldier to disengage from an active battle or from his duties to his fellow soldiers, his mission, and the overall necessary cohesion of all those involved.   This means as a matter of policy, that soldiers who are younger in age than police officers, have less life experience than police officers, are much more likely to have to use mortal force against an enemy in combat, as well as subjecting themselves to the line of fire in return.  The obvious and frightful conclusion is that our soldiers at a younger age, are subject to far more stressful situations, than our police officers, yet neither administrative leave or counseling is something that they can avail themselves of in any sort of timely manner.

America has the second largest active military force in the world today, and since the end of World War II, has only engaged in war with countries that are far smaller in size especially in regards to personnel, equipment, experience, and sophistication.   This means, that the United States as a matter of policy, should actively manage their military personnel in such a way so that when deadly force is utilized, that its personnel having done so, can avail themselves at the earliest possible time of the necessary investigation of actions taken on the military field, as well as psychological counseling, and peer review.  We, as the richest country in the history of the world, owe that duty to our soldiers, so that when their service on behalf of their country has been completed, they are able to return to life in America, with the reasonable hope that they are well and able.

Immortality v. Eternity

In the English language we often use words interchangeably that have similar meanings or concepts but in actuality there are often subtle yet important differences between the words.  For instance, immortality and eternity is not the same thing, although from a simplistic standpoint they seem to be about the same thing.  Within legends or certain genres, you will come across a character or god that is described as being "immortal," meaning that this entity will never die, that they are indeed "not mortal", but importantly this implies too that this particular entity or god was once born or created.  Whereas, on the other hand any time we come across the word eternal, this word signifies that it is everlasting, existing forever and importantly existing without a beginning or an end.  To be eternal is to exist without time, beyond time, to be in a dimension to which time is not applicable, whereas to be immortal, is to live within a world or a dimension, to which you are in essence trapped in time, never dying, yet never breaking free from the boundaries and the limitations of time.

Consequently, while any being that is eternal is also as an aspect of that eternity, thereby also immortal, since eternity can never be vanquished, it does not follow however, that an immortal being can ever become eternal.  This is because it is our Creator, who is the master of both time as well as space.  Most people take it as a given, that there is such a thing as time, to which time can be subdivided into a past, present, and a future.  In the world that we live in, this does appear to be true to us as human beings, however, as Einstein stated, "... for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

This would imply that our concepts of both time as well as space have been created for the benefit of humans, and also apparently as an avenue or pathway for us to be drawn inexorably towards eternity, and thereby to escape the confines of a limited dimension.  For this reason, as well as for others, the Christ consciousness was brought forth in human form into our world.  The Christ consciousness existed before time, and has been and always will be eternal, in human form it was utilized by the messiah known also as Jesus of Nazareth.  This Jesus, whose human body was crucified, demonstrated to us by virtue of the empty tomb, that therefore our body is not, and will never be ourselves, that we are in essence, beyond our human body, beyond mere mortality, and if we only would reach out to the Eternal Bliss that is our Creator, we would thereby break free from the limiting delusion that we are separated from God, and that instead we shall know what we have always been, not immortals trapped in time and space on earth, but One with our Father, who art that guiding light, the True Light, from which all light originated, a Light without beginning and without end.

Economic Propaganda

Our government would have us believe that America has recovered strongly from its great recession, witnessed by the drop of unemployment down to 5.8% as of November of 2014, and GDP growth of 5% in the 3rd quarter of the same year, along with stock prices consistently breaking records in calendar year 2014.  This would seem to imply that America is once again enjoying good economic times and consequently has risen like a Phoenix from the ashes of our economic meltdown.  While it is most certainly true that America's economy is in a much better state than it was in 2008-09, it is deceptive to believe that America and its people as a whole have recovered strongly from those days, as there are three types of lies, "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

The fact of the matter is that there are a multitude of ways to look at statistics and thereby myriad ways to mix in estimates, adjustments, historical numbers, and so forth, to obtain a witch's brew of numbers that can serve the purpose of the media outlet or government agency that is disseminating the story.  Government and its media outlets are very much motivated in keeping the general population quiescent and satisfied that everything is okay, that everything is getting better, and that if your personal prosperity isn't happening right here and now, it will be, as it is just around the corner, just have patience and believe.  The one thing that our government does get done right, as opposed to failed or failing socialistic and totalitarian States, is that our government does an excellent job of distributing food and shelter to all comers in one form or another, because a full belly with access to a warm hearth of some sort, isn't too likely to have the stomach to engage in much revolutionary action.

Unfortunately, America is in rather poor straits, and has fallen far from the path of upward mobility since the turn of the 21st century.  We know this by looking at real and meaningful statistics such as reported by the weeklystandard.com that of those aged 25-54 years, "…28.9 million people, or 23.2 percent of the total—is not currently employed." CBSnews.com reports that in 2014 our workplace participation rate dropped to 62.7% which is the lowest rate it has been since 1978.  To add even more fuel to the fire, monster.com reports that "As many as 22 million U.S. workers can be considered “underemployed”."   This means, in essence, millions of Americans are either working at occupations that do not give them as many hours as they desire to work, or in positions that they are overqualified for by either experience or by education or both.

Finally, when American pundits talk about our current "robust economy", they fail to disclose the precipitous decline in home ownership in America.  Bloomberg.com reports that "The homeownership rate in the U.S. declined to the lowest in almost 19 years."   This statistic is very meaningful, as the asset distribution of the middle 60% of Americans, clearly shows that home ownership is their most prized asset, typically making up more than 60% of their net worth.  Additionally, when you do not own your own home, you are to a certain degree, no longer master of your own ship, instead you are subject to the vicissitudes of the true property owner, for better or for much worst.

American Indians as Sovereign Nations

Not every American Indian lives on land that is considered to be owned and governed by American Indians as separate sovereign nations within the United States, but a substantial amount of American Indians do so.  The entire concept that within America, there are sovereign nations, governing themselves is absolutely fascinating, until you peel back the curtain and quickly recognize that American Indians are at best quasi-sovereign nations, and at worst, live under the illusion that they are sovereign nations when in fact, when push comes to shove, they will find, as they almost have always found, that the "white man" makes and asserts the law to the white man's benefit, no matter what a certain treaty, law, or tradition may or may not say.  That is a shame, and to the discredit of America, since in virtually every instance, the American Indian, has been given a raw deal, a broken deal, and a trail of tears from their fellow countrymen, again and again and again.

