Recording Governmental Employees

We live in an age in which technology in many of its most common forms has become priced so that it can be purchased by the masses, if they are inclined to do so.  Specifically, smart phones are ubiquitous and while recordings can be done with audio/visual equipment that costs thousands upon thousands of dollars more, so too it can be done with even the most basic of smart phones. 

We live in an era in which the private sector, that is, your everyday citizen, seems to have ceded more and more of their rights and more and more of their control of their life to governmental oversight, whether deliberately or not.  That is to say, citizens, quite frequently have to interact with governmental employees to receive all types of governmental benefits, or governmental licensing or governmental approvals on so many activities that an average citizen cannot properly conduct their day-to-day activities without having had some sort of interaction with some governmental agency at some point.

While these interactions with governmental employees can be as basic as through internet communications such as chat and email, it is also quite common to interact with governmental employees through the telephone or in-person.  All of these interactions involve private citizens, or citizens acting in such a capacity interacting with governmental employees, in which, governmental employees as a matter of function and public policy, are implicitly performing their duties as a service to their constituents.

There are many, many people that have been frustrated at one time or another with their service with governmental employees, especially frustrating is situations in which such a citizen feels powerless to effect change, as if in those situations, it is the citizen that is playing the role of begging for satisfaction or service and the governmental employee playing the role of denying such, especially in a manner that indicates insensitivity, blithe unconcern, or arrogance.

You would think, that a citizen should always have the explicit right to record one’s activities with a governmental employee, while subject to some reasonable limitations, which would help overall to improve the customer to governmental employee interaction, for a recording of such, would be not only actionable evidence, but would probably have a strong tendency to keep both parties more civil and more responsive to one another.

Indeed, there are a couple of very basic things that would support such a recording as being a citizen’s right to do, in which, the first is the fact that as citizens we have Constitutional rights that preclude the government from silencing our freedom of speech or freedom of the press, in addition to the fact that these recordings are of public employees while operating in their capacity as public employees, and not recordings of private employees or private citizens that are within their own private, not public, space.

Additionally, the main purpose of such a recording is for the protection and entitlement of citizens, so that their word and their rights are not silenced by governmental employees that overstep their bounds, in addition, it protects governmental employees from harassment and such from private citizens, who have overstep their bounds.  In short, citizens should have the right to record and a right to present such a recording to a peer group that has the authority to effect change, when such evidence supports it.  This would most definitely be a benefit to citizens, who simply desire that the governmental employees of which their tax dollars foundationally support, would actually provide a fair service to them and other citizens.

The dark legacy of slavery and status

While American has taken many wonderful strides towards a more plural society, a more accepting society, and a true melting pot society, in which we must credit those people and those institutions that have promoted such, there is still, significantly too often a great divide between those that have simply because of the color of their skin as compared to others for are held back for the same.  While it may be said, that all non-Caucasian and non-Christian peoples of America have suffered at some point and for some time from prejudice and unfairness, the vast majority of those suffering from such, entered this country implicitly, if not explicitly voluntarily, whereas for those that are African-American and have history that dates back to antebellum times, came here mostly as slaves, in which, in this land of America, the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court, as stated by the hand of Chief Justice Taney that the black man was, "….so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect…"

It took a bloody civil war, a great President, dedicated sacrifice, as well as an Emancipation Proclamation, which, in turn was followed by the important and critical passage of the 13th-15h Amendments that finally abolished the abominable institution of slavery, provided equal protection under the law for all races, and the enfranchisement of voting for all races.  Unfortunately, there are words, there are laws, and there are the results of such in real application, in which, especially in the defeated southern states, things went back to the norm, which meant that blacks although not legally enslaved, were in many cases, for all practicalities, still in servitude with little rights that any white man of the street need respect, and an uneven and often aborted experience in expressing their suffrage at the ballot box.

As time moved on, progress was made for true civil rights here and there, helped by our activity in fighting wars abroad with soldiers of all colors, helped by the courts, helped by progressives of all races and creeds, helped by the initiatives of activist people that suffered indignities and injustices for their assertion of basic Constitutional rights, in which, slowly and inexorably, progress was accomplished. Yet, despite pockets of real merit, pockets of fairness, pockets of courtesy, pockets of consideration, the legacy of slavery still lives on and is obvious in its effects which is clear to anyone of reasonable perception.

