When is a Crime, Not a Crime?

In the cyber-wars of today, all sorts of things occur of dubious legality, or outright illegality each and every day, of which some of these things are done by hackers, clearly working on their own agenda, whether for a so-called greater good, or for exposure of corruption of all sorts, or whatever, and the other big player, being governments of all sorts and for all sorts of reasons that have certain agendas that they like to see get accomplished.  In some governments, hackers are actively recruited to serve government interests, specifically to obtain or to compromise information from dissident groups within their country, or to infiltrate targeted countries, in which, these hackers are basically deployed as state-sanctioned agents with immunity for things that would most definitely be considered crimes, if they were, in fact, acting outside of such state-sanctioned protection.  So too, in the United States, hackers of great renown, or skill-sets, are actively recruited to work on behalf of the government, in plying their trade, in which, sometimes the recruitment is basically straight-up, that is to say, a lucrative offer is made to individuals that have demonstrated both skill and initiative, and sometimes a deal is made in which because a particular hacker has violated some law, they are essentially co-opted by a government agency to work for them, in return for charges being dismissed, reduced, or dropped.

There are several basic contradictions in the world of hacking and how it is treated in which, quite basically, hacking that is done on behalf of governmental agencies, which have received overt or covert permission by the authorities so regulating them so as to spy, to interdict, to disrupt, or whatever, are all activities that unless some sort of egregious behavior which has been embarrassingly exposed occurs, pretty much anything goes.  This essentially means, that things that hackers do that would clearly be crimes if they were acting on their own or with some other agency not sponsored directly or indirectly by government forces, are not crimes.  It then follows that to hack into a foreign government's computer system in order to obtain documents or information, if done on an individual basis, is a serious crime, whereas, to do so as sanctioned by your own government, is often well compensated, and the people doing such, pretty much have immunity from the prosecutorial arm of the state, if not outright eligibility for rewards on particular jobs done expertly.

So if a particular hacker only has the best interests in mind, such as to release information that shines a light on governmental or industry practices, that are of questionable value, or clearly inimical to Constitutional law, to do so, is often considered to be a crime; whereas those special ones that are actually committing overt acts that endanger this country, or interfere with other countries or other people or other industries, are pretty much immune to any trouble, especially if position papers have been created, somehow justifying this sort of activity, or a quid pro quo has been initiated, in which,  the justice department's arm has been stayed, everything remains okay.

A world in which, on the one hand, certain actions that you as an individual take are subject to the penalty of the full weight of the law, whereas, the same actions or even worse, when state-sponsored, are not, signifies that this isn't a country of the people, by the people, but a country instead that serves faithfully those in positions of authority, and those that try to infringe upon this, suffer for their audacity or ignorance.

Liar Loans and Liar Profits

The 2007-2009 mortgage crises has many reasons for its occurrence, in which, pure greed and intentional deception would have to be amongst the foremost of those reasons.  In order for mortgage lenders or for banks to make money, they must either create loans, and/or have investments which will materially improve their bottom loan.  When it comes to initiating loans these become upon their inception both an asset as well as a liability for a bank, however, although many banks and mortgage lenders create loans to consumers and businesses, a much smaller subgroup actually keeps those loans on their individual books, with the majority of such, packaging their loans and selling them in securitized packages to investors, here and abroad.  Not too surprisingly, mortgage loans that are not sold, are typically looked at more carefully and scrutinized much more since the lender of such, must make a profit on these loans by being in a position in which their cost of money is less than the monies that will be received from the loan, while also budgeting for a certain percentage of bad loans.  On the other hand, lenders that make it their policy to sell and package their loans are in almost an entirely different business, which is essentially packaging their loans in such a manner that the selling of them will generate a nice profit.

Investors of all types, whether individuals, businesses,  or pension funds, need to or strongly desire to make money on their portfolio of investments each and every year, and in an era of historically low interest rates, this is quite problematic to do so when investing in basically bond-like investments, which mortgages typically represent.  Therefore, when a securitized mortgage portfolio is put up for sale, with a return that appears to be rather good, along with the basic understanding or premise that home prices don't ever seem to fall, along with mortgage defaults trending at low rates, the easy conclusion to make is that the investor making this decision to buy these securities is going to make some good money with a minimum of risk.  The problem with this theory, goes back to the very beginning, which is, if housing prices do fall because of a recession, or leverage that is imprudently high, or whatever, that presents a significant problem, along with the additional problem that if the people owing money on their mortgages are not credit worthy or are problematic to begin with, that securitized loan is going to be a very poor investment choice with disastrous consequences.

The basic issue that you have with mortgage loans, is if the mortgage broker, or the mortgage lender, or the loan officer in general, is making his real money via commission on the value of the loan and/or fees involved, along with the fact that their management also gets a percentage of the business so generated, it takes no real stretch of imagination to quickly realize that more loans will be issued with lower qualification points being necessary from applicants or even outright fraud, especially if the accountability is obscured.  This makes for wonderful bonuses for loan originators, and wonderful profits and bonuses for banks or their equivalencies that are creating the mortgages, but a disaster for those buying such loan packages, and a disaster for whomever is the person or entity holding the bag when it all collapses which it inevitably does. 

When money incentives are setup in such a manner that the more "work" that is approved and loaned, without any apparent direct blowback for lies or deceptions or prudency which creates the loans in the first place, the more liar loans and the more liar profits will be generated, ultimately ending rather poorly and dramatically for those not in the know.

Judicial Rights and Judicial Wrongs

People are arrested all of the time for various things, in which, at the very beginning, heck, even before an arrest is contemplated, the policing arm of the state makes a determination often on and substantially based upon profiling the subject. That is to say, police as supported by the prosecutorial arm of the justice system, are given a very wide berth in whom they are allowed or not allowed to question in regards to probable cause or reasonable suspicion, so the area of town that you are in, the car that you are driving, the clothes that you are wearing, the people that are congregating around you, and so on and so forth, are all germane to the stop, frisk, and questioning to begin with.  This means that if you are part of a group or look that appears respectable in every way, you probably won't be bothered nearly as much by policing agencies than those that appear to have the accouterments and behavioral patterns that the state has implicitly or explicitly designated as targets to harass.

