It takes two to Argue, One to Change

There are times when perhaps it isn't so good that we are able to communicate to each other via talking, writing, texting, and so forth, simply because, there are times when one person wants to get into an argument with us.   It is one thing to have a discussion, a conversation, a formal give and take, to which each side gets an opportunity to talk, and each side gets an opportunity to think, listen, and react, all done in such a manner, that neither side gets emotionally overwrought.  However, it is an entirely different thing when one side, or both sides, unleash upon the other, with absolute venom and contempt, expecting somehow, that by doing so, something constructive will come out of it.

As always, the change that we want or demand in others actually starts within our self.  Other people are virtually never puppets that we can control with the strings of the puppeteer, but rather are their own individuals, made up of all sorts of different factors and inputs, to which, as much as we might think that we know everything about them, we really do not.  However, on the other hand, we do know ourselves, or should, which means that by working on ourselves to be the best person that we can be will make most everything else better.  This means, that we should try to treat others with the same dignity, respect, concern, understanding, and caring that we would like others to treat us.  For instance, most everyone makes some sort of mistake every single day, but seldom do we vilify ourselves unmercifully for having done so, mainly because it really isn't necessary to do that, because we are already in recognition that we have made the mistake and have usually taken measures to correct it.  This signifies that when our partner makes an error in judgment, that reading them the riot act is seldom the thing that will be beneficial for both or either party, although it very well might lead to a stinging and ugly argument.

For many people, life is full of frustrations, to which, some are in our control and some are not.  The bottom line is that other people often don't think like we do, don't behave like we do, and do things differently than how we do it.  This doesn't necessarily make them wrong, or bad, or mistaken, or foolish, although it is conceivable that it does, what it does mean is that they are different than we are, and we should respect that.

The unfortunate aspect of arguments is frequently the other side does not want to hear you, but instead wants to validate themselves against you, often very assertively.  That is to say, the impression that they want to make in their argument against you is typically that they are so superior and wise, whereas you are so stupid and clueless.  But if this is so true, why has it taken them so long to discover this, as this seems to invalidate their very premise of the argument. 

Those that are emotionally overwrought and argumentative have issues, to which, perhaps some of those issues actually have to do with you, or with each other, but many times it has to do with something entirely else.  Remember this, does it make sense to argue with a madman even if they have a point or two?  It is far more sensible to diffuse the situation by not getting caught up into it, as not every accusation or complaint need be met with an answer; their fiery venom will burn out soon enough, keep calm at the center, and recognize that this too will pass.

Grandparents make Great Parents

As reported by usatoday.com: "According to 2010 U.S. Census data, 4.9 million American children are being raised solely by their grandparents. The number is almost double that of the 2000 Census -- 2.4 million."  Whether grandparents are raising their grandchildren solely and without the aid of their grandchild's biological parents, or whether they are helping to raise grandchildren in conjunction with the parents, more and more grandparents are taking a more prominent and meaningful role in the raising of today's children, and that trend doesn't appear to be on track to reverse itself anytime soon.  In general, the more family members that take an interest in any child's life and development, the better that child's life will be, because children more often than not, need attention, need validation, and need love.

The thing about grandparents that often puts them in such a favorable position in regards to their aid in the raising of grandchildren can be broken down into many factors.  For instance, grandparents typically have more time to interact with children, they are often more accommodating, more patient, more generous, more experienced, less sensitive, and have more wisdom, than parents do.  In addition, grandparents often don't have conflicts such as ambition, night school, too many hours at work, or fatigue from work, liaisons illicit or not, being overwhelmed by too many things at once, and so forth.  In general, grandparents are just more relaxed and more settled than parents are, with less concern about themselves and more concern about others, and generally a more appreciative outlook about the more important and vital things in life.

It's tough being a parent, to which, some are parents far too young, inexperienced, underfunded, immature, and struggling to make ends meet, to name just a few ofthecommon everyday parenting issues.  Obviously, the more things on any particular parent's plate, the more difficult it is for that parent to be a good parent, even if that parent has a great desire to be so, and coupled that with the inevitable mistakes that are made as a parent, leads often to a poor or a not desirable relationship between parent and child occurring.  

Not only does a grandparent have the advantages of time, wisdom, and experience, more often than not, grandparents see their renewed opportunity when thrust into the role of being a parent again, of making good on all the things that they felt they fell short on, the first time around.   While, grandparents may not have the physical capacity to get out and play with their grandchildren the way that a parent would, they compensate for this by virtue of the fact that grandparents listen to and pay better attention to their grandchildren. 

Obviously, every child wants to feel love, and the way that grandparents demonstrate this is by their willingness to joyfully interact with their grandchildren, wanting what is best for them, listening to their stories no matter how repetitious and circuitous, and nurturing them.  Too often, parents don't have the time to follow suit, and just want a child to hush, and to not be a nuisance, unable to understand that children desperately need their parental authorities to acknowledge them at the place where they are, and to see the world, if even for a moment, with the eyes of a child.  Grandparents intuitively understand this better because grandparents are often much more reflective, at ease, and receptive to the big, unblinking eyes of a child that still sees a big Heaven.

Eating Your Meal while watching someone Die on Television

Many people when then go to the movies make sure to grab a few snacks and blithely eat those treats while watching on the big screen various people die, in all sorts of ways, and really think nothing of it, because it is fictional entertainment.  This also stands true for people watching television shows, to which a fictional character is killed or a dramatization of a death occurs, or a death is depicted in a hospital scene, as we eat our evening meal, talk, text, or whatever.  None of that is very earth shaking, but the above has to do with situations in which the people that are dying aren't really dying in real life, no matter how realistic or not it is portrayed.  However, there are plenty of documentaries and news programs in which you will view actual real people, soldiers or not, being killed or shown as dead on television, and those deaths are absolutely real, yet many people go about their business without really missing a bite of the food that they are eating and most probably still enjoying.  Is this behavior somehow wrong?

The fact of the matter is that each and every day thousands upon thousands of newborns come into this world, and thousands upon thousands of those, some old, some not, some ill, some not, some expected, some not, die each and every day.  So to the point, this is the circle of our physical life on earth, to which none can escape from, to which, perhaps it can be said that in this modern, western world, we have pushed the tragedy of death, to such an extent, it has become marginalized.

While it does seem somewhat strange to actually be eating while watching someone really die on television, as if this in itself, is an act of disrespect, the thing is, that in order to nourish our physical body, we must eat, and unless we change the station, or close our eyes to the reality of life, we are bound to see and learn of things that are inconvenient or uncomfortable to us, yet, the very act of eating, should perhaps be seen as a sort of defiance that we will not go quietly into the night, and that living people must eat in order to sustain their life.

It can also be said that it's good to see death, not from a sick or sadistic point of view, but instead so that we can recognize that death touches us all, rather than that death should be covered up, sanitized, and hidden far from our view.  It use to be that people that succumbed to natural causes did so at home, in front of their loved ones, but nowadays so often people die instead in hospitals, often away from their loved ones, and/or medicated so much that their mind is discombobulated.  While this isn't necessarily something that can be avoided or even a bad thing, as in fact hospitals, their staff, and their medicine have its place, this also isn't necessarily the right thing either.  

We do need to see death, in order to better understand life, as well as to remind us that each and every day through our actions and by our words we are either living or we are dying.

Civil Suits and Self-Incrimination

If you ask the average citizen, to list all of the Bill of Rights, they probably could not do it, however, it you ask them to list what they could remember, they probably would remember at least a partial bit of the 5th Amendment, and would state that you have the right to not self-incriminate yourself, and further, this might be the sole Amendment, that they would know the number of, probably because they have seen so many criminal trials real or fictionalized on television, to which a defendant has invoked their "5th Amendment right to not testify against himself, under advice of counsel." One thing though a careful reading of the 5th Amendment shows that it states: "… nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…" this means that the 5th Amendment does not however stipulate the right to not incriminate yourself in a civil action, because a civil suit is not a criminal suit, and incrimination applies only to criminal cases.

This doesn’t mean, however, that you have to answer all questions in a civil suit, especially if you are concerned that giving answers to certain, specific questions, may present evidence that could be used against you in a criminal suit.  This point is extremely valuable because if civil suits can or could be the basis for the later prosecution of criminal suits, than prosecutorial agents would be well within their rights to suggest to the plaintiff to first pursue the civil case, and then have the prosecutorial arm of the State take evidence that would be considered incriminating against the defendant and then use this very testimony given in a civil suit against him in a criminal court of law.

As you might suspect, the foregoing not only seems to be unfair, but would also appear to be illegal or a violation of either civil or criminal codes.  It could very well be, depending upon how the legal system looks upon it; what it is for a certainty, is it is not "double jeopardy" because double jeopardy is being subject to the same offense twice, whereas these offenses may have the same root, but are different branches, that is, one is criminal and prosecuted by the State, and the other is civil and litigated by private parties.

In general, but not always, in situations to which there are both civil as well as criminal suits pending, or a tendency for both to come into play, American jurisprudence first pursues the criminal case, and then the civil case, which is the way it should be, as this allows the answers in a civil suit to be made without the fear of criminal prosecution.  Additionally, when it isn't clear as to whether there will be a criminal case but it is something that could occur, the defendant is allowed within a civil suit, to not answer specific questions that would be incriminating to him in a criminal trial, till there has been proper resolution of the criminal legal threat or a decision made by a judge compelling such testimony to go forward.

The thing is, judges or the law don't always get it right, and there are cases, famous cases (e.g. Bill Cosby), to which a person has given civil testimony, had the civil case settled or finalized, and then years later, been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution in a criminal case, to which their civil testimony is used against them.  This would clearly seem to be a case of being compelled by civil evidence to be a witness against himself, and even a cursory reading of the 5th Amendment, would seemingly make this evidence inadmissible.   

Should future litigation follow this pattern, first the civil and then the criminal -- with the prosecution distilling key components of the civil, and thereby melding the formidable State with private parties, this could specifically target individuals and effectively break them.

Child Endangerment Laws

There are so many laws and statutes in America that I suspect that if you were devote yourself to one hour a day to reading of such, that at no point, would you ever succeed in reading every law in America.  This means, in short, that most people are woefully short of knowing and certainly of comprehending all of the laws in America, and the less that you know about laws, the more vulnerable you are to being in danger of committing a violation of law.  While you probably won't find an argument with just about anyone that adults, especially parents, have an obligation to do right with their children, this parental authority is under assault each and every day.  For instance, it is one thing for the State to wish to assist parents that need assistance with the mentoring and parenting of their children in a positive and constructive manner but it is entirely a different thing again for the State to use their authority and their laws to wrest from parents or to punish parents, for their supposed abuse of their own progeny.

One of the most insidious things about laws in America is that prosecutors like to pile on as many dubious charges against a particular person as possible, so as in aggregate to create a situation in which the penalties of such are so great, that these particular unfortunates will have to plea bargain these charges down to something reasonable.  While the prosecutorial arm of justice may or may not see this as being the right thing to do, it is both highly effective as well as punishing against those that are accused.  To make matter worse, most adults of a certain age have children, and the fact that the government is wont to use a parent's own children against them so as to threaten parents with additional punishment, or to take away their biological children is highly irregular and unfortunate.

For instance, DUI laws are forever changing, so that the blood alcohol level of someone that is presumed DUI can be as low as 0.02% for those that are under the age of 21, 0.08% for those that are 21 and older, 0.04% for a commercial driver, while back in the 1950s the DUI presumption was above 0.15%, later to fall to 0.12% and then to 0.10% and now at 0.08% in most States.  The fact of the matter is that the definition of a DUI has continually changed not because authorities know so much more about drinking and driving but rather that authority simply want to arrest and punish more people that have had a drink with a DUI.  This leads to the point that if by virtue of the fact that you are considered to be driving under the influence and further that you also have a child in your car, that can easily be construed to be a prima-facie case of child endangerment, even though in actuality, there is a significant possibility that the DUI charge against you is functionally spurious.

While it certainly has merit to want to protect a child from unattended firearms, from drug trafficking and manufacturing, from any and assorted things that are specifically adult related and not child related, the fact of the matter is that these child endangerment laws are really used as a form of coercion to lay upon the adult to force them to conform or to punish them for non-conformance with the child used against the parent as the "whip of the law".  Not too surprisingly, those often accused of child endangerment are exactly the people that don't have the resources to fight the law to begin with, to which although often imperfect parents, love their children, and instead of the State providing brotherly aid and assistance for them, want them instead to bow to State authority or suffer the unending consequences of their non-compliance to arbitrary law.

The Purpose of Police: Keeping the Barbarians at the Gate

As part of any mature civilization is a court and justice system created in order to promote order and to assure the public safety.  While there are many ingredients to such a system, one of the necessary ingredients, is having under State Control, a designated arm of the government that makes sure to impose order when it needs imposing, and to bring miscreants to justice.  That arm of justice is presently known as the police, to which the police worked in conjunction with civil authorities to maintain and support civil society with the police force aiding in the enforcement of particular codes and laws of such a jurisdiction.

In a nation such as America, the police are not a force unto themselves, although in truly exceptional cases they can conceivably be, as they are instead the enforcement arm of the State.  This means that police, are not independent agents of the State, but are first responders to the State and its laws, and in particular the peculiar enforcing of such laws within that jurisdiction.

While a police force has many purposes, there are two basic and fundamental purposes that any police force has: to which the first is not so much to see that the law is obeyed and upheld within a particular city, but instead to see that the law, as arbitrated by those in authority, is obeyed and upheld in that city. This means that there is conscious recognition by policing authorities that they are not in themselves to go about their business in such a manner so as to disturb those that are the masters and payers-in of said system, with their secondary purpose being specifically to setup policing so as to keep the barbarians at the gate.  But who are the barbarians?

The barbarians are always define by the State, and therefore the State decides which party is on the inside and is privileged and which parties are on the outside, and should be suppressed.  That is why in virtually any civil disturbance within a given city, the police force is almost always on the side of those that control the city politics of that city, and thereby the police force as a whole pays little or no attention to the law or even their purported purpose, such as "to serve and protect", but instead makes sure to obey those that are truly in authority.

This means, for the uninitiated, that believe that in those inevitable situations which bring forth justifiable civil disputes, to which it would appear that each side has its merits, and thereby that the purpose of the police in such a situation should be to see that each side is protected equally and in such a manner so as to reduce bloodshed and unnecessary drama, that this viewpoint is nakedly naïve.  In point of fact, in most cases, one side will be strongly supported by the State, to the exclusion of the other, which should make it vividly clear as to whom or whom not the barbarians are, and once identified as barbarians, expect those barbarians to be stopped at the gate and driven far, far away.

Sunlight and Temperature

Most people are pretty familiar with the temperature on a given day, perhaps through their smart phone, or through the display on their vehicle, or through any preferred media outlet, but the fact of the matter is that most people don't understand that the temperature being measured by all of these various devices are all drawing upon the same basic set of tools which is the recording of the current temperature as measured in the shade, above ground level and importantly being out of the elements of that day such as wind or rain.  This means, for people that go outside on a sunny day to which the temperature is being displayed at 55 degrees Fahrenheit may easily believe that the temperature in the sun feels appreciably higher, because, in fact, it is.  Contrarily, for those that go outside on the same day at 55 degrees Fahrenheit in which it is cloudy and the wind has kicked up, will find that the air feels appreciable colder, because, in fact, it is.

This means for a certainty that on very hot days, in which you are laboring outside, that many people doing work, are under the misimpression that the real temperature in the air is actually lower than it actually is, because that temperature has not taken into account the sun, the sun's angle, wind velocity, and the overall humidity.  Not too surprisingly, accuweather.com properly recognized that temperatures should take into account these factors and thereby came up with a temperature rating for cities that they have designated as their RealFeel® Temperature, which more people should pay attention to, because the RealFeel® Temperature can be of vital importance for those that are laboring outside.

In addition, temperatures within neighborhoods, can vary quite a bit, because of the amount of shading in a particular neighborhood, the amount of concrete and pavement utilized in a given neighbor as concrete and pavement both draw in much more heat to their respective surfaces as opposed to dirt or grass, and the ability or inability of wind to travel through neighborhoods is dependent upon trees and other impediments to the flow of wind.

The more knowledge that we have about the true temperature in our area, the better that we can adapt to being prudent in our activities of our day, for instance, many people are under the misimpression that the highest temperatures on a sunny day is at high noon or 12 PM, but that is almost never true, as first off the true definition of solar noon is that this is the time when the sun is at its highest elevation in the sky, which almost always occurs later than high noon, depending upon your time zone, and this is especially pronounced during "daylight savings time".  Additionally, the highest temperature on a given day is almost never at solar noon, because although the sun has reached its apex, its heat is still warming the earth despite the sun's angle now beginning its slow descent, so because more heat is still being generated than is being lost on the earth's surface, this means that the peak temperature of the day is often still approximately three hours later than the solar noon.

Subprime Auto Loans

The United States has an insatiable love for automobiles of all types, and not too surprisingly, with the ubiquitous ads for all sorts of cars for all sorts of people, there is a demand from those that have poor credit scores for automobiles.  You might think, that those that have financial resources that are relatively weak, as well as having poor credit and/or work history, in addition to pretty much struggling from paycheck to paycheck would be completely locked out of getting an auto loan for a new vehicle, but this thought would be wrong.  Even though, it makes logical sense for people that have low financial resources to spend money prudently and to thereby look for a vehicle that is used, reliable, and relatively inexpensive, they are instead lured in by the siren call of the illusion of relatively low monthly payments with little or nothing down, so that they can have it all, and they can have it now.  This means that vehicles are available not only to be sold to those of a low credit rating, but specifically these people are actively targeted and marketed to. 

In 2015, the wsj.com reports that there were over 17.5 million cars and light trucks sold in America, with a total value of these sales of about $570 billion.  This amount of sales could not have occurred without significant sales to those whose credit worthiness was shaky.  Once again, similar to the subprime housing debacle, loans to those of weak credit worthiness are being securitized and repackaged to be sold to investors that are hungry for yield, to which some of these subprime portfolios are, once again, rated at AAA.  

Unlike, the mortgage crisis, there are advantages to the subprime loans being made in the auto industry, which can be broken down into the fact that autos are easy to repossess, have a stable reselling value, and a very liquid market.  However, like anything, a sudden oversupply of defaulted car loans would saturate the market and would thereby drive car values down.  While this is bad for those that loan money for the autos, it can be even worse for those that the loan was issued to in the first place as they will be responsible for any "deficiency" in the difference between the actual selling price of the vehicle once repossessed, against the amount of monies owed, over and above any penalties and late charges applied against them.