Truly the American Indian's tale is a tale of woe, to which in aggregate, American Indians and Alaska natives, as reported by nbcnews.com have almost 12 percent of their deaths that are considered to be alcohol related.  Additionally, according to census.gov American Indians and Alaska natives have the highest percentage of people that are living beneath the poverty line.  The only real thing of substance that American Indians have been able to salvage since the discovery and subsequent conquering of America by Europeans is that they own a substantial amount of land as sovereign nations.  As one might expect, most of the land that is set aside as sovereign nations for American Indian tribes is land that the government thought to be of little worth in the first place, but as time has gone by, in numerous instances American Indians have discovered that their land has value in its mineral wealth, its waters, or as a gambling empire.  Not too surprisingly, when there is money to be made, or wealth to be exploited, the American government or free enterprise have a great desire to get their hands on it.  That, as you may say, is the true test of true sovereignty.

How much sovereignty that an American Indian really has as a sovereign nation, has an awful lot to do with whom the dispute is with.  That is to say, when that dispute is with a major multi-national corporation or government agency with the best legal counsel that money can entice, American Indians will often find out that their sovereignty will be essentially lost without their own access to expert legal counsel to setup a well-orchestrated defense of their sovereignty, or in lieu of that they will need a lot of sympathetic media play.  The following statement by the Federal District Court of Montana in 1973 said that ”The blunt fact, however, is that an Indian tribe is sovereign to the extent that the United States permits it to be sovereign,"  which means according to this court, that any belief that American Indians have that they are sovereign is, in essence, nothing but a pipedream.

In fairness to American Indians, in fairness to the concept of sovereign nations within America, a line should be drawn in the sand, clearly delineating once and for all what rights a sovereign nation does or does not have within America.  The Supreme Court, itself, can't seem to make up its mind as to whether American Indians have sovereign rights that predate the European's discovery of America or whether instead they are subject to the dictates of Congress per Article 1, Section 8, of our Constitution.  At the least, we owe the American Indians, a fair deal, that takes into account our previous failures to abide by treaties time and time again, because a country that will not respect its own law, that will not obey its own word, is a country that no man shall have to respect, and isn’t the country that God would shed his grace upon.

African-America Strength in Numbers

There are about the same amount of Mormons as there are Jews in America, approximately 6 million peoples of each, whereas there are about 45 million African-Americans in the United States.  Yet, there would be few people that would categorically state that African-Americans have more strength or more influence than either of these two religious peoples.  In the case of Mormons, they are the dominant force in Salt Lake City, a metropolis of approximately 1 million peoples, in addition to the fact that the governor of Utah has invariably been also a Mormon for the last fifty-odd years.   The Jewish population is a major force in the most influential city in America, with over 2 million Jews living in New York City, to which also there are significant amount of Jews in Los Angeles, which is too a very influential and important city in America.  While there are plenty of African-Americans in cities throughout America, to wit there are close to 2 million African-Americans in NYC, their numbers do not equate well to real power or real strength within NYC or in many other metropolitan areas.

While there are many cities, that are majority African-American in their population, few of those cities are cities on the rise; almost all of them, such as Detroit, Baltimore, or Memphis are cities with deeply rooted problems of crime, poor schools, and poverty.   This means in a nutshell that despite the relatively large population of 45 million peoples in the United States, that African-Americans are for whatever reasons, often on the short-end of the stick in receiving the full wealth and benefits of living in the richest and most prosperous nation that the world has ever known.  Since it is a given that African-Americans will never be a majority within America,  yet it has been demonstrated by Mormons as well as by Jews and others, that sheer numbers are not necessary to obtain power and influence in America, African-Americans must avail themselves of accomplishing these vital tasks themselves.

To have a seat at the table of democracy in America, there is wisdom in the application of utilizing your numbers in the most meaningful ways possible.  The bottom line is that African-Americans are currently woefully underrepresented in the seats of power in our judiciary, in our legislative, in our corporations, in our healthcare, and in our higher educational fields.  In order to best rectify these numbers, African-Americans must make it a priority to seize the initiative by clearly establishing goals that will allow them to begin their assent up the mountaintop of success. 

African-Americans cannot sit back on their haunches, awaiting the Government benefactors to bless them, when too often the Government itself or its agents, has been the problem.   It is true that African-Americans should hold government in all of its many forms accountable for the raw deal that has often been dealt to people of color, injustice everywhere, will be halted when exposed to the true light of fairness and the relentless demand of a people that will not submit to wrongs that continue until this very day. 

African-Americans deserve better by their country, "… Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Matthew 25:40)

You Didn't Build That

Back on the campaign trail, on July 13, 2012, President Obama said: "look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own…. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that."  Soon thereafter, a firestorm of protest was built up, over this speech from the President, to which it appeared, at best that Obama was stating that if you are successful, you shouldn't claim all of that success on your own, and that if you've established your own successful business, you should recognize that you didn't build the infrastructure that surrounds your business, such as the roads, bridges, and the internet that are utilized to move goods around in America.  To a certain extent, most people realize as a given, that their success in life, has come from their ability to as Sir Isaac Newton stated, "… If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants," but unfortunately and disappointingly Obama's speech lacks any of the poetry, humility, and the simple clear brilliance of Sir Isaac.

Obama's "you didn't build that," does on a basic level, claims that you, as a person, as an American, are in actuality, no matter your accomplishments or ability, in essence just a cog in the big picture, to which your life should be dedicated and sacrificed to the State.  In other words, the State cares only about you to the extent that your life and your performance has helped to further the State as a whole, and the State does not want you to ever forget that every good deed,  and that every good action that you have ever accomplished, in one form or another is because of it, the State.   The State wishes to submit to you, that no matter how much blood, sweat, and tears that you have provided it over your many years, no matter how much wisdom you have imparted, no matter the good advice that you have given, you are no better than anyone else, that in the eyes of the State, we are all equal, no matter what.