For instance, on virtually every possible meaningful metric, those that come from a legacy of slavery, still suffer for it, from education, from housing, from well being, from healthcare, from opportunity, from policing, from justice, from wealth, from perception, from segregation, from separation, and from freedom.  Too often in America, there are still two distinct worlds, separate and unequal, in which the crime that has been committed by those that lack, is simply the color of their skin, nothing more, and nothing less. 

America compels African-Americans to pay their fair share, to obey the law, to pay their taxes as if they are equal, but treats them in application as if they are not; America, too often, demonstrates its hypocrisy in large things and small, in which African-Americans again and again, are discriminated against, explicitly and implicitly by a government of the people that is supposed to treat all with equality, justice, and fairness.  Too often the poetic words that America speaks so elegantly for are meaningless, as the results prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that African-Americans consistently have their dreams, their hopes, and their desires, crushed by the oppressive hands of a government that preaches one thing and lives out something more true to its corrupt and damnable character.

The Supreme Court Trumps all

Our government is broken into three separate branches, the Legislative which makes laws, the Executive that executes such laws, and the Judicial that evaluates and interprets laws.  This separation of powers as created by our Constitution was deliberate in which the thought process was that no single branch of the government would ever be so powerful as to create a nation-state that would be tyrannical against the people, for this nation was created to be for the people, by the people, and of the people.

Today, in way too many ways, the Supreme Court isn't really ruling as to whether a law is or is not Constitutional, but has aggrandized unto itself, the ability and the power to simply create new law, where there was no law before, which because the Supreme Court is the highest court of the land, when they enact such a decision, essentially making new law, this therefore impacts the entire United States.  For instance, and really irrelevant to whether you are politically left or right, the Supreme Court adjudicated recently that same-sex marriages are a national right, as well as previously that one's right to privacy entails ultimately the right to terminate one's own pregnancy.

While those that applaud such decisions are delighted with them, the fact of the matter is, that when a tribunal of nine justices are permitted to decide on vital questions that affect the whole people, and such decisions are irrevocable, than the necessity or relevancy of the legislative and executive branches have become not only nullified, but almost irrelevant.  In addition, the very people that are supposed to be masters of their own country are instead to live in a country, in which nine unelected and life-tenured Supreme Court justices don't just argue over a particular and specific case, but  too often render decisions in a manner that overturns long standing legislative and Constitution law, in which no longer do you have a nation that adheres to a written Constitution, but instead it has devolved into a land that is effectively run by a majority of a tribunal of nine, since they, and seemingly they alone, can decide what is or isn't the law of the land, and dictate to the people by their decisions, their activist beliefs.

Our Constitution is not a perfect document, the people that wrote it and the States that ratified it, knew that at that time, which is why there was so much debate, compromise, opinion, discussion points, and give and take at its inception.  Nevertheless, this written Constitution is the law of the land, and within that Constitution there are specific ways to amend laws, such as through the ratification of Amendments to the Constitution, of which, there have been a total of twenty-seven amendments made to our present day Constitution, of which ten of them, known as our Bill of Rights, were immediately part of our Constitution to begin with.

It is one thing to made an appropriate Amendment to the Constitution, which necessitates, debate, compromise, and an appropriate majority ascending to such, and an entirely different thing, when five Supreme Court justices tell the other four Supreme Court justices what the law is, and then imprint such a law unto the American people, without this law having been voted upon, legislated, or its appropriateness debated. 

The mistake that is made today, is forgetting that the Supreme Law of the land is the Constitution, itself, not the Supreme Court, as some sort of living justified embodiment of the Constitution.   This would so indicate, that decisions made by the Supreme Court which are in violation to the Constitution, or activist personal interpretations of such, have no real or legitimate validity, especially because the executive and legislative branches as representatives of the people are entitled to overrule wrongful interpretations of the Constitution, or, if they do not, they have vacated their sacred duty to their constituents, our honored dead, and the founders of this great republic.

