The Lessons of Sin

Each of our lives is full of decisions, thoughts, and actions, to which, all of these combined makes us into the person that we are, for better or for worse.  When we make errors, when we make mistakes, it isn't really so important that we regret such things although we often do, or even apologize for such things although we mouth the words; it is on the other hand, of far more importance to recognize that we have done wrong, and to thereby see it as a lesson to be corrected now and into the future, as opposed to regrets and apologies which while having their place, do not in themselves, change fundamentally the mind or our mindset.

For far too many people, life is full of selfish justifications, such as in the areas of disputes or arguments or confrontations, and within our own belief, twisting and turning such in a manner, to which we will somehow convince ourselves that we haven't done anything wrong at all, or if so, it is mitigated completely by the higher wrong done to us by the other side.  Unfortunately, no matter how much we may believe that this is true, seldom are things, so easily divided into a situation in which one side is 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong, in fact, quite often, there is error and fault on both sides, to which each party, has a strong tendency to deny such a reality or possibility.

This means, that those that are in denial of their sins, of their errors, and of their wrongs, will not soon correct their actions because such a denial indicates that there is no correction needed and hence none is made.  This is indeed the error made by the Pharisee at the temple, who exalted himself, in the belief that his fasting and tithing, worthy symbols of a righteous life, were when scrutinized in the light of God's justice, seen to actually be fool's gold, and thereby a life justified wrongly.

The things that makes us stumble, should be looked at, rectified and learned from, so that we can successfully transition from our childish ways into the ways of becoming an adult, and in order to be an adult, we must take responsibility for our actions, for our behavior, and for our thoughts, so that we may eventually be able to aid those of our brothers and children in their decision making, for surely the blind cannot successfully lead the blind.

We go to school to learn, and to learn specifically our lessons, and when we do well, we score on or about 100%, and when we do poorly we score considerably lower.  Our life on this good earth is our biggest lesson of all, and we as its students, should be taught and to learn from those that are far wiser than ourselves, experienced, and dedicated to seeing that we are given the opportunity to better ourselves.   

The sins of commission and omission that we make are ours and ours alone, and it is our duty to rectify these things so as to better not only ourselves, but to better this world and the people that populate it.  This then is our foremost duty, to which our real success in life is built around the success of others that we have properly influenced for the better. On the other hand, those that hurt others, ignore and repeat their errors, and demonstrate weakness of character in all of its many guises, will find that in the endthat the weight of sin is a burden that is far heavier than any brother that they have failed to carry.

Test the Righteous

In life, people that we like or dislike, companies that we work for, friends that are part of our life, neighbors that we know, strangers that we meet, and the State which exerts its power for good or evil upon us in so many different ways, consist in how we deal with life in all of its many facets on an everyday basis.  It is our interactions and it is our decisions, on what to do or not do, what to say or not say that define our true character to the world and mankind.

We are gifted by our Creator with free will, so that we are never puppets to a master puppeteer, but indeed we are free to choose, free to act; recognizing, of course, that that freedom has consequences because we are surrounded by other people, all of whom have the exact same freedom, in which our lives intersect and interact with civil authority, to which conflict in any of its many forms, is inevitable.

This tension in our everyday life can be exacerbated or eased by the laws, rules and regulations, and overall demeanor of the people and institutions that we interact with.  This means, that the respect that we so desire, is the same respect that we must give to others, so too, the love and forgiveness that we wish to have extended to ourselves, must too be extended to others, but none of this should be limited to a simple formula of like-for-like, instead it is in our hands, to be good onto others, without a need or expectation of the same in return, although, we may strongly desire to get such a return. 

This means, when we are confronted with choices, that in order to do right, we must make the choice that is in conformity with the highest law, which is known as natural law, so defined as unchanging moral principles.  The fruits of these principles are: "…love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control…." (Galatians 5:22-23).  While we cannot control the actions of others, we have within our domain, the ability and obligation to control ourselves, and further that it is upon us, to always, to do the right thing.

This means when we are struck, we turn the other cheek, not because we are cowards and unable to physically confront those that are our rivals, but because a physical response, is seldom the correct response.  We have a sacred obligation to live by the Truth, above all things, above all principalities, signifying that to be able to stand strong, requires right actions as well as courage, sacrifice, discipline, dedication, and love.

The highest and most meaningful test in life is when our core, moral beliefs are challenged, and this challenge clearly has within it the dangerous elements of our own physical sufferings or lost, if then at these times, we mitigate, qualify, or change who we are, in order to save our self, we have failed ourselves and exposed our self for the cowardly and the living hypocrisy that we actually represent.

What you really are is what you are when it all matters, when indeed it is very personal, when the choices are that easy road, or that other road that tries men's souls.  Endeavor to try not to take that easy road, for the pathway to Heaven is that straight and narrow road, in which, in order to pass through, you must face withering trials, and overcome them, without hatred, without pride, without fear, always keeping your eyes focused on the prize and not resting till you rest within the only sanctuary that has no beginning, no end, and represents the epitome of truth, love, and justice.

Privacy, Property, and Persons

The highest court of the Federal government and therefore of the United States of America, is the Supreme Court of this great land.  The Supreme Court has since its inception made judicial decisions that have reverberated throughout this country, for better or for worse.  Even though our Constitution, is a written document, and subject to change only through Amendments passed by the necessary margin in our Legislature, Supreme Court justices, have demonstrated time and time again, that they may interpret this Constitution in a manner that they believe it means to them, or should mean, or might mean, or that the Constitution somehow is a living document, that changes with the prevailing winds of the time.  This means, in effect, that different Supreme Court justices or different times in the era of this Constitutional republic will result in different results and different decisions from the Supreme Court. 

In point of fact, take the troubling and notorious case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, a case decided in the favor of Sandford by a vote of 7-2, in 1857, as believed by the majority opinion, that the Constitution recognizes slavery, and that a slave does not become entitled to his freedom, when his owner takes him to a State where slavery is prohibited, and afterwards returns to his slave-holding State.  According to Chief Justice Taney, slaves were not people, but property, and further that to provide freedom to what has been declared property, simply because you have crossed certain State boundaries, was a violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, which does not permit the depriving of property without due process of the law, to which according to this Supreme Court decision, meant that property, in this case the property of a slave, had no rights because it was legally seen by this court as property, and hence had no quarter.  Two justices dissented in this decision, pointing out that at the time of the ratification of our Constitution five out of the thirteen States had granted the vote to black men, and further that rather than the Constitution recognizing that slavery was equal to property, stated, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned … by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."  Additionally, Justice Curtis stated: "When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution…"  It was not until the 13th Amendment was ratified, after our Civil War, that the Dred Scott decision was overturned.

In the case of Roe v. Wade in 1973, the Supreme Court granted the right for females to abort fetuses essentially under the right of privacy, by a vote of 7-2. The most significant issue for the Supreme Court to get their head around was the definition of a "person", in which the majority ruled that persons as described in the Constitution only dealt with those that were postnatal and not prenatal.  Rehnquist stated in his dissent, that the very nature of an abortion which involves a medical doctor is: "hardly 'private' ", and Justice White was even more vigorous in his dissent stating that the court: "values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries."   The thing about the Roe v. Wade decision, which today is looked upon as a "woman's right to choose", basically signified that the fetus that the mother carries, is her property, to dispose and/or to treat pretty much as she so desires or sees fit, and that doing so, is no business of the State, as the mother has an implicit right of privacy.

Roe v. Wade basically is about whether fetuses are persons and thereby entitled to full Constitutional rights or instead are properly seen as the private property of the mother.  So too, Dred Scott was about the conflict between one man's private property as sanctioned by governmental decree, as compared to the fact that under certain circumstances and certain States, that same private property was legally seen as a person.  To put it succinctly, is it ever possible for something to be correctly classified as private property but later to be correctly re-classified as a person?

The New American Protective League (APL)

Wars are seldom good for civil rights, free expression in all of its myriad forms, or liberty and World War I demonstrated this very point, through the creation of private groups of like-minded people, who became the American Protective League (APL) in 1917.  At its peak the APL had approximately 300,000 members who essentially worked as an adjunct to policing and governmental authorities on behalf of the military and Executive branch to assure that every American was in lockstep with the Ally cause, and thereby in opposition to the Central powers, which notably included Germany.  These private citizens, grouped together under the aegis of the APL, specifically targeted Americans of German extraction as enemies of the State, as well as any and everybody that expressed either neutrality towards the war, or viewpoints that weren't favorable to the war, or were or advocated conscientious objection to the war.  Not too surprisingly, the APL often took justice into its own hands, dealing their form of "justice" to those that they considered to be disloyal to the State, or not properly sympathetic enough, and the State, being involved in a war, aided and abetted the APL efforts, or effectively turned their collective head the other way.

When the rule of law is thrown out the window, when civil disobedience is met with gun fire, vigilante justice and/or incarceration, the government has in many cases, but not all, effectively enforced a form of martial law.  The dangerous combination of private citizens, police, military, and the justice arms of the State actively working against any or all people that are presumed guilty simply based on their country of origin, or guilty simply because they wish to question the State and its actions, or guilty because they simply believe in the Constitution and the government's oath to uphold that Constitution, is inimical to what this Republic actually stands for.

At any time, a country gravitates to the belief, that only one thought is the only correct thought, and thereby eradicating dissent of voice, or of peaceful assembly, and so forth, it is in danger, extreme danger, of becoming not a government of the people and by the people, but a government that supports only certain people, a certain specific mindset, and thereby suppresses all others.  While war, has its own distinctive reasons for often times having to set aside certain rules, regulations, and laws, quite frequently it is guilty of extreme overreach, overreaction, and an inability ultimately to fully retract its claws, when the danger has passed.

We now live in an era in which America is constantly at war, constitutionally undeclared war, but war nevertheless, both internationally, as well as domestically in which the government has turned its spy masters and spy apparatus inward and onto its own sovereign citizens.  As invasive as all the various domestic government agencies and policing forces are, the government still expresses a need for citizen foot soldiers on literally a block by block basis, to help target those citizens who have viewpoints, or religious beliefs, or are asymmetricalin their actions, to be tracked, targeted, and analyzed.  These citizens follow the Homeland Security footprint of "if you see something, say something," to which, it is only a matter of time, if it has not already occurred, before these "loyal" citizens of the State, are expressly formed into a new American Protective League.

Prescription Drugs and Advertising

According to pbs.org, "The United States spends almost $1,000 per person per year on pharmaceuticals. That’s around 40 percent more than the next highest spender, Canada."  Perhaps all this pharmaceutical usage is necessary for Americans because Americans are unhealthier than other countries, or the cost of prescription drugs is substantially higher than other countries, or a combination of the two.  However, there is another reason, a significant reason, why Americans consume so many prescription drugs and that comes down to national advertising on print, on mobile, and on television.

The advertising for prescription drugs is not something that has always been part of the American experience, but instead, was something that developed over time, with a few trial balloons here and there, and then in 1997, the FDA revised its rules on such advertising, by essentially relaxing their rules considerably, and providing guidelines for pharmaceutical companies in regards to providing consumers with appropriate: "brief summary," "prescribing information," "major statement," and "adequate provision" information, all of this depending upon what advertising medium was utilized.  This laissez-faire approach changed the entire dynamic of pharmaceutical companies from rather than exclusively advertising directly to medical doctors for particular prescription pharmaceuticals, to instead now also advertising directly to the consumer.

The amount of money spent in 2015 for such pharmaceutical advertising was estimated to "…be hitting $5.2 billion" as stated by statnews.com .This staggering amount of money spent on advertising pharmaceutical drugs that can only legally be issued to patients by a licensed physician, is proof positive, that pharmaceutical drug manufacturers understand well the power of these advertisements to mold consumers behavior in a manner that these consumers will believe that they need certain prescriptions prescribed for perceived conditions that they feel are occurring to them, such as anxiety, cholesterol concerns, antacid, antipsychotic, and so forth, almost without end.

In general, medical doctors are busy people, with busy schedules, and while desiring to spend time with patients, often find that their time schedule precludes being able to spend as much time as they might ideally desire with their patients.  In addition, Americans seemed programmed to believe that for every problem, no matter how complex or obscure, there is a readymade solution, perhaps in the form of a little pill, which will instantly alleviate the problem.  The fact of the matter is that isn't true, but when doctors are faced with patients that have diagnosed themselves and come up with the ideal solution of a prescription drug that will fix the problem, to which, there often is some validity to their claims, many doctors are accommodating to such concerns.  Basically, the game has changed from one in which the patient explains their symptoms, tests are run, and a doctor makes an informed decision that appears best for that particular patient, to one in which the patient often has a preconceived idea of what they need and just want to cut to the chase already.  Additionally, the patient has an often unrealistic belief, via advertising, that a certain prescribed drug, will work specific magic for them, which is usually both unrealistic and untrue, but all of these things combined, put pressure upon a time-sensitive physician to take the easy road.