If, in fact, none of us gets there on their own; if, in fact, none of us builds anything on our own, this, in essence, means that the State should decide our destiny, our fate, our salary, our work, our house, our health, our religion, our family, our life, and our death.  We are, in fact, nothing, nothing, nothing, without the omnipresent State, the omnipotent State, and the Omniscience State.  You didn't build that and you didn't get there on your own, means that you should therefore check your initiative, check your determination, check your effort, check your morality, and just passively obey the State and its dictates. 

The real irony of the matter is that you can never have the audacity to speak the words that "you didn't get there on your own, and that you didn't build that," only in a country that because of the greatness of its citizens, because of  the bravery of its people, and because of the brilliance of its population, has become one nation, united, and under one God, a country that has risen above mediocrity, above superstition, and above ignorance of all types, to become a nation truly blessed by the hand of God, and yes those people of that country did get there on their own and they did build that.

Why Such High Limits on Credit Cards?

While not every American has a credit card and not every American has a credit card with a high credit limit, the availability of such to the average American of at least a decent credit rating score is simply astonishing.  Credit cards are available today with limits of $5,000, $10,000, $25,000, $40,000 and more, and I'm not talking here about special credit cards such as the American Express Centurion card or cards of that ilk, but your basic, standard credit cards that are typically issued to the consumer without a mandatory annual fee.  What is especially interesting is that these high credit card limits are being issued out to consumers to which the banks that issue these credit limits are essentially issuing credit without any associated collateral, so that these are unsecured loans to the consumer.  While it may be true, that banks have rights to get those funds back from the consumer, should the consumer miss his payment or payments or fail to meet his credit obligations, the pathway to recovering this money for the banks is certainly not quick, nor paved smoothly, and it definitely costs banks time, money, and legal fees to go through the process of collecting this money.

The first question that must be asked is why do banks issue so many credit cards with healthy limits on them to consumers in the first place to which they know for a certainty that collecting money in arrears from the consumer is going to be both time consuming and expensive?  The most basic reason is that banks are convinced that higher credit limits, leads to more credit in aggregate being used by the consumer and subsequently that certain consumers, will be unable or unwilling or uninterested in paying off their balance in full each month, and therefore that interest rate that is charged to the consumer is where the banks will make their profit, to which banks understand the law of big numbers, that is to say, the more that the consumer owes, the more that the consumer has to finance over a period of time, the more profitable the loans are to the banks.

Still, you would think that banks would want some collateral attached to their loans but banks feel confident that they can effectively monitor your credit usage and worthiness in real time and make any adjustments that they need to make "on the fly",  because what the banks give, they can also take away. Most consumers are somewhat unaware that the banks do have recourse to effectively lowering one's credit limit, typically without notice, and only having to provide a 45-day notice if by lowering your credit limit it would effectively put your balance above that new credit limit.  However, it gets worse for the consumer, because just like that proverbial snowball rolling down the hill, the lowering of your credit limit by one bank will often start a chain of events to which typically the competing banks will also lower their credit limit on you because your credit capacity and your usage percentage are above pre-determined industry norms. 

This means in essence that although the banks will issue high limit credit cards, they and not you, control whether that limit will be lowered, and effectively closing you out of the credit business, taking for instance what was once a credit limit of $10,000 and perhaps lowering it to $500 without your consent.  For those that have become addicted to their credit line and credit in general, these lowering of limits, seemingly overnight, can be a very bitter pill to swallow.  The high limits on credit cards are essentially for the purpose of getting the consumer to spend more now, spend more than you really can afford presently, and for you to worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.  While most people are deliciously happy upon receiving their first bona-fide credit card, happy too are the banks, just like a great white shark.

We Should be Grateful that People Want to Immigrate to America

As it has been said, "People vote with their feet," and despite some annoying negativities about America, to the world at large, America still does represent "the last best hope of mankind" and is rightly considered a bastion of both opportunity and freedom.  We, that live here, should be grateful for the blessings that America, its foundation, and its sacrifices by courageous and visionary men, has provided for us.  The golden gate of America must not be closed, because we are that true beacon of hope and of light to the world.

Within America there is a misconception that immigration takes away jobs from Americans and that they therefore add to our welfare rolls, that they add to our crime, that they don't have the right skills, nor the right language, nor the right behavior, nor the right God, and that don't respect our laws, nor our institutions, nor especially our border.  Not too surprisingly, according to gallup.com as of June, 2014, the majority of Americans want to see immigration to America to either remain at its present levels or to decrease, whereas only 22% of those polled, would like to see it increased. 

While I am incredibly sympathetic to those that argue correctly that our borders should not be violated by illegal immigrants, I do not believe that the solution to this is a more stringent and thereby a more oppressive border control.  Far better it is to understand why the illegal immigrants are coming to America in the first place, as well as being more pro-active in coming up with workable programs that allow an easier and a legal entry or pathway into America for students, as well as seasonal workers, as well as designated hired help or guest workers, that would thereby provide mutual benefits for all parties concerned.  Additionally, America has an obligation to provide monetary aid and knowhow to its neighboring nations that will enable these countries to grow their economy from within, to which we can provide our corporations with incentives and tax breaks to effect these changes.

When it comes to immigrants that are specifically well-off financially, the door to entry to America, should be wide open, as the business of America is business, to which if you find someone that wishes to "pay to play", assuming that they pass a background check, they should be allowed to immigrate here for a standard price, depending upon their country of origin, and net assets. 

For highly skilled immigrants, whether they be already educated, or in the process of applying for a higher education degree, or have a demonstrative skill-set, these potential immigrants should not only be embraced, they should, in fact, be encouraged to immigrate here.  America should be greedy for the best and the brightest to come to our shores, to be leaders in American industry, to be leaders in American education, or American justice, or wherever they may fit into the mix of American life, because we need them in order to maintain our status, our power, and our influence as the greatest nation in the world. 

America is a nation of immigrants, we should be proud that so many want to come from their land to ours, and to thereby be a part of the fabric that allows America to shine so brightly, we need them , we should want them, and we should be grateful for them coming to America.