Even though subprime loans are priced to take into account the low credit worthiness of the buyer of such, with lenders consequently charging an interest rate of 18% or even higher, in which the cost of money to them is only around 1-2%, making for a very large margin, that is hardly a guarantee that the loan will be paid on a timely basis or even at all, especially if the economy should take a significant downward swing.  The bottom line is that the poor credit rating of the buyers of these new vehicles, is clearly a sign that these purchasers in aggregate will not be able to make all their payments, yet these loans are specifically made and targeted towards those very people, primarily because those that initiate these sales, feel very confident that they will find a willing buyer of their securitized loans and thereby are able to book a profitable sale, without the worry of blowback.

There is a wrong belief, that this time it is different, but it is exactly the same, any way that you slice, dice, and make it, as large loans to people that have not demonstrated credit worthiness, that do not have meaningful assets, and further that do not have the resources to deal with bad financial times, are destined to end badly for many of them; and the ultimate buyers of such investments, will find that underneath the pretty wrappings is nothing but financial misery.

Communism Part IV

Communism as envisioned by Marx and Engels has never existed and never will exist; their belief that a new world order would be created through the State in which the proletariat would rise up and thereby eliminate or eviscerate the capitalists, private property holders, and previous inheritors of wealth, has never occurred, and will never occur.  Marx and Engels seemed incapable of comprehending that the new State that they urged the creation of could only be created by force and that this new State power and wealth would come by the forceful takings of the former capitalist's money and their private property, now placed under State aegis.  As for the former capitalistic exploitation of labor, this would continue as the same as it ever was, with the difference being that the exploitation of such would now go directly to the State and its beneficiaries.

Communism, far from uplifting the proletariat, would use their newfound wealth and power taken from those that use to have it, to bend society to the dictates of the State, which would or would not have some features of communism, depending upon those that were in power.  In any event, State power and State control of all apparatus, including especially the media, justice, and productivity, would allow the State to dictate to the people the propaganda that all was well, when, of course, all was not well at all.

What makes communism such a galling and annoying system of governance is the fact that when the people own nothing, except in common, whatever that is supposed to mean, then they are subservient to the State, and are in essence living in a serfdom/feudalism paradigm, hardly revolutionary in any way.  When bad governments, and abusive power, create the conditions for revolution and change, the people, especially the proletariat will never be secure, will never be free, and will never have self determination, in any form of government that in its inception, aggrandizes unto itself all power and wealth, whether this is expressly stated or implied.

For those that profess that they desire to live in a world that is far more equal in opportunity, in fairness, in justice, in income, in brotherhood, and to see far less exploitation of others, this can only exist in a society that recognizes the inherent sovereignty of the individual and that thereby each individual is created equally and has specific inalienable rights.  Only when mankind recognizes that a person's rights come from God, and not by arbitrary State fiat, will they ever have a chance to create a government that supports and benefits these rights and that government in order to be legitimate is created specifically to secure those rights.

Far from it, America as a nation, was not founded as a capitalistic country as that was not its purpose in its declaration, its purpose was to break forever free from the mistaken notion of the Divine right of Kings, and to replace that with the knowledge that each of us is an equal child of the most High God.  Man's inhumanity to man has led us to terrible poverty, injustice, and inequality; unfortunately, communism is in actuality never the rise of the poor and oppressed to their rightful place at the table of fairness, but instead merely a changing of the guard and semantics for the betterment of those that have no soul to conquer those that do.

Communism Part III

History is full of very intelligent people that are woefully ignorant on important things.  The one thing about communism is that it seems to attract a lot of people that intellectually should know better, but are somehow drawn into communism as if communism is the answer for poverty, lost, unfairness, and so forth, whereas from the very inception of communism on a world stage, (e.g. the Bolsheviks) it has instead been the bastion of the bourgeois intelligentsia, not to uplift the disadvantaged, but to control them for the benefit of that bourgeois intelligentsia.

While one can certainly sympathize with anyone that wishes to uplift the downtrodden and huddle masses of the world, communism is never going to be the way to accomplish this.  For instance, while it does sound wonderful that each and every citizen should be able to be accommodated with the very basic necessities of life, such as food, shelter, education, and opportunity, the communistic State only wants that to occur in actuality after they, the bourgeois intelligentsia in conjunction with the military arm of such a State, are satiated with all the material and beneficial things that they claim either that they need or our entitled too.  Not too surprisingly, their satiation never is complete, their corruption never ends, and their bickering is ever constant, along with the very basic fact, that their fruits essentially come from the labor or exploitation of the underclass, which in aggregate has little incentive to accommodate them, even under the penalty of death, imprisonment, or banishment.

While it might sound enticing to actually live in the pretend world of which all are provided with the basic human rights of living, this would actually necessitate that somehow the State would be capable of successfully divvying up the resources to accomplish this.  The problem is, when the mindset of communism is that there is no God, there isn't much of a real reason in a dog-eat-dog world of a zero sum society to want to give up what you have labored for to someone that has not labored for it, whether by sloth, by illness, by age, or whatnot.  Instead, you will want to protect your own, against all who are trying to take from you, which may necessitate taking actions that are in direct or indirect conflict with the communistic State.

Further to the point, in order to violently take from some in order to give to others, that necessitates force, and in order for State force to be utilized effectively, that force must be controlled and managed by the State by both the whip as well as the weal.  This means, in short, that the dreamlike society in which all are benign and that get along with each other, by aiding the other, helping the other, assisting the other, willing the good of the other, doesn't exist with or within communism and never will. 

Anyone that truly desires harmony, sharing, and brotherly love, is to be admired, however, this is something that is absolutely consistent with Christianity but not with communism.  Communism merely takes a snapshot of a utopian society and preaches that we can get there because that is what the masses want or desire, and the only thing preventing that achievement is those that have wrongfully stolen or exploited their labor and opportunity.  Thereupon, communism replaces the old regime through violent overthrow and brings forth their new regime, changing the players, but never changing the game. While the words are different, the game remains the same, all are equal, so they say-- only some are more equal than others, and those some very well know it and will make sure that you know that as well.

Communism Part I

Communism is a pathetic godless philosophy, a pitiful excuse for the State to aggrandize onto itself all powers against the people.  While, Marx may have believed that the Communist Manifesto was a brilliant piece of economic theory and writing, it was actually fatally flawed from its inception with a gross misunderstanding of revolutions and the human psyche.  The fact that anyone, that anyone at all, can believe that at any time, that the proletariat, that is the poor people of any nation, will rise up in unison to take control of industry and production in such a manner as to eliminate competition and instead to provide a world of cooperation and unity, to which all will share equally in the produce of their labor, is fanciful garbage.

The forgoing is not, however, the biggest error of communism, as nothing is worse in the inept communist manifesto than the fact that communism, does not acknowledge the existence of, let alone the omnipotence and omniscience of God.  This line of thinking, if you can even call it that, is the very thing that truly demonstrates the blind trying to lead the blind. 

If there is no God, than everything is permitted, which in functionally means exactly the opposite of what communism purports to want, which is a world of peaceful co-existence in which nothing is personally own and all that is created is shared with the population as a whole as needed.  While there certainly is a lot to be said positively about sharing, about harmony, and about recognizing the true ownership of anything, communism is not a philosophy which will successfully accomplish any of these things.

To change man, you must change his heart; and to change society, you must first change man.  The change that so many people clamor for starts with their own self and cannot be legislated or mandated into existence.  That change can only come from the recognition that there is one immutable God, that there is Truth, one Truth, and that there is justice, one justice.  For all those that do not recognize that these fundamental and inalienable rights are given to all men by the grace of God, theirs will always be a life without meaning and with little purpose.

Another problem with communism is that there are absolutely no true communistic States and never will be; there may be nations that purport to be communistic but on virtually any level, whatsoever, from the governance of such, from the equality of such, from the justice of such, they are all far, far removed from communism as envisioned by Marx and Engels.  The reason for this being so, is because it is often in man's nature to want to unjustly rule over others, to control others, to use others, and to dominate others, and if you do not believe in God or eternal justice, than there is absolutely nothing that will stop you and your cohorts from ever becoming satiated with all that you want at the expense of those that truly labor for it.

Any nation that does not recognize that each of its citizen's fundamental rights come from Almighty God and not via the State, will rue their foolishness and their castles built upon sand; as this deception foisted upon the people is an abomination that will enviably be answered when darkness faces Light.

Communism Part II

One does wonder why there have been so many people of high intelligence that have gravitated to communism, as you would think, that they, of all people, would know better.  It is one thing, entirely for those that are truly the underserved, the oppressed, the proletariat, to want to be a part of a new system that will level the playing field and that will then provide them with food, shelter, fairness, and an appreciation of labor, when these things have formally been in short supply, but for intellectuals, those that typically already have good jobs and privileges, a penchant for communism seems senseless.

Perhaps certain intellectuals gravitate to communism because they believe that there should be more sharing from one person to another, certainly that seems sensible and neighborly, and perhaps too that too often governments have been active supporters of the status quo.  Then so too, perhaps intellectuals sell out their own nation for communism out of spite, out of hate, out of being bullied or the like, because they aren't properly appreciated, so that when the communists come knocking, they are eager to do a deal with a regime that will properly respect them and reward them for their traitorous activities.

Additionally, there are many that gravitate towards communism because they buy the line that only communism will allow society to live in a world in which income and labor will follow the mantra of: "from each according to ability, to each according to need".  Of course, like those that are so caught up in a cult, that they ignore the warning signals, those that are caught up in the lure of a socialist society in which all are equal and none are exploited, apparently don't recognize that in order to achieve such a State, there will be arbiters of such, and these arbiters will have the power to destroy, punish, or kill those that do not obey or are not in lockstep with the program.

However, all said, the worst of the worst, are the intellectuals that sing the praises of communism while truly knowing better, and blithely ignore all the ills and crimes of the State against the people.  These intellectuals do so for a lot of reasons with the primary reason being that as long as they are treated well, appreciated, and provided their safe haven that is all that really matters.  Further to this point, the difference between esteemed scientists in America, for instance, as compared to an esteemed scientist in communism, is that in America that scientist makes a good salary but is in almost all cases far, far removed from real temporal power.  However, in communism, scientists are well appreciated, especially when they create or discover things that will help the State in its oppression or control of the people, in one form or another, and thereby these scientists can become important functionaries of the State, with all the attendant benefits.

This signifies that the main reason why so many intellectuals desire communism is not because they are looking for some sort of socialistic paradise, although they may profess this, but in fact, are looking instead for a regime that will permit them to be one of the elites that dictates to the people, how they should or shouldn't behave, or what they shouldor shouldn't do, because these intellectuals believed that they are not held In high enough esteem, and that communism will finally give them both the platform as well as the respect that they deserve, which will then be utilized to keep the dregs of society in their place, for their own betterment as well as for the service to those that were born to be served.

Civilian Deaths Greater than Military Deaths in World War II

War should always be looked upon as the last best choice to resolve conflict as the intended and unintended consequences of virtually any war includes not only the destruction of all sorts of infrastructure within countries, the attendant massive usage of resources for destructive purposes, but also the wholesale destruction of human life, be it male, female, child, or soldier.  No matter how focused a given war is on targeting just military personnel on the opposing side, all wars bleed over to civilians, and to make matters worse, modern-day wars are incredibly inhumane.

While World War II was a war that was desperately fought to stop the wanton rampage, rape, and evil intents of the Axis nations, the Allied nations, didn't conduct their nature of war in response by taking into account at all times, that civilians should not be deliberately targeted.  The upshot of this incredibly bloody and violent war is that according to historylearningsite.co.uk the overall civilian deaths from this war were estimated to be 30,497,000 peoples v. an estimated 24,517,000 soldiers of the war dead.  However, if we also consider the amount of civilians killed by virtue of war related famine or disease, the new count for civilian deaths rises to a total of another 30,000,000 peoples as estimated by Wikipedia.org signifying that the overall amount of civilian deaths which can be attributed to the war as being at a more than 2:1 ratio than those that died in battle.

While death is indeed an integral part of the art of war, for soldiers that partake in it, it should not be that those that are civilians should suffer at rates of death far exceeding soldiers.  While some of those civilian deaths are the unintended consequences of war, it is an absolute fact that many of the civilian deaths in World War II were deliberately targeted by virtue of their creed, by virtue of deliberate bombing, as punishment, as terror tactics, and so forth, which proved the same point again and again, that munitions as well as man's inhumanity to man are extremely lethal.

The judgment of any nation should be based upon how they treat the poor and defenseless, especially in the most tying of times, and the upshot of World War II is that virtually all countries failed this test in either the highest degree or in various degrees.  It is a damnable shame that the Allied parties in so many ways lived by their actions that the way of justice was "an eye for an eye", a fallacy of the highest order.

Today, as never before in the history of mankind, the ability to kill people, civilian or not, to destroy nations, and to self-destruct is in the hands of the few and powerful, who literally at the stroke of a pen, can unleash this terrible destruction upon all corners of the earth.  The problem with such power is that those that unloose such are so far removed from the field of action, that they subsequently feel none of its horror or comprehend correctly its unnecessary wanton destruction.  This type of thinking is desperately wrong, sick, patently pathetic, and a disgrace, especially for those that claim that God blesses their country.

Bad Guys

There are way too many media outlets such as movies, television, and so forth that try to portray life in the most simplistic terms available, so as to make one side, to be all good, whereas the other side is all bad.  Of course, in these types of situations it is fairly easy for those watching or participating to sanction whatever treatment that the bad guys get, because, well they are bad.  Unfortunately, it is because of this type of simplistic and specious reasoning that there is not now, nor will there be ever, peace on earth, because as long as you aggregate to yourself, as the good entity, that you have the right to annihilate what you have designated as bad, you are no longer good.

America is a great military power, both within as well as without, so that the same mindset that we take to war with our foreign enemies seems to be the exact same mindset that we take to war on our domestic foes.  For instance, whatever country that we seem to have a dispute with, the mainstream media makes sure to march in lockstep with the military-industrial complex so as to portray this foreign country or insurgency as something that is less than human, or less than civilized, and of an imminent danger to the world at large.  While there may be some truth in this portrayal, it is typically only a small sliver of truth, whereas the biggest issues of the day, of justice, of economic opportunity, education, and so forth, are left far behind.  In regards to our domestic foes, America so often prefers to militarize things so as to portray that drastic and strong actions by the State or its agencies are necessary to interdict drugs, or whatever, and that therefore basic civil rights, basic justice, and basic civility, must be push aside, for the greater need of stopping the bad guys.

All of the forgoing is intellectually dishonest as well as being directly subversive to the principles of our Constitution as well as our Declaration of Independence. Today, in far too many instances, government and its agencies have aggregated onto themselves the godlike belief that they are the sole arbiters of what is good and what is bad and subsequently that they will do whatever that they deem to be necessary to deal with the problem of the bad guys. 

The thing is that justice carried to the extreme, is injustice.  And every bullet pumped into a bad person, should have been a bullet used only because the exigencies of the situation mandated it.  So too, every country that we carpet bomb, assassinate their high officials, interfere in their domestic affairs, and disrupt their normal day-to-day activities, should be a country that clearly is a meaningful menace not only to its own people but to the world at large.

The easiest thing for all these authorities to say to us each and every day is that they spend all of their time searching, targeting, and destroying the bad guys, and because of their great patriotic duty they have made the world a safer and better place.  In fact, they haven't done anything of the sort, except in the most extraordinary of circumstances; instead, they have kicked aside the principle of human empathy and of being a good neighbor, and have forgotten what our greatest President told us, "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?"

Arrest Warrant Issued for a common Traffic Ticket -- Really?

It is a shame, that the law is so often used in America as a hammer to keep the poor, dumb, unorganized, unenlightened, and immature under the thumb of the State.  It is absolutely a disgrace that a mere common infraction, such as getting a ticket for speeding can lead to jail time but it can and it does.  The first mistake that most people are unaware of is that a traffic violation is a much more serious offence than might be imagined, in fact it is often considered by the State to be a criminal offence, although classified as a petty offence or an infraction which is a special category in which it is classified as neither a misdemeanor or a felony.    I suspect that this special classification for an infraction in the criminal code was probably done so that those receiving such traffic violations would not have to own up to having a criminal record, so that when asked by a prospective employer on a job application as to whether: "have you ever been convicted of a crime other than a minor traffic violation," the answer is straightforward.  In addition, the other strong hint that a traffic violation is a criminal offence is the fact that should you chose to dispute your ticket; you are allowed to confront and to cross-examine the police officer in a court of law.

All of the foregoing leads up to the very unfortunate aspect of getting a ticket, which is over and beyond the fact that a traffic violation will cost you monetarily in both the infraction cost as well as the increase in your insurance premium, is that the failure of paying such in a timely manner and/or failure to make your court appearance will often lead to a bench warrant being issued for your arrest.  The fact that one mere unpaid traffic violation allows any police officer to arrest you for "failure to appear" is one of the most insidious features of the police state that we live in.  There are very few people that would welcome being arrested at any time, and there are very few people that would believe that a minor unpaid traffic violation should allow the State to arrest you to begin with, but they can and they do.  This again points to the seriousness of an infraction, because that infraction starts the process by which if you do not obey the dictates of the State, you will be subject to incarceration.

Further complicating the manner, a simple unpaid traffic violation, can and often will escalate to a higher fine and penalties for that non-payment, in addition to a bench warrant being issued against you, which can easily morph into additional crimes, such as the very likely suspension of your driver's license, which is a criminal misdemeanor offence, itself subject to fines, penalties, revocation of car insurance, and jail time.

None of this should ever be allowed to occur in a country as rich and as favored as America, but that is the way that it is, and the weight of this justice is unfairly placed on the very citizens that really can't afford to pay the fines and their attendant penalties, to begin with.  While it is one thing to pin a traffic violation on a given driver, it is completely unfair, unequal, unjust, and arbitrary to pursue an unpaid fine by leveraging the massive State resources against an individual for a relatively small amount of money and to place that person behind bars. 

A lot of this is caused because the police and court forces of so many cities often rely far too heavily upon those very fines to support their institutions and infrastructure, and thereby have a vested interest in seeing that the public is ticketed often and that they pay those fines or suffer dearly for their lack of obeisance.

USA Drug War and Corruption

America has been in a drug war since the Nixon Administration in 1971, a battle that has clearly gone in favor of the drug purveyors, since all the drugs that America traffics in are readily available and have been so for nearly fifty years.  According to rand.org, utilizing 2010 dollars for a national survey in January, 2012, that:  "… national estimates of market sizes for four illicit drugs: cocaine (including crack), heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine (meth)," it was estimated that " … that drug users in the United States spend on the order of $100 billion annually."  In addition, as estimated by huffingtonpost.com that: "… the U.S. government spent between $40 billion and $50 billion each year fighting the war on drugs."  This signifies that all the king's men and all the king's horses has produced little or no lasting damage to the infrastructure and trafficking of illicit drugs in this country, despite the sophistication and experience of our drug and police forces, as well as America having a robust and respected rule of law.

So too, this implies strongly that there are really only two distinct possibilities, for the war on drugs to have been such a complete and thorough failure in America, to which the first is that our policing, our drug interdiction forces, and our justice, are completely ineffective in the tasks assigned to them, by virtue of the fact that the drug lords have more money, weaponry, and are more sophisticated in their trade, which is a theory that is absolutely absurd.  The second possibility, and the only real possibility, is that the monies involved in successful drug trafficking are so great, so high, so wide, so prevalent, and so pervasive that those that are in the position to stop, to prevent, and to interdict drugs, find that the lure of easy money or its equivalence is a siren song that cannot be resisted.

The bottom line is that the corruption of drug money in America reaches into the pockets of so many of those that have the authority and knowledge to do something significant about it; that those very people are the ones that have been compromised, willingly or not, in such a way that their abiding interest is now in seeing that the drug flow continues and is sustained because their lifestyle depends upon it.  It is that lure of making a quick and easy buck that makes so many of the enforcers in the drug trade turn the other way, because they cannot resist the benefits of their illicit gains.

The drug war in America will never effectively end, because the two sides that ostensibly oppose each other, are actually intertwined with each other, and because each side benefits greatly, at the expense of the good taxpayers, good health, and of those that play by the rules, the drug peddlers are permitted free reign to ply their trade as long as they pay tribute and abide by certain rules that are sanctioned by the drug overseers wearing governmental and policing hats.

It is not possible in a country as rich, as sophisticated, and as brilliant as America, that drug traffickers can have the run of this country, unless those that can stop it, discover that the monies involved are just too rich and lucrative to refuse, and why not, just as long as the users of such, are principally the dregs of society, and far, far away from the imperial money elite.

The Luxury Tax in Sports

In the major American sports leagues, there are three leagues, the NHL, MLS, and the NFL, to which there are hard salary caps on player salaries, which means of course, that payroll for players cannot exceed that amount of money which has been contractually agreed upon, period.  This means that having a hard salary cap in those sports is great for the owners, and unfair to the players, since it limits the players in receiving what the market will bear for their services.  In the NBA and MLB there are no hard salary caps, instead, they have put into place, a luxury tax, which if the nominal salary cap is exceeded, a penalty is assessed to each team that exceeds that cap in salaries.  As you might expect, the luxury tax is a fairly recent invention, beginning in 2003 in baseball, and 2002-03 in basketball, to which, it is stated that the purpose of the cap is to assure greater parity in their respective sports, which sounds egalitarian and almost fair, but as expected, hides the real truth of the matter.

The thing is, if a luxury tax in a given industry or a salary cap for that matter seems like a good and fair business practice, why is it, that there aren't any luxury taxes on labor whatsoever on some of America's biggest multi-national conglomerates such as Apple or Microsoft or ExxonMobil?  The reason that there isn't a luxury tax on these entities is that it doesn't make any sense as nobody is putting a gun to anybody's head, insisting that so-and-so Manager or CFO or whatever, must have a certain salary, as pretty much, these companies compensate the people that work for them, what they feel or what has been approved through the Board of Directors or management as fair and reasonable in their employment compensation packages.

The bottom line for sports is that there should not be an arbitrary salary cap or luxury tax applied when it comes to player's salaries, rather the players should not be limited in receiving what is fairly due to them for providing the sports entertainment to begin with.  The whole purpose of the luxury tax is basically to protect the owners from "overspending" on labor, and thereby to in aggregate, improve the bottom line for them and them alone, in a given sport.  This is a great deal for the owners, but an unfair one for the players of the sports, to which their careers can end or be terminated at any moment, with little or no possibility of ever being able to command the type of salary that they have received by playing their particular sport, outside of that world of sports.

The issuance of salary caps with or without a luxury tax is in reality, a form of legal collusion by the owners against the players; despite the way most media outlets try to spin it.  To say, that the purpose of a luxury tax is to create a level playing field is senseless, since the payroll for a team in NYC as opposed to Milwaukee, should not now or ever be close to the same amount, as the media and advertising rights, the wealth, and the overall worth of NYC is second-to-none, and thereby the salaries of NYC players should naturally be appreciably higher.

The luxury tax is in essence, a way for billionaire owners, to protect themselves from themselves, at the expense of the real value of the labor that makes the sport to begin with.

The Inflation-Adjusted SAT

The SAT is one of those very important, seminal tests that measures aptitude and intelligence which is especially pertinent for those students seriously considering going on to college.  The roots of the SAT began back in the 1930s and early 1940s, to which its popularity and need for college admissions and eligibility increased significantly over time so that the SAT test score soon became the score for high school students to master, and to demonstrate their worth.

While it isn't surprising that test questions have changed over the years, it is surprising that the amount of time given to answer test questions has also changed from year-to-year, additionally an essay section was added to the SAT but later dropped as a requirement to it, and it is especially surprising that test scoring itself has changed from year-to-year.  All of these changes, means in effect, that a SAT score for somebody in 1950 is not equivalent to the exact same SAT score in 2015.  Perhaps that is the way it should be, that is that testing evolves and changes over time, but one can make a very strong argument that the true purpose of the SAT or any testing for that matter, should be to measure the mastery of certain subjects such as math and reading, and the requirements for that demonstration of mastery, should be fairly constant and not in a state of flux.

What a lot of people, may not recognize, especially parents that recall their own SAT scores from back when they were in high school, is that the SAT board, for spurious reasons, decided that in April of 1995 that SAT scoring needed to be "recentered".  Of course, in America, you can always count on words being utilized and applied in ways that seem to obfuscate the true meaning of what is going so, such is a word like recentered, to which those giving the SAT scores, decided that since SAT scores were in a dramatic freefall, and because they felt that the true center or average for a given SAT score for those taking it, should be 500, they changed the scoring of such, to reflect that desire.  This means, for a parent comparing their pre-1995 score to their child's post-1995 score, that comparison will not be between apples and apples, since scores have been uplifted since 1995.  For instance, in 1992, the average math score was 476 and the average reading score was 423, whereas in 2015 the average math score was 511 and average reading score was 495.  To the unaided eye, it would appear that students had gotten appreciably smarter since 1992, but in fact, those scores, once the recentering bias is removed, are in fact, not meaningfully different. 

The long and short of it is, that the SAT scoring, test questions, and time allocated for such, have changed so meaningfully and been distorted by design that a grand illusion has been foisted onto the American public, to which this illusion purports to show that American high school students are smarter than their parents.  Unfortunately, that isn't true at all, at best today's high school students aptitude and intelligence are equivalent to their parents and at worst they are a sad reflection of the greatest generation and their progeny.

The Auto Insurance Accident Claim Repair Game

Getting into an auto accident is never a fun thing to be involved in, especially if there are bodily injuries and the like, however, sometimes, the accident really comes down to damage just to the car and not to the body of any individuals within the cars.  The biggest surprise people will get for just about any accident, especially those accidents which appear to be "minor", such as a dented door and broken window, is that the cost of repairs of a vehicle are almost always considerably higher than you expect.

Although there are lots of recommended procedures in taking care of a claim for an accident, in one form or another, you are most likely going to have to contact your insurance carrier.  When doing so, you might find that nowadays there are apps available which allows you to take pictures of your car and the damages, so that a repair estimate can be formulated, or at least started, just from those photos.  Another thing, is that your insurance company often has a depot to which if you drive your car in, they will write up the paperwork, give you a general idea of the repair work involved and then they will drive your vehicle over to their authorized collision repair center for a comprehensive repair analysis and cost which they will email to you, all typically accomplished within 24 hours.  If you, as the insured, accept this quotation, your insurance company will take care of the repairs, logistics, and whatnot and your vehicle will be repaired. This means that as a consumer, you don't have to run around town getting two or three quotes, that if you so desire, you can simply let your insurance company handle everything.

As might be expected, there is a price to be paid for convenience.  On the good side, you save time, further since you aren't responsible for monies paid for your repair above your premium, the overall cost of the repair is pretty much immaterial for you.  In addition, most repairs come with guarantees, even lifetime warranties, which may be of value, or of questionable value, once you look underneath the surface of what a lifetime guarantee actually covers.  Additionally, this cozy relationship between the repair shop and your insurance company exists for a reason, and the primary reason it exists is because insurance companies can drive in a lot of business to a given collision center, in return to which, they expect the collision center to use parts that may be refurbished, recycled, after-market, and non-OEM in order to effect the repairs, all of which are typically buried deep within the terms and conditions of the repair.  Also, if you as a consumer desire to go outside their "pre-approved" repair facilities, which is your prerogative, you may find the whole insurance process in regards to time, approvals, reimbursement, timely payments, and whatnot, are all working against you, not to mention the fact that with the possible exception of "gear heads" most people don't have a preferred body shop to effect car repairs to go to in the first place.

While it is true that auto insurance companies do want to see that the repairs made to your vehicle are competent, they are at the same time, bottom-line conscious companies, so that their overarching goal is to see that your vehicle returns to its "pre-loss" condition, a term which allows them to save money on parts and possibly labor, while you on the other hand, are paying for the full freight on your car insurance policy, regardless.

Statute of Limitations on Credit Card Debt

When it comes to getting money, most credit card issuers are not interested whatsoever in their being any sort of statute of limitations for them to collect on their money.  Further, to complicate the waters about the actual statute of limitations on credit card debt, this statute varies from State-to-State, to which the issuer of the credit card may successfully argue in court that the statute should be based on the State that the credit card issuer so designated upon issuance, rather than the State that you reside in, or whichever favors the issuer of credit to begin with.  The bottom line, whether you've moved or not since the credit card was issued, is that the determination of which State's statute of limitations applies, has more to do, with the party that has the power, as well as maximizing the length of the statute for the benefit of the collector, above all.

Consumers should care a great deal about the statute of limitations for credit card issuers or their designated assignee for the collector of such, because that length of time can vary from as short as three years to as long as ten years from the date the credit card payment was due and no payment was made to it.  That time is important, because once a credit card company debt exceeds the statute of limitations, the creditor no longer has recourse to the collection of the debt throughout the court system, which means that they no longer have the legal right to sue you and collect on a judgment, against you.  This doesn't mean that they will necessarily stop trying to collect on the debt; it fundamentally means that they have lost the power of the court to legally compel you to do so via summary judgment.

However, whether a debt has exceeded the statute of limitations is still something that must be judicially decided in a court of law, as the statute of limitations, varies from State to State, varies from credit card to credit card, and this statute expiration must be either successfully proved in a court of law, or conceded by the creditor.

When it comes to the statute of limitations, there is still one more hurdle to overcome, which is, as mentioned before, the statute begins running from the initial due date that you missed your payment on your particular credit card debt, which is quite straightforward, if you can find that statement or have documentation through the credit card company of that date, or from a credit score report.  However, if since you missed that payment you have made any payment whatsoever towards that debt, the statute of limitations typically re-sets from that payment that you made, so that, if you missed payments for six months, and then decided under harassment or whatever, to make a payment, and then stop paying once again, you have moved the statute of limitations six months further down the road.

This means from a credit card debt standpoint, that you must be very careful when deciding that you wish to pay the debt, as every time that you make some sort of payment towards it, the statute re-sets, and this payment itself, encourages the debt collector to believe that you wish to or have the means to make good on the debt, signifying that they will be less inclined to cut you a good deal on it.

Credit card debt collectors count on you not knowing your legal rights, nor understanding correctly the statute of limitations in your particular circumstances, and will exploit this knowledge against you.  As a consumer, it pays to be well informed, as that knowledge properly applied, will afford you the opportunity to extricate yourself from inconvenient, uncomfortable and seemingly unending debt situations far better than those who simply give up or don't pay attention.