So Arab-Americans are White?

In America, until very recent times, there were generally considered to be five basic race categories labeled as: American Indian, Asian, Black, Other (typically Latino), and White; and each of these categories, used examples of their respective countries of origin to help pigeonhole people into marking correctly their proper racial classification.  It seems like every decade the census bureau adds and amends racial classifications, so that we now have Asians broken into more distinct categories such as Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese; as well as Latinos being separated into Cuban, Mexican, and Puerto Rican and so forth.  There are, however, areas on the census for race, which still don't seem to have an appropriate category for certain races, of which, a prominent example is Arab-Americans.

As it stands, Arab-Americans, to whose skin color can range from a very swarthy look to a blue-eye pale skin look, to which, traditionally, whether wrongly or right, Arab-Americans have been considered to be white, is being re-considered, especially since that racial classification seems to be out of step with reality.  Yet, one of the racial definitions by the State of Iowa, for instance, states that you are white if you are: "…original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa," which signifies that Arab-Americans are white, it also signifies that Jesus by this definition was also white, which is probably the real reason behind this racial classification being this way, in the first place.

The whole thing about race seems rather problematic, especially in an era in which a larger and larger percentage of people classify themselves as being a mixture of races, or don't really self-identify with any one particular race.  Another problem with racial classifications is that race, is primarily based on one's country or historic country of origin, but also typically takes into serious consideration the color of one's skin, as well as your basic facial characteristics. Additionally, the world is almost always in conflict, with nations conquering and being conquered, and consequently the inevitable intermingling of different races so that with the exception of peoples completed isolated from the outside world, it is a rather common occurrence, to have those different cultures and races collide and intermingle, so that the upshot is that a substantial portion of people aren't really 100% one race, anyway.

It just seems no matter how many racial categories are added, subtracted, modified, or re-arranged, that the whole process of tracking people on the basis of their race doesn't actually accomplished anything of real substance, and, to a large extent as long as America insists that in certain instances that people should be identified as a certain race, its concentration is misguided, as the real substance that America represents should be the substance of a man's character and not of his country of origin, or color of his skin, or his eyes, or his nose, or anything physical. 

At some point, America must answer the question, are we all Americans and united under the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or are we all different races, different colors, different people, separated by origin, separated in principle, and unequal?

Random Seat Assignment on Airlines--Really?

Merriam-Webster defines random as: "without definite aim, direction, rule, or method," which based on the way airlines appear to actually assign non-premium seats on an airplane, is at best, disingenuous; yet airlines such as Spirit Air and others advertise that they provide "randomly assign" seating.  The prime example of why previously non-assigned seats can't truly be random is that to treat a family of five, of which three of those passengers are under the age of eighteen and simply, randomly disperse these children throughout the plane, would not be a business model that any parent, or society, in general, would approve of.  While, I am unaware of how the seating algorithm is setup to handle families, or adults, for that matter, that have booked an airplane ticket as co-passengers at the same time is actually handled, there isn't any doubt, that the airlines are well aware of those that have booked solo as compared to those that have booked as a couple and as to those that booked their flight as a family.  This means, de facto, airplane seat assignments to which certain consumers such as families with children, for a savings of money, or for whatever reason, in which they didn't pay any further fee to get an assigned seat will not be randomly assigned seats, and I challenge the airlines to prove otherwise.

In point of fact, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, random seat assignments aren't actually random by the airlines; for another very obvious reason, which is some of the airlines have tier pricing on their assigned seats, which typically means that seats at the front of the plane, or an exit row, or an aisle or window seat, are sold at a premium price than seats that are in the middle and/or are at the back of the plane.  This means, that the airline has a vested interest, very much so, that  upon the 24-hour window commencing for passengers to check-in, that the very best open seats, especially those that a discriminating passenger would be willing to pay for, would probably not initially be included in the algorithm of random seats that a passenger could win.  Further to the point, since the airlines know for a certainty whether you have or have not paid for baggage or any other extra fees which aren't mandatory, it certainly seems reasonable to assume, that passengers that have spent more on their ticket, for their baggage, or are frequent flyers of that airline, or whatever features that the airline finds most cogent, will receive a more pleasing selection of previously unassigned seats than someone that doesn't fall within that given demographic.

In America, there are so many lawyers and so many lawsuits, that it just seems as if airlines that advertise their seating as being random, will, sooner or later, have to disclose in detail and transparently, exactly how "random" those seats actually are that get assigned to passengers based on the time stamp of their check-in.  The strong impression that I have is that these seats are gamed by the airlines, and they are gamed for a reason, to which that reason is to reward those that pay for extra things and/or are valued consumers, as well as to penalize those that don't.  The other objective of the airlines is the hope that people notpreviously willing to "pony up" the money to buy pre-assigned seats will after consistently receiving a poor seat selections be "encouraged" to change their ways.

Heroin v. Methadone v. Opiates

Heroin is illegal in America, while methadone and opiates such as oxycodone and hydrocone along with pharmaceutical names as in codeine or oxycontin, are opiates that are legal in America, if prescribed by an attending physician.  It is important to realize, that despite heroin being typically vilified as a dangerous street drug, that substitutes to heroin as in methadone and oxycontin all have as their primary basis the opium poppy, and while it is true that heroin as a street drug is almost never pure, as it is often cut with other substances, along with the fact that the purity of heroin or the quality of the heroin dosage, will vary considerably because it is not manufactured inside pharmaceutical labs with stringent quality control, that heroin is, in essence, basically the same in its effect as the other legally prescribed opiates.

While, government officials are quick to point out that methadone and other opiates that are legal do not provide the intense euphoric rush of a typical heroin dosage, the overall effect of legal opiates in their acting upon the receptors of the subject's brain are quite similar.  Additionally, all opiates prescribed or not, are quite addictive, so essentially, the demonization of heroin as contrasted to other legal prescribed opiates is that the later are regulated by government bureaucrats whereas the former are not.  This, then leads to the somewhat cynical conclusion that in America, it's OK to be addicted to opiates for pain management or whatever, as long as your addiction is sanctioned by medical authorities in conjunction with governmental oversight.

As might be expected, because heroin is illegal, there are penalties for both possession of heroin, for the usage of heroin, and significant penalties for the selling of heroin, whereas for those that have an authorized prescription, they are permitted legally to use their opiods as long as they have a valid prescription.  While, no doubt, there are times when opiod usage is a prudent medical decision to make on behalf of a patient suffering pain, the thing about pain is that it is very difficult for a doctor to know for an absolute certainty in many cases as to whether a given patient is really suffering from debilitating pain or instead craves opiate use because they simply like the feeling.

To put things in proper perspective, as reported by allgov.com: "Studies have shown that the United States, with less than 5% of the world’s population, uses 80% of the global supply of opioid drugs."  This statistic, clearly and unequivocally points to the fact, that in America it's just fine to be addicted to opiates, just as long as you play the game by the rules, which means, that you as a patient, must convince the prescribing physician that you are suffering pain perhaps from a car collision, or a fall, or whatever, and by answering the pertinent questions correctly you will be rewarded with your well deserved prescription; whereas for those that want to feel more warmth, peace, and feelings of blissfulness, overcoming whatever chaos is going around them or in their life, via a street drug such as heroin, or illegally taking a prescription drug which is not prescribed for them,  this is highly illegal, and is punishable by jail time and fines.

In America, it is simple, opiate usage is just fine, as long as the governmental authorities, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies are paid proper homage to and most importantly are able to make easy money from servicing a steady clientele, but opiate usage is not OK, when you try to subvert these entities and bypass their rules and regulations, in those cases, you are a criminal.

Drone Street Patrol

In military operations, the USA relies on drones to gather photographic and video intelligence knowing that if the drone is targeted for destruction, suffers malfunctions, or fails in service, that no military personnel will be lost with the drone.  This means that there are massive advantages to deploying drones out in the field, especially with the drones' ability to gather intelligence 24/7 without sacrificing or endangering soldiers in the line of duty.  Not too surprisingly, devices that can gather intelligence and monitor activities, are strongly desired for police and other law enforcement agencies to which the usage of drones by these departments are currently in process and/or have already occurred.

Another big factor favoring the increasing usage of drones now and in the future, is that the more sales, and the more buying activity by the general public as well as governmental agencies, means, that not only will the pricing of drones have a downward trajectory, but the features and capabilities of the drones will get more and more sophisticated, with greater reliability and effectiveness. 

As it stands today, many police departments like to avail themselves of analytics, in order to make valid crime predictions and to interdict crime, by virtue of seeing patterns in certain neighborhoods at certain times, and consequently being able to devote more resources to those areas to combat crime or civil unrest before matters get out of hand.  While there is something to be said about having patrol cars, feet on the ground, and so forth, the fact of the matter is, police patrols cannot be everywhere at every time, so that having a drone street patrol systematically monitoring public streets, public parks, and public places, could and should be a valuable tool for law enforcement agencies.

When it comes to drones and their recording or streaming of video and still photography, the public has a reasonable right to know, what is being recorded, analyzed, and evaluated, to which as a matter of course, law enforcement and citizen support groups should work together, meaning that, for drone recordings, that vetted citizens, should be able to view what the police are viewing in real time.  If, on the other hand, citizens are knocked out of the loop and aren't allowed to work in conjunction with law enforcement agencies, from a viewing perspective of drones recording public activities in public spaces, than, unfortunately law enforcement has been essentially handed carte blanche the ability to be "big brother" with no citizen feedback or input, to which, the upshot, is that the public space, will fast become, a venue to which there is no respite from the police eye in the sky.

Properly used, drones can be a very valid aid for the public safety, as, for instance, the recording of a crash scene from the air, monitoring natural disasters, recording crime scenes information, traffic and crowd flow, and as a better way to provide security and information gathering because the viewpoint of a drone gives a perspective that cannot be achieved at ground level and at a much lower cost point than a manned helicopter.  On the other hand, what the general public doesn't really need or want, is more hi-technology tracking and recording of their every move in public, which is why drone usage should be carefully monitored by a citizen watch group so that the privacy of individuals will not be subsumed by lawful authorities who feel that they are not answerable to the public that they ostensibly serve.

Colonial Pennsylvania and Religious Tolerance

The majority of the thirteen colonies had established State religions as part of their State Charter, to which these established religions, often made it a matter of policy that the residents of their State had to pay forth taxes to support the established Church of their State, regardless of whether they as an individual or family were members of the State established Church, or whether their personal religious beliefs were sympathetic with the State established Church.  Further, in order to hold public office, if you were not a member and subscription paying supporter of the State established Church, you were typically ineligible to hold office.  All of the foregoing was a primary reason that when our Constitution was written it spelt out in our 1st Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." 

There were in colonial times some States that did not have an established religion, to which the prime example of a State that embraced true religious freedom, was Pennsylvania, led by the Quaker William Penn, who was granted by the King of England, sovereign rule over Pennsylvania, and true to his conscience, this was a State that stipulated in its charter: "That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their Own consciences and understanding."  To put this into its proper perspective, this State Charter was written in 1681, at an age in which true religious toleration was unusual, the exception, and rarely sanctioned by any Governmental authority.

The upshot is that we have a lot to be thankful for in regards to the foresight and liberality of Pennsylvania when it came to their freedom of worship, something that is perhaps taken for granted today, but was revolutionary in its time, and truth be told, there are a multitude of countries that exist even today, that harbor no other religion, other than the State sanctioned religion of that respective country, and often treat others that do not follow the State sanctioned religion, in a manner, not limited to their banishment or even their death. William Penn, on the other hand, recognized that “force makes hypocrites; ’tis persuasion only that makes converts” and lived this principle in practice and by law in Pennsylvania.

The fact of the matter is, if a citizen cannot avail themselves of their freedom of conscience, than all other freedoms that they are purported to have are on the shakiest of grounds.  While it can be said that for the good of the community, peoples need to band together for example, In the need of the common defense, bartering, trade, schooling, education, communication, aid, and in the general effectiveness that a peoples that work together as a team with a common and meaningful purpose is far more effective than a peoples that do not, than it can also be said that respect comes from granting that others are entitled to their own viewpoints, opinions, and thoughts, as opposed to a groupthink that brokers no opposition as to their preferred or authorized behavior.

In point of fact, the beginning of wisdom is the recognition that each of us is sovereign unto ourselves, and that therefore,   that our Creator has granted each one of us, free will, to make of life what we so desire, and thereby by our voluntary alliances with others of like mind we, as a people, become one body, indivisible, expressing liberty and justice for all.

Your Computer and Your Rights

Computers are the equivalent of diaries of old, but with incredibly more detail and access to information that will often record the most intimate minutia of your everyday life, from photos, to financial details, to documents, to emails, to websites visited, and so forth.  The common person might thing that with a basic password for user access or perhaps password protected folders or documents that he has done a fairly decent job of protecting his privacy.  Furthermore, most people believe that their computer is their computer, and not subject to searches or seizure, but when the government has their eyes on you, for whatever reason, fair or foul, your rights quickly begin to shrivel in comparison to the might of the full governmental arsenal against you.

Although some computers are movable devices, such as laptops, a desktop computer that sits inside of your home at your desk is quite common, to which it may contain all of your digital information from the last five years, or even before, if you bothered to transfer digital files from one computer to the next, previously.  For whatever reason, one day, the police come knocking at your place at residence, and wish to search your premises, to which you as the only person at home answer their request with a polite denial, whereupon in absence of exigent circumstances that necessitate their immediate entry, they will then be forced to come up with a search warrant.  The police promised to come back shortly with a search warrant, and sad to say they return with one, which within its terms grants them permission to seize your computer, because that computer may have incriminating evidence of a certain crime.  If that is what the search warrant permits, your protests now will avail you of nothing, and even if that computer, contains information of extreme importance to yourself, private, personal, or whatever, the control of it is now in the government agent's hands. 

Once the government takes control of your computer they may or may not request from you, password information, of which it is your 5th Amendment right, of non self-incrimination to deny them such information, and perhaps by not giving up your encryption information you might keep the dogs at bay for a while, but almost for a certainty, the government will eventually break through.  You would think, though, that after the government takes complete and thorough control of your computer that they would then be limited to searching just for incriminating information that was subject to the initial search warrant terms to begin with, and specifically not be allowed to systematically search any and everything on your computer, but that thought would be incorrect, as the government can pretty much search everything on your computer without limitations or accountability, because there doesn't appear to be any legalor supervisory safeguards thatwould protect your Constitutional rights.

In point of fact, in this computer age, the right of the people to be: "… secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…" is being torn to shreds by the fact that current court law appears to allow the government with a properly executed search warrant unlimited andcomplete intrusive access to everything ever recorded on our personal computers, meaning, in effect, that in America, there are two classes of people, those that are subject to arbitrary and capricious law, and those that are above that law.

Unincorporated Towns and the Company Town

There are many small communities, often isolated, that are not incorporated communities in America, to which the meaning of unincorporated in this context, simply means that there is no municipality for that community, signifying that there is no local government within that community.  This means in most unincorporated towns, that there is no local mayor, no local police or fire protection, no local sewage, no local street lights, and so forth.   In most cases, unincorporated towns have services that would typically be provided by their own municipality, provided instead by the county that they are part of, or a city or town that they are contiguous to, to which their property taxes would pay for these services, so that, in effect, although these towns are without a local voice they would still have police, fire and other protection services available to them.

There are, however, another type of unincorporated town, the type that was more prevalent over a century ago, in which, typically the town was created out of nothing in a remote part of the State, specifically as a consequence of the extraction of minerals or other natural resources contained within that specific region.  In the first place, because these towns were literally created overnight, none of typical township requirements would be in place, and if each of the residents of such a town were almost all either dependent upon or part of the workforce of the industry that was the reason behind the town being formed initially, there were obvious reasons why that company wouldn't readily want to incorporate, to which the very first reason, would be control. 

The problem for any company, that is the main employer of workers in a very small community, is that the sharing of democratic power is not typically something that they have a real interest in doing, because even if the company believes that they have candidates and legislators under their control, this is still an area that can spin out of their control, creating great strife and conflict within that community.  So then, rather than creating a municipality, with a mayor, justice, and legislators, it is far more desirable for that company, to simply, and effectively, run things entirely itself.  That means often control or management of ownership of the entire infrastructure of the community, from housing, to plumbing, to utilities, to stores, to schools, to medicine, and so forth.  This control is even more effective when instead of paying employees with actual USA issued currency; they are paid instead with company scrip, effectively making the employees and residents of such a town--wards of that town.

The people of a company town, without a municipality, effectively have neither a voice, nor local recourse to voice their viewpoint or to effect change.  While, the residents are not prisoners in the sense that they are locked into that town, they will find that should they choose to vacate the township that they will leave with no more than they came to the town with, which means, in effect, that they have labored for the company and received nothing of lasting value in return. 

So, in short, anytime that people within a small community have no voice, because that voice has been compromised effectively by the powers that control that community, liberty dies.

Two Way Communications

In today's world, basically any device that allows you to both listen as well as talk to the other party is a device that is capable, perhaps with physical modification, perhaps with software modification, perhaps with some surreptitious tweaking, or perhaps with the right overrides against your privacy protections, to turn into a device that will listen to your voice, without notification or knowledge to you.

While, a car device, such as OnStar has its practicalities and worth, the power, capability and potential intrusiveness of this device is truly noteworthy.  Not only does OnStar provide remote access to your vehicle, which will allow it to be located via GPS, unlocked, locked, to have its lights flash on or off, or to cut off the flow of gasoline to the car's engine, OnStar communications system is a two-way system, in which you can not only hear OnStar but that OnStar has the capability to listen in on you through the microphone installed as part of OnStar, and as a device meant to be used for customer communication with OnStar.  Of course, no doubt, there are plenty of legal terms and conditions which prevent OnStar from doing any of this snooping stuff, but the problem is, not that the consumer doesn't have protections and rights, but that these protections and rights can, no doubt, under exigent conditions, be overridden by specific Government agencies, and/or these agencies on their own with surreptitious entry and authority, simply will assert their ability to access this information.

So too, as smart phones, those ubiquitous little mini-computers which are  getting smarter and smarter by the day, have the capacity to turn into their own listening device, against you, and in fact, any device such as a smart TV, or an Xbox, or the Amazon Fire TV device, and so forth, which is voice activated, signifying that the device controlled is able to hear, understand, and then obey your voice, can, in all probability, be turned into a device which simply listens to you or those within your space, 24/7, akin to an obedient servant, only this particular servant doesn't ultimately serve exclusively you. 

Today's technology is a two-edge sword, while on the one hand, it gives us all sorts of wonderful things, conveniences, and so forth, all controlled by our voice or the pushing of a button, it can at the same time, be turned against us, and unfortunately, there are many people working for Government agencies that will actively, relentlessly, and unabatedly stop at nothing to provide such a capability to the Government, because they truly believed thatthese tools are necessitated in order to stop enemies of the State, never once recognizing or preferring not to acknowledge that when the State is above the law, or bends the law for its purposes, it ceases to be a force of liberty, but instead becomes a weapon of tyranny.

It's a sad, sad day, when the State sees its ability to monitor every conversation and to monitor every movement of its citizens, as being the epitome of the definition of Government provided citizen safety and security.   America has degenerated into a country divided between two factions, the Watchers and the Watched, with its citizenry having no power to monitor the Watchers, while putting their liberty, their happiness, and their lives into the hands of anonymous intrusive bureaucrats.

The Thin Line between Civilized and Uncivilized

We live in a modern country in a modern age, and have all the modern accouterments that one could possibly think of, available for our use, and they are used.  We have toothbrushes for our teeth, warm water and soap for our baths, indoor plumbing for our convenience, as well as our privacy, air conditioning and heat at the touch of a finger, and all sorts of body odor camouflage items available for our usage, to mention just a few of our basic bodily conveniences.  This means that never have Americans had it so good at being able to present themselves as clean citizens, which while undoubtedly having its merits, should not be confused with "cleanliness is next to Godliness" which might work as an incentive for little children, but falls on deaf ears of adults, who simply just like to smell and look good.

Unfortunately, the fact that most people are capable of both dressing neatly and behaving politely, does not necessarily mean that they are, in fact, more civilized from generations of old that struggled just to make ends meet.  In point of fact, the real civilization of a nation cannot be determined by mere surface looks, or other facile clues, but is determined by actual actions of its population.  In this regard, the civilization of a nation is put to a far sterner and more meaningful test.

We have all read books that point out that man stripped of his common markers, can easily degenerate back into savage actions, seen in the example of "Lord of the Flies," and we have learned to our dismay via the Nazi atrocities how easy it was for soldiers, administrative personnel, and doctors to follow or to even implement orders that disregarded or disposed of the common humanity of us all, and so too have same replicated this same sort of mindset in the "Stanford Prison Experiment" and in the real word, when we witnessed the disturbing images and behavior by prison guards atthe Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. 

Part of the fundamental problem that America must deal with is that while obedience has its place, especially with regards to little children and the protection of such; is that obedience and submission to authority outside of the family structure is problematic, in actuality, even within the family structure it can be problematic, especially if the person or person(s) in authority lacks self control, empathy, competent judicial reasoning, and a working moral compass.  The thing is, if, what is passed on to society, if, what is passed on to your family, if, what is passed on to your citizens, is that it is the citizen's duty to obey the State, to obey authority, and never to question but to simply obey; than that country and its citizens are sheep without a good shepherd.  It is, instead, the highest duty of all citizens to think, recognizing that our Creator has created us with a free will and not as puppets answering to a puppeteer.  

That is why a thinking man will question authority; in fact, a thinking man will question God, Himself, and even, if necessary, to wrestle with God, as did Jacob.  The mark of a truly civilized society is how it treats, interacts, and behaves towards the poorest of the poor, the wretched, the refuse, and the storm tossed, because until you can see yourself in each of these people's eyes, you are not civilized, no matter how clean-cut and aromatically pleasing you may appear.

The Imperial Presidency and War

The thing about the law or the rule of law, or written law, or laws in general, is that in America, politicians by a wide margin are lawyers, and lawyers have a strong tendency to interpret law in whatever manner favors the policy that they wish to enact or to enforce.  Our Constitution makes it clear that: "the congress shall have the power to…. Declare war …. Raise and support armies…." and so forth, so that it is very unambiguous that in the three branches of our Constitutional government, that it is the Congress, which as the legislative branch, that is given the power to declare war, and not the Executive branch, which is the Presidency.

The two biggest wars ever fought by the USA were wars declared by the Congress, for World War I, and for World War II, to which because these wars were voted on and passed by Congress, means, that the people through their representatives in Congress had their say.  However, since, World War II, America has been at war on numerous occasions to which an expressed declaration of war, was not formally declared by the Congress.  In some of these cases, such as the War in Afghanistan, authorization by Congress was given to the Commander-in-Chief, that is, the President, to engage in military combat with a foreign nation, but without the formal declaration of a war, even though, in effect, all the actions of America in these types of military affairs, were in accord to what most reasonable people, would see as being an actual war.  But, whether considered to be a war or a military engagement, at least there was a discussion and a vote by Congress, before military intervention and action was taken.

There are, though, on the other hand, numerous instances of the President, on his own, without Congressional approval, going to war, accomplished for example, against Libya, Kosovo, and Syria, all over the last twenty-odd years.  However, by far the biggest undeclared war by America, costing the lives of approximately 54,000 soldiers of America, was the United States war against Korea, as authorized by President Truman, to which, as for his reason for this war, Truman stated that it was on behalf of the United Nations resolution passed by its Security Council.

If America, wanted an Imperial Presidency, who on their own, without authorization by anyone else, to be able to declare war or the actions consistent to what war is about, than the Constitution would have clearly and unequivocally supported such an action.  In fact, the Constitution does not support that action, and while there is blame to be placed on Congress, itself, for not asserting itself collectively against this breach of faith and power by the Presidency, it is the President, himself, that has usurped this power.

Unfortunately, for the citizens of this mighty nation, the fact that the President, can declare war at any given moment, means that the United States will be and is in a perpetual state of readiness for war, with its attendant massive amounts of materiel, and personnel to carry out these orders swiftly and effectively, ever ready for wars that will protect our foreign entanglements, as well as to support and protect our mega-international corporations, and to protect our access to whatever natural resources America feels it has a God-given right to, and most importantly so that the military-industrial complex that runs this nation, only has one person, the President, that they need to manipulate so as to enable these purveyors of war, to profit and to make their blood money so as to satisfy their lust for power and filthy lucre

The Healing of Malchus' Ear

We read in Holy Scripture at John 18:10: "Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus," and we also read the response at Luke 22:51 which is: "And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him…."  In this situation, Jesus along with his disciples had spent the evening after Passover, in Gethsemane, and despite the Messiah's protests to his own charges to watch and to pray for and with Him, they were unable to do so, and fell asleep, directly indicating that their diligence, obedience, and concentration were sorely lacking.  This disappointment, combined with the events that were about to commence weighed heaving on Jesus' mind, but He submitted himself to his Father's will, to which when betrayed by Judas with a kiss, leading to the abducting of Jesus, Peter impulsively struck off Malchus' ear in the futile defense of the savior, only to be rebuked by the Christ for having done so, and without hesitation, Jesus restored the ear of Malchus.

It was important that Jesus healed Malchus, for many reasons, to which one was to demonstrate that God's love is not one that is only given to those that surrender to His will, or believe in Him, but is freely available to all, just or unjust.  Further to the point, God is master of all dimensions, be they physical, mental, or spiritual, to which as the King of Kings, came not to conquer those who opposed him by the sword, but instead to turn swords into plowshares, and to prove the point that it is the Spirit that trumps all, that the unseen is superior to the seen, and that true conquering requires surrender of your free will to God's impartial and pure wisdom.

Peter simply did not know when he struck the ear in the defense of his Master, nor did Peter comprehend, that the Passion Play was the foretold event, that had its players, and those players had their parts.  If God was a vengeful God, raining down terror and destruction against those that would dare to oppose Him, than what of it, because even if God's children did obey, that obedience would rest almost solely on fear, and not on love.  The mission of the Christ, was to demonstrate that the body, the self, the person, that for most people, means all and everything, is a grand deception, that instead the body is just the body, and therefore the body only has worth as long as contain within it, rests the soul of the individual, and that soul is indestructible, immortal, and connected to God, Himself.

Jesus healed the ear of Malchus, even at this hour of confusion and chaos, because to not do so would have undercut his mission of peace, forgiveness, and surrender.  The overarching mission of the Christ was not to add to any man's misery, believer or not, but to aid man in his discovery or re-discovery that each of us, is truly made in the image of God, and that those that cannot see that image in each of our fellow men, are like the blind man who as his sight was being restored first saw his fellow man as akin to the images of trees walking around, before receiving his second healing and thereby seeing all with absolute clarity of vision.

The healing of Malchus ear, is a divine reminder that we need to listen to the voice of God, and to do so, requires the fine tuning of our ears as well as the conscious ignoring of the cacophony of superfluous sounds and distractions.

The Drive-In Movie Theatre

Americans have a love affair with their cars and so too they have a general love affair with the freedom that America represents.  So, in an era, in which you can't smoke, you can't drink, you can't talk, you can't text, you can't fool around, you might think that the concept of watching a movie with your friends in your own car, to which, whatever that you want to do is either permitted, tolerated, or benignly ignored, would be an enticement to going to see a movie at the drive-in, as opposed to the mall.

The thing about drive-in movie theatres is that they traditionally appealed to both families, as a way to see a movie without having to get a babysitter or worrying about their child causing too much ruckus in a traditional movie theatre, as well as to teenagers and young adults, who are the highest attendees of the movie experience.  It is these two basic audience types that drive-in movie theatres must market to in order to have any hope of being successful, and especially to the later.

Back in their day, there were approximately 4,000 drive-in theatres in operation in America, whereas, currently there are less than 350 in operation.  Additionally, the traditional distribution of 35mm print film for the showcasing of movies has been replaced by digital, and therein, lies, the opportunity for drive-in movie theatres to perhaps get back part of their mojo.  While seeing a movie projected up onto a big screen has its place, so too there is something to be said, about allowing your patrons to stream the movie to their digital handheld device such as a tablet or phone, negating the need to have a perfect view of the big screen.  In addition, there isn't much of a need of speakers throughout the parking lot, as the audio can either be streamed thru digital devices as well as being broadcast through the appropriate radio channel.

The bottom line is that the drive-in theatre experience really isn't about seeing necessarily the latest and greatest Hollywood release, but much more about establishing your own hangout and ability to enjoy yourself with your friends without bothering or being bothered with other people outside your own particular sphere.  In an era of shorter and shorter attention spans, the drive-in movie theatre affords people the opportunity to embrace that fact without needlessly upsetting patrons around them.

The fact that you are in your own automobile with a reasonable amount of personal space and privacy, lends itself to a movie experience that has the opportunity to be of much more personal import than simply watching a picture show on the big screen.  There are plenty of people that go to sporting events, and never leave the parking lot, because their intent is to save major dollars on admission and other peripheral stadium expenses, while giving themselves the opportunity to instead party, talk, and congregate in the parking lot, because they get more pleasure and more value from doing that. 

In point of fact, drive-in movie theatres can still be relevant, even vibrant, as long as they emphasize freedom, convenience, independence, and tap into the love Americans have for their automobiles

The Deception of NFL "Guaranteed" Contracts

The public depends upon sports radio and TV programs, as well as written sports articles to accurately relate factual information about their NFL players, but way too often, the headline about a certain contract for a NFL player is deceptive as, for instance, the statement that a particular NFL player signed a contract of $80 million for six years, is only a partial truth, because often times, the bulk of the contract, that is over 50% of the contract, is not actually guaranteed, and that being the case,  means the player in a sport that has as many career ending and debilitating injuries as the NFL, won't receive the actual pay of the contract, because most NFL contracts have clauses that reduce or eliminate payments due to players for injury or for being released by their parent team.

In fact, contracts in the NFL are typically straightforward, meaning, that if reporters would simply report the facts, rather than racing to report the largest possible compensation number, a far more accurate picture would emerge on the actual pay for these brave warriors.  The typical structure of a NFL contract for a meaningful player would include a: signing bonus, a yearly salary broken out by year and payment amount stipulated for the length of the term with the team, incentive bonuses, roster bonus, and any other assorted odds and ends.  The only money that would be guaranteed within that contract would be money that was specifically guaranteed in the contractual terms, which is typically only the signing bonus, and because that money is guaranteed, the NFL owner of said player, must deposit that full amount of the salary into escrow, pending payment to the player.

The deception of NFL contracts lies in the fact that reporters want to report the largest possible number to the public as if the player is guaranteed that number, when, in actual fact that is almost never the case.  Further to the point, that contract salary number comes from the upper management of the subject team, so they too are complicit in this deception, to which, it is in their best interest to do so, because they have no real desire to point out to their employees how vulnerable their wages are to the vicissitudes of management and of the game. The bottom line is that no matter how large a particular contract is for, most contracts, allow the owner to simply walk away from their non-guaranteed obligations, by simply cutting the player from their squad, or by trading the player in a manner that allows the contract to become null and void.

The business of the NFL is for the mega-rich owners to make money on the player's labor, and until such time as the NFL players union is able to successfully hold the owner's feet to the fire, and thereby to get the owner's to have to commit to a higher percentage of absolute guaranteed player's salary, via a written, fix contract, than the players will continue to get the short end of the stick for a sport that on any given play can end their career and impact negatively forever the health of their life.

Fake Cashier's Checks

America is the land of opportunity for all those wishing to get a piece of the America dream, to which for some people, as a matter of course, they will let their desires and their greed to get the better of them.  It isn't surprising that so many people get caught up into scams in America, as even the government, with its State lotteries, sells the illusion, that any sucker, can strike it rich, if they just pick the right numbers on the right day.  When it comes to cashier's checks it used to be that cashier's checks really were as good as cash, as by definition the bank that the cashier's check was drawn upon, guaranteed the funds behind the check issued.  While, technically that is still true today, the problem is that in our hi-technology world, the means to create cashier's checks that have the look of the real deal has never been easier and to the uninitiated these fake cashier's checks look very real.  Further to the point, bank tellers aren't paid very well, and typically aren't overly concerned about the legitimacy of your cashier's check, except perhaps to inform you, that the cashier's check may take a few days to clear your account, which to those expecting that their cashier's check should be treated as if it was cash, surprising.  To make matters materially worse, cashier's checks, along with other various bank checks, may indeed become available within a business day or two as funds that you now have direct access to, signifying in your mind, that the check has cleared, even though, technically it hasn't.  In any event, even if a fake cashier's check was to clear and to become a firm deposit in your account, once your bank discovers that they have been deceived, they will immediately take and have the right to extract the funds back from your account, and, if for some reason, your account balance does not allow them to do so, they will come after you, for the funds, and possibly for check fraud, a felony.

Unfortunately, for too many people, the allure of what they believe to be an actual cash instrument as in a cashier's check, even under suspicious and strange circumstances, like, for instance the "cashier's check" being made out for an amount larger than what is properly due, is too enticing to walk away from.  Then too there are situations to which as part of your due diligencewith the transaction you are conducting, you only are willing to accept the cashier's check with proper ID and so forth, never suspecting that both the cashier's check as well as the ID, are actually clever forgeries.  All of this is deeply troubling, especially when you are being fooled by people that come across to you as being very polite and professional.

They say a sucker is born every minute, to which, mistakenly, most people do not consider themselves to be susceptible to being that sucker.  So too, a fool and his money are soon parted, especially so when the fool believes that he is getting over on someone else, only to find out that it was he, that was being played all the time, by that sweet siren song of easy money for nothing.

California: the Superrich and the Super-poor

If California was a separate nation its GDP would be eighth highest in the world, just behind Brazil, and ahead of such notable countries such as India, Italy, Russia, and Canada.  Not only that, there are only three countries outside of the USA that are at a minimum double the GDP of California, which are China, Japan, and Germany.  California is also one of the few States, perhaps the only State, to which it is or could easily be self-sufficient in agriculture, energy, manufacturing, healthcare, biotechnology, hi-technology, and has the two biggest usage ports in America.  Additionally, California has not only the Pacific Ocean, but mountains such as Mount Whitney at nearly 15,000 feet, and rivers such as the Sacramento River, as well as Lake Tahoe.  In addition, California has the University of California school system, which is the most highly rated aggregate public university school system in America, to which some of these campuses are amongst the very best universities in the world.  It's fair to say that California has it all, but when you look at California, there is an ever-widening gap between those that are superrich and the super-poor.

California has 111 billionaires, trailing only three other countries in this category, excluding America, itself.  On the other hand, as reported by ppic.org, "All told, 40.8% of state residents were poor or near poor in 2013."  As reported by 247wallst.com, "… roughly one in 10 California homes are worth more than $1 million," which goes along with the fact also reported by 247wallst.com that 8.1% of households in California, make $200,000 or more annually.  Additionally, as reported by ppic.org, "In 2013, 78% of poor Californians lived in families with at least one adult working…" indicating, that the poor are poor in California, not because they don't work, but because the cost of living is so high in comparison to their paltry wages, in addition to the fact that the average household size in California, is the 2nd highest in America,  meaning that there are more mouths to be fed and bodies to be sheltered in living quarters that are often priced beyond their means.

In point of fact, although California doesn't want to own up to it, part of the reason why the superrich are so rich in California, has to do with the fact that the powerless, the disenfranchised, the undocumented, and the ill-educated people of California are exploited by the rich.  That is to say, for instance, if you need landscaping or home repair work accomplished, many Californians avail themselves of the opportunity to select and negotiate with someone looking for such work in order to save money.  So too this is done again and again when it comes to child care services, maids, restaurant employees, janitors, agricultural laborers, and so forth, to which the owners or managers of such, utilize cheap labor to lower their costs and thereby to increase their profits on the backs of those that need employment and have little or no negotiating power. 

Superrich Californians never both to ask themselves why there are so many impoverished people in California, because they really don't want to know the truth of the answer, but the truth is, the rich need the poor so as to have plenty of labor to both serve as well as to service them, and care little of how the super-poor live and are treated, because they don't want to be bothered with troubling little details like that.

Your Public School is Collecting Massive Amounts of Information on its Students

The majority of children go to public school in America, to which these schools are "free" because they are paid for by the tax dollars of the residents of a given community.  Public schools should be accountable to the residents of that community, and in particular, to the parents and the actual children that attend the school and this should be preeminent over all other issues.  This means, rather than the data that is being collected about students being controlled, accessed, and in the hands of governmental authorities -- that instead, it is the parents and to a lesser extent, the actual students, that should have primary access to this vital information.  That is to say, while it appears fair for schools to keep a database of actual grades, attendance records, test scores, extracurricular school activities, and disciplinary actions, each one of these records, each one of these events, should be available at will, to the parents.  Further to the cause, data that represents student's racial characteristics, family situation, height, weight, religion, income of family, address, siblings, medical, prescription drugs, and so forth should be handled in such a manner that no student, ever, should have this information available to be sold, borrowed, or utilized by any governmental agency or private company that would allow these agencies to monitor students and be identified by their real actual name.   While there might be some valid reason why this personal information needs to be correlated and analyzed in the first place, each student's real ID should be protected, and this primary directive should be inviolable.

In actual fact, in today's society, to which everything is being digitized, and with the understanding that information is power, government agencies as well as private companies absolutely love being able to access pertinent and actionable data, especially in regards to students from ages five to eighteen, which, no doubt, would allow these entities inside information as to how to exploit such knowledge to their advantage at the expense of the actual students themselves.  There are two basic things that are being lost in all of this unnecessary and intrusive data acquisition: to which the first, is that schools are there to actually teach, and students are there to actually learn and to think.  The second basic thing is that these students are young, impressionable, mistake prone, decision challenged, and vulnerable, to which they should be allowed to grow up in an environment that is not constantly monitoring, and digitizing their every activity, good or bad.

Schools should not be seen as a battleground, they should instead be seen as a sanctuary, and as an opportunity for all that attend to learn at a minimum the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic, along with core moral values.  In actual fact, the testing of students is for their benefit, their attendance record and behavior is for their benefit, their interaction with other students and teachers is for their benefit, the school itself and all that it contains, is for their benefit.  When a school system becomes not a vessel for learning, but instead a tool for the indoctrination of and for the benefit of the State by providing massive pertinent data for manipulation and exploitation of and on behalf of private enterprise or State, than schools have failed this country, their parents, and most importantly, their children.

We Need Term Limits for Congress

After Franklin D. Roosevelt's 4-term Presidency, the 22nd Amendment was proposed and ratified, limiting all future Presidents to no more than two full terms, or eight years in office.  This seems reasonable for a republic such as the United States, so that we, the citizens, would not have to live under the same Executive for possibly twenty years or even more, as there are many countries to which, once a particular personage rises to their equivalency of the Presidency, do not ever leave office, unless they are overthrown, or die, while in office.

In regards to the judicial branch, judges are appointed to stay on the bench, while maintaining "good behavior", which basically equates to lifetime appointments.  This may or may not be a good idea, but at least it is settled policy, whereas for congressmen, both for the Senate as well as for the House of Representatives, there are no terms limits, whatsoever, and those that are members of such, have proven again and again, that once in office, they have no intention of ever leaving it.  In fact, there are at least 50 members in the history of Congress that have served during their tenure uninterrupted terms of 40 years or more while in the Senate or Congress of the United States of America.  This length of service is far too long for those that are in theory, public servants, to the people, and should not be permitted, so consequently we need a Constitutional Amendment to this effect.

It doesn't seem fair to the public, that the legislative branch of government, elects members of such, that once elected, have a strong desire, often realized, of staying in office, for year after year after year. These elected men and women are the actual lawmakers of America, and rather than being seen as servants of the people, are in fact, the masters of the people.  In point of fact, the only way to pry back cronyism, favoritism, corruption, and ilk of this sort, is to have as a matter of policy, term limits, to which no member of the Senate should be able to be elected to any more than two terms, or a total of twelve years, and no member of the Congress should be able to be elected to any more than four terms, or a total of eight years.

For those that argue against Congressional term limits, with the reasoning, that each election cycle gives the people a choice, which seems both democratic and reasonable, this is countered by the fact that incumbents by virtue of being in office in the first place, have enormous advantages over any other challengers either from within the party or from the opposing party, because specifically, the power and money behind politicians is only interested in backing winners, and the smart money almost always backs the person already in office, so that business can be conducted as usual.

Further to the most basic of points, the only real reason why any Senator or Congressman would run for election and hold office term after term after term, is because the benefits, the power, the influence, the money, the prestige, is so enticing that once in, they do not ever want to get out.

Time Clocks and Unfairness

There are millions of Americans that have to "clock in" each day, when they begin their work, and also have to clock out during breaks for meals or rest, as well as to "clock out" when their shift is finished for the day.  The thing about technology is that it is quite accurate, so that when you clock in or out, it really does have the correct time and since today's time clocks can be integrated in real time to a database that establishes comprehensive records for each employee, that information is actionable without the necessity of additional timesheets or similar.  Of course, it is the employer, that has the last say, because employers monitor timecards and  can adjust hours worked either up or down, to which, all employees as a matter of course, should compare their payable hours to their time sheet to verify that they are not being shorted hours.  While there might be legitimate reasons why an employer adjusts a particular time sheet, none of this should be done without proper notification to the employee involved, even, for relatively minor amounts of minutes, as an employee deserves to be paid for every minute of work accomplished on behalf of their employer.

In most States, it is not the amount of time that you work in one day that triggers overtime, but whether or not you have worked more than forty hours in one week, so that on a given day, most companies do not care if you have worked a bit over or under your eight hours or not, as long as, by the end of the week, you do not exceed forty hours, without prior management authorization.  This means, effectively, that companies are very good at making sure that they do not pay any unauthorized overtime, which obviously is a benefit to the company, but, on the other hand, they don't readily care, typically, whether you are short one or two hours of the forty that you are supposed to typically work in a given work.  The person that should care about being short, especially if one is consistently short, week after week, is the employee, because those one or two hours each week of not meeting your allowable weekly allocation, can cost a person about $1000 or much more in gross pay over the course of a year, whereas the extra time that you have off, is seldom worth losing that sum of money.

The problem that a significant amount of people will have with time clocks, is unless they are very diligent in all their activities in regards to their labor by always starting their day at the same work time, taking their breaks and meals at the same time, and clocking out at the same time, sort of like a machine, they are at the mercy of a machine that has no give and take.  That is to say, if you consistently show up a couple minutes late, clock out for a couple minutes longer at your breaks, and leave at shift closing time, because the company does not permit an extension to this, than you will as a matter of course end up short by a couple hours each week, by virtue of those "little nibbles" at your labor.  While on the one hand, you can argue that one shouldn’t be paid for the work that hasn't been clocked in, what isn't often taken into account, is that the employer has deliberately "gamed" the system, so that you will come up short on your paid hours, but often produce the same output as other employees that have received pay for the full forty hours worked.

The Established Religion of America is Atheism

The 1st Amendment makes clear that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," which has not been violated by Congress, but has been violated by the Supreme Court, as the Supreme Court through its rulings in the modern age, has consistently taken the position as stated by Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark in 1965, that those that have a: " meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God…"  would be eligible to be classified as a conscientious objector which allows exemptions for those so qualified under: "religious training and belief."  This, in a nutshell, and in effect, means that atheism, expressed in a certain way can be interpreted by the courts to be parallel in its "belief of unbelief" as to that of those that believe in God, and since the courts have erected "a wall of separation between Church and State", this has subsequently created a vacuum for atheism to be the de facto established religion of the United States, because atheism is the belief in the absence of God, which is not part and parcel of any Church belief.

This means, in effect, that every decision rendered against religion or precluding religion in the public square, on public property, public schools, in governmental policies and implementation, supports and abets irreligion, secular humanism, and specifically, atheism; because it is atheism which the Supreme Court now protects, establishes, and supports to the exclusion of all other religions within America.  Atheism is the established religion of America because atheism is a form of religion which offers no symbols, offers no services, offers no edifices, offers no tribute, and does not behave in the traditional manner of churches or other common religious organizations, yet atheism is the protected established religion of America because it is effectively the law of the land and is subsequently allowed to practice its religion openly and without restriction as well as being essentially sanctioned by the United States Government, by virtue of the fact that atheistic belief negates all other overt religious symbols and services in the public square, making atheism the standard bearer of governmental policy.

If you do not believe in God or Gods, you are an atheist, and atheists, unlike other mainstream religions, are allowed to profess and proselytize their "belief of non-belief" without hindrance by the government.  This signifies the seismic shift that the place of real belief in a Creator that gifted us all equally with inalienable rights has been thrown violently into the dustbin of history to be replaced by the belief, that man is his own god, or equivalent of, answerable to no one, except its fellow man, and that those that are in power, actively support this doctrine.

The religion of atheism is a most dangerous religion, because when you dismiss God, you also, by definition, dismiss moral law and truth, replaced instead by arbitrary law, or animal law, to which man has been reduced to just an intelligent beast, and left to do battle for the survival of the fittest.  While this fits in perfectly well in this Darwinian age, it is a monstrous step back of the evolution and the advancement of mankind, to which true enlightenment has been shamefully counterfeited by the darkness of man's ignorance and his arrogance of false knowledge made into a new dogma of the prison of unbelief.

Government Guarantees always create more Bad Loans

There is the old saw that many of us have heard, which is, "what would you do if you knew you couldn't fail?", which I suspect is supposed to be an object lesson in breaking out of our fears of the unknown, of failure, and of not pushing the envelope further than we thought possible.  The problem though with this sort of sham thinking, or exercise, is that there is no bravery, no courage, and no victory in performing or doing things which you cannot fail at, because there is no risk involved, no matter how you slice it.  Additionally, in the real world: all decisions, even indecisions, have consequences, so that, especially in a country that congratulates itself unceasingly that we are the bastion of free enterprise, there is that certain knowledge that to achieve your goals, you must prepare, work hard, and must take calculated risks in order to accomplish things of real merit.

In regards to a government, especially a government that has gotten bigger, larger, more invasive, than ever before, this size and impact of government has dramatically changed the dynamics of business in America, and typically not for the better.  There is in the scheme of things, typically no shame in failure, especially if lessons can be learnt from that failure as they so often are.  The only real shame in failure is the type of failure that comes from ridiculously stupid activities, unrealism, lack of capital and proper pre-planning, an inability to adjust to objective facts, and so forth, to which those that are ill-prepared in one form or another, often receive their just desserts of failure.

Unfortunately, when the government has a budget of nearly $4 trillion dollars all sorts of nonsense can be backed by the full faith and credit of our sovereign government.  Additionally, for political reasons as well as other assorted governmental policy excuses, there are programs created and are part of governmental policy, that signify whether implicitly or explicitly that the government will back certain companies and industries at the expense of other companies and industries, all in theory, for the betterment of the people.  In actuality, of course, government guarantees to which the government determines where the people's monies should be allocated, actually disrupts the normal give and take of commerce and business activities within America and instead allows certain select representatives of the people to hand select who to back at the expense of those that are left behind.

This means in a nutshell, whenever your industry or your company is backed to the hilt by the government, that the economics of how your business is run, is entirely different, because when the power behind you, "guarantees" that they will make good on whatever silliness or stupidity that you create, all sorts of havoc will originate from this ill-advised policy.  For instance, knowing that you cannot fail, fundamentally changes the incentives of a company, so that risk taking, especially risk taking that will benefit the most significant players at a given company, becomes incentivized, since the downside appears limited and/or even guaranteed, whereas the upside could put you and yours on easy street, forever.

In short, governmental guarantees of loans and businesses takes the risk away from private enterprise, and instead unfairly burdens the taxpayers to which they end up paying full freight to essentially subsidize the favored businesses of their governmental masters