Title Loans

According to hufffingtonpost.com, "…some 127.5 million people -- are liquid-asset poor. If one of these households experiences a sudden loss of income, caused, for example, by a layoff or a medical emergency, it will fall below the poverty line within three months."  This means that a substantial amount of America's population are either ripe for exploitation from predatory lenders or on the cusp of being exploited by them, if they are unsuccessful in finding monetary aid from more traditional lending channels, such as a FDIC insured bank which is regulated by law.  It is particularly troubling that in putting up your vehicle title as a security against a loan, this will often expose these people to the possible loss of their transportation, and the means thereby to get to and fro to work, to school, and to get around town.  In addition, for a one-time transfusion of cash, signatories have legally agreed to yet another bill, at typically rates that are 300% per annum or even more.

Responsiblelending.org reports that: "There are currently 16 states that explicitly allow title lending at triple-digit interest rates and four others that allow title lending through a legislative loophole."  While there isn't necessarily anything wrong with a consumer having the ability to pawn the title to their automobile to a third party, what is wrong, is that the structure of most of these deals significantly exploits the typically desperate consumer, who is often at wit's end.  We know that business is good at the title lender facilities, because of the tremendous growth in their business over the last few years.  For instance, azcentral.com reported for Arizona in April of 2013 that: "more than 430 auto-title-lending branches have been licensed in Arizona since 2009."  The nytimes.com reports that:  "…title loans in Virginia increased by 24 percent from 2012 to 2013, according to state records. Last year, the lenders made 177,775 loans, up roughly 612 percent from 2010," and "In Tennessee, the number of title lending stores increased by about 22 percent from 2011 to 2013, reaching 1,017."

It shouldn't be terribly surprising that title loan stores have been opening up at double-digit rates while also increasing their loan percentages impressively, since in so many of the States to which title loans are permitted, the annual interest rates are so usuriously high to the consumer, that the business model really comes down to making sure that the consumer selects your store rather than your competition, so consequently a high percentage of monies spent by title loan companies goes towards advertisements on television, on the internet, and on billboards.  Importantly, to the title loan originators and fundamental to their business, is the fact that by signing over your title to your vehicle, you have made the title loan company the de facto owner of it, so unless you abide by all the terms and conditions of said loan, and pay the loan off completely, your car is not really your car anymore.  This means, as a matter of course, as long as you truly own the title to the vehicle that the title loan companies therefore really don't care much about your credit or anything about you, because they definitely have a material asset which in virtually all cases is worth more than the loan that they provided to you.  To make things even easier for the title loan companies, some of these companies make it a condition upon the loan to you to add a GPS device to "your" car, or a starter interrupt device, in order to maintain control over your vehicle.

Title loan companies should not be in the position to offer loans to individuals without a reasonable cap associated with them, and the States that currently offer title loans should enact legislation to stop this unfair exploitation of their own residents.

The Failure of High School Education

Although different websites give different percentages about the number of first year college freshmen that must take remedial courses to get up to a basic collegiate knowledge on subjects such as mathematics and English, the percentage of students needing to take at least one remedial course in college is reported by several media outlets as generally around 40%, whereas as reported by Carol Burris, the true number for students that attend four-year colleges needing a remedial course is possibly as low as 17%.  Wherever, the true number lies, the percentage of students that are unable to come to college fully prepared for its curriculum should be virtually 0%, as not too surprisingly the very students that take remedial courses are the very same students that graduate at substantially lower rates than students that are already prepared for college.

For whatever reason, Florida has taken the concept of remedial classes and thrown it into the dustbin of history.  Instead, in Florida, students can opt-out completely in the taking of remedial classes, or if desired take shorter five-week remedial segments to get back up to speed.  The thought process behind this change is that since remedial courses do not count towards any credit to collegiate graduation, that this barrier in having mandated remedial courses, is precluding or preventing students from completing successfully their college degree curriculum, because these students are being forced to spend extra time and money taking courses which somehow results ultimately in many of them simply giving up or losing interest in the continuation of their college education.  While there is merit in taking a serious look at the remedial courses and how they are presented to students in college, simply sweeping this demonstrated lack of preparation of these students under the rug is clearly not the appropriate answer.

Americans are fortunate to live in a country to which their public primary and secondary education is provided by the State for free, or perhaps it's fairer to state at no direct cost to the students themselves.  This is therefore the opportunity for the State to do everything within its power to attend to these students and to prepare them to have the necessary skills to succeed in post secondary education.  The fact that double-digit percentages of students are so woefully prepared for college that the colleges themselves point out or mandate that these students need remedial courses is a direct reflection of the failure of our high school educational system to actually educate our students.   The point is this, we know for a fact what skill level is necessary for math, science, reading, and writing in order to attend an accredited college, high school education should make it their fundamental purpose to see that these goals are achieved, or they have failed their intended mission. 

It is fair to say, that not every high school student is college material, but every student deserves the best opportunity and the best efforts by our State-mandated educational system to at a minimum try to achieve these goals by providing the tools, the tests, the guidance, and the discipline to see that this is done.  The fact that a double-digit percentage of high school students that go on to attend college, are in fact, unqualified to actually do so, reflects that we are poor teachers and poor mentors.

Social Security and Medicare Taxes are Inherently Unfair

The Federal minimum wage mandated by law in America is $7.25/hr, which equates to an annual income of $15,080.  In most cases, making a wage this low, will not necessitate the payment of either Federal or State income tax, so any of those taxes taken out of your paycheck during the year will in all probability be return to you when you file your annually taxes.  However, your net paycheck also has two other taxes that will definitely not be returned to you, which are the Social Security tax and the Medicare tax which are respectively 6.20% and 1.45%.  This means that out of your wages of $15,080, a total of $1153.62 will be extracted from your paycheck for Social Security and Medicare taxes that you will not receive back at the end of the year.  This money will be taken from your paycheck as your contribution to Social Security and Medicare for your benefit later on in your life at your retirement age. 

