Jesus and His Hate Speech

In the times of Jesus, he was wrongly accused of blasphemy, a crime worthy of stoning back in Roman times, for taking the name of God in vain by stating that He and the Father were one, but blasphemy would not have considered to have been "hate speech" if such a crime existed back in the time of Jesus, because blasphemy and hate speech are not the same thing, as one is primarily directed against God, whereas hate speech is primarily directed against an individual or group based on their race, or religion, or national origin and so on.

The question then becomes, if Jesus was tried under contemporary standards of hate speech laws, would He be in violation of such?  It would seem, quite obviously, that He would be, because Jesus was never afraid to testify and speak the truth that brought forth words that were uncomfortable to certain specific people.  For instance, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus states: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!..." and proceeds to compare these scribes and Pharisees as to being blind, extortionists, the children of them that killed prophets, serpents, vipers, and that these same scribes and Pharisees were on the path that would lead them inexorably to the damnation of hell.  These words can be interpreted in no other way but as being hateful and these words were being directed specifically to a creed, a specific people, and a religious sect, to which he, the Christ, was proclaiming that these scribes and Pharisees were essentially murderers and full of deceit, in league with the devil so that the damnation of hell was to be their legacy, and that they therefore were worlds apart from being true representatives of their proclaimed faith.

Not too surprisingly, these scribes and Pharisees held these very words against Jesus, and because of this hate speech and other actions of Jesus, made it their avowed aim to bring swift justice onto Jesus for his audacity in publicly attacking them in such a manner as to belittle them as a people and to bring dishonor to their name and status in their faith and community.  These scribes and Pharisees were able to manipulate the law, the Roman authorities, and the people so that they were able to see rendered the justice that they felt that Jesus deserved for his hate and for his stirring up of trouble, all because Jesus would not be polite enough to mind his own manners, and to show respect to those that he owed tolerance and respect to.

So too did Jesus overturn the tables of the moneychangers and those that sold doves in the temple of God, and stated in Matthew 21:13 that: "… My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."  Once again, this Jesus was spewing hatred because he was calling out certain specific people as thieves, merely for utilizing their monetary skills to make a little extra profit for themselves, and further he was disrupting their business as if he had the legal authority to do so, which he did not.  That is yet another prime example of a hate speech, coupled with an actual crime, from He who behaved as if He was above the law.

Had Jesus lived in today's world, he would be guilty of hate speech, but since Christ and the Father are one (John 10:30), this would make God too an intolerant hater as defined by man.  This then is the error that comes from those that raise Hate to the apex of how justice is perceived rather than recognizing that Truth in all of its forms is the highest good of all justice.

Hotel Taxes and Fees

As a consumer, you learn over a period of time, that there are prices, and then there are prices that have added on to them extra taxes, fees, insurance, and whatnot, which often you are only vaguely aware of.  For instance, hotels typically charge whatever the prevailing sales tax rate is for that particular county but also like to add on agratuitous hospitality tax, then there are some hotels that add on a resort fee, and then there are even States, such as Georgia, that tack on a fixed hotel stay fee of $5 per night.  The problem with all of these fees and taxes is that these are almost always added onto the advertised or agreed-upon room rate, and therefore when hotels advertise that their room is $90/night or whatever, the overall price of the hotel room may be $115 or even more when the bill is actually totaled up.  It just seems since the hotel is easily aware of what the total for the room cost will be with all taxes and fees added in, that perhaps it would be more transparent and fairer to disclose the actual room total itself, upfront.

The thing with hotels is that there are two types of basic added expenses, which are broken down into hospitality taxes and hotel fees paid by the consumer.  In regards to taxes that amount is solely based on the agreed upon price of the hotel, so the cheaper the room, the cheaper the tax dollar hit will be to your wallet, whereas with fees, since that price is fixed, it doesn't matter whether you are at the Motel 6 or the Ritz, since you will have to pay the same fee, regardless, in the case of a State mandated imposed fee.  This means, in effect, that fixed hotel fees charged to the consumer are a form of taxation that is regressive, since the room price itself has nothing to do with the fee imposed.

One can make a strong argument that additional fees and hospitality taxes which are added onto hotel bills are bad business to begin with.  You would think, that most communities would want to encourage tourism by not unsettling tourists, especially not by nickel and diming them by virtue of the fact that they are spending the evening at a hotel and undoubtedly spending money throughout the day by taking in sights, shopping, and eating within the city.  Yet, that is exactly what happens to these tourists in many communities. 

I suppose that there is a general mathematical premise that some city hall genius comes up with, which believes something to the effect that if we just add on some extra fees, and also add-in some extra taxes, but don't really disclose that information upfront, that somehow the clients won't notice it until too late, and in any event, none of these taxes and fees will change their behavior, whatsoever, so that in the end we will reap free money out of them.  The thing is, they do take note of it, and it does make a material difference to them.

Dietary Fat and Being Fat

It is unfortunate that the fats that we eat which are divided into several fat categories are associated with being physically fat.  That is to say, that if you eat a lot of fat, regardless of what the fat is made up of, that by virtue of this fact, you will create bodily fat.  That simply isn't true, and the public would be far better off not associating products that are high in fat with being fat, because it is a simplistic association which is fundamentally wrong.

Dietary fats are broken down into monounsaturated fats such as olive oil, polyunsaturated fats such as corn oil, saturated fats such as whole milk, and trans-unsaturated fats such as pre-packaged snack foods.  Each of these fats has definite chemical structures and in their natural state each is different than other fats, and hence their effect upon your body is different.  In general, the only fat that is unquestionably bad for your body is the manmade trans-unsaturated fat typically made from hydrogenated vegetable oils which allow products to have much longer shelf lives and thereby prevents these food products from going rancid and thereby maintaining their form for extended periods of time.  The problem with the manmade trans-unsaturated fat is that consumption of such takes a toll on the human body creating the propensity for cardiovascular disease as well as diabetes.

It is unfortunate, that there are so many products sold to people, that are labeled as low-fat, or no-fat, or similar, which gives the wrong assumption that low-fat products are somehow better for us as well as being necessary for us in order to reduce our bodily fat.  This comes down mainly to false advertising, which tries to sell the impression that high-fat products such as nuts, fish, milk, and meat are very bad for you and will make you fat, whereas their low-fat versions are very good for you and will make you lean.