What Government Control of the Economy Really Means

People, in general, desire consistency and implicit guarantees, so that if they do their part in getting educated and preparing themselves for gainful employment, that they should thereby always be employed on a consistent and reliable basis.  While that type of world certainly seems desirable, undoubtedly preferred, it isn't something that can be guaranteed by any government, unless such a government exercises the power to control everything in regards to the people and their choices, effectively eliminating free choice and negating free decisions. 

On the surface, this reminds one of repressive nations that put forth five-year plans, ten-year plans, and the like, only to see these plans constantly revised again and again, for their objectives never are reached, and hence always therefore revised or faked.  The main reason that planned economies fail, is not that the government doesn't have control of the people, for they basically do, but rather that these coerced actions by the government disengages the people from being as productive as they would normally be, with the additional issue that the governmental elite privileges itself so that the rules most definitely do not apply to them.

This means that the more power that the people cede to government, as well as the more freedoms that are sacrificed for their alleged security, along with the more arbitrary rules and regulations that employers are compelled to obey, the inevitable result will be less overall freedom that is permitted to occur for the people, in which this type of bargain, often results in the people gaining little, if anything, and losing the very essence of what it means to be gifted with free will, free choice, and a free mind.

The greatness of any nation is in direct relationship to the freedom and fair opportunities that it provides for each citizen, in which, those citizens, jointly or individually, can as they so choose, provide aid or mentoring to others, so that those on the lower echelons are helped to advance to a superior level.  The government of such a people, because it both represents the people as well as in actuality being the ultimate arbiter of fairness, has an obligation to behave as much as possible, in an impartial, objective, and in cases in which much previous wrong has been done, set standards to ameliorate and to thereby help restore wholeness to those so oppressed.

The economy is ultimately made up of the people with their intelligence, their knowhow, their vision, their capital, their negotiations, and their productivity in which the true purpose of the government isn't so much to be laissez–faire, but rather, as necessary, the government has an inherent obligation and purpose to breakup concentrated power, to eliminate crony capitalism, assure fair taxation, to forgo foreign wars done at the behest of the military-industrial complex, and to eliminate unfair profiteering in times of trouble.  If these things are done right, our economy will take care of itself, for it is, after all, these free American people that created this greatest nation on earth.

The People, Our Declaration, and our Constitution

Before there was our present day  Constitution there was the Articles of Confederation, which basically represented our first constitution, but the articles lacked the ability to take the now thirteen states and truly unite them under one body politic, essentially necessary in order to appropriately deal with the world at large, for trade, for debt, for just about everything, and hence there was a felt the need, as well as an urgency, that a central government, with limited and delegated powers, be created, which was done, with the final state ratifying our governing Constitution accomplished n 1790. 

The Constitution, itself, was controversial, full of vigorous debates, with some adamantly opposed to a strong central government, and others recognizing the need for such, in which, the slippery slope that all wished to avoid, was any sort of return to the tyranny that a bloody independence war had been fought for.  One of the most important measures created for the people, was the creation of the Bill of Rights to our Constitution, in which the rights of the people, were clearly written into that Constitution.  These rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, protection of the rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as the fact that the rights and powers not specifically enumerated or delegated would be retained by the people or the states, all represented to the people the essential message as distilled by President Lincoln, that this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

It is fundamental to remember that our Declaration of Independence, our raison d'être, recognized that each of us is gifted inalienably with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and it is those very gifts, that created the common sense to declare and to fight for our independence from Great Britain.  This means that any government, so created, by these United States, in order for it to still be considered both legitimate and in keeping with the harmony of our Declaration of Independence, must as a matter of course, do nothing to steal these very inalienable rights from the people.  Further to the point, the Constitution is not really set forth as a document for the people to bow down and pay obeisance to, but rather clearly represents a document that asserts the people's inalienable rights, their basic freedoms and protections, and that the only legitimate national government is the one that truly represents all of the people, with equality, fairness, and justice for all.