Most people that make a minimum wage as their salary or low wages in general, need as much of their income presently to be utilized to live now, and the mandated sacrifice of a portion of their wages to be contributed to their well-being in the far distance future doesn't benefit them in the real world, and in real time.  Incredibly, both the Social Security tax as well as the Medicare tax are fundamentally flawed in their structure, instead of setting a floor, to which an employee must first make this amount of money before these taxes are taken from their pay, instead there is a ceiling to which, if you are so fortunate as to earn more than $117,000 in 2014, any monies above that amount are not subject to the 6.20% Social Security tax, although they are still subject to the Medicare tax of 1.45% which has no income limit.  What this means is that for those that earn more than $117,000, they will not pay any more Social Security tax for the balance of the year, once they exceed that level, whereas those that earn less than $117,000 cannot escape this pernicious and unfair tax.

Upon the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935, President Roosevelt stated that: "… we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age."  Unfortunately, the actual structure of this Act has been inherently unfair from day one, because instead of exempting low-wage earners from this inequitable tax, it has instead protected the highest-wage earners from its full effects.  This truly makes a mockery of providing relief for the needy and the most deserving, as the program fundamentally fails to take into account that a person that is unable to take care of themselves in the present day while dealing with the inevitable adversaries and vicissitudes of life, probably won't be in too good of condition, if alive at all, to reap any benefits from his contribution to Social Security or Medicare when he reaches the age to qualify for his "retirement benefits".

The Social Security and Medicare taxes should be amended forthwith, to establish a floor, to which you as an employee are not subject to such taxes, a floor that should be indexed to the Federal Minimum wage, it is the least that we can do for our poorest and least able, who for the most part, aren't looking for handouts, but simply for a true helping hand.

Peak Oil is still true

The price of a barrel of oil has declined precipitously in the second half of 2014, so that from June 30,2014 when the price of a barrel of oil was at $105.37, it has declined to a price of $53.14 as of December 30, 2014, an astonishing drop of approximately 50% in the span of just six months.   This would perhaps imply that the shortages and difficulty in finding inexpensive crude oil are a thing of the past, and therefore we are now entering into a stage of worldwide crude oil oversupply because of technological innovations and the like.  That conclusion, however, is flawed for various reasons.

Let us look first at the price history of crude oil, over the last four decades, to which, in December of 1973 west Texas Intermediate crude oil was selling for $4.30/barrel, yet just one month later in January of 1974, the price had jumped to over $10.10/barrel, and the price of oil since then has never been in single digits again, to wit the first modern peak oil price was $39.50/barrel in 1980, onlyfor oil to slide all the way back down to $11.60/barrel in 1986.   Oil prices then ran up to $35.90/barrel in 1990, only to slide back down to $14.50/barrel at yearend 1993.  After 1993, oil prices, began to move up in general to which by June of 2004, the price exceeded $40/barrel for the first time.  The price of oil after hitting $40/barrel consistently moved up and up, before breaking through the $100/barrel price for the first time in 2008, before because of the financial crisis of 2008, it plunged to $39.10/barrel in February of 2009, but by March of 2011, it was back over $100/barrel, and consistently ranged in the $90-$100 ballpark over the next three years.  The above demonstrates that crude oil pricing is volatile depending upon a multitude of conditions, such as the economy, war, embargoes, and the like, nevertheless the price of crude oil went from $4.30/barrel (inflation adjusted is $20/barrel) to $100/barrel in about 40 years.

Clearly, the price of oil and the ramifications of its increase, has been felt in America and worldwide over the last four decades, in which until the most recent plunge in pricing, oil has increased on an inflation adjusted basis 5X over its price 40 years ago.  Even if crude oil was to maintain its current price of around $55/barrel the inflation-adjusted increase would still be 2.75X over its price 40 years ago, so the pundits that proclaim that there isn't such a thing as peak oil, that mankind in his ingenuity has been able to come up with new and innovative ways to extract oil from the ground at unprecedented rates and thereby the shortages of old, are gone forever, or at a minimum for the near-term foreseeable future are not truly accurate in their assessments. 

The fact of the matter is that crude oil pricing is volatile, as demonstrated above, and is much more volatile than we would prefer it to be.  Additionally, the strength of the dollar, which has been consistently in an upward trend since April of 2008, also makes a significant difference in the price of crude oil, since oil is priced in American dollars.  The bottom line is that if peak oil was not true, than oil would be falling back down to the pricing of pre 1974, but this simply isn't going to happen, because the cost to extract crude oil has risen considerably since the halcyon days of the 1960s and early 1970s.  This clearly states that the easy oil has already been discovered and exploited, and while we can consider ourselves fortunate that there is so much additional oil still available to be extracted, the extraction process costs more in both labor as well as materials, which necessitates a higher price for oil, and this will continue to be the case, going forward.

Man Does not Love God because He Does not Keep his Commandments

On any given day, it is commonplace to hear man complain about his conditions, his life, his circumstances, and his fate here on this good earth, to wit that the upshot is that life is unfair, full of injustice, and unsatisfying.     But man fools himself and does not need to look far to recognize that in the end, he has only himself to blame for his woes, because always the pathway to sanctuary is there, perhaps "hiding" in plain sight, but man seems unable to grasp this most basic, and most fundamental  of all principles.   Man is often dissatisfied, because man is unwilling to follow the divine map for salvation which is to keep God's commandments.   Man preaches loudly that he loves his God, but we know that this is certainly not true, because he too often willfully disobeys the very commandments that will bring to man peace and certain satisfaction. 

Great prophets have told us, Christ has commanded us, to love our God with all of our heart, and to love our neighbor as our self, so that within this philosophy is the truth that will bring peace and comfort to us and to our neighbors.  Instead, too many of us have a lust for power over other people, over property, over laws, over that our way should be the way, and woe to those that block our pathway!  Peace cannot be brought at such a price as this fundamental nonsense; we either grow together, or suffer through the inevitable indignities of ultimately seeing our egos thwarted again and again.

Mankind wastes far too much time, desiring to keep up with the Joneses, or checking out for themselves as to whether the grass really is greener on the other side of the fence, whereas neither of these activities can ever possibly bring real satisfaction or true joy.  The person that we will not get along with, is that person that we will have to meet time and time again, in one form or another, until there is that mutual respect and love that one man owes to his neighbor, this is the lesson that all must learn.  Much as like Jonah who willfully tried to flee from God's commandment to preach to the people of Nineveh, we too try to assert our free will day after day, escaping our true calling, as if our wisdom is a match for God's omnipotent wisdom.

Too often like the Pharisees of old, there are those that claim to be doers of God's word, but even if they appear to obey God's commandments, they achieve only the pretense of doing so, and never accomplish God's work in the Spirit of God Himself.  God calls each one of us, every day and in every way, to be our brother's neighbor, to give of ourselves to others, and to understand this most basic of all tenets, that all that we really are, is all that we give to others, such as our time, our advice, our guidance, our example, our patience, our devoted labor, and our love, and it is that legacy that enables us to be true participants in the building of the New Jerusalem.

Liberia Should be an United States Territory

Liberia became a sovereign nation in 1847 and since that time has been in charge of its own destiny, however, Liberia also has a special history with the United States, as this African country was founded by the American Colonization Society in 1824, by freed blacks from America, that were sponsored by the United States government, as well as repatriated slaves taken from the trans-Atlantic slave trade and brought to the shores of Liberia.  Liberia's capital city of Monrovia, is named after our President James Monroe, who was an active supporter of a homeland for freed Africans, in a time when it wasn't clear that Africans in America, would ever be in a position to be properly assimilated or truly free in America.  While the founding of Liberia was controversial and not universally supported by either white or black in America, its founding was considered at the time to be progressive for Africans.  Additionally, when Liberia was founded it displaced native peoples from that land, to which some native peoples of Liberia subsequently rose up and took exception to the Americano-Liberians who ruled the country and rebelled against them, to the effect of two devastating civil wars within the last forty years, the result of tribal tensions and unease, for this country which is the African continent's first Republic.

The above would perhaps imply that the Liberian people as a whole have no interest in being part of the United States as a territory, but that isn't necessarily the case as there are massive advantages that are recognized as being beneficial to having "Uncle Sam" providing aid for this nation, which encompasses such things as education, health, military, and economic aid.  As long as the conditions were such as to provide autonomy for the people of Liberia, the people of Liberia would probably have a great interest in seeing that this opportunity was offered to them since a rising tide lifts all boats.  Consequently, America should take the steps today in conjunction with Liberia, to allow Liberia to vote upon this very issue, and thereby to decide their future fate.

The great advantage to Liberians if they were to become a United States territory is the advantage of being afforded the opportunity to have the same sort of rights as United States citizens, including the right for safe passage to and from the United States.  In a country of over four million peoples, Liberia has a per capita income of less than $500, if they were instead to be a United States territory, their incomes, health, and opportunities would rise significantly.  This would also provide the opportunity for American corporations to invest much more money, material, and knowhow into Liberia than has been done in recent times and subsequently would thereby provide vibrant opportunity for native Liberians to be gainfully employed in private enterprise. 

Liberia is in a unique position to have a special and more consequential relationship with the United States, on formal terms, to their benefit as well as ours, if both parties put their heads together to present this historic opportunity in the best possible light.  President Obama is the right leader, as well as being in his second and final term of office, so there is no better time to do so than now.

How Come Asian-Americans Are Smarter?

That Asian-Americans are the smartest racial group by educational achievement in the United States is not something that is suspected or surmised, it has been verified, and it is emphatically true.  Asian-Americans have by racial classification, per the Pew Research Center, the highest percentage of Bachelor Degrees in America, the highest median income of any group, the highest work ethic, believe strongly that the United States offers a better opportunity to get ahead, and have been able to achieve all of this despite the fact that the majority of Asian-Americans, with the exception of the Japanese, are foreign born, and consequently that English is not their native tongue.

The achievements of 1st generation Asian-Americans is absolutely phenomenal, and there are only three basic possibilities as to why they have been so successful in America, which are: they are genetically superior mentally, their immigration to America is selective so consequently American is only permitting the immigration of the cream of the crop, and finally that their work ethic and their study habits are superior to the average American.

According to photius.com the top three countries ranked by IQ are all Asian countries, but those same three countries which are Singapore, Japan, and South Korea, are also the top three countries in per capita GDP, leading to the supposition that there is a high correlation between per capita GDP and higher IQ scores.  Next, we have to consider as to whether Asian-American immigrants are so successful because American selectively allows the immigration of only the best and the brightest of them to our shores.  Although the most common path for Asian American immigration is actually through family connections, there are a substantial amount of Asians that are recruited each year by major colleges and universities in America so that these campuses can meet both their enrollment goals as well as their financial obligations, and since American universities are held in high regard as well as America being a destination that is strongly desirable, top international students are educated here.

Finally, there is the question about work ethics, and the supposition that your own effort, initiative, and dedication help you to achieve meritorious success in education.  It almost goes without saying that if one student desires only to spend their time playing mindless video games, gossiping, watching TV or the like, whereas another student attends to their studies, dedicates themselves to their craft, and is culturally conditioned to give their best and to represent their family well, that the devoted student, if not initially, will over time surpass the slacker student, in test scores and ultimately worth in the marketplace of employment. 

While there are, no doubt, a myriad of reasons why Asian-Americans are smarter than any other racial classification in America, it would be a gross mistake, to attribute their intelligence and success solely to genetics, and thereby to excuse oneself from even attempting to engage in trying harder at learning and applying oneself to becoming a more complete and a better person.  The real lesson to be learned here, is that your effort matters, your struggle matters, your grit matters, and that if you make it matter, you too can more easily find success.

The Royalty and their lack of Surnames

In more formal times in America, one was introduced to another person, as Mr. Jones to Mr. Smith, although to a large extend this has fallen out of favor, yet formal introductions are still used in judicial settings, also as a form of respect from a younger person to an elder person, and especially from a student to a teacher.   Certainly also servants were not to utilize their masters first names under virtually any circumstance, and despite the servant often being older than the child she had responsibility for, the salutation for children was often Master John, or Mistress Anne; whereas the children themselves could always address the servant by her first name. 

When you take a look at the royal family in England, you take it for granted that their names are Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, Princess Diana, and so forth, but if you take a step back, you do wonder, why is it that these royal personages are being addressed by their first name and where is there last name?  In actuality, the royal family does sort of have surnames, but they are seldom used, and in the case of the English royal family, their surname, Windsor, isn't really their surname. Windsor is, in fact, a name that they chose because previously Prince Albert, who was from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, didn't sound too British, for the dynasty of Britain's royal family, so the royal family chose Windsor as the House that they were from, and subsequently used Windsor as their last name, so that from time-to-time Queen Elizabeth was known to use the name Elizabeth Windsor. For the royalty in general, their last names, whether used or not, are often referring to the territory that they rule over, as opposed to anything else, but seeing that they are the Monarchs, the choice of such a surname is at their discretion.

Still you might wonder, doesn't the use of someone's first name, even with a salutation such as Prince or Queen seem rather too personal, especially considering that this is the royal family.  In point of fact, it is, that is why in actuality, the Queen is usually addressed as "Her Majesty", and not as Queen Elizabeth.  In addition, the Prince is known as the "Prince of Wales," and also we have the "Duchess of Cornwall," as well as "His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh," and so forth.  So in actuality, the common citizen, will not be shouting out, "hey, Queen Elizabeth," as this would be considered to be in rather poor form and not the appropriate way to address the Queen.

So in actuality, the reason that we don’t often see surnames associated with royalty has a lot to do with their lack of necessity of having a surname, and when it comes to introductions, royalty will be accorded their respect, by being addressed by their royal titles, as opposed to any intimate familiarity with their actual first names.   Also, as you might suspect, the lack of surnames for royalty, goes all the way back to Biblical times, when we had King David, King Solomon, and so forth, so today's royalty and their naming conventions are consistent with the way it has always been, perhaps in the faint hope that we will see today's Kings and Queens as God's sanctioned representatives here on earth. 

The future of African-American Population Percentage in America

Racial classification is somewhat arbitrary, but in general there are five great races which are: black (African-American), brown (Latino/Hispanic), red (American Indian/Native American), white (Caucasian), and yellow (Asian).  Not too surprisingly, one racial classification may not be the most appropriate designation for a significant amount of peoples in America, to which some people will identify themselves as being multi-racial, whereas others that do have multi-racial characteristics do not.

As you might suspect, the census questions in America in regards to race have changed over the years, so that in the 18th century the categories for race were not the same or as diversified as we have currently, nevertheless, according to Wikipedia.org, in 1790, 19.3% of all Americans were African-American, although the vast majority of these African-Americans were enslaved.  While the population of African-Americans has always increased in America decade by decade, the percentage of African-Americans in America has continued to drop so that the African-American total population percentage is now just 12.6% as of the 2010 census.  In the year 2000, for the first time, since the census had been taken in America, African-Americans were surpassed by Hispanics in America, by a relatively small percentage.  However, in 2010, the Hispanic population in numbers as well as percentage far exceeded African-Americans, as there is estimated to be over 50 million Hispanics in America, at a percentage of 16.3% of the population, whereas African-Americans are not even 39 million peoples.

The fact that Hispanics have overtaken African-Americans in America is not a big surprise, as significant portions of America, use to be part of Mexico, Mexico is contiguous to the United States, Hispanic immigration, legal as well as illegal, has historically been quite high, and Hispanics have the highest birthrate of any race in America.  What this does mean for African-Americans is that they will never again be the second most populous race in America.   This could pose a tremendous problem for African-Americans as in only the last fifty-odd years, have African-Americans been able to assert any sort of political or economic power within America, to which this power may soon dissipate and be ceded over to another racial group as African-Americans become displaced.  This does not mean that Hispanics and African-Americans should be at odds with one another, not at all, in actuality, working together may be the most prudent and beneficial thing to do in order to accomplish their collective goals.

In 1960, there were less than 1 million Asians in America.  As of the census of 2010, there are now nearly 15 million Asians in America.  Additionally, according to the nytimes.com, it was Asians, not Hispanics, that were the biggest immigrants to America in 2010, as: "about 430,000 Asians — or 36 percent of all new immigrants, legal and illegal — moved to the United States in 2010, compared with 370,000 Hispanics."  Whereas for African-Americans, according to Wikipedia.org, we find that "from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 to 2007, an estimated total of 0.8 to 0.9 million Africans immigrated to the United States"   This means, that in a forty-two year period, not even 1 million Africans immigrated to America, whereas in just one year, almost 1/2 million Asians did. 

Only recently have African-Americans been surpassed in population by Hispanics in America, and that was mainly because of the massive amount of immigration of Hispanics to America, and additionally the higher birthrate of Hispanics.  If Asians are able to continue to immigrate to the United States at numbers approaching 1/2 million peoples, year after year, they will too surpass African-Americans, far sooner than anyone expects at the present time.  So in fairness, to African-Americans, who were first taken to this country by force, a far more liberal policy of African immigration to America should be implemented and this needs to occur now.

The Establishment Clause

Our First Amendment reads:  " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"  The purpose of this amendment was to preclude and to prevent our National Government from ever imposing upon its citizenry a national religion that all peoples of this country would have to adhere to.  In addition, this important Amendment makes it clear that we, the people, are entitled to freely exercise our religious beliefs without interference from our National Government.  Yet, today, through rulings of various courts, and through the gradual secularization of our country, powerful agents within our government and judiciary want us to read this Establishment Clause as essentially separating or creating a wall of separation of church and state, and thereby mandating that the United States of America is, in essence, a secular state, to which it was created.  This viewpoint is not only fundamentally wrong; it is also a grand disservice to our people, and a bastardization of our Constitution.

It is important to realize that back in the days when our nation was founded, that national religions in European nations was the norm.  For instance, Denmark's established church was the Church of Denmark, England's was the Church of England (Anglican), and France's established church was the Holy Roman Church (Catholicism).   The founders of our great nation did not want to repeat this error in America by creating one national church forced upon its citizens.  Instead, each State of our union of States had their own established religion such as Massachusetts (Puritan), Pennsylvania (Quaker), Maryland (Catholicism), and Virginia (Anglican).  Thomas Jefferson well understood the dangers of even a State-established religion and the vital importance of not being coerced into believing, against a man's own free volition, one religious sect over another, or even being compelled by law to believe in the Almighty at all.  Consequently, in 1779, Jefferson wrote and submitted a bill for Religious Freedom in Virginia, which later became enacted in 1786.  The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom meant that: "Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever…"

James Madison, Jr., our 4th President, and the "Father of our Constitution", was a fellow Virginian, who was also the man that presented Jefferson's bill to the Virginia legislature, and championed its passage by that legislature, meaning that Madison was intimately familiar with Jefferson's viewpoint on the establishment of a National or State religion, and thereby Madison made it a point by enacting this act as our 1st Amendment to our Constitution, that our National Government would never impose a National and compulsory religion upon its denizens.  What this did not mean, however, was that the National Government that we created, was a secular state, because America well understood the merits of religious and moral virtue and the inestimable value of these twin pillars.  It meant, instead, that America provided its citizens the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs without interference from or by the State, and further that the National Government would not favor one religious sect over another.  This enabled thereby the flourishing of religious sects and beliefs that could not have been attained in a country to which only one established religion was permitted.  That is why America, today, has such a diversity of ways to worship our Lord, and recognizes and upholds that each man can seek that Kingdom as he best sees fit.

Stop and Identify Laws

No doubt, most people have read a novel set in a foreign country, or watched a movie to which the action is in a foreign country, to which at some point in the novel or movie, one of the characters is asked for their "papers" in order to confirm their identity for the authorities, with failure to do so, leading invariably to their arrest or detention.  For those not in the know, you might think that laws like that don't exist in America, but in fact, they do.  Twenty-four States have so-called "stop and identify laws" which are in essence, the same thing as demanding the papers from a person in the public square.  This does not mean in America, that you must or are required to carry some sort of legal identification upon you, 24/7, but it does mean, that should you be stopped by a law enforcement officer and he demands that you identify yourself, not providing such identification, in some form or another,will probably result in your detention, depending upon your particular circumstance and how you handle yourself.  It shouldn't be that way, but courts have ruled that as long as the police officer had a "reasonable suspicion" that you may be involved in some sort of crime, that they may indeed demand that you identify yourself, and everyone, I mean everyone, can easily fall into that amorphous category of being under "reasonable suspicion".

The above would strongly imply that America is, in actuality, a police state, because if a man can't simply go about his business, without having to answer to law enforcement officers, who apply arbitrary law to you in order to compel you to identify yourself, you are not truly free.   Additionally, it almost doesn't matter in principle what your real Constitutional rights are when you are detained by the police, because if you insist upon using them, such as being clever in your responses to the officer, by asking, for example," if you are free to go or are you being detained," without identifying yourself, the situation almost for a certainty will get worse for you, so that the better part of valor, especially if you have not committed a crime, or know that you don't have a warrant for your arrest, is probably to produce your identification, or to provide actual biographical identification information to the officer, so as to keep the situation from escalating to such an extent that you probably will regret it.  Of course, that means, essentially that you are giving in to the police state, but when you are dealing with a legal authority, that also has the means to arrest you, to maim you, or even to kill you, perhaps passive obeisance is your best move.

What stop and identify laws mean for Americans, is that your freedom of movement can be imperiled at any time for virtually any reason, by the very people who have sworn to protect and to uphold Constitutional law.  Unfortunately, for you, most police officers, are not Constitutional experts, and certainly aren't interested in debating with you the meaning or the intricacies of Constitutional law, they are, however, quite good at making it quite clear to you, that their requests will, more likely than not, be sanctioned and upheld by the judicial system, and/or the barrel of their gun.

Nightly TV News Shows cannot afford to be controversial

Nightly TV news shows cannot afford to be truly controversial.  They can't afford to run cutting edge news programs with information and with details that tell their viewers the actual truth and lowdown of corporate, government, and justice policies.  Why?  There are several reasons why this is true, for instance, TV news shows are dependent upon not just having viewers, which is a given, but on advertising dollars, and those dollars most often come from corporations that will not continue to advertise on a TV program which is critical or too insightful about their business or their business actions, whether directly or indirectly.  It is a truism that the man with the money, has the power, and advertising dollars will flow more often to TV news shows that are in conformance with the desires of the advertisers and not the other way around.

Additionally, and somewhat disappointedly, many people in the viewing audience do not want, nor do they desire, true cutting edge and informative TV news programs, mainly from their total apathy, as they basically tune in to these programs, to pick up on entertainment gossip, sports, soft local interest stories, weather, feel good confirmation stuff, and dirt on whomever has fallen recently out of favor.  TV news programs are only too willing to follow a predictable and routine pattern to accommodate their viewers to which rather than learning something of real value, would rather just have their basic values affirmed, rightly or wrongly.  This is all well and good for your nightly TV news reports because they rather just preach to the choir, and have little interest in any controversial fare that could upset not only most of their viewers, but also surely their advertisers.

This in a nutshell means that news reports are pretty much out of the business of breaking real and meaningful news.  Back in the heyday of commercial TV, the big three of ABC, CBS, and NBC, would broadcast video of the Vietnam war, Watergate, civil rights, and other current affairs with real significance and some controversy, but today's same media outlets are always and invariably behind the curve, so that if any of today's big four (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) should show video or pictures of the Iraqi or Afghanistan wars, or domestic police violence, this is done not in order to break news, but in order to catch up to what has already be disseminated through other media outlets.  So that what we essentially get today, are broadcasts of events or actions in which the networks will invariably spin the pictures or video into a carefully worded context that fits into the desired story that the networks, which are all massive multi-media corporations, want to impart to us in a manner in which we will understand that at the end of day, you're OK, we're OK.

It cannot be emphasized too greatly that today's TV news reports companies are all beholden to advertisers to which without them, and the rates that they charge advertises, they would essentially have a broken business model.  Also, each of these multi-media corporations must answer to their stockholders, their stock promoters, their Board of Directors, to which the objective is always, to "make their numbers" so as to maintain and to increase their stock price and, if applicable, their dividend.  The making of money is always foremost in mind for these news shows with controversy, truth, and cutting edge reporting as their nemesis.  They want instead to impart to us that while bad things do happen, it's just temporary, or an accident, or a misunderstanding, or a mistake, and it's all going to turn out just alright, then they will flash a big pearly smile, and say something like "now a word from our sponsors".