The most important thing to learn about dietary fat is that the health of the item that you are eating is dependent upon the processing of the product and the type of fat that it represents.  For the most part, processed foods in which the chemical content of the food has changed or has been "enhanced" by that processing -- are foods that are going to be questionable as to their benefits, foods such as pizza, frozen dinners, and hot dogs, are foods that may well taste good but are only acceptable to eat occasionally.  Whereas, foods such as your basic steaks, sardines, and eggs which are high in saturated fat are actually good for you.

Today's consumer is bombarded with all sorts of advertising, propaganda, misinformation, choices, and overall confusion when making decisions in regards to what they should or shouldn't eat.  It is vital that consumers learn to ignore, for the most part, the fat content or percentage listed on a given food item, and instead pay close attention to the sugar content, and whether the carbohydrates are refined, and also the overall processing of the product before reaching for a particular item and purchasing it.  For an absolute certainty, it is not the fat content of the product that you consume that will make you fat, but the sugar or sugar equivalent such as fructose that will.

Credit Cards Should Not Leave your Line of Sight

Credit card fraud is a massively big problem in the United States, to which the unauthorized usage of your credit card number costs banks millions upon millions of dollars, inconveniences the credit card holder, and may, depending upon how much attention the credit card owner pays to his bills, cost money directly out of their own pocket.  This would imply strongly that keeping control of your credit card accounts in such a manner that they are always in your possession or only utilized on websites that you trust in order to transact business should be a fundamental principle in the usage of such.  However, there is one common charge that is done each and every day, to the tune of millions of times each day throughout America, in which you voluntarily relinquish your credit card to a stranger, they will then often proceed to leave out of your field of sight, and you will have to wait often for well over a minute to get your credit card back.  That place of establishment is your typical sit down restaurant, and that procedure just cries out as the weak link in credit card security.

While there are some restaurants that will bring a portable card reading terminal to your table, and other establishments to which you must as a customer bring your bill and credit card to a central terminal in which the transaction will be performed in front of you, for the most part, in the vast majority of restaurants, your credit card will be placed in the payment folder and then will proceed in due time to disappear from your table, before eventually reappearing in front of you again.  While, one might say, no need to worry, in an era of smart phones that can snap pictures of the front and back of your credit card, and considering that if you ordered alcohol, you have already provided accurate identification to the waiter, who is trained to both memorize and to process information efficiently, you have a right to be concerned that your credit card information, is easily eligible of becoming compromised.

The thing is the waiter doesn't need to enact the fraudulent usage of your credit card himself, as he could sell it quickly online, anonymously to someone else, as this is definitely actionable information that would be of value to those specializing in this type of fraud.  What makes these particular credit cards so valuable is that these cards are known to be good cards because they have just been approved at the restaurant establishment, which signifies that micro charges against these cards to inquire as to their validity, would not actually be necessary. 

The amount of credit cards that are compromised each year is truly astonishing, and while we read about how millions of cards are compromised because of a specific data breach, too many people lose track of the fact that by virtue of simply handing over your credit card to a stranger, who then leaves with your card, can hardly be considered a prudent policy. In fact, you should feel uncomfortable and vulnerable when someone unknown to you leaves with your credit card for whatever reason, and while waiters at restaurants probably aren't any more dishonest than the rest of us, temptation is a dangerous thing, and some can't resist the lure of that easy money.

American Independence and Immigration Origin

In America, we fought for our independence from Great Britain, and in addition to this, the native tongue of America at that time, was English, to which all of this combined, creates the impression that our ancestors were either all or mainly from Great Britain, which isn't actually true.  America, from its inception was a melting pot, of American Indians, immigrants from all of the major powers in Europe, great swaths of Mexico which later became significant parts of America, and slaves taken from Africa.  

The first colonists of what we now know as the United States of America, was actually made in Florida, by the Spanish.  The Portuguese also had many settlements in the Americas but nothing in the present day USA.  The French owned a significant portion of America to which we negotiated and bought the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 which encompassed later all or part of twelve States of the union.  The greatest city in America, used to be in Dutch hands, and was known as New Amsterdam, which we now know as Manhattan.  Mexico own great areas of land in America, in our west as well as our South, to which later eight States would be carved out of areas previously controlled by Mexico.  Then, of course, there is Great Britain, to which many colonies along our eastern board were settled by English and other European colonists, to which Great Britain saw America as a land of immense opportunity, ripe with great natural resources and verdant lands that could be exploited and civilized to the greater glory and profit of Great Britain. 

From the above, It can be stated that it is no stretch of the imagination to recognize that America has been a land of many people since its inception, to which only later did this great nation become united under the banner of one God, one country, one Constitution, and one republic.  What far too many people fail to recognize is that the greatness of this country does not come from a country that turns its back on immigrants or thereby the closing of our golden door, but that America lifts proudly its lamp of freedom, to all those that yearn to have freedom, opportunity, and a chance to display their talents within our shores, irrespective of their country of origin.

Further to this point, the fight for American independence could not been successful if not for the aid and abetting by major foreign principalities, most notably France, and to a lesser extent, Spain.  These great foreign rivals to England, recognized that having an independent America would not only weaken England but would also provide economic opportunities for these respective countries, as well as helping to create a rival to England that would, they hoped, over time, take some of the roar away from the English lion.

America is a country of many immigrants, to which these immigrants came from a variety of countries, and as America expanded it took over lands that were already occupied by other cultures and people, or through the conquest of such.  Through it all we have assimilated other peoples, and other cultures, by virtue of the fact that to be a true American, means that in one's heart and in one's actions, there is a love of freedom, of independence, of religious belief, of resolve, of a government by and of the people, and of the opportunity to pursue one's happiness.

Transparency for Tax Monies Paid

In the United States, all governmental agencies are supposed to understand that they are subservient and not superior to the people.  That is to say, that this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and when citizens are compelled by law, compelled by the force of government, to provide tax dollars to the aforementioned government, than that government has an absolute obligation to disclose in detail, all pertinent information about where those tax dollars are allocated and thereby how wisely and efficiently that they are spent.

In any business, there is a requirement to provide the government with actionable taxable information, to which this is reported yearly to the appropriate government agencies, by said corporation.  This rule holds forth for not only publically held corporations but applies as well to privately held corporations or proprietary businesses in one form or another, to which all are obligated to provide the necessary information so that tax authorities can appropriately process their respective tax obligations.

In addition, citizens of the United States are obligated to submit their personal taxes each and every year to the appropriate State and Federal authorities, to which numerous tax forms for income, for dividends, for stock appreciation, are all provided by various employment or securities agencies to the government, so that an individual in many respects, is by definition, transparent with governmental authorities, from the get-go.

This means that the citizens and the businesses of the United States have done their part to provide transparency to the government; a government which in theory is there to serve them.  Therefore, it behooves all governmental agencies and departments, to provide to all of its citizens in return, audited and complete information about where and how much tax monies have been allocated and spent during each particular fiscal year. It simply isn't good enough to show generalities, because generalities do not show enough in order to form a respected opinion or analysis of the efficiency of a particular governmental entity.

All governmental entities from local to county to city to State and to Federal, should be required by law, to break down expenses and income in such a manner that these statements would meet with the expectations and requirements of General Accounting Standards.  This is a necessary requirement and the only possible way that citizens could monitor how their tax dollars are spent within the hands of our governmental servants.

The upshot is that the more that the government is able to obscure, hide, obfuscate, and distort the financial and fiscal budgets of various agencies, the less that the people will be able to judge the efficiency and effectiveness of their tax dollars at work.  For too long, governmental officials have received a free pass, with little benefit to the population as a whole, and by virtue of the terrible state of our current fiscal house, there must be fundamental changes implemented that require true and complete transparency of our tax dollars.  It is high time that the darkness and murkiness of governmental financial chicanery be exposed to the light of honest and thorough review.

The Victor Determines the War Crimes

Any system in which the victor determines the war crimes is a justice system that will not ever work, because by its very nature it is unjust.  In point of fact, all sorts of crimes are committed in war, because war is, at best, legal murder, and at worst, outright genocide.  Although wars can bring out the best in men and women in regards to their courageous acts of bravery and sacrifice, so too does war bring out the worst in people, so that under the guise of wartime conditions, and far too often under this convenient cover it is used to slaughter innocents or enact cruel punishment or both.

The one thing that the world has become in modern times is that it has gotten a lot smaller, and has thereby created a world that is truly international and global in structure to which most every country in the world interacts with many other nations all throughout the world.  For instance, there probably isn't a country in the world today that doesn't conduct some sort of business, whether charitable or not, whether desired or not, with the United States of America. 

In 1998, the United Nations did indeed establish the International Criminal Court (ICC), located in The Hague, to which this permanent global criminal tribunal was given the power to enforce prosecution efforts against those that have committed crimes against humanity, and war crimes, to which 121 countries have, to date, ratified this treaty.  The United States is one of those countries that has not ratified the treaty and appears to have no intention of ever ratifying the treaty, demonstrating its complete contempt of an international tribunal that would ever dare to even conceive that the United States could be guilty of any war crimes.

The fact of the matter is, there is just one superpower in the world, which acts and behaves as the world's global policeman, and that country spends an inordinate amount of money, materials, and men prosecuting its own version of justice throughout the world, to which, if it so desires, it deliberately targets, destroys, and kills whomever it may so select, no matter the consequences.   This country answers to no international tribunal, and so it also answers to no other country, accepts no criticism, and believes that what it does is always right, even when it clearly is in the wrong.

The United States won't be a signatory to the ICC, because it is a country that is always the victor, even in those few cases where it appears to have lost, because those don't count as an actual loss, they are instead more akin to a great eagle merely losing interest in a certain prey.  America refuses to dip its flag, because it doesn't have to, and like that spoil schoolyard bully, there doesn't appear to be a soul or country around that can make it do so.   

There are war crimes committed every day, some of those, no doubt are committed by America, but if America considers itself above the law, there will never be true international justice, and without an independent board, made up of members not beholden to any State or Government, and able to fairly prosecute all countries and its constituents, this will remain a world in which the winner judges the losers, and thereby validates justice in the manner that might is right, and civilization will be worst off for it.

The Pleasures of the Common Man

Thoreau stated: "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation," and probably this is true because man does a poor job of sharing the wealth, opportunity, concern, and neighborly affections to those that surround them.  America is a country that certainly offers the best of the best to those that can afford it, whereas for the common man they are often reduced to merely wishing or dreaming of things that in actuality they will never experience or achieve.  You could say that that is the nature of the capitalistic beast, for better or for worst, understandable, and somewhat to be expected. 

Most people are relatively resigned to way that things are, so perhaps their lives are not ones of desperation, but of simply, resignation.  However, in fairness to the common man, he should be able to lead a life where he can enjoy and appreciate the fruits of his labor, just as those that have wealth beyond his imagination, are able to do so, whether they have labored for it fairly or not.  The problem lies where there is a clear separation of the access to the pleasures in life, when it seems that the entitled and privileged segment of the population can do pretty much whatever that they want to do, whereas the other must, in a certain sick way, ask for permission to do so.

The government in recent years have taken away more and more of the freedoms of the common man, and replaced these freedoms with annoying regulations, which as bad as those are, are even worse for the fact that the government is never satiated, because they believe that what they are doing is for the natural betterment of mankind, so rather than seeing these regulations for what they really are; which is the placement of the government's boot onto the common man's neck, they see it as the government protecting the common man from decisions that they, the government, deem to be harmful or inconvenient.

The thing is for the rich man, these rules don't apply, because they have the money and resources so that these rules will never touch them.  Therefore, if the government says that you can't smoke in public housing or in your apartment, the rich man applauds this because he owns his own property and therefore the rule isn't applicable, and besides he probably doesn't smoke.  If the government says that a DUI is now .08, whereas back in the 1970s it was .15, that is fine for the elites of America, because they have alternate means of transportation, or prefer to get drunk in private, or live in an area where the police wouldn't dare to pull them over in the first place.  If the privileged believe that drinking soda pop is bad for you, they are all for eliminating or taxing its usage, while they on the other hand suck down nearly as much sugar but in the form of a Starbucks Cinnamon Dolce Latte.

There isn't any reason why a man living in America shouldn't be entitled to a few pleasures, the problem is that the government is pushing more and more in the direction of taking away the very things that makes life tolerable to those that have little.  While it might be okay to offer someone unsolicited advice, a man deserves to be able to have a smoke, drink, or whatever pleases him, for unlike the rich man who has myriad choices as to how to entertain himself, the common man has far fewer, anddeserves something better than a life of quiet desperation

The Importance of Self-Control

Each one of us is given the power of free choice and therefore has the responsibility for each of our decisions that we make each and every day. This means, in short, that we live in a world, where we are not automatons, we are not mindless machines, but each of us is given our own consciousness that allows us to be the person that we desire to be and what we become is the result of those decisions.  The choices that we make in this life, involved an incredible amount of intricacies which take into account: who we are, our parents, our environment, our friends, our peers, our social setting, and so on and so forth.  Not only do we have numerous choices to make, but so too there are boundaries, to which some boundaries are best left uncrossed, some should be carefully considered before crossing, and some boundaries must be crossed. 

It is within those boundaries, and what we do about them, that a very important aspect of our personality, of our psychological make-up, comes into play.  Just about everyone recognizes that too much of anything, can end up being a very bad thing.  For instance, too much candy, too much drink, too much food, and so forth, can take something that was pleasurable and make instead something that is painful or uncomfortable.  In order to alleviate this over-satiation of even good things, we must exercise self-discipline and self-control.  So too there are negative things that we do not like that can create great havoc for ourselves and others such as too much anger, too much angst, too much envy, and so forth, which can easily take someone that is normally an even-keel person and turn him into someone that is completely unhinged, at least for a period of time.

It is a critical component in any great soul's development to develop successful self-control.  God has gifted each one of us with a brain, a mind that we can discipline or a mind that we can let do whatever it so desires, whatever those consequences may be.  We are told by wise men that we should "think before we act", and the reason we understand the wisdom of these sage words, is because actions, most definitely have consequences, to which, although we may not know necessarily the end result from these actions, we, in general, have a pretty good idea of where those actions are taking us.   It is especially important to have self-control, because humans are absolutely capable of killing other humans, out of anger, or spite, or revenge, in literally a matter of seconds, and this happens day after day.  This lack of self-control which perhaps only encompasses a few seconds will in its consequences have lifetime repercussions.

The words that come forth from our mouth, the text messages that we send, the physical actions that we take, are all actions that will have consequences, because we live in a world with actions and reactions.  The man with great self-control will be able to maintain his discipline and his sensibility when all around him is chaos and upheaval, whereas the man without that self-control will get caught up into situations in which his decision-making process will easily become suspect. 

The great avatars of this world are masters at maintaining their equilibrium, because a mind that is disciplined is akin to a mighty river which previously had been running amok with its massive and dangerous currents before being turned into instead a great hydro-electric powerhouse that brings forth light and energy into this world.

Temperance in Cigarette Smoking

The government and established medical authorities in America have conjoined to attack tobacco smoking as the biggest and most dangerous health vice that any human being could interact with on a daily basis.  The basic attitude that these authorities  seem to have is that the very act of cigarette smoking, even one cigarette, one time, even just one puff of one cigarette at one time, or even a hint of a puff, will irreparably destroy your body and make you to suffer a long, lingering, and painful death.  While that may not be the literal words of governmental authorities, it follows the same shibboleth of if you just take a puff of marijuana, one time that you will inevitably degenerate into a chronic heroin abuser.

The fact of the matter is that there is a world of difference between a man that consumes alcohol to his own oblivion each and every night, as compared to a man who consumes a glass or two of wine at his evening meal.  So too it is true that there is a great chasm between a man who smokes like a chimney, day in and day out, and someone that smokes for pleasure occasionally, from time-to-time during a given day.  We have been told by wise men that moderation in all things is the best policy, so if alcohol commercials and its print media can get away with reminding its consumers to "drink responsibly" and thereby press the validation that drinking alcohol in moderation will not consume your body, then why does it not follow that smokers that smoke in moderation, shouldn't be extended the same courtesy.

The fact of the matter is, to determine the ill effects of smoking are a very difficult thing to determine because in order to do so, you must control a multitude of variables, in addition to the fact that all of this must be measured over an extended period of time.  This means that direct things such as the chemical makeup of a cigarette, the inhalation of the cigarette, the quantity of cigarettes smoked and so forth have a measurable impact as to how carcinogenic your cigarette smoking habit could be. 

In recent times, smoking in America has decreased, yet on the other hand, the incidence of obesity has increased substantially, as well as welcoming in the creation of an energy drink segment in America.  What is not often taken into consideration when discussing cigarette smoking is the benefits of doing so, which can range from social to comfort to just a desire to have something in one's hands or mouth to play with and puff upon.  In addition, to these obvious things, cigarette smoking is both an appetite suppressor as well as being a stimulant, which means that the authorities are fundamentally wrong when they believe that the elimination of cigarette smoking is a 100% net gain, because it is not.  It would be more honest to state that all the authorities have done is simply to have replaced one bad habit with another bad habit.

The thing about cigarette smoking is the choice should be your own, and smoking when done in moderation, probably will treat your body like most other things that are consumed in moderation.

Stoning to Death

The Old Testament indicates that  capital punishment was an appropriate punishment for certain crimes such as adultery to which we read in Leviticus 20:10: "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."  Later, in the time when Christ walked the earth, death was considered to be just for blasphemy, as we read in John 10:31-33: "Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.  Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?  The Jews answered him, saying, for a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy…."  So too we are familiar with the story of a woman accused of adultery told in John: 8, in which the scribes and Pharisees challenge the Christ to defy the law of Moses to which they stated that the law stipulated that a woman caught in adultery shall be stoned to death, but Jesus invoked a Higher law in which he said: "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."  Then later, after the rapture of the Christ, Stephen was stoned to death for his blasphemy, in which we read in Acts 7:54: "When the council members heard Stephen’s speech, they were angry and furious."  So clearly, from the time of Moses through the ministry of Jesus and beyond, stoning was a part of culture, whether it was legally sanctified by Roman authorities or not, to which some were indeed put to death on the spot, essentially by mob rule, for in essence being found guilty of or accused of adultery or blasphemy.

Because we live in a modern age, we read these Biblical stories, perhaps half believing them, half not, or perhaps we read them more as allegories which are not literally true but may bring forth an important hidden meaning, but in reality though, stoning was must definitely true during the Mosaic era and into the Christ era, and incredibly, stoning still exists as a form of capital punishment, as of today.  That is to say, there are countries that allow the stoning of death for certain crimes, that either are still on the legal books of certain countries such as in Saudi Arabia but apparently not currently enforced, then there are also countries which still practice and sanction stoning such as Iran and Somalia, and finally we have the organization of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in which stoning is practiced within territories that they control.

Those countries and ISIS that use stoning as a sanctioned form of capital punishment seem to set aside this particular punishment just for those accused of adultery and for no other crimes.  Additionally, the victims are almost all exclusively female, even though adultery, by definition, involves more than one party, and it also appears in the most of the cases that those that are stoning the victims are exclusively all male, so that what we are seeing is men sanctioned by some form of law, stoning women to death, because of their alleged adultery.  Incredibly, it has been shown, in a particular notorious ISIS video that the actual father of the adulteress is only too willing to participate and actually throws a stone against his own daughter's head in order to help aid in killing her. 

Even though the participants of stoning don't want to admit these things, stoning is essentially a form of male mob rule, in which justice is mere window dressing, for the blood lust exercised as some sort of perverse cleansing ceremony for the community, at large.  The fact that a father would stone his own daughter to death, without demonstrating mercy, forgiveness, courage, or compassion, is a reflection of the sickness of that father and of that society.

As always, the taking of life, is relatively easy, especially if done in a group to which all can say they have participated and none will own up to whether it was their stone that was the telling blow.  While I suppose that makes it easier for these misguided murderers to sleep well at night, when their final slumber comes, as it must, they may find that the mercy and justice they denied others, will be denied to them, in turn.

Overtime

America has all sorts of labor rules and laws, some of which some companies follow to the letter, and some of which some companies either take advantage of or bend the rules in such a manner as to effectively do so.  When it comes to overtime pay, the Federal law is clear that working more than 40 hours in a workweek, will entitled an employee to overtime pay at a minimum of a 50% increase in pay, and certain States have additional rules, that allow overtime payment for even exceeding eight working hours in a day, depending upon the State.

The one thing that you can expect in American labor law is various exemptions, and not too surprisingly for employees, most exemptions favor the employer over the employee.  For instance, if you are considered to be an executive, administrative, or professional employee and make over $23,660 per annum, you are not entitled to overtime pay, no matter how many hours that you work in a given week, and no matter how much of your personal time is taken up with e-mails, text messages, and phone calls, whether it's the weekend, or after regular business hours.  The only possible benefit of being a salaried employee, is because there isn't any fix amount of hours required to be worked in any given week, this entitles the employee occasionally to be able to leave work early or arrive late in order to attend to personal matters from time-to-time, or if business is slow, to curtail one's hours and still get paid the same amount of money that is currently earned on a salary basis without reprimand.  In actuality, though, most employers want the extra work hours and personal time commitments from their salaried employees,   without wanting to give back much in return.  This means, in effect, that most salaried employees work more than 40 hours in a week on average, while receiving compensation that does not take into account the extra hours worked or personal hours sacrificed for work.

There are also jobs in America that require the employee to clock in when beginning their workday and to clock out when leaving their work at the end of the day.  For these employees, it is clear that they are entitled to overtime pay, for any work over 40 hours in a given week, and  if they also received e-mail, text, or phone calls directly relating to work, when not on the clock, that too qualifies as worthy of overtime compensation.  However, most companies expect a certain amount of work to be accomplished on either a given day or a given week, and thereby subtly or not too subtly encourage, train, or turn a blind eye to some work being accomplished off of the clock, and thereby without providing corresponding compensation.   This type of work, in which you are effectively working on the company's business but off the clock, should not be permitted as a matter of course, and in actuality, is almost always, not compensated.  Not too surprisingly, many companies utilizing this off the clock policy are able to successfully implement this by effectively browbeating or making employees feel guilty for not accomplishing more when they are on the clock.

In almost every labor condition, the employer holds the upper hand, to which, unspoken but strongly implied, there is always the threat that should any employee have the audacity to question the employer's judgment on what should or shouldn't be overtime, should or shouldn't be compensation, may end up costing that employee their livelihood, whether rightly or wrongly, legal or not.

Jane Junior

There are many parents that give one of their children, typically the first child, the same name as their father, and so they are known as John Junior, and then if that tradition continues, you will see a John III and John IV and so on.  Those that are named after their father may be known by that given name throughout their life, whereas with others, via by default or by choice they are known via a nickname, or perhaps they utilize the first initial of the first name with their middle name, or even just those two initials, or perhaps just the middle name.  In any event, the commonality of sons being named after their fathers is well established in America.

On the other hand, it seems, it is truly exceptional for any daughter to be named after her mother, so that we seldom see a Jane Junior, although this does occur occasionally, perhaps at a ratio of 1:100 to males, but it does happen.  What is puzzling is if to be named after the father is good enough for the son, then the naming of a daughter after her mother, should be accorded the same courtesy.  That is to say, what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander.

In point of fact, the naming conventions of girls are always going to be a bit more problematic mainly because most females upon marriage give up their last names so that Jane Smith Junior would probably be known simply as Jane Jones, and the Junior designation would therefore be dropped.  Because of this there is now presented also the conundrum of not being able to take a female Junior and being able to successfully pass that same name down to the next generation as, for instance, Jane Smith III, although in actuality, just because the last name has changed, doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be done.

Further, you can make a very strong argument especially in today's world, in which some women despite getting married never give up their last name, or instead combined their last name with their spouse, that the time has never been better for women to follow, if so desired, naming conventions which primarily had been utilized just for the male side of the family, and use it as their own, so that there can be multiple generations of the same female first name as well as the last.

The thing is with more and more women being quite accomplished in their own right, and celebrated for their achievements -- that the naming of a female child after the matriarch of the family, seems like a reasonable thing to do for those that have an affinity for this sort of honor and tradition within a family.  It just seems, in general, that those that name their child after themselves, are in a way, testifying that their reputation and that their name is one that deserves to live on in the new incarnation of their child.  If this then is true, and the desire is also there, then it just seems logical to pass that same tradition onto the female side of the family, because they deserve the same opportunity as the males.

Core Inflation Nonsense

How many times have you been listening to your radio or reading an article or watching some pundit on television talking about the present day inflation rate but then qualifying it though, by stating that such and such stated inflation rate, has taken out volatile items such as energy and housing, leaving us with something that they then call "core inflation", whatever that might mean. It seems to me that if you are going to drop out certain items from the Consumer Price Index (CPI) because they are too volatile, by virtue of their price dropping too low,  too quickly, or rising too high, too fast, you are missing almost the entire boat of what inflation is really suppose to measure.

What inflation should measure is the change in the CPI irrespective of whether certain items are volatile or not, because that is the reality of the situation, and should be recognized for what it is worth.  That is to say, if gasoline prices go up suddenly, the money that you are paying for gasoline out of your pocket has changed, and that change is immediately felt in your pocketbook, and to ignore that change as being volatile or seasonal or whatever, misses the entire point.

While it is a given, that calculating the CPI is not going to ever be easy, no matter how it is done, it becomes even more problematic when one recognizes that consumers are intelligent enough to adjust or downsize in response to certain trends or unexpected things.  For instance, if meat suddenly becomes super-expensive because of a massive recall of beef contaminated with e-coli, then a certain percentage of consumers will probably purchase less meat and find instead meat substitutes.  In fact, this is going to be true of a lot of consumer items and that change in consumer habits, whether temporary or permanent, trending for a short period of time or not, is extremely difficult to quantify, yet somehow that must be accounted for in order to quantify and/or qualify the appropriate current inflation rate.

The fact is that consumers have a lot of discretion on a lot of things that they purchase or utilize on an everyday level, but conversely there are also certain items and things that they have very little flexibility on, and it is these items especially that the government should pay careful attention to; which would in particular be housing, taxes, insurance, healthcare, and energy.  These items should actually be the main ingredient of true core inflation and should be monitored, smoothed, and adjusted as necessary, but however that is done by those economists the end result must accurately reflect and be accounted into the official government CPI level.

Instead, we are basically given information about inflation which strips out the most meaningful components to the index because the government for whatever reasons does not want to own up to any inconvenient truths.  For instance, in 2008, both housing and oil plummeted to phenomenal depths over a very short period of time, with the Case–Shiller housing index dropping from 170.09 in 2007 to 133.97 in 2008, as for oil it was price at $97.91 on January 4, 2008 and closed at $44.60 on December 31, 2008.   The government, however, claimed that the inflation rate for 2008 was 0.1% which was absolutely ludicrous, considering that housing and energy both cratered, as well as the fact that America verged on the edge of a financial meltdown.

In summary, this means that the CPI index as published is in actuality a shell game, with the basic thought process being that in order to prevent panic or uprising by the population at large, keep giving the credulous public that same old song and dance.

Cell Phones, Distractions, and Balance

It seems  nowadays that just about everyone has a cell phone and that most people use their cell phones a lot, while there are some that even seem to use their cell phone all of the time, no matter what else they may be doing besides just talking, surfing, or texting.   The thing is conversations can be distracting, depending upon the attention that you pay to the conversation, and anytime that you look down at your cell phone to read a text, look up a contact, check your facebook, or write a text, you are, by definition, taking your eyes off of something else and that too can be a problem.

The first problem with cell phones is where to place the phone such as, for example, holding it in one of your hands, pretty much no matter whatever else that you're doing, or have it holstered, or have it in a separate spot while using blue tooth for your conversations and texts, or the worst of them all, having your phone in one hand and almost in front of your face, while you are in motion. The thing is that if you are in motion and one of your hands is holding your phone, and if in addition, that phone is blocking one of your eyes or possibly both, your visual motion cues whether you are walking, driving, baby sitting, or whatnot, have been compromised.  This means that activities that you would normally be paying vital attention to, such as stairs, sidewalks, lampposts, pedestrians, other drivers, and so forth, are either barely getting the attention necessary to deal with them prudently or being simply placed into a "I got this" zone, when you most definitely do not have it under control.

It's difficult to determine how many car accidents, pedestrian accidents, falls, and so forth, are caused or contributed greatly by the improper usage of cell phones when moving about.  The bottom line is most people want to believe that they are always under control when it comes to multi-tasking, and that whatever small distraction that a cell phone might bring to the table, they through their superhuman instincts and razor-sharp reflexes will always have the appropriate counter-response to whatever comes their way.

The thing is that there are two basic problems with this thesis: one is that even ordinary conversations to which your attention is hardly diverted away from what you are currently involved with, can almost without notice, switch over to something that is far more intense, which engages your conscious mind and focal point to such an extent that all other tasks and visual clues are pushed far to the background.  Then there is the second problem which is by virtue of having a phone in your hand or in your hand and blocking all or part of your visual field, you are, if walking, placing yourself into a position where your balance can be lost in such a short period of time that to in order to recover from that particular misstep it may be too late to prevent a fall, and now with your valuable cell phone in one hand, you may subconsciously be reluctant to release or slow to release that same valuable phone in order to properly brace your fall.  In addition, should you be driving, you may find that road conditions have changed to such an alarming degree, that you need to slam on your brakes, or jerk your steering wheel to maintain your lane, and so forth.

What it comes down to is that using a cell phone is not a free ride that enables you to do all the things that you desire to do without any negative consequences.  In fact, there are definitely trade-offs, whether recognized or not, to which negatively impacting your visual field and/or always having one hand gripping a cell phone are not wise choices.

Uber, Lyft and Taxi Drivers

How many times have we heard these words, "life isn't fair"?  The reason that we hear that so often is the fact that often our perceptions indicate to us, whether legitimately or not, that life is not fair, that there appears to be rules unfairly applied and/or unequally enforced.  Take, for instance, the taxi wars, in which consumers can now utilize services from companies such as Uber or Lyft, to go from point A to point B, and so forth.  While this certainly feels like a win for consumers, this would imply strongly that there are losers in this game too.

The biggest loser in the Uber war is the entire taxi cab industry, from the managers, to investors, to State and city coffers, to employees, and to maintenance personnel, in which all of these people and entities are most definitely being impacted in a negative way and seem to be on the wrong side of time.  The thing is that is hardly a surprising result because when government allows one entity to play under different rules and regulations than another entity, the side that has the more favorable rules is going to be in the driver's seat.  This is, in a nutshell the exact situation in which taxi cab companies are regulated by city, State, and county officials, and have specific rules in regards to disabled-accessible vehicles, workers' compensation, work hours, unionization, limitation of medallions and car fleets, and so on. 

Another big loser in the Uber wars is the drivers of the vehicles themselves, to which, they are deceived into believing that being a Uber driver is somehow going to allow them to make good money, while being treated as independent contractors, responsible for their vehicle upkeep, gasoline, insurance, maintenance, and with no guarantees of a sustainable income as market forces primarily determine the compensation for Uber drivers at any given time.  The fact of the matter is, while there isn't anything wrong with being or desiring to be an Uber driver, realistically, this means that what you are desiring to be is a taxi driver in all but name, and thereby making the type of income, that a taxi driver would make on an hourly basis but without any employee benefits because you are not an employee of Uber.

Most people can find some justification for whatever actions that they take, to which I suppose, that when it comes to utilizing Uber, people talk up the convenience, the seamless usage of an app on their phone, the payment structure, the front seat, the experience, the quality of the vehicle, respect for the business disrupter, capitalism, and so forth, when in actuality, it mainly comes down to the point that Uber is cheaper and will save them money.  Uber, itself, would not exist without the massive amount of money behind them from venture capitalists, who rather than being seen as some sort of hero for opening up alternatives to taxi's; should be seen for what they really are, conducting business which relies on its success by playing under rules that favor them at the expense of the taxi industry, while also successfully exploiting their independent contractors, to do all the labor for them, while they make the easy money by taking a nice piece of every transaction.

"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the State but from the hand of God"

The above quotation would probably get many speakers at College campuses removed forthwith from the stage as advocating the supremacy of God, over the secular rights of mankind, and by virtue of this sentiment, clearly be in direct violation of the separation of Church and State.  Oh, how America has degenerated into a land that spends an inordinate amount of time trying to stamp out God and religious activities in everyday life, in the false belief that God's place in this world is only in the House of God, and nowhere else.  What absolute bunk!

To demonstrate conclusively the degeneracy of American values in the last fifty-odd years, that quotation above, comes not from some pundit from a religious program, or some professor at a religious school, or a historian trying to be provocative, but in fact, came from a politician.  This particular politician, ran for the Presidency of the United States of America, and in so doing was elected, and upon his election he stated in his First Inaugural Address that: "And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." 

The President that made this statement in his Inaugural Address made it clear that the United States fundamentally in its government, in its Constitution, and in its republic, recognized that the rights that we hold so dearly, that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, come from the very hand of God and not via the State.  Further, this fundamental truth is so important and so vital, that for world peace and harmony, this innate knowledge must be spread, learned, acknowledged and implemented by all nations and principalities, so that the oppressive hand of the State can be removed and invalidated, being replaced instead by the guiding light and truth of God.

Unfortunately, that is not the direction that the world has turned, as the leader of the free world, America, has instead made it a point to marginalize God in such a way so as to make the State the preeminent and all-knowing entity that all must pay obeisance to.  This is a mistake of epic proportions which, if continued, can only lead to the destruction, collapse, and ruination of America, itself.

What far too many citizens fail to recognize, is if all of our fundamental rights come from the State, and not from God, than what the State has given to us, can just as easily be taken away from us.  Further to this point, whatever that the State demands of us, we must adhere to, because as part of this bastardized worldview, we are subservient to the State, itself, and whatever the State deems to be right is right, and what the State deems to be wrong is wrong, no matter our own beliefs. 

In the end, there can only be one boss, and that is either the State or God, there is no other way.  The State can exist as an adjunct to God, as an adjunct to the natural rights that we are each gifted by God, but if the State instead legislates God out of existence, then the State stands at opposition to God, and that foundation, rests on sand, and will end in the only way that it possibly can.

On January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy in his Inaugural Address recognized the sovereignty of God, a self-evident truth, unfortunately today, that truth more often than not, is a light that many important and influential Americans are trying to extinguish, so as to plunge mankind back into the darkness of ignorance and oppression.

The Needless Tokyo Firebombing of March 9, 1945

On December 7, 1941, the forces of the Empire of Japan launched a successful surprise attack against Pearl Harbor, which resulted in the sinking or running aground of eighteen US military ships, and the death and injuries of nearly 3700 Americans, of which the vast majority, were military personnel.  Since, at the time of this attack, Japan and America were not at war, the death of these soldiers were non-combatants, and because the attack was a surprise, FDR declared that this was "… a date which will live in infamy."   While there are a lot of things one can say about the attack at Pearl Harbor, it was without question, a military attack upon American military resources, made in the hope that the American naval forces would be irreparably damaged in the Pacific theatre. 

Japan, initially, was quite successful in their military excursions, as they were victorious in battles and conquest of strategic resources in the Philippines, Hong Kong, Singapore, and other nation states.  Alas, for Japan, their success would not last, as the Allied forces, in particular American forces, would battle back and retake and reclaim areas that had been ceded to Japan.  Not too surprisingly, because this was war and Japan was a fierce fighter, many American men died as they borne the battle on behalf of their country, the Allied nations, and freedom.

By March of 1945, the outcome of the war with Japan was clear, yet the Americans had lost many good men at a terrible cost in hand-to-hand combat as they had taken back island by island, areas previously commanded by Japanese forces.  This meant in actuality that there was no military justification for the firebombing of Tokyo, just as there would later be no military justification for the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  The planning of the firebombing of Tokyo, was deliberate, and carefully thought out so as to inflict as much damage as possible; it was also stunningly effective, as about three hundred B-29 bombers dropped nearly 1700 tons of bombs that completely annihilated 16 square miles of Tokyo, resulting in the deaths of approximately 100,000 civilians, the injuries to perhaps another 50,000, and homelessness for an additional 1 million civilians, during the ensuring massive firestorm.

General LeMay is credited with the strategic planning and the implementation of not only this firebombing attack but subsequent firebombing attacks against other Japanese cities.  LeMay was alleged to have said: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.” Not too surprisingly, American history has been written so as to emphasize the "infamy" of Japan's naval attack upon our most strategically important Pacific naval base, whereas any discussion of America's deliberate and wanton firebombing of Japanese civilians, is couched in terms of having to do so in order to destroy the "cottage" war production of certain Japanese cities and other assorted justified nonsense.

We are now seventy years removed from these firebombing attacks upon Japan, which should with strong justification be seen as both cruel and as unusual punishment.  It would be one thing to then say, well, that was then, and this is now, but the fact of the matter is, America has not lost its lust of targeting and dropping devastating bombs on other countries, always finding some shaky justification to do so, but never having the courage to admit of the sickening effect that the bombing has on the suffering civilians that have received our terrible swift sword, and the living hell we have gifted to them.

The GED, High School, and Free Public Education

In America, not everyone graduates high school, in which it is currently estimated that just 81% of Americans graduate high school.  The problem with not graduating high school is that your job opportunities, job employment, and income are all correlated strongly with educational achievements, so that those without a high school diploma or equivalent are subject to the worst of these conditions, with an employment and earning future being considerably more circumspect than those with at least a high school diploma or equivalent.  In fact, not even the military at this point, will accept you as a recruit without a high school diploma or a General Education Development (GED) certificate.

So a person without a high school diploma will not only have a future with far dimmer prospects, it also means, implicitly, that they probably are not competent or need assistance in such basic tasks as reading, writing, and arithmetic, all meaning that because of their lack of education, other institutions that they will deal with in the fabric of life, will more easily be able to exploit them.  Fortunately, there is a sort of second chance opportunity for those that missed their chance or failed to get their high school diploma, for one reason or another, and that is the GED exam.

While it can be said, that the passing of a GED is basically considered to be the equivalent of a high school diploma, it is never, however, perceived as being better than a high school diploma, as for instance, for those trying to enlist in the military, a GED is classified as Tier 2, as compared to a high school diploma application which is classified as Tier 1. A GED also means for the person achieving it that they have had to take a five-part GED exam on their own time, with their own money, and further that they have passed the examination in all of its categories in order to receive the GED qualification.

This then brings up the basic point that since a public high school education is free of cost and is superior to a GED in the first place, and further that a high school diploma is the touchstone to basic employment opportunities, functionally literacy, and income, than why wouldn't everyone want to buckle down and get that high school diploma to begin with.  Yet, each year, many students drop out of high school, or perhaps it should be stated, begin to transition out of schooling, way before high school, and subsequently receive no diploma and minimal education.

It would be one thing if the students dropping out of school did so because they had pressing family obligations such as farm work, or something similar, but in point of fact, most students dropping out suffer from one or many of the following issues: low socio-economic level, dysfunctional family problems, drug/alcohol/family abuse, peer pressure, immaturity and poor decision making, lack of language skills, psychological problems, and substandard schools/teachers.

In America, most everybody likes things that are free.  Our public educational schools are one of those things that are not only free but will help to educate you and make you a better person as you learn to develop the skill-set that you need in order to excel or at least hold your own in the real world.  By all means, if it isn't too late to get yourself a high school diploma, than do so, and if not, then study, apply and get yourself a GED, because without either, you will find the world to be desperately harsh and unforgiving.

Porn Sites and the Law

While people can certainly still go to brick and mortar stores and purchase pornography, for the most part, the overwhelming majority of pornography, whether purchased or viewed is now done over the internet.  This does present several problems from both the viewer/purchaser perspective as well as the actual website/owner operator.  For instance, most people viewing or purchasing porn, no matter how the porn is labeled, presume that what they are viewing or purchasing is legal to do so, especially if they do not download, copy, or purchase anything, but only view it.  This viewpoint is not legally correct, as the First Amendment does not cover or protect you from viewing child pornography or things that are judged to be "obscene".  In regards to obscenity, for the most part, prosecution authorities typically do not pursue cases of this sort, for whatever reason, although the laws on the books allow them to do so.  As for child pornography, at the present day, this is aggressively prosecuted and appears to be the only area of the porn industry that the justice system consistently acts against.

In regards to the actual website that provides the porn for viewing and/or purchase, with the exception of the basic boilerplate legal notice disclaimer, if you are of age to view porn, you may do so, without having to show demonstrative proof that you are of age.  This means that the barrier of entry for the viewer is virtually non-existent.  Additionally, while there are adult web sites that have legal disclaimers on their porn in regards to having verifiable proof of the legal ages of the performers in the videos that are being viewed, the vast majority of porn sites, have no such disclaimer or legal notice, whatsoever embedded into the video. This means that the viewer or purchaser of most porn online is assuming that everything that is being viewed or purchased is both legal as well as being authorized, but that assumption is often misplaced.

In point of fact, porn web sites, should have to prove a couple of things to their viewers, such as first that the sexual actions being view or purchased are legal to begin with, which means, by definition, that they cannot be hosting or storing any child pornography whatsoever, and additionally that all images/videos being shown/sold are not obscene and legally authorized.  Also, and very importantly, each video clip should state that the performers in it are of age, that there are records that prove this, and further that these performers have each provided written and expressed permission for the usage of, the reproduction of, the distribution of, or the exhibition of this particular performance for the time period, so indicated.

There isn't any real good reason for the government to assume that these hosting websites showing and distributing porn have the legal right to do so, where often, that legality would appear to be seriously in question.  The thing about digital media is that it can be copied, edited, re-posted, and modified, ad nauseam, so that the actual ownership of such product or legal right to distribute it, is murky, at best. 

The porn genie was let out of the bottle, a couple of decades ago, and in the internet age it has morphed into something that lacks any semblance of control.  However, there can be control in the porn world, and that control begins with the enforcing of basic legal copyright laws such as: who owns this, who has the rights to this, and what are/are not the distribution rights to it; and those that cannot prove satisfactorily that they have said ownership rights or authorized permission, and further are not in violation of Constitutional law, should be put out of business or held accountable.