One of the main problems with being stopped and frisked, or stopped and questioned, is that if police officers just don't really like you, or whatever, some very bad things can happen to you, to which, the beginning of those bad things begins with being arrested, so that even if, no formal charges are ever actually applied to you, your freedom and time has been curtailed, and things get progressively worse if formal charges are made.  On the other hand, those that are seldom stopped or never stopped, don't have to worry about such things, and not surprisingly, since they aren't harassed except under the most extraordinary of circumstances, have a tendency to follow the adage of "out of sight, out of mind".

Those that are actually arrested and charged with a crime, will next have to face the determination of their bail, and it is this setting of bail, that truly demonstrates that the Constitutional rights that we believe all citizens are entitled to, are in fact, structured under today's justice system, into a stark and bleak situation, to wit, if you have money, access to money or credit, and your crime is relatively minor, as most arrests are, you will probably be set free via bail, and although there will be many more hurdles to overcome, you are able in most circumstances to get back to your everyday life with a relatively minor dent to your everyday life.  On the other hand, if you are indigent, or unable for whatever reasons to post bail, even if the bail amount appears fair to the judge, the lack of being able to post bail, means that you will be effectively sentenced to jail time for a crime that hasn't even been adjudicated.  This often means, the lost of just about everything that you had of substance to begin with, such as your job, your apartment, your possessions, and so forth, in which, had you the money or had you not been arrested in the first place, none of this would be happening.

In America, there are many wonderful rights that are supposed to be equally applicable to all, but in practicality, there is a monstrous divide between those that have or have good access to things that will aid them, and those have not, and can't access much of anything.  This signifies that being poor and/or living in poor neighborhoods is effectively a crime, and America makes those that live under such conditions pay for their lack, by being placed in jail against their will each and every day.

What Church should be

Churches represent all sorts of things to all sorts of people, in which, some churches are absolutely beautiful edifices and/or have beautiful grounds, whereas other churches are rather humble, or even in a bit of disrepair, along with everything in-between.  The thing about churches, is that each church should be cognizant of its real mission, which while including imparting knowledge and an opportunity for people of the faith to congregate together, it should also be seen as an outreach to those that need to hear of God's love for his people, as well as a sanctuary for those that need to have that space so as to deal with the inevitable trials, tribulations, and troubles of everyday life.

Going to church is an opportunity for those that are hurting to be healed, a refuge that is necessary to have, in order to help build up the strength to handle things that are and have been too overwhelming for so many, as well as presenting an opportunity to grow and to do well to others.  While it is important for a church to have a message for its congregants, it is as important if not more so, for that church to really know its flock, so as to thereby be able to lend a helping hand to those that really are in need.

If some people that attend the church, do not appear to have any problems, so much the better for them, but life really isn't about the celebration of a particular life that has gone so well, because that is celebration enough, but rather that we have an obligation, to see ourselves as part of a greater whole, and therefore it is our duty to take those weakest links and through our efforts in conjunction with our neighbors uplift those that need that helping hand, which helps them, along with making us better for having done so, and thereby helps to actualize God's word.

A church should also be seen as something akin to a big family, a family in which the congregants practice in their actions and in their behavior being a good family member to one another, or else, we have fundamentally missed the very meaning of what life should really represent, which is that we all are in this thing, together, one family, one God, one Savior.

Those that lead us at church, must make the church inclusive, not exclusive, must lead by example, not just by words, and certainly must help us in renewing our strength, our faith, and our devotion, so that we are better for having entered our sanctuary, and the people within that church, are better for us being there with them.  A good church should challenge us to become a better person, and as iron sharpens iron, churches need to be the instruments for our growth, and our advancement, as opposed to encouraging our complacency that we're okay just the way that we currently are. 

Those that think that they are good and perhaps feel that they don't really need church perhaps shouldn't be at church, for churches aren't really there for those that have perfected themselves, or for those good people who have no faults, but for those lost sheep that want to get back to their flock, and thereby return to that narrow path led by their shepherd back to our Creator.

The civilized and the uncivilized

Man believes that because he has seemingly conquered the world through his mastery of so many remarkable things, such as food, water, shelter, rule of law, and so forth, that he, by definition is now civilized.  But one only has to look around and step outside their domain to see that without question, that man's inhumanity and that man's injustice still reigns supreme in many, many ways.  In point of fact, how is that the richest country in the history of the world, these United States, also has the highest present-day per capita rate of incarceration in the world?  So too, the highest per capita gun ownership rate is also held by these same United States.  In addition, to the fact, that theguardian.com reports that the top 0.1% of the United States holds as much wealth as the bottom 90% in America, seems, almost unfathomable on the surface, but is also unquestionably true.

All of the above, would point out inexorably that in these "civilized" United States, there lies deep divisions of the haves and those that have not, in which, quite frankly, the haves have cloaked themselves into the guise of appearing civilized, while treating those that do not bend or conform with their desires, as something less than civilized, or why else, the need for such an abundance of weapons, of prisons, and of economic might to keep the people in line, and in check. 

In point of fact, a people are not truly civilized, if in order to get along, one party or one clique or one segment of that population, pretty much dictates to the masses, what they can or cannot do, while making sure that the legal apparatus as well as the enforcing arm of the state, supports them in their actions against those that need to be tamed.  As long as a government of the people does not truly treat all of the people with the same equanimity and fairness of the law in actuality, you do not truly have a civilized society or even rule of law.

As long as mankind insists and acts as if not all human beings are made from the same Creator, which is in opposition to our seminal Declaration of Independence, than mankind will continue to exploit and dehumanize man.    In actuality, the proposition before man is the very same proposition which has not changed from the beginning, either we are all created equally or we are not.  Man acts far too often in a manner in which "some apes, it seems, are more equal than others," which is very beneficial for those select few which are given that higher status along with the tools to oppress those that are less equal, but that is not in keeping with the spirit of the one true law, a law that man must answer to or else continue to live in a world in which in our most honest of moments we are horrified at the systemic brutal manner that man so often treats his fellow man. 

In reality, we are all in this world, together, and together, united, we must live up to and adhere to the better angels of our nature, as to do otherwise, is to turn our backs upon true justice and nature's God.

Machines and the Decline of Blue Collar Wages

In America, more and more productivity is augmented by robotics and machines of all sorts, which is absolutely wonderful for the productivity of producing all types of things, which allows buyers of goods to purchase much more for the dollar than they would be able to without the machines or robotics.  On the other hand, wages do have a strong correlation with skill sets, and those who function in an environment in which the machines that they utilize appear to provide the more meaningful "labor" component, are in no position to demand wage hikes or to achieve wages that families basically need and depend upon to live their lives.  In particular, machines are very beneficial to the owners of businesses, for the fact that these machines do not go on strike, are operational essentially 24/7, keep companies very competitive, and the machines essentially act as proxies to keep wage demands by laborers quite quiescent.

While there is no doubt, that profits are being made in America by well run companies, the division of the profits and bonuses is becoming more and more skewed and unbalanced each and every quarter, with the lion's share of the salaries, bonuses, stock options, and meaningful benefits going to those of upper management and those that brought to the table the capital needed and utilized by the business, whereas, those that are looked upon as just cogs in the machine, are left further and further behind.

This technological revolution has been a significant contributing factor to the suppression of wages over the last couple of decades in which many businesses are producing products which are either being sold at cheaper price-points while still maintaining their gross margins, and/or are offering more bells and whistles to the consumer of such, with the biggest elephant in the room of exception to this general rule, being the health industry.  This seems almost inexplicable, because not only is healthcare incredibly expensive in America vis-à-vis comparable countries, but it would appear to be an area in which this should not be true, because America pretty much has the best of everything, and this includes the tools and accouterments within healthcare. The implication of the above would imply strongly that healthcare, whether because of governmental oversight, governmental interference, industry regulations, industry collusion, lack of transparency, or whatever, appears more to be run essentially as a cartel, something akin to OPEC, rather than a competitive industry.

While overall, the benefits of machines and robotics are rather obvious, those that have had their jobs marginalized and opportunities curtailed, recognize that their life choices are rather limited and their future at best, mediocre, and at worse, rather bleak.  The era of machines has its winners, and its losers, and the blue collar laborer is most certainly on the short end of the stick.  However, even those that have spent the money, and done their part in getting their advanced degree, are not immune to wage suppression, as the more and more your employment is merely clicking keys and pushing buttons, with correspondingly less and less utilization of one's cognitive thinking along with human processing, then those that think that they are in the white collar workforce will find sooner or later that their collar is inexorably turning blue.

Law enforcers cannot be law breakers

Civil authorities constantly impress upon the population that they should obey the law, in which, most citizens believe that such a policy is very sensible, as their perception is that if the general population does not obey the law, than chaos and anarchy will quickly reign.  While this sort of mindset has its place, this obedience to law, counts on two very important and fundamental factors, of which, one is basically that laws should be clear, reasoned well, and applicable to all; the other is that those that are working on behalf of civil authorities in the capacity of implementing the law, whether they are the enforcing arm of the police, or the prosecutorial arm of justice, should also be subject to the very same laws, and not above it, or alternatively having the ability to sidestep it at their convenience.

For instance, prosecutorial agents have an obligation not to seek convictions at all costs and at all times, but actually to ascertain the truth, which means that information that may not be beneficial to the prosecution but is germane to the case, cannot and should not be oppressed, in addition to the fact, that it should always be the mission of the justice department to utilize the weight of the justice system in a manner that is equitable and fair to all, as opposed to utilizing state resources to pressure those that are least able to defend themselves, such as the poor and indigent.

While it is one thing to do things in a manner in which the 4th Amendment which secures the right of the people to be secure in their persons and possessions unless there is probable cause takes precedent, it is an entirely different thing to constantly have workarounds which clearly violate the spirit, if not in actuality, the 4th Amendment, because the state has determined for whatever reason, valid or not, that certain people must be prosecuted, at all costs.  In addition, there are the stealth resources which are utilized again and again such as surreptitious surveillance as well as going "undercover" in order to build up a case against criminal elements, or undesirables.  So too, it's rather hypocritical when undercover police agents engage in illegal activities so as to not blow their cover, basically signifying that some people for the greater good or whatever, are allowed to participate in criminal enterprises as long as they have been sanctioned to do so by the state.

In actuality, law enforcers of all stripes, and of all areas, have by virtue of the fact that they are exemplars of the law to the public that they serve, must, be held accountable for their actions, and those given such privileges by the public, most definitely, should know right from wrong, and thereby show clearly know and apply the law fairly and equitably at all times.  If, on the other hand, law enforcers are given wide berths and are not held accountable for their actions, we have set up, in effect, two worlds of justice, one in which the public is subject to the law and its attendant consequences, and the other in which privilege members of the law enforcement arena and their cohorts, are not.

Helicopter Money, Depression, and deleveraging

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, famously quipped, "In theory at least, helicopter money could prove a valuable tool," in reference to the fact if the Federal Reserve was to simply print money and then dump it from helicopters down to the ground to consumers, that doing so, would stave off debilitating deflation, and bring back a healthy dosage of inflation to the pricing of goods.  In recent years, the Federal has printed money like a madman through its various quantitative easing programs, but all this, hasn't really produced the desired effect of inflation, for the most basic of reasons, which is, if the money so generated does not pretty much go directly into the hands of consumers, it rather than being spent or being utilized for productive things such as factory improvement and capital investments, will actually gravitate towards equities, in which because the cost of money is so low, investors can make money by literally doing and risking little or nothing, by simply performing passive investing, which resolves little or nothing.

In point of fact, when economies stagnate, the most natural of states is deflation, because workers that do not earn more money, and businesses that do not make more money from the items that they sell, are stuck in the same boat, which is deflation, because producers of goods do not have the pricing power to raise prices, and consumers do not have the extra money to pay for the higher prices of goods, so the basket of goods that they do purchase, is of a lesser quality or a different mix of goods in order to stay afloat.

The reason that governments fear deflation so much, is that anytime a country degenerates into deflation, there is the distinct possibility that it can also disintegrate into a depression, because if consumers know that prices are in a freefall, they will spend less now, in order to acquire more later, and if businesses recognize that sales are slowing at their current pricing structure, they will cut prices sooner or provide more bells and whistles for the same price now, so as to recover ready money in order to invest in products that will sell to the general public.  In addition, businesses that are being squeezed for profit, often look to reduce labor by laying off personnel, and people that are unemployed or are fearful of being unemployed prudently reduce spending so as to be able to maintain as long as possible their current assets in life.  However, once money gets tight, they will be forced to sell off hard assets in order to survive, and these assets will be sold at distressed pricing, inflaming further the cycle of deflation and depression.

So too, in this era of easy credit, people and businesses have debt that can only properly be served with appropriate income and profits, and if they are not able to achieve such things, then those in debt, must somehow deleverage themselves from the debt that they are in, which, in a time of deflation, creates an incredibly vicious spiral, which can lead to a very bad and devastating depression.  Debts always are easier to pay with money that has devalued itself over time through inflation, but not too much inflation so that the money itself becomes questioned as a reasonable storage of value, but just enough to keep the belief going that all is basically well.    This government wants you to believe that they have everything under control, but, the reality of it is that it is a monetary house of cards, which cannot stand in its current form, forever.

Computers and Credit Card Validity

People use credit cards all day, every day, in which most transactions, but certainly not all transactions are done in person, and hence the actual credit card in the consumer's possession is actually used, but the advent of the internet shopping age, has meant that a fairly large number of transactions are done each and every day via the internet, using a given person's credit card information, and while some of these transactions utilize the same credit card again and again, as this credit card has been previously entered and thereupon saved as the default card, there are plenty of internet sites that the consumer is utilizing for the very first time, or desires to use a new credit card, or doesn't have their credit card previously saved, and thereby the customer must enter the pertinent digits of the given credit card by hand, meaning that humans can mistype or mistakenly type in the wrong numbers, and do so, probably by the thousands each and every day.  The most incredible thing about this, is that computers are able to instantly recognize the validity of a given credit card within a second or two, which many people take for granted, but actually it's quite impressive that this is accomplished within such a short period of time, as opposed to an order having to be canceled because a valid credit card was mistyped by the customer.

Theperplexity of this feature would be that since there are literally millions upon millions of credit cards that have been issued, that a crosscheck against all of these credit cards would imply a massive and constantly updated database containing such, which would seem to be a somewhat daunting task, as credit cards are issued by banks, by stores, and by all sorts of vendors and access to such a database that includes all credit cards would seem to be the mother-load of valuable information for those that are involved in credit card scams and fraud.  While it is conceivable that such a massive coordinated database exists, in actuality, credit card issuers follow a format that has been carefully constructed so that there is the ability to apply a relatively straightforward algorithm to test the numbers that have been entered, in addition, to the fact, that the numbering convention format helps to identify the issuer of the credit card, in which as explained by stackoverflow.com, the first six digits of credit cards represent the Issuer Identification Number, so if that does not match any known vendor, the card is invalid.  Then the following digits are the actual account number of the given person's account, and the final number is the checksum, in which these numbers in aggregate are tested using the Luhn algorithm, a relatively straightforward algorithm, which will be able to within the blink of an eye, determine whether the credit card number is valid by such a check.

All of the above, pretty much doesn't mean much of anything to the average consumer, because like most things accomplished on a given day, they sort of just take it for granted, but it's actually quite impressive, it does its job, because mistyped entries occur over and over again, each day, only to be instantly flagged as such, and then corrected by the customer.

Civil War and Civil Elections

When Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860, America was at peace, and despite Lincoln stating repeatedly that he would not interfere with the institution of slavery in the South, for he believe that he did not have the Constitutional authority to do so, the southern States seceded anyway.  Even with such succession, Lincoln stayed his hand, yet, when the South took it upon itself to fire shots against the federally owned Fort Sumter in South Carolina, forcing its surrender, Lincoln's hand was forced to bring the southern States to heel for their rebellion, so as to re-unite these United States and thereby restore the Union, and to make vividly clear that those that lost elections through sound democratic methods via the ballot box, could not and would not then as the losers of such, win via the bloodshed of the battlefield, so the fight was joined.

In America, Presidential elections are held every four years, so by the time of 1864, the rebellion, our civil war, was still in effect, and unlike virtually any government that preceded it or succeeded it, of any stripe, and of any type, in America, a free election of those States that were still part of the Union was held as scheduled, in which the incumbent, Abraham Lincoln faced off against the man who was once the general-in-chief of all the Union armies, George McClellan, before he was relieved of such in November of 1862.  Lest one think, that McClellan had no chance, he was extremely popular and well known throughout America, and was considered to be a formidable opponent, certainly capable of winning the election and thereby, since he ran as a Democrat under their party platform of being the so-called peace candidate, the course of history of how the war would have been conducted or concluded under McClellan, might, in fact, left slavery as an institution permitted within the southern States in return for the peaceful submission by those States currently in rebellion.

This means that the stakes were incredibly high in 1864, in which, Lincoln could have, and certainly did have, the Executive wartime power as well as the most reasonable of excuses, to postpone such an election, because the country was in the midst of a bloody civil war but Lincoln did not postpone the election, and had he been defeated, he would have left office and been replaced by a new commander-in-chief.  The foregoing demonstrates conclusively the great character of this President, who took the Constitution as well as our Declaration of Independence, not as documents to be subverted, not as documents to be ignored so as to aggrandize unto himself powers not given to the Executive office, but to, even in this darkest of hours, to work within the Constitutional powers to reunify this nation without becoming a dictatorship, or suspending any laws unless absolutely necessary.

This world is filled with countries that suspend Constitutional or governmental law, replacing such with dictatorships, or military juntas, or leaders who take upon themselves executive powers for life, whereas, Lincoln did nothing of the sort.  How many others during a civil war that tested core values of what it meant to be an American citizen, what it meant to be a nation, and what it meant to be these United States, would risk a free election, yet, those of great character and those of great integrity, will willingly do so, because Lincoln was no summer soldier, and no sunshine patriot, he was a determined man, made extraordinary by the testing of his character in this crucible of this most trying of times, our civil war.

The real Purpose of a College Curriculum

I suppose that with the price of education being what it is, you can make a somewhat successful option that the participants in such an education, should be afforded a fairly wide berth of subjects to study upon with minimal interference by collegiate administrators.  That type of viewpoint seems to be more and more the prevailing opinion, as never have so many students, had such a wide choice of curriculum to choose from.  Of course, there is this fundamental disconnect, which is that students are primarily in school in order to learn how to think and to be taught by those that have wisdom, as opposed to already knowing what they should be thinking, and acting as if they have already been taught.

It certainly makes more sense, that college administrators would administer their colleges in such a manner that certain coherent aspects of becoming a thoughtful and constructive citizen would be part and parcel of the educational institution, as in order for any country to continue to progress and to be vibrant, citizens must have knowledge, truth, ethics, and civic virtue as part of their constitution, because if these things are lacking from the most educated and most intelligent of our citizens, where will then will it be found?

While it certainly is beneficial for students to work hard to achieve that diploma in a subject field or specialty that means something or makes sense to them, so too, it is important that each student ask the most basic of questions, as to who and what they are, and thereby what is the purpose of life, or even of society in general.   For while it is all to the good, that students learn something, it is a disservice if students are unable to learn fundamentally that truth, justice, fairness, goodness, integrity, selflessness, as well as righteousness are all necessary characteristics of citizens that one should aspire to be, rather than actually believing that moral codes, as well as right and wrong, shift with the times, or are subjective, or are dictated to us by governmental authorities.

All of the above strongly indicates that each college should and must have a core curriculum, but not just a somewhat arbitrary one, but one that deliberately is thought through so as to inculcate in its students that privileges entails responsibilities which is all part of being a good citizen of these good United States.  Our forefathers made great sacrifices and took great risks in their fight for their freedom from Great Britain, in which, it is at a minimum, the responsibility of the best and brightest, to represent well the very things that the fight was for such as: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to petition the government, and freedom of assembly. 

There are many, many things that people do not necessarily want to do, but some of those things are things that they ought to do.  No country can remain great if its citizens are not great, and great citizens typically come forth from great learning institutions, in which these institutions impress upon the young minds: how to think, and that therefore it then follows that what you think does matter, because thoughts begat actions, and actions are the result of those same thoughts: correct or not.

The Fast pace age of Creative Destruction

Businesses are essentially in business for the very long haul, in which, therefore, no business as part of their model, foresees a day or time when they will no longer be necessary, yet, businesses in today's modern era must be nimble and bold enough to change as is necessary in order to continue their success, or risk being put out of business, no matter how smooth the sailing may appear in the present-day age.  This does indeed make the management of companies a more challenging task, for if the future is always uncertain, it seems to be even more uncertain in today's quicksilver world.

Not too surprisingly, many people, including management, of course, have a tendency to want things to stay pretty much the way that things are currently, because they are comfortable with their circumstances, yet, it is that very same management, that needs to be most cognizant that businesses must change or adjust in order to maintain their place or to improve their hierarchy in business or else like the most carefully laid out plans, things will change, sometimes dramatically to their business.  That is to say, when management is aware that there are material changes in their business, which will necessitate substantial changes in how they conduct their business, employ people, and sell products but are reluctant to embrace these changes because doing so will fundamentally undermine what they had previously been doing, they are in a rather dramatic quandary.

In point of fact, many popular products, many popular ways of doing things, simply don't exist anymore, or if they do exist, exist on the periphery of the marketplace, for instance, horses were once used as a real means of transportation, but in today's world are primarily utilized as a rather expensive hobby.  So too, the cars that we utilize today look nothing like cars that were produced at the turn of the 20th century, and with technology pushing ever harder for the advantages and perceived safety of self-driving cars, a business that sells over 17.5 million vehicle annually, and mainly uses petroleum products as the fuel of choice, may indeed be at the cusp of real fundamental change for a product that costs thousands of dollars to buy and hundreds of dollars to insure, so that, the insurance as well as the production of such, is now facing fundamental and traumatic change.

While businesses have many choices in regards to perceive upcoming changes in their business, such as trying to protect their own with laws, or rules and regulations, the inefficiencies of creating a moat will not be enough to stop an idea whose time has come.  This means that management of corporations that fail to read the tea leaves of change correctly, are in danger of becoming irrelevant, retarding their growth substantially, and ultimately finding that their business is unable to maintain their accustomed profit, or their gross margins, or their best and brightest, as these things will as a matter of course, gravitate to those businesses that have better upside and have correctly seen the future and embraced it wholeheartedly.

This means, almost for a certainty, that the more governmental interference or alliance that is made between government entities and private enterprise, the less capable these entities are of actively embracing change because they have more of a vested interest in keeping things just the way that they currently are, which, done on a big enough level, slows creative destruction, slows economic growth, and reduces competitive and efficient effectiveness, making a country less competitive, less desirable, and less wealthy.

When Capitalism becomes Oligopoly

What makes America great is that it is the land of opportunity, but when that door of opportunity, essentially closes because there are certain industries that the barriers of entry have become so high or the door has been essentially closed, so that no other company can ever successfully enter, than dangerous territory indeed has been entered.  For instance, governments of all stripes have a symbiotic relationship with certain corporations, so that contracts that are ostensibly setup as open-bidding and competitive, are structured in such a way, that only one company can win, which is fantastic for that company which knows that it can booked that business consistently each and every year.

So too, there are many businesses, such as drugstores, grocery stores, aircraft, liquor manufacturers, health care insurance providers, tobacco, and so forth, in which at the inception of these businesses there are many, many players, but over time there is consolidation in the industry, especially consolidation in which the biggest players don't really buy out the smaller companies, but instead buy out their biggest and most formidable competitors in order to build up size, scale, and girth. While a successful argument can be made that bigger size brings efficiencies of scale that is than passed on to the consumer, it can also be argued that bigger size with far fewer competitors allows such competitors to price their goods at a price that gives those companies a greater margin because consumers have less choice in finding a meaningful competitor that is both convenient as well as cheaper in cost.

Capitalism taking to the extreme -- encourages companies to make it their purpose in life, to systematically increase their market share each year, to maintain or improve gross margins, and to win their marketplace which can mean, doing what it takes to damage or to minimize or buy-out other competitors.  So too, size makes a difference in the negotiation with governments or civil authorities in regards to taxation, as well as land usage or land set asides, along with labor usage or labor wage pressures, and so forth, because gainful employment is part and parcel of what every community desires for their residents.

Additionally, size matters in regards to the setting of rules and regulations, so that if your corporation is just a little minnow, the best and the brightest don't have any incentive to engage you in a conversation, because your company does not have the means or power to compensate those at the very top, but those companies that are big and powerful, and set to become even bigger and more powerful, are exactly the type of corporations that will be able to attain the highest echelons of power brokers that bridge the gap between onerous regulations and beneficial ones, as well as onerous taxation and beneficial ones, and so forth.

Everyone knows that money is a form of power, and concentrated money along with controlling employment opportunities, is a most vibrant form of power.  These corporations, unlike human beings, are structured to last perpetually, so that as their power and influence grows, they are able to assure themselves come what may that they will be the survivors and there will be none that successfully oppose them.  Businesses that have essentially only three or four competitors in which these "competitors" control fifty percent or above of the total business in play, have effectively bossed that business, because they often control or are able to heavily influence the price, the availability, and the usage of their products in a manner that benefits these corporations to the exclusion of their consumers.

Concentrated power by corporations is a very dangerous thing, while it can provide benefits to the consumer, the downside is that those that have control of the means of production as well as its attendant pricing and availability, can and will lord it over those that need these substances.

Price Manipulation of Goods Changes Behavior

In a free and open economy, price controls would be seldom used, and the price of goods sold would be essentially what the market would bear, and while it certainly makes sense for certain critical infrastructure commodities such as electricity to have some sort of basic pricing structure, the control and the exercise of such should be kept minimal and efficient.  So too, in order to have normalized pricing to begin with, economies need to have real competition, and the more competition, the more efficient and fair the pricing will be for consumers of such.  That is to say, if one is buying any commodity that is controlled by just one entity or a group of entities as in an oligopoly, or via governmental control, than pricing will not reflect the true cost of those goods and hence will unfairly benefit one party to the exclusion of others.

The thing about governments is that for whatever reason, noble or not, they like to control prices from fluctuating or to manipulate prices so as to encourage consumption of one sort and to discourage consumption of another source, in which, perhaps though their intentions are right, the follow-through in application is often disappointing.  This means that the more manipulation that is made by authorities into free markets, the more distorted the economics of a given product is tilted and thereby the winners and losers will be changed because of this interference, and those that are beneficiaries of such manipulation, will now have a vested interest in seeing that business continues as usual, compounding the error of this interference.

People aren't stupid, so that if gasoline is taxed or priced at a certain high range, people will drive somewhat less, car pooling will increase, cars that achieve greater gas mileage will see their value go up, and alternative energy sources will be utilized, because most people do not have unlimited budgets and hence must adjust by using less gasoline.  On the other hand, when gasoline prices are held artificially low, such as in a country like Venezuela, the public will take advantage of this cheap energy by using a lot more of it, and in addition, since Venezuela borders Colombia, find a way to transport gas illegally and somewhat dangerously to Colombia, which is good overall for Colombians, good for the traders of such, as well as those receiving bribes to allow such a transport, but an overall waste of a precious commodity because it's price has been manipulated.

The bottom line is that the more wrong that a price is, by being held artificially low, because of governmental interference of all its many stripes, the more that the people will buy such a product for individual usage or for possible trade if circumstances allow.  So too, the more that a price of a good is artificially inflated, the less the public will use it, and they will instead search for alternatives that will serve as good substitutes. 

The problem that governments have in conjunction with vital corporations is that they are unable to see the invisible hand of the marketplace when they get together to determine what goods should be focused on and manufactured, what the prices should be, and this or that, making all sorts of assumptions and projections without recognizing that changing prices produces changes in behavior because man's mind and man's pocketbook is ever able to figure out correctly what collectively is their best move, upsetting master plan economies again and again.

Where does your mortgage come from and why you should care

The subprime crisis and meltdown took down many institutions in the 2007-2009, while also destroying the credit of numerous consumers of such, damaging investors that were fooled into buying securitized packages, devastating home values, and overall becoming a disaster for the American public.  Since that time, changes and laws have been made so as to preclude such an event in the future, but in reality, greed has overtaken caution, and a similar crisis is brewing.

For instance, as reported by the washingtonpost.com, in 2011, the top three banks went from providing 50 percent of mortgage loans to consumers have since seen that reduced to 21% in 2016, so that currently six out of the top ten mortgage providers are not banks, but non-banks such as Quicken Loans and PennyMac Financial Services, which have increased their corresponding market share considerably since 2011.

From a competitive perspective, you might think that this is a good thing, to see that banks finally have some real competition in providing the biggest loan that a typical individual will ever have in their life, but banks have special capabilities that they can draw upon, that non-banks do not, as well as banks typically have ready access to capital, whereas non-banks typically look to offload their loans to Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac, which seems like something that we have already previously experienced and that ended very poorly.

Banks are in the business of making money, and part of the way that a bank makes money is to take the time to perform their due diligence in regards to the ability of the loan borrower to pay back the money loaned, of which, there are several steps that a bank can go through to assure themselves that their default rate will not exceed a certain low level.  So that if banks have changed their game plan so as to go after specifically the best and the brightest, this means that those that don't have such pristine credit, or that don't have a substantial or prudent down payment, will have to look for other sources, of which, fortunately or not, non-banks have filled well that void.

The thing is that banks are able to utilize the Federal Reserve when they are cash strapped, as well as the fact that bank deposits are protected by the FDIC.  On the other hand, non-banks, depend upon their access to capital being abundant and plentiful, as well as the fact that they typically sell their loans to governmental agencies such as Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac, so as to free up more cash to make more loans, but if and when that cash runs low, non-banks will have to turn to their competitors, which are banks for ready cash, to wit, those banks and the cost of money would in times of crisis, cost a lot more, or even not be available for loans.

Banks got burned in the mortgage crisis of a decade ago and have since then made adjustments to their loaning standards, on the other hand non-banks have pounced upon the perceived lack of service to certain borrowers with their main play being to sell off their loans to governmental backed institutions and thereby book that profit.  The quality of these non-bank loans have not been significantly tested, and certainly have not been tested in a recession-like economy, of which, when that time comes, it won't end well.

One Child Families

In America as well as many other nations, family size has gotten appreciably smaller over the years, for a whole slew of reasons, which would include such things as: less marital commitments, marriages at a later age, first child being born at a later age, birth control, a commitment to having just one child, and so forth.  It obviously isn't an accident that family sizes have gotten smaller, it is the preference of many couples and the trend does not show any signs of slowing down, as children are both a big responsibility as well as expensive to have.

While the above does go a long ways towards explaining the rise of one-child families, what often isn't looked at so carefully is the fact that children without siblings are not growing up under the same circumstances as children that have siblings.  That is to say, children will deal with their parents on a level that is different than the level that children deal with their siblings, and when an only child has no siblings, they are missing the positive aspects and the common ground of having a sibling.  While there are substitutes for this lack of siblings in the sense of having cousins or friends or things of that sort, these substitutes cannot readily stand in for someone that lives in the same household as yourself and therefore experiences the same sorts of things that you daily experience and hence are able to confide in, one to another.

Parents think that their children love them, and often they do, but that love is simply not the same love as sibling love, because children do not think the same thoughts, or have the same priorities as their parents, because they are children and in the process of growing up, which has its own rules and complications.  This means that while a child can confide in their parents for all sorts of things, children with siblings, prefer to confide with those that they flock with, because there is a simpatico relationship between the two.  No doubt, some siblings don't get along, at least from time-to-time, but most siblings believe that the advantages of having a brother or sister far outweighs the sharing or selfishness or unfairness or reduction in privacy that they may perceive also from having a fellow sibling in the household.

None of the above, means that it is wrong for parent to just have one and be done with it, far from it, it is more meant to reflect that children like to hang out with other children that they relate to, and typically most children relate rather well with their own siblings because they pretty much have the same background and that makes their credibility appreciably higher when engaging with each other.  So too, having siblings, means that you have backup, not only when you are growing up, but also when you get older, which is beneficial to children, but also, beneficial to parents, as some children are more caring and more responsible than others.  So then, it isn't a fair expectation to believe that just one child can be it all, perhaps they can, but it might all be easier with that teamwork that comes from having more than just one.

The Battle of Good vs. Bad

Of course in our more secular society, that has crowded out God and religion, and replaced it with all sorts of material substitutes, there are people that try to convince themselves every day that those things such as right or wrong, good or bad, are somewhat subjective, but in reality, they are never that.  For indeed, inside each of us, innate within us, is a conscience that speaks directly to us, and as much as we would like to ignore that conscience, as much as we might like to silence that conscience through various drink or drugs and so forth, Truth can never be silenced, and it can never be defeated. This means, we know for a certainty, whether the actions that we have taken are fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong, and while there are indeed those gray areas and mitigating circumstances, the arc of justice is ever true.

Throughout each day, we are provided many opportunities to prove our worth, again and again, and day by day, so the choice of what we do is entirely ours as are its inevitable consequences, for wrong actions, when done, may often have no immediate consequences, but wrong actions, will be taken into account of who and what we really are, in addition to the fact, that wrongs done once, are far easier to do again. This signifies that a very wise person takes the time each day to reflect upon the things that they have or haven't done at the conclusion of their day, contemplating their acts of commission and of omission, so as to ascertain as to whether in the battle of good vs. evil, which side has won the day.  For those though that are not capable of honest self-introspection or honest self-reflection, they must instead spend time with their mentor or similar to receive vital feedback as to their progress or lack thereof.

While there are always going to be those that ignore their activities and deeds on a given day, ignorance does not change the results of such, and ignorance is hardly befitting a man who is trying to become something of merit and of real worth.  This means that it often isn't possible to become a better person without understanding foremost that this is actually your mission in life, that there are indeed just two paths to take in our material experience, one is the road taken, and the other the road not taken, to wit, if you take the wrong road you will have to battle your way to the right road while carrying the extra baggage of having been on the wrong road to begin with.

This spiritual battle of good vs. bad can be fought on many levels, because good and bad exist on all levels, and bad cannot be extricated from except when in pure communion with the God-spirit.  Part of the success of bad in this battle relies on its ability to convince the material part of ourselves that all we are is physical, and to thereby subvert our attention from the fruits of the spirit, replaced instead with the needs and desires of the body.  The battle that we face each day is very real; yet, those that pursue good have an overwhelming advantage, for they are in alliance with our Creator, recognizing that they have been created in His image, and therefore as His children embrace all that represents good, leaving no room at the Inn for bad.

Pro-Marijuana and Pro-Tobacco

Tobacco has been under constant assault for the last forty years or so, by governmental, medical, and private authorities as it tobacco usage in and of itself, is something akin to being in the league with the devil.  This means that smoking in public has been reduced to more and more being allowed only to smoke in private spaces that are under your direct control and pretty much nowhere else.  While on the one hand, tobacco has been on the constant defense for years, marijuana has made a brilliant end-around federal law and has somehow become legal in some States of the Union, even though it is still a federally controlled substance and thereby illegal under federal law, including so-called medical marijuana.  The fact that the federal government has chosen, at least in recent history, not to prosecute businesses and individuals selling and inhaling State-sanctioned or State-sanctioned medical marijuana would indicate that the federal government is somewhat weary about fighting a war in which the general population basically believes that marijuana is an adult activity and should be left to adults to decide upon.

While tobacco is not marijuana, and marijuana is not tobacco, they both have the same common cause, in which, smoking substances for generations upon generations of civilizations, has always been a social activity and typically a social norm, but recent laws passed having basically turned smoking into a private affair, sort of a privilege for those having private property, but sociability is part and parcel of any sane and sensible civilization and therein lies the rub, for there resides power in numbers and while people that smoke tobacco don't necessarily smoke marijuana and vice versa, they both pretty much are in the same sort of activity, which is smoking, and really being able to smoke in private, is sort of like being only able to drink in private, which is fine if you are a straight-up alcoholic, but for most people, it isn't what you want to do in the first place.  In actuality, people want to enjoy themselves, they want to be able to socialize in places of their preference, and engage in whatever activities appeal to them, which for some people, includes smoking.

Of course, there are all sorts of things which are bad for you, bad to eat, bad to drink, bad to smoke, bad to think, bad to do, and so forth, but really the role of government should be of the mind that adults are allowed to make their own decisions, because that is why God gifted us with our own mind.  While it is one thing for the government to suggest what we should or shouldn't do, it's an entirely different thing when the law compels one to do this or not do that, because the government says it's bad for you. 

Those that smoke marijuana should intuitively recognize that the more rights that tobacco smokers have, the more rights that marijuana smokers can aspire to, and conversely the less rights that tobacco smokers have, in all probability the less rights marijuana smokers will have access to.  This means that if you are pro-marijuana you have to be pro-tobacco, and if you are pro-tobacco you have to be pro-marijuana.  After all, smokers want to smoke.

Women, Freedom, and Economic Opportunity

America has come a long way in its history in according females the same essential and fundamental rights as men.  While there are a few that decry such a thing, believing still that a woman's place is in the home, or subservient to men; in general, most people have adjusted to the fact that all humans are created equally by the same Creator and it is comforting to see that American jurisprudence pretty much acknowledges the equality of women to men in today's society.

The bottom line is that within societies in which women are not accorded the same respect and opportunity as men, those societies , for the most part, are not progressive or fair societies.  A case in point is that women that aren't educated have far fewer good economic opportunities to afford themselves of, as well as if certain professions as a matter of course do not hire females, than females have less fair economic opportunity. 

In situations in which females have no or little economic opportunity, or no or little freedom once then become married, than they are sacrificing freedom for what may, in the best of cases, be security, and in the worst of cases, a peculiar sort of slavery.  When women are incapable of being able to have freedom of choice, freedom of movement, freedom of education, or freedom of opportunity, than they are to a large extent, significantly limited in what they can or cannot do.

For instance, without money and with limited opportunity to earn legitimate money, women are basically going to be either wards of the state, or enslaved to the men or families in their lives, neither of which represents equality or fairness.  While there is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with women that desire to simply find a husband and thereby to create a family, it should be a choice made by the woman, voluntarily, and further, should be a choice that is made, with the woman having had a fair chance to educate herself and to find fair employment at fair pay.

Mankind, for whatever reasons, seems to enjoy lording it over other people, whether it is the male over the female, or one race over another race, or one country over another, or the rich ruling the poor, but just because that is the way things have been, does not mean that it is the right way for things to be, for it is not.  The greatest countries are the countries that do not preclude dreams and opportunities being presented to all, because they do not prejudge a person based on sex, creed, caste or so forth, but are willing to engage others based on their individual merits and their unique character.

Women that are not free, and are given limited educational and economic opportunity, are no credit to any society that allows such to occur.  Those that wish to oppress others in all of its many forms, can find all sorts of so-called authoritative writings or voices to justify their actions and behaviors, in addition to a whole slew of reasons why such and such benefits or protects the person in question, but few of those crying the loudest for such fundamentalist claims are willing to suffer personally from the same restrictions that they desire so richly to impose upon others, indicating the corruptness and emptiness of what they preach.

The Biggest Gamble of them all

When you go to a casino, or play the lottery, the money that you risk is real money, and that money when lost to the casino is lost forever and you cannot get it back, though many try again and again to do so, until the game finally ends.  In life, whether you recognize it or not, you are gambling, though, not with money, per se, but with your eternal destiny, making this the true gambles of gambles.  The first disadvantage that many people suffer from is in their non-recognition, that whatever that they do and perform on this good earth actually does makes an eternal difference.  Then there are those that believe somehow that they can cheat the final Judge by all the various types of sleight-of-hand, or legalisms, failing to recognize that there are no shortcuts to Heaven.

There are a fair amount of preachers that preach forgiveness and grace for sins that you have committed deliberately or not, which apparently, can be mitigated by loving much in return, or by sacrificing yourself to a greater good, and so forth; while this certainly has its merit, it is the height of foolishness to really believe that a lifetime of sin and wrong actions, can be made good in the final days or final moments of anyone's life by a few right actions and love, but that judgment is the Lords' only to make, but to rely on such to save oneself is pretty much misguided.

In point of fact, if more people were to be cognizant that everything that we do on a daily basis has consequences and kept this foremost in their mind in which by this knowledge they made better and more conscientious decisions, the world would be a better place to live in.  It just isn’t possible, that a world that demonstrates so vividly and so often man's inhumanity to man is actually filled with present day angels, because angels would not behave that way, therefore, we must see the world for what it really is, and endeavor to do our part to make the world a better place by our having been here.  Each of us has our part to play; each of us has their role to play, and the better that we are at our endeavors, the greater our joy and the fruits thereof.

Those that act and behave as if life has no meaning, as if life has no purpose, aren't typically going to make good or certainly not the best decisions, which is why it is so important to be educated that life does indeed have meaning, and that life does indeed have consequences, and that these consequences have a direct correlation to ourselves and how we have interacted with those that surround us.  This world isn't a "free ride" nor is it unmitigated misery for those that suffer much, there is purpose, of which perhaps because we know so little, we sometimes fail to see it as clearly as we should, but the clearer our vision, the clearer we will see what we should be doing.

Of course, knowing what to do is certainly not the same as doing, as many people have the rather bad habit of stating with confidence one thing, but enacting in actuality something entirely different and way too often that change is one that reflects selfishness at the expense of doing right.  This life is your legacy and that legacy lives on well after your life has run its course, to wit, you cannot undo what you have already done, whether right or wrong, therefore do right, for righteousness best gives tribute to He who represents both eternal truth and equitable justice.