The bottom line, is that when drugs that can only be prescribed by a qualified physician are legally advertised on television or other assorted media to consumers, much more of that drug will be prescribed because the credulous consumer allows fear or anxiety or the sweet song of such advertising to convince them of that need.  The sick thing is that it is the legalized and sanctioned drug dealing to the public as a whole that now makes your broke-down corner illicit drug dealer look like a pathetic hack and a piker.

The misplaced Liberal Disgust of Big Oil

This government as well as other governments, the liberal press and liberal media, in conjunction with liberal minded people, has spent an inordinate amount of time and effort castigating and criticizing big oil with seldom a true recognition of the value of oil, in and of itself.  While some of the criticisms of big oil are sensible, in the sense that big oil, is very, very big, in fact, on a worldwide scale, companies that specialize in oil and gas, are four out of the six biggest corporations in the world by revenue, indicating that petroleum is a commodity of significant worth, significant power, and significance, that speaks more to the value of oil as a necessity commodity for material economic success and advancement as opposed to anything else.

The sheer size of big oil is definitely an issue, and whether companies such as Exxon and Mobil oil should have been allowed to merge is highly questionable, as well as the merger of Gulf, Standard Oil of California, and Texaco into Chevron.  These mergers fly in the face of the Sherman Antitrust Act which split Standard Oil into 34 companies, only for the reemergence of the strongest of these separate oil companies to consolidate and to thereby become larger and more fearsome corporations which we currently have at the present day.

The size of these oil companies, speaks to the influence and necessity of petroleum products in modern day life, to which, while most everyone knows that oil is the lifeblood of transportation in all of its many forms, many more people, are somewhat ignorant, of the value oil has as a commodity for things other than transportation, such as: plastic, general toiletries, medications, fertilizers, asphalt, and lubricants.

So too, oil is the reason that backward Middle Eastern countries, have been able to become rich, or at least rich for the ruling class, simply because they are fortunate enough to have land which has an abundance of this natural resource, which means that countries such as Saudi Arabia, as estimated by salon.com, are in the position in which "petroleum accounts for 90 percent of the country's economy."  This would indicate that it is petroleum that brought modernity and power to these nations.

What those that champion alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar, do not seem to comprehend is that while both wind and the sun are freely abundant in the sense that they exist for all, to harness these natural means of energy, costs money, time, equipment, capital investment, logistics, governmental interplay, and so forth.  In addition, for those that spend inordinate amounts of time castigating the evils of big oil, or oil in general, because oil is dirty and non-renewable, don't seem to realize that wind and solar, are also dirty and technically un-renewable, because you cannot use either as a power source without constructing something, often an eyesore, that needs land, maintenance, materials, and disruption to the natural order of things in order for these alternative energy sources to scale up and work.

Not only that, but the most important point of it all, is that the amount of oil that is used for our daily needs is staggering, and to replace that oil with something of equivalent worth, would necessitate the need for the very same thing that we see today from oil and gas companies, which is capital, size, power, consolidation, and strength, so that while the players in the energy game would change, the new boss would be exactly the same as the old boss.  It is delusional to believe that wind and solar would bring to this country somehow a smaller and more beautiful footprint, fair and equal to all, with the bucolic sights and sounds of an earthly paradise.  In fact, a large scale integration of wind and solar into America would be dirty, ugly, less reliable, wholly corrupt, and prohibitively expensive to the common man, all in the end, benefiting the exact same types of privileged people that big oil benefits currently.

Governmental interference with Natural Pricing

Basic economics tells us that the supply and demand of any commodity or labor, for that matter, fluctuates, depending upon the amount of goods or labor available at a particular price for those things, so that, it is a general axiom, that all things being equal, goods that have been lowered in price but without any sacrifice in their intrinsic value, will be purchased at a higher quantity, than goods that have been raised in price, without a corresponding increase in their intrinsic value.  This means, in a nutshell, that if the price of gasoline was to drop overnight from $2.25/gallon to $1.25/gallon, that more people would purchase appreciably more of that gasoline, especially if they were unaware of how long the price would remain this low.  On the other hand, if gasoline was to suddenly rise from $2.25/gallon to $3.75/gallon people would be more circumspect in their driving habits, and would, if the price of gasoline, remained higher for a long period of time, look at alternatives to gasoline as well as looking at their driving habits, perhaps deciding as a result to car pool more, or purchase a more gas efficient car, or perhaps purchase even a vehicle that ran on something other than gasoline.

When pricing fluctuates, consumers, for the most part, will make the proper adjustments to these occurrences by buying more when the price is lower, and by buying less when the price is higher.  However, when the government gets involved, for whatever reason, or for whatever purpose, these governmental incentives or governmental penalties typically upset the natural order of things, so that certain favored industries or certain favored things get preferential treatment, whereas, un-favored industries or un-favored things get punished.  While this type of interference may or may not benefit the consumer over the short or long term, it does, for a certainty help or hurt industries so that, whatever their budget and projections were previously, now and into the future, must be recalibrated and recalculated because of this governmental intervention.

While the government may have legitimate or good reasons for the actions that they take, there are always and without exception, unintended consequences that occur because of this artificial intervention.  For instance, the price of labor is an extremely important part of business expense for most every business, so that, if the governmental minimum wage is mandated to jump from $7.25/hr to $15/hr, it will materially affect all and every business that currently uses labor within that hourly wage and even up to a few dollars more per hour, such as up to $20/hr, because those that see the floor of wages been raised to within a reasonable range of what they are currently making, will naturally want more.  All of this labor cost, which has increased over a short period of time, or is mandated to ladder up to these new mandated wages over a relatively short length of time, will, if perceived to be a new unassailable law, necessitate material changes within that enterprise.

This means, for a certainty, that businesses which have previously run on "cheap labor" will, and must find a way to run on "living wage" labor and they will do so by various means, which will often include: more capital equipment and robotics, a more stringent labor selection process and vetting, along with squeezing more work out of the labor force that works there.  All of this will equate to a new dynamic which is higher wages for those that work there who will also be more qualified, more efficient and more productive than those that use to work there and thereby less labor in the form of the overall quantity of laborers will be utilized.  This follows the law of economics, that when government interferes with the price of labor, by forcing that labor cost to rise higher than its natural price point, inevitability you will create as an unintended consequence, more unemployment, because of a labor surplus of those people that no matter how you slice the bread, aren't viable employees at $15/hr.

The Government wants a Cashless Society

Our Federal Reserve notes, which we commonly view as cash, or as dollars, state directly on the note: "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private".  While that is the current condition for cash in America at the present time, there are powerful interests at the highest level of government that desire strongly that our need for cash should be shoveled into the dustbins of history.  There are, as always, good intentions for the government to want to take these steps, that is to say, reasonable reasons why a cashless society might be preferred, for instance, because of the convenience and reduced expense of electronic transactions or the reduction of fraudulent transactions being the most prominent amongst those reasons.

In addition, cashless societies, would by definition, be of far more benefit for those that live lives that are in conformity to what a given government would prefer, that is to say that they would exhibit these traits:  organization, consistent and tractable income, prefer convenience over privacy,  and embracement of technology in all of its many forms.  While that might be good for those that prefer these things, it would make far more sense to allow them that option to live their lives in that manner, and pretty much, through voluntary transactions made by individuals with entrepreneurs and other vendors, they at the present time are able to conduct their business with the minimal involvement of cash, and without the need of government fiat.

However, on the other hand, there is a wide swath of people that need or utilize cash on an everyday or near everyday basis.  These people, although not always, are technologically less knowledgeable, unorganized and inefficient, perhaps struggling day by day, to which, cash provides them the most appropriate tool to conduct their personal business, especially in certain transactions.  The thing about cash, which is rather obvious, is pretty much, cash is anonymous, as once it reaches your hands in whatever manner it gets there, you as a sovereign individual, can then determine where you want to spend or to utilize your cash.  Once, a government, or any entity for that manner, takes away your ability to manage your life and your money in a manner that you have personally chosen, and thereby limits your freedom of action, or supervises such; your freedom has been compromised.

It is one thing for people to voluntarily conduct their lives in such a manner that they barely utilize cash as opposed to other people that utilize cash, for whatever reasons, as a matter of course, as each has made a personal choice.  On the other hand, the taking away of the cash option, or the limiting of the cash option by a ceiling on money transactions, or the compulsion of showing State ID, and so forth, is just another way for the government to learn and monitor everything about you, whereas, you on the other hand, learn and monitor nothing about the government.

Currently, if you use a credit or debit card, every transaction that you make by those means is known, and if you have a regular job with auto-deposit into your checking account, every deposit made is known.  That knowledge is power, and that knowledge should just be your personal business, instead it is not, signifying that those that know where the money is at, can with the stroke of a pen create laws by fiat which will allow them to take or freeze your assets under certain conditions, and to thereby compromise, destroy, or eliminate those that have viewpoints or have taken actions not in conformity with State desires.

The deceit of impermanence

Nothing on this good earth lasts forever, but by virtue of people's everyday actions, you wouldn't believe that many people actually adhere to this wise philosophy.  Instead, far too many people are obsessed with staying young forever, or if not that, staying physically alive forever, or holding onto things which are transient but believing that they are not.  The mindset of taking objects that are impermanent and basing your life around believing that they are permanent with perhaps a basic understanding that they change but their essence stays essentially the same, is the type of deception which fools yourself to your own particular perdition.

What people should pay far more attention to is that there is indeed a circle of physical life, which applies to all, great, or small, and human beings are not immune to this law. This means, that the physical death that visited your grandmother or other significant relatives, will one day visit you, in its time or even before its time, and the granddaughter or other significant births which have been part of your life, will continue now and far beyond your actual time on earth. 

Further to the point, this means, that all of us, just as Shakespeare wrote, will, unless our life is terminated through an untimely event, pass through the seven ages of man, and thereby none of us can escape this destiny, so that those we look up to, schools that we go to, parents that we love, friends that we appreciate, jobs that we loath, tolerate, or love, will come and they will go.  This means that our physical life is impermanent, and the things, all of the things that make up this good earth, are themselves impermanent, even if it appears that they are stable or secure but indeed they will fail or eventually will fall to the sands of time, no matter how distant this may seem. 

All of the above serves to point out the very important and fundamental thing which is that when we cling to those things which of their nature cannot endure forever, we are grasping onto straws of which none of them can stop the inevitable that must happen.  This would signify very strongly, that our efforts should be directed not to those things that are impermanent, or if so, certainly not to the exclusivity of just impermanent things, but should instead be directed to those things which are eternal.  This means that when we look into the mirror, we must fight the feeling, fight the impression, and fight the viewpoint, that the physical is us, always has been us, and always will be us.  Instead, although at first it will be difficult, we must see ourselves for what we really are, which are spiritual beings temporarily encased within physical bodies and if we believe that this is true our behavior must, for a certainty, change.

Once one recognizes who they really are, their outlook on life will change, because now they will perceive earth as a proving or testing ground, as contrasted to something pointless, or meant for sense pleasure, or as some sort of rat race.  Therefore, there will be that recognition that the things that live forever are the fruit of the spirit, “….love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control….” (Galatians 5:22-23).  These attributes transcend the physical plane, they are eternal, because each of these are in harmony with our Creator, so that the more that we are those things in our actions and in our thoughts, the closer we are to returning to the source of all wisdom, all enlightenment, and where it all first began.

Free Trade, Free Capital, and Un-free Labor

There are numerous advantages to free trade, that is to say trade, that recognizes no border restrictions, and hence no tariffs or excise taxes applied to goods being bought and sold from one sovereign nation to another, of which the advantages are that goods are in whole, cheaper to the consumer of such, sometimes substantially cheaper, because the goods, for example, are neither subject to restrictions or added governmental taxes, in addition to the fact that it is a more profitable and vibrant way for corporations to conduct their business, because they are then able to allocate their capital into physical locations that are more favorable overall for their business model.

This means, for better or for worse, we live in a world that is gravitating more and more to a world in which capital is no longer restricted to the country of its origin, but can be freely moved, through a click of a button, or whatever.  Whereas, labor, on the other hand, which is people, are to a large extent, stuck living in the country of their origin, although they can either legally petition for emmigration, which is often a long and arduous process with restrictions, or become a refugee seeking asylum, which typically is a reflection of significant internal upheaval or severe lack of economic opportunity within their country of origin.

The inherent problem that is created when you have free capital and free trade, whereas labor is not free to move, along with environment and regulation laws that vary significantly within nations and principalities is that capital can be deliberated allocated to wherever the laws for that business, favoritism for that business, or lack of invasive interference by government entities, exists.  Not too surprisingly, money talks, and most countries are eager to embrace investment of capital within their nation, for the perceived advantages of having that investment in the first place, or for the enrichment that money provides a select few well placed sources within that country, or for the fact that local labor will be employed, or all of these things.

This means, in a nutshell, that when capital searches for the country that best fits their need and function, that one of the more important considerations of the decision that is reached, is the cost of that labor and the skill of that workforce within that locale.  While this is obviously quite beneficial for those that become employed, especially if the wages are good, but even if they are just adequate, it also means for a certainty, that more expensive labor, by design, is deliberately bypassed.

The most significant reasons why wages for the middle class in America have remained stagnant over the 21st century is because the aspiring middle class are not just competing against other laborers in America, they are also competing against capital equipment reducing their employment opportunities, of which none of this is helped by the weakening of labor unions, and more often than ever they are also competing against world labor rates, and most foreign countries have significantly cheaper price points for their labor than America, with skill-sets that are at a minimum, acceptable.

If, this country continues to permit its capital to freely move from country to country, it will continue to find that those that benefit from such capital movement, directly or indirectly, will do quite well, and the consumers of such that have ready money will also be beneficiaries, but those struggling to achieve basic middle class goals, will struggle, are struggling, and a country without a vibrant middle class, will ultimately degenerate into the massive underclass inevitably serving the favored few.

True Pricing and Subsidies

Just about everybody enjoys a good deal or a good discount, because they intuitively recognize that less money spent on goods or services, means more money left in their own hands, so as to purchase other goods or for savings.  It is, however, one thing for an enterprise on its own to discount something, voluntarily, and an entirely different thing for an enterprise to either be compelled into discounting something by government fiat or to have to compete against similar entities which have been given special governmental privileges in regards to subsidies or tax benefits or both.

Any business that makes it part and parcel of their business that they need or require governmental subsidies or special tax set asides, haven't properly priced in how to run their business in the first place.  While a case can be made, that innovation will necessitate some sort of flexibility in pricing that doesn't take into account the current costs involved, projecting, for instance, that future volume and technological breakthroughs will eventually push the price down to a competitive or worthwhile effort, that can easily be addressed through the proper capitalization of the enterprise to begin with.

For example, for whatever reasons, and almost none are valid or good, the government insists on getting involved in all sorts of business enterprises, supposedly under the guise of the "greater good", so that if the government in its wisdom or stupidity or unfairness, deems that solar panel companies or wind generating companies, and the consumers that utilize these products should be subsidized, or receive tax breaks, you will, quite naturally, see a higher production of these items, but what is often forgotten in all of this activity, is that the true price point and the true cost have been marginalized by these subsidies and tax breaks, so that the payback point, if there is even one, is obfuscated.

Too often the government desires to have its cake and eat it, declaring that subsidies and tax breaks, and favorable treatment to certain enterprises are all necessary, even if there is a short term cost in extra monies spent and inefficiencies, because over the long term, society will benefit.  In case in point, if, companies truly believed that over the long term that their profitability would materially improve by focusing on certain products as compared to other products, they would, if they were sensible, go ahead and do it anyway, with or without subsidies or tax breaks.  The giving of such, merely gives the upstarts an unfair advantage via those that are not privileged to be accorded the same treatment.

In point of fact, if for some reason, a company consistently and constantly sells a certain product for less than its actually true value or real worth to the public, the public will benefit and that particular enterprise will take a negative hit to their bottom line.  The public are not fools, and therefore any product line that is mispriced, or misallocated, will in cases in which that pricing because of subsidies, or tax advantages, or giveaways is thereby priced at less than what comparable products would be priced at -- will see the public naturally consume more of it, so as to take advantage of market imbalances.  When the government makes it their business to affect the natural market forces of pricing for goods, they have, for better or for worse, strongly influenced who the winners and losers are in what is supposed to be a free enterprise system and tilted it accordingly.

The serious price of Incarceration

The United States of America should be both ashamed as well as distressed at the embarrassing rate of incarceration that it has achieved that by far exceeds any other western nation by a substantial margin.  It would be one thing if all this incarceration produced a society in which there was no more crime, no more violence, and essentially peace and tranquility, but that definitely is not the case.  While there is no doubt that certain convicts do indeed need to be incarcerated, that number is a substantially smaller subset of the amount of people, actually incarcerated, in which, the specialty of America, is basically to lock up in particular those of color, those that are poor, and those that are stupid.  As always, if you have money, especially lots of it, your chances of being incarcerated for any length of time is considerably reduced, signifying yet again that America never practices equal justice for all.

There seems to be a substantial disconnect between incarceration and costs, as if Americans somehow believe that if you lock people up and throw away the keys, besides making for a much safer America, it doesn't cost American taxpayers much of anything. Unfortunately, ignorance of the truth does not erase the truth, and incarceration is an incredibly expensive way to treat crime or crime-like activities.  For many citizens, it would be helpful to picture the entire incarceration apparatus which would include but not be limited to the following: the justice department, the prison department, the police department, the infrastructure of all those departments, the pensions of all those departments, the healthcare for all those departments, employee benefits for all those departments, capital costs for all those departments, as well as the food, healthcare, education, and security needed to house the incarcerated people.  All of these things cost taxpayers money, lots of money, and none of these things take into account the human toll of not only how damaging and wasteful it is to incarcerate people in the first place, but the peripheral damage to those that are related or friends of those that are incarcerated.

America believes, or at least the justice system believes, that those that commit crimes should be punished, perhaps so, but certainly not so in every case, but in any event, why would it make much sense to punish the taxpayers also.  In point of fact, what is hidden from taxpayers is the cost to them of all this incarceration, to which, vera.org, produced a pamphlet of the price of incarceration for forty of our States as of January, 2012.  This cost, varies substantially by State and takes into account the total State cost of prisons in which in New York, this averages to be $60,076 per inmate, whereas Kentucky at $14,603 and Indiana at $14,823 per inmate are by far, the most cost efficient.  Incredibly, incarceration costs significantly more than it costs to actually educate children from K-12.

What would be far more rational to do in America, is to start, today, with wholesale changes to what should or should not be a crime that incarcerates people, and instead first take a look at the specific crime, and then compare it to the yearly cost of that incarceration.  That is to say, is it worth incarcerating anyone, for a victimless crime, such as drug usage, or prostitution, or gambling, or the like?  Further, there are many other crimes, such as burglary, larceny, assault, fraud, and so forth, that should not typically be treated with incarceration, but could be dealt with in a variety of ways of which incarceration should be seen as a last choice.

Far too many people believe wrongly that the bad people are being locked up; whereas the inconvenient truth of the matter is that the policing forces of this country spend an inordinate amount of time and money locking up those that are trapped in a world without real opportunity or hope, brought about by the ghettoization of the underclass of this country.

Breakup Facebook

It might seem strange that the U.S. Government should take legal action to break-up the monopoly of a company that only came into existence in 2004, but Facebook, totally dominates the social media landscape in America, and the fact that it has literally gone from nothing to the fourth biggest market capitalization of 376 billion dollars as of October 31,2016, indicates that with no competition in its way, Facebook owns the social media market and consequently grabs a significant chunk of the valuable internet advertising monies that is associated with having invaluable consumer information ready to be processed, analyzed, and mined.

The people that run Facebook are no fools, as they have consistently sought out new talent, new companies, new ways of engaging their social media audience, and new platforms, since their inception, recognizing that in order for Facebook to stay far ahead of the curve, they not only need to be masters of their social media universe, but masters of all the devices that consumers of their product utilize in order to access that social media world.  All this they have done with the aplomb of professionals that are masters of their craft, so that previously innovative and independent companies such as WhatsApp and Instagram have been integrated into the Facebook platform.

While there isn't necessarily anything wrong with Facebook making all of the right moves to maintain their relevancy so as to grow their stock price, so as to impress its investors and Board of Directors, and so as to essentially keep their eyes on acquisitions of all types that will either fit in well with Facebook, or must be purchased with the intent to understand the thinking behind the product, and/or to acquire and to hire the geniuses behind such innovations, Facebook does what it needs to do to either acquire or to buy out any and everything that will be make it bigger and better or alternatively to preclude any competitor from nipping at some point at their heels.

The fact of the matter is that Facebook would not have its current market capitalization if it hadn't been permitted to buy up and acquire so many hi-technology companies over the last few years, so as to maintain its perch as the one source true social media networking site that covers all platforms and all media.  The U.S. Government has an obligation to take monopolies, whether natural or not, and in the interests of competition and fairness, break them up into smaller parts, and/or create the dynamic that will allow true competition.

Facebook should be seen for what it really is, a behemoth, that this government does not apparently understand, as there is an absolute direct correlation between Facebook's market capitalization and the fact that no other company has the sheer amount of pertinent and actionable information on individuals in regards to their likes and dislikes, along with their specific social interactions, than Facebook has, which is an invaluable gold mine to advertisers of all sorts, and thereby Facebook can charge what they want to charge advertisers, because of this singular advantage.

Facebook is the face of social media and that's exactly why they make the moves that they make so as to keep bossing it their way.

FBI and Conviction Rates

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in general, is rated rather favorably by the public.  Perhaps this is due to the fact that the FBI is not the police, and in theory, concentrates on federal crimes of national interest as opposed to local crimes committed within a community.  In addition to that, the FBI is generally treated rather favorably by television and the movies, as well as by the mass media.  For whatever reason, valid or not, the FBI is often perceived to be of a more professional and experienced nature than your typical law enforcement agency.

Not too surprisingly, the reality of the situation is that the FBI pretty much does things about the same way that most every law enforcement type agency does things in America, which is to "game" the system so as to increase their conviction rates and to thereby demonstrate their effectiveness to the credulous public.  For instance, during the endless reign of J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI, Hoover often claimed that there was no such thing as organized crime, even though, he was well aware that this statement was false.  The reason for such a mindset by the FBI, has more to do with not desiring to confront the deep resources of both organized crime as well as the depth of corruption that organized crime reaches into, to which, by investigating such, the FBI was sure to have to confront powerful vested interests that were held in high respect and authority in their given community.  Instead, similar to most law enforcement agencies, the FBI prefers to commit their resources to convicting the poor, the ill-educated, and the powerless, of which the most typical crime conviction for the FBI is drug related.  The next highest category of crime that the FBI achieves convictions of is white-collar crime, often because the criminal is relatively easy to track with a minimum amount of shoe leather being necessitated, because their dirty white-collar transactions leave their digital footprint on computer devices and the FBI loves to concentrate its resources on the lowest lying fruit of criminal enterprises so as to impress the impressionable.

Then there is the list of FBI's ten most wanted, which to the uninitiated, you might think reflects the ten most wanted and most dangerous fugitives in the entire United States, but in fact, is more a reflection of pure propaganda.  In other words, the FBI wants to sell the illusion that they are an effective law enforcement agency, to which, nothing gives them much more pleasure, on the unsuspecting public, than to see the FBI nail the really bad guys, when, in fact, the ten most wanted is carefully constructed so as to provide the FBI with a high percentage of perpetrators that will be brought to justice by the FBI.  The hammillpost.com states that 470 out of the 500, or 94%, of the most wanted have been apprehended or located since the list was created, as compared to the fact that the national "clearance rate" for murder in America as of 2013 was only 64%. 

 In point of fact, the FBI cares much more about constantly burnishing its own image, as opposed to tackling the most dangerous criminal elements in America, mainly because the FBI fears looking bad and rather than risking opprobrium, the FBI concentrates a significant amount of its efforts on bullying the poor underclass.

The Purposeful Life

It is difficult to get to where you are supposed to go, it is difficult to get to a place of real accomplishment, it is difficult to get anywhere of significance, if you do not have a plan, if you do not put forth concerted concentrated effort, and if you do not have a purpose in your life.  This purpose in your life, can be internally programmed in the sense that you are driven to do well, simply because that is the way that you are, then again, for other people, it is not until they unearth the purpose of life on a universal level, that they are able to ascertain clearly the things that they should be focusing on, and become thereby motivated to accomplish them to the best of their ability.

It is not enough in life to be good for something, or even necessarily to do good for others, although both of these things have their rightful place and are worthy both of our respect and approbation.   What a person of any real sense, of any real curiosity, of any real talent, must do in order to put themselves on the pathway of true eternal success, is to first to figure out, why they are even here in the first place.  If you are oblivious to even asking the question, it is questionable that you could conceivably achieve the mastery of the skills necessary to become all that you should and ultimately must be.  If you do ask the question, but give up finding the answer, or accept answers that do not rest upon solid foundation, perhaps you have opened the door for truth a small amount, but a glimpse or distortion of the way, is not the way.  It is not enough to ask the most important question, why are we here, without devoting yourself completely to receiving the answer and thereupon acting on this answer with dedication, devotion, and purpose.

In today's world, too many people of real merit and worth simply don't care to ask the question, perhaps because they are too busy doing and accomplishing things that mean something to them, or at a minimum, at least occupying their time, energy, and space.  It is not enough to stay busy, it is not enough to be successful, and it is not enough to do things that appear to benefit yourself or others, if you do not understand implicitly why you are doing these things in the first place.  If, on the other hand, you know that "…the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all," (Ecclesiastes 9:11), then, this means that you know that a purposeful life can only occur with an acknowledgment that there is something beyond space and time, something far wiser than ourselves and our own thoughts, something that represents truth, justice, peace, and unconditional love, and that something is our Creator.

Those that understand that our earth truly is a testing ground and that our earth truly is a proving ground, will find themselves almost compelled and thereby driven to find their purpose in life, and to subsequently dedicate themselves to fulfilling that purpose, in the conscious recognition that the very first step in our pathway back to God, is to make the world a better place for our having lived upon it.

Homicide Rates and Aggravated Assault

Since, the 1990s the homicide rate in America has come down considerably from the much more violent 1970s through 1990s and while there are a lot of theories about why this is so, it is so.  At the same time, aggravated assault, has followed the same trajectory of peaking in the 1990s and also has steadily declined since then.  The reason that the aggravated assault category of crime is so important, is that because of medical technology, emergency rooms, hospitals  and their medical staff, it is more likely that people suffering from crippling wounds can survive them today than they would have back in the 1990s.  Additionally, murder is the type of category of crime which is fairly straightforward to categorized, since the victim is deceased, and the determination of foul play is usually self-evident.  On the other hand, aggravated assault is far more nebulous, that is to say, prosecutors may easily plea down what appears to be attempted murder to felony aggravated assault just to assure themselves of the conviction, as well as the fact that attempted murder is far trickier to convict a perpetrator of, because it is somewhat problematic depending upon a whole slew of varying circumstances needed to coalesce in order to prove the "intent" of the perpetrator.

In any event, both homicide and aggravated assault have come down at comparable rates over the last 25-odd years, which would imply strongly that there isn't less murder in America, because doctors have all of a sudden, done far more adroit work in keeping victims of violent crime alive, but pretty much is a reflection that less people are being targeted to be killed by criminals in the first place.  That truly is good news, because far too often, statistics can be manipulated in a manner so that one thing is overemphasized or distorted to get across some subjective point.

Of course, the other consideration to take account of, is why have those homicide and aggravated assault rates come down substantially over the last two decades, in which conservatives often want to point out it must be because of our police and prosecution forces combining together to punish and thereby take dangerous criminals off of the streets and incarcerate them, which America has performed at the highest levels in the western world.  There is though, a very strong case that in recognition that the demographics have changed in America over recent decades, in which statista.com shows that it is the age group of 20-24 which represents the highest murder offender percentage rate in America that has brought down violent crime statistics, because the median age in America has increased from 32.9 in 1990 to 37.8 in 2015, signifying that an aging population will have less homicide and aggravated assault crime.  In short, probably the combination of favorable demographics along with more sophisticated and dedicated policing tools have together combined to reduce violent crime, with contributions from a better managed social safety net helping to lead to less violent crime.     

In any event, there is indeed less violent crime in America, probably not because crime doesn't pay, and probably not because people overall are more considerate and caring than they were before, but probably because higher incarceration rates in conjunction with favorable demographics as well as effective social services have reduced violent crime.

The average price of a new vehicle sold is way too high

According to usatoday.com the average price of a new vehicle sold in America was $33,560 in April of 2015, yet according to the Census ACS survey, the median household income in the United States was only $55,775 in 2015.  As you might imagine, households often own more than one vehicle, and depending upon the location of the residence, city, quantity of license drivers, amongst many other factors, governing.com estimated that in 2013 the average household had 1.8 vehicles.  On the surface, this would seem to indicate that average Americans probably spend way too much money on new vehicle purchases.

First off, as in any major purchase, the consumer should take into account their income, their current budget, the length of such a commitment, insurance, and other pertinent factors.  For instance, as written on the fool.com, it is recommended that a good rule of thumb for vehicle purchases should consist of: "A down payment of at least 20%, financing lasting no more than four years, and total cost -- principal, interest, and insurance -- adding up to no more than 10% of a household's gross income." These above principals often abbreviated to "20/4/10 rule" are basically ignored by a substantial portion of the vehicle buying segment of Americans.  Instead, the consumer has been roped into his purchase by two very important things, of which, the first is the consumer is properly taking advantage of historically low loan rates, to which, consumers can get auto loans at under 2%, depending upon credit score, length of loan, amount of loan, income, and so forth.  In any event, consumers with stellar credit are receiving auto loan rates at historic lows and those low rates translate into lower monthly payments.  On the other hand, and by far the biggest elephant in the room, is the fact that auto loans that use to be no longer than five years for a new vehicle, about a decade or so ago, have instead morphed into loans of 72 months (6 years) and even 84 months (7 years), so that now 62 percent of auto loans as estimated by Edmunds in 2014 were for terms greater than 60 months.

What consumers don't seem to comprehend, is that they are often way too focused on trying to get their auto loan monthly payment down to a reasonable level that they believe that they will be able to budget for, so that consequently they often lose focus of the bigger picture, which is the amount of time that they are committing to a vehicle, that they then will have to keep paying on and keep paying on, for a substantially greater length of time.  There is not a valid reason why any consumer should want to sign their name to a vehicle contract that is greater than 60 months, to begin with, because if the numbers aren't right for 60 months, the correct analysis should be therefore to find a vehicle that is cheaper.

Instead of consumers actually doing their homework, before they walk into the auto dealership by realistically adhering to a sensible budget, or adhering to the "20/4/10 rule", they seem to decide way too often, that such and such a price on a monthly basis, seems to be about right, then they way too frequently give up that price to the dealer, who manipulates it up "just a couple dollars" further, extends the loan out another 24 months, and the consumer subsequently ends up signing the deal, in which, they have made a financial commitment for seven long years, making them often upside-down on their loan, and basically playing catch-up on trying to get their equity positive on their new purchase, from day one.

Unfortunately, way too many Americans purchase way more vehicle than they can rightly afford, sacrificing their hard-earn money for something that truth be told, pleasures them little, and pains their financial rear-ends a lot.

Microsoft Office: Buy or subscribe?

Microsoft Office is pretty much ubiquitous in offices and homes all over America, and is the de facto standard for word processing, Excel, and other features of Microsoft Office.  Microsoft is one of the most profitable enterprises ever created, especially profitable, because a lot of what they sell is software as compared to hardware in any of its many forms.  In fiscal year 2015, Microsoft did 93.5 billion dollars in Revenue, and had a staggering 60.5 billion dollar Gross Margin, with an Operating Income of 18.1 billion dollars. When a company of the size, profitability, and market share that Microsoft represents, makes a conscious decision to take their flagship product and begin offering it for rent, lease, or subscription, believe this statement: that they are making this transition to increase their revenue and to increase their gross margin despite how they dress it up as a service or as a consideration for their massive consumer base.

The fact of the matter is to own software means exactly what it implies to mean, which is that you have bought it, you own it, you install it, and the manufacturer of it, will maintain it and support it for a reasonable period of time.  On the other hand, if you subscribe or rent software, you won't own it, although you will be entitled to all of its bells and whistles, all of its improvements, all of its support, all of its many future features, until such a time as your subscription lapses, in which case, you won't be able to utilize it at all or if so, under vastly reduced functionality.  This means that one way of dealing with software is to buy it, know exactly what your cost will be and be done with it, whereas the other method is to lease it, and keep paying and paying and paying.

Of course, Microsoft likes to argue that by purchasing their software outright, that you will over a period of time, have software that as it becomes outdated, will mean that you thereby won't be entitled to having the newest, sweetest, and cutest features of Microsoft Office and other assorted accouterments, but in actuality, most users hardly use all of the many features to their maximum effect in the first place, so they aren't sacrificing much, if anything, and they most certainly will be saving themselves money if they plan to keep the software for any reasonable length of time, especially, if their license agreement, clearly provides them with the option of transferring their software to a new machine.  

There may be valid reasons why a given consumer might want to subscribe to Microsoft Office as opposed to buying the product, but, not too surprisingly, Microsoft knows it isn't going to be able to convince a significant amount of people of those reasons all at once, so it has made it their policy to preinstall Microsoft Office365  on new computers, to which, as this is their subscription product, and not their buy-alone product, the hope is that by easing consumers into the direction of leasing the Office product, or defaulting into a lease, they will increase the consumer percentage of leases of Microsoft Office, and thereby make even more money on a product line that has already accumulated a staggering lifetime of profitability, on the backs of everyday loyal consumers.

Auto Insurance Billing

State governments have made it mandatory for drivers of vehicles, to have auto insurance, which, not too surprisingly, is an added expense that is difficult or problematic for some people to come up with every month, let alone, to make the entire payment in full.  Nowadays, auto insurance policies cover either six months or a full year, to which virtually every auto insurance company gives you the option of paying in full, or paying for your auto insurance, monthly.  For some people, no matter what, the option of paying in full just isn't a viable option for them, which is quite unfortunate, because the difference in how much you pay in a year for auto insurance, depending upon whether you opt for monthly or for yearly, is often highly significant.

Even though auto insurance companies do provide the consumer with a choice as to how they can make their payment, and clearly disclose those options, it is amazing how few people that really need to save money, pay attention to these numbers.  For instance, depending upon the State that you live in and the auto insurance company that you deal with, the savings for the consumer in paying in full can easily exceed a 20% differential in pricing, or even higher.  This amount of money that could be saved is significant, and there simply isn't any investment that would be able to recover those extra monies lost by not paying in full.

This then leads to the real question, which is, because auto insurance is mandatory and by virtue of the fact that you have a vehicle which you drive, demonstrating its material worth to your life, you would think with the potential savings of $200, $300, $500 or even more, depending upon who and what is covered by your auto insurance, that it would behoove you to come up with the money to pay the auto insurance in full, yet so many people do not, because they claim, rightly or not, that they simply do not have the money to do so.  Yet, massive monetary discounts turned down, turn into extra expenses that will hurt the bankroll of people that are struggling thereby month to month.

From an auto insurance perspective, they prefer consumers that pay monthly, because they quite obviously are more profitable consumers for the auto insurer, signifying that when a consumer is given financial options, almost always, one option is clearly more beneficial for the auto insurance company, and therefore these offers are definitely not equal or equivalent to one another, so a consumer should at least, at a minimum, recognize this, and try, if possible to make the better choice.

While commercials try to sell the illusion that your auto insurance company is "like a good neighbor", quite frankly, you should not lose focus on the fact that the auto insurance people, neighborly or not, are in the business of making money, and that, no matter how they dress it up, means that you and they sit on opposite sides of the table.  Consumers that are on tight budgets need to make sure that they aren't paying for extra coverage that they don't really need in the first place, and should endeavor in cases where the monetary differential is large, pay their insurance in full, so as to free up their hard-earned money for other things needed or desired.

"If you want to test a man’s character, give him power"

The above quotation has been attributed to Abraham Lincoln, but probably comes from the hand of Robert Ingersoll, a gifted orator, but no matter its origin, the sentiment of this proverbial wisdom rings very true.  For instance, there are loads of people that speak of injustice, unfairness, and similar ilk, to which through unanticipated and unparalleled events, become persons of power, thereby placing themselves in the very position of being true to their character and often thereby falling far short.  So too, there are men born into a structure which gifts to them power, to which, to those that are given great powers, great things are expected from such a responsibility and they too fall short.

Another way, though, to test this phrase, is to replace the word "power" with "wealth", and although power alongside wealth are often entwined with one another, there are in the scheme of things, many more men with enormous wealth, than those that have enormous power, and while wealth is of itself, a form of power, it isn't the same as having the power to create or destroy others at a moment's whim.

Many people with power or wealth are inclined to believe that they are fair minded, but even within their everyday activities that is belied by the very things and actions that they demonstrate.  However, of far more intrigue, are those that actually are men of good character; caring, selfless, devoted, and moral, to which, something changes within them upon the receiving of power, perhaps previously dormant, but now sufficiently awakened, that quickly evolves into what appears to be a completely different man, gone power mad.  It is this man, who as with a flick of the switch, turns into something that he is not, or perhaps turns into something that he has always been, that fascinates.

The fact that power can change a man, or bring out the worst elements in a man, are very good reasons why governments, personal relationships, businesses, and so forth, should always have checks and balances within them, for it is those checks and balances that help to prevent the evil that one man can do to another, or what one government can do to its people, and instead helps to ensure that the better angels of our nature are not sacrificed at the altar of greed and power.

There are a significant amount of people that enjoy a great orator or a man with a forceful and charismatic personality, to which these great personages seem to resonate within us, because often we seek sense in a senseless world, or order in a world of chaos, but alas that isn't typically what we get in reality, as power when it gets into the wrong hands affects the good sensibilities of too many men. So that, if we are too afraid to confront, or to contradict, or to question, a man that has power, because we fear the consequences of doing so, than that man has too much power in his hands to begin with.

The reason why power tests a man's character is because power has the capacity to get you things without you having to consciously worry about the consequences, but it is those consequences, that truly do reflect your character.