Unfortunately, not too surprisingly, the national government, has gotten more powerful, more intrusive, more controlling, more taxing, and more tyrannical, over the ages, so that at the present day, many people rightly fear this government's power for rather than the people being the masters of their own fate, this inalienable power has been wrested from the people's hands, their God-given choices nullified, and too often, the government asserts its powers against the people in a concerted and concentrated force to exact whatever they so desire from them.

We now live in a bifurcated country, in which, our masters and their cohorts do as they please, with the vast majority of citizens, monitored, categorized and watched, in which this government tells the people that this is necessary for their protection, but in reality, done so as to benefit the avarice of the elite, so that our inalienable rights and our Constitution guarantees, are trampled upon by the very government, established for our benefit.

Laws, Legality, and Morals

We are told to "obey the law", which on the most simplest of terms, seems to make sense, but life isn't as simple as just obeying man's law.  For example, laws change, all of the time, so that things that are presently illegal such as slavery, were once accepted and legal; whereas things that are currently legal such as abortion, were once illegal, and so on and so forth.  So too, we have many different courts of law, that adjudicate whether a particular thing is legal or illegal, in addition to the fact that man has created so many laws, as well as having so many rules and regulations, that inevitably some of these laws or rules contradict or override another law, so that even if an individual had an innate desire to always obey man's law, they wouldn't be able to, because of inherent contradictions between laws, misinterpretation of laws, and lack of knowledge of certain laws.

The laws that are presented to us today, are for the most part, man's law, of which some of these laws have come from our legislatures, some from executive decree, and some from activist judges, in which, man's laws and their application are then adjudicated by the judicial branch of the courts, in which, one branch, can overrule another, and where precedent of laws may or may not be overturned, making for a rather motley stew of laws that man is supposed to obey.

But what of all this obedience, when each of us is gifted with an innate sense of right and wrong, in which, quite clearly there are laws that simply are fundamentally flawed or wrong, whether recognized on that particular day or not.  That is to say, man is consistently fallible, man is mutable, as well as mankind changes with the times, thereby blowing both with the wind and against it, and in short, because of its governance creates some laws through an often corrupt system that aids and abets one particular segment of the population that has the ear of power, while ignoring or dismissing those that do not.

All of this necessitates that rather than blinding following any law, there should be an overriding principle that guides all laws, that is both consistent and just.  That law exists, in which it is known as natural law, the law that states that a legitimate law must be in accordance with the Highest Law, of which that law, is always just, equally applied, and immutable.  This means that rather than blinding following any law, no matter the penalties or consequences of failing to adhere to such, that we have an inborn duty to disobey an unjust law, and thereby to act in accordance with the highest form of law, that cannot be rightly trumped by anything, because this Highest Law is eternal, just, and moral.

So that, because man's law does conflict with the Highest Law, there are worldly consequences suffered for those that disobey the dark arm of the law as applied by man, yet this rebellion must be made, for our highest duty is not to corruptible man, but to our Creator, who expects nothing less from his progeny.  This means that slogans or propaganda such as "What is legal is moral", or "What is legal is right" are a grand disservice to mankind, for legality as applied and exercised by man, is far too often for the benefit and service of a privileged few to the detriment of the many.

The American Empire

America celebrates its Independence Day on July 4, each and every year, but in actuality, the real celebration in America for its independence won from Great Britain, should be held on September 3, as this was the date in 1783, that Great Britain formally acknowledged the independence of America, with the Treaty of Paris, for the war fought over the preceding years.  Since that time, the original independent thirteen colonies of America have become the fifty States of the United States of America, in which America through its belief in "Manifest Destiny" conquered, claimed, and won lands from Native American Indians as well as the country of Mexico, along with buying lands from foreign powers, all to create our present day America.

So too, while America has fought or been an active force in numerous wars since its founding, it has, claimed, or ending up controlling virtually only strategic islands around the oceans of the world, in order to established naval bases for the protection and maintenance of the United States, as well as being strategically placed to assist its allies.  The overall restraint that America has shown in regards to foreign countries and the resources of other sovereign nations has been quite impressive, up to a point, but digging beneath the surface, vividly demonstrates that the American fingerprint is worldwide, invasive, pervasive, and relentless.

For instance, as reported by thenation.com, "there are now around 800 US bases in foreign countries," whereas they are exactly zero foreign bases in America.  In addition, the "unofficial" reserve currency of the world, is the United States dollar, as well as the financial capital of the world is generally considered to be New York City, in which the two biggest stock exchanges in the world, are the New York Stock Exchange, and the NASDAQ, both located in the United States.  Also, the seminal United Nations is headquartered in New York City, in which, the United States as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, has veto power, indicating that resolutions that it does not approve of, cannot be formally adapted by the United Nations.

Additionally, virtually the entire world has been subject to  some degree to exploitation by the United States, in particular, in third world or developing nations, for their valuable natural resources that the United States  or its allies so desires, in which, deals are constructed that are primarily beneficial for America as a whole to the exclusion of the sovereignty of the countries that "own" the mineral resources, as America's expertise and infrastructure, are often seen as necessary for the competent development of these natural resources.  History has also demonstrated to us, that America meddles in foreign nations by supporting or propping up leaders that are beneficial for America, while killing or marginalizing those that are not. 

When it comes to trade, America trades with virtually every nation across the globe, which while providing benefits on both sides of the table, also often necessitates an actual presence of American knowhow and infrastructure onto those same foreign lands, in which, America has demonstrated again and again, that once they establish a foothold upon foreign soil, they do not often cede ground.   For instance, although the Cuban embargo has been in effect since 1960, and despite repeated attempted assassinations of Fidel Castro, America, never has relinquished their control of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base which is actually part of Cuba, our historical foe.

The American Empire is truly worldwide and while America does not ostensibly insist upon tribute, tribute is paid to it, each and every day, directly or indirectly, and those that are obtuse enough to actually spit in America's face, will surely know the wrath that this Empire will bring upon them.

Stock Market Leverage and Panic

As of June, 2017, the stock market indexes are essentially at all-time highs which have increased the net worth of individuals considerably from the stock market lows of 2008, but like anything, nothing rises forever, and fundamentally stock prices have to have some sort of tangible relationship to the underlying intrinsic worth of the stock to begin with.  When times are good, a lot of this is somewhat ignored, for markets in America, are quite liquid, consistently and reliably open, and with both buyers and sellers in abundance, the market is said to be efficient.

Another prospective, though, would indicate that markets are not quite as quiescent, reliable, and consistent as one might imagine them to be, in fact, to ignore this, may entail rather dire financial consequences.  For instance, present day trading in stocks, are typically not conducted by individuals bargaining back and forth, as was the case, back when stocks exchanges were first conceived of, as the vast majority of trades are now automated, using advanced algorithms to take advantage of inconsistencies in pricing, trading patterns, and optimization, for such automation obviously carries the seeds of its own potential destruction, for "black swan" events do occur, and the robustness of automated trading strategies when panic is in the air is the true acid test of how failsafe that they really are.

Additionally, as in all investments, the leveraged of the money being utilized, especially the higher the amount of leverage drawn upon, creates a higher degree of volatility for the greater amounts of money so borrowed, which has to, at some point, be paid back, and those loaning such, have conditions that must be met, in which, within these terms and conditions, leverage, which institutions and individuals often take for granted, and even build their castles upon, cannot be guaranteed  continual access to, as well as the cost of that leverage can rise substantially, especially in the moments of time when most needed.  

Further to the point, the more leverage there is, the more potential panic there will be, as investors, automated or not, unwind voluntarily or involuntarily their stock portfolios, causing a cascade of selling pressure upon investors, so that investments that looked absolutely secured the evening before, have lost value in double-digits in one day, or even have collapsed completely as does happens occasionally to individual stocks, especially those that have questionable intrinsic value to begin with.

The difference between leveraged money and money that is actually yours, lock, stock, and barrel, is the difference between night and day, in which, leveraged money because it is leveraged, loves the market when times are good, and when times are bad, has as its overriding objective, a flight to safety, in which, the first one out of a sinking ship, has first access to the safety boats so attached.   This means when there are nothing but sellers, prices fall, and they will fall precipitously, and while pundits admonish us all of the time that the best time to buy is when there is "blood in the streets", panics have a way of feeding upon themselves, because most people have an abiding interest in at least retaining a portion of what they once had, rather than the ignominy of losing it all.

The bottom line is that borrowed money and leveraged used in investments, will ultimately create more volatility and far less stability, especially since so many believe in their infallibility as well as their impeccable timing, till a monstrous panic ensues, whereupon greed takes a back seat to pure unmitigated fear.

Bad Times for Labor

According to governmental statistics, unemployment is around 4.3%, which as reported by NYtimes.com, on 6/2/17, is "its lowest level in 16 years", in which historically low unemployment rates would necessitate better wages for those that are employed, but statistics also demonstrate to us, as reported by pewresearch.org that "today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979," indicating that despite all of the productivity growth America has accomplished since 1979, that this has not translated into wage growth for the average laborer, which means somewhat obviously that the main beneficiary of this productive increase has gone to the owners of businesses and/or those that control the capital in the first place.

Further to the point, the world has shrunk considerably since 1979, in which there are less and less onerous tariffs associated to the trade and selling of goods worldwide, along with the fact that governments such as the USA consistently aids and abets exporting jobs that previously were performed here in America, being outsourced overseas, so that while American consumers benefit in lower cost products domestically, they also lose out on employment opportunities because those jobs no longer exist locally as American labor costs cannot compete in many professions, against foreign labor.

Additionally, companies make it a point to automate the things that can be efficiently automated for the dual reasons of the benefit of capital expenses as well as capital depreciation, which helps the company from a tax liability standpoint as well as the fact that automation and robotics are often labor saving devices, if not initially, then projected to be so.

All of the above puts extensive pressure upon labor, so that a significant amount of the jobs that people are presently employed in, don't pay well now, won't pay well in the future, and have limited upside for laddering up for those so employed.  In addition, to that fundamental issue, labor, unlike machinery, has associated costs that are mandated by various, somewhat intrusive, government agencies, such as OSHA standards, healthcare, vacation, sick leave, holidays, overtime, and so on and so forth, whereas machinery, does not have the equivalency of these things attached to it.

In this type of environment, especially in an age in which labor unions have become, especially in the private sector, almost irrelevant, the sole laborer, unattached to anything, that is, a free agent, often working under the semantic of "right to work" gobbledygook, has virtually no power, no matter how much value that person brings to the table, to demand, much of anything from management, especially when working in an industry, in which they are just another cog in the machine.

In short, just because you are employed, doesn't mean that you're making money, or progress, or a living wage, for as reported by fortune.com, "42% of all workers in the United States fit this bill," of making less than $15/hour, and as long as companies can outsource jobs overseas without penalty, can depreciate and expense capital equipment but never do the same with human labor, and labor unions remain essentially non-existent, it will continue to be for a significant amount of good Americans:  bad times for labor.

As ye deal to others, so will it be dealt to thee

We read in Holy Scripture: "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you" (Matthew 7:2).   This statement is something that all should take to heart, for in America, there is a strong tendency for some to believe that they are for whatever reason, above the law, or that rules and regulations that should be equally applied to all, doesn't really apply to them, or that shortcuts of various guises, are legitimate in all of their myriad forms, but all of these are both short-sighted as well as selfish in concept and execution.

For it is wise to remember, that the eternal hand of justice is always fair, and no matter how fallible man tries to deceive others, he cannot fool his God.   Of course, the most fundamental deception is the deception of oneself, which is done by believing that things that you do are fine, because it is you that is doing them and you basically mean right, even when your actions are both self-serving and foundationally wrong.  In fairness, though, it is extremely difficult to step outside one's own persona, and actually perceive yourself for what you really are, so you would think that in recognition of this, more people would be more humble, and more willing to admit at least the possibility of their fallibility, along with being more understanding that other people may indeed have perceptions about yourself that do have validity.

Further to the point, the empathy that one person should have for another is often lacking, if even considered to begin with, so too, it's well nigh impossible to walk in another person's shoes, so that appropriate consideration of other people's beliefs, which allows a dialog to happen is far more conducive to mutually beneficial interaction than didactic actions by either party, even when the answer seems rather straightforward or obvious.

For instance, most people have lived long enough to change their minds about some things that are of high import to them, because they have developed both experience and wisdom over the years, and are therefore able to see the error of their ways, but, most of the time, they do not come to such a conclusion through repeated browbeating by another person, but instead are often better aided by those that point them in the right direction so that they often on their own, they are able to perceive what has always been there.

The very things that we want from others in regards to how we desire to be treated and how we desire to be perceived, should be the way that we go about our business with others, so that a world in which we receive like for like, will indeed be a world that we find much joy in, for the change that we wish to see in others, must first be well represented in ourselves.  Not only must we believe in this change, we must live daily to this change, for the fairness that we so desire, must be the fairness that we display in all of our interactions, and measure for measure is a universal law that all are subject to, and therefore all should take good measure of.

Driverless Cars

To a certain degree, the whole thing about autonomous vehicles seems to be a very surprising new development, as trial balloons, are floated all of the time, of various futuristic items and things, of which, many do not even come close to anything other than the most basic of outlines, a theory, or a design, whereas on the other hand, driverless cars are actually here, and actually happening right now, in which states such as Florida, have passed legislation permitting true driverless cars on their public roads, that is to say, that there is no requirement whatsoever that a physical driver be at the control of the wheel, which is rather amazing. 

America is both a litigious society as well as seemingly covered with endless reams of red tape and paperwork, but here in the case of driverless cars, significant progress has been made and not really been held back too much by activist judges or closed-minded legislatures.  This feat is rather mind boggling, because not only are there an incredible amount of vehicles on the public roads to begin with, but there are all sorts of rules, restrictions, and regulations for those vehicles.  That is to say, in order to operate a vehicle, you must both be a licensed driver and you must have insurance, for accidents happen all of the time, and the liability of such, are litigated and/or settled by insurance companies on a daily basis for a lot of money. 

Then, and this is just scratching the very surface of autonomous vehicles on public roads, you have a myriad of things to consider about such vehicles being on the road, such as: what directive has been given to driverless cars in regards to when pedestrians, vehicles, and other obstructions when a collision of some sort cannot be avoided; what protections are there for driverless cars that the functioning of such won't be compromised by some outside force;  what happens when one of the driverless cars functions or fails unexpectedly; or what happens with driverless vehicles in extreme weather conditions, and so on and so forth. That said, there is another very important factor to consider when it comes to driverless vehicles, which is, that driverless vehicles are sharing the road with vehicles that have drivers, and human beings are not machines, and therefore don't always do what logically they should do, in fact, you can expect the unexpected from humans, so that driverless cars may not act "illogically" in situations in which that would actually be their best maneuver.

Additionally, it is important to consider that autonomous vehicles are in the industry of car manufacturing, car repair, and car insurance, that is absolutely massive on a global scale, so anything that helps to boost sales, or increases the velocity of turnover of vehicles is beneficial for such an industry.  Also, car manufacturers and hi-technology companies are working together to create these driverless vehicles, so that, if you were to take the sheer size of the players in the field of driverless vehicles, which includes some of the biggest multi-national corporations in the world such as General Motors, Ford, Daimler, Baidu, Intel, Bosch, Delphi, Huawei, and Microsoft, to mention just some of them, their influence that they are able to exert upon legislatures of all stripes is tremendous, especially when it comes to the lure of additional tax revenues or jobs.

This means that the narrative of driverless vehicles undoubtedly supports a fairly aggressive unrolling of such, because there is money to be made, as well as opportunities to grow, to wit, driverless cars are already here, and their presence is scheduled to increase substantially in the next few years, of which the picture being painted is that doing such will provide public benefits such as safer roads, fuel efficiency, and more freed up personal time, but the downside, and there are always downsides, are basically marginalized and dismissed as unprogressive thinking.

Sin: Defined

Of course, in today's more secular society, many people do not ever use the word sin, in any of their conversations, which is rather perplexing, for we have all kinds of laws, all kinds of duties, all kinds of obligations, which are built upon a very basic foundation that certain things are right, and certain things are wrong, in which wrong and sin are typically synonymous with one another.  Be that as it may, in formal religious organizations, sin is most definitely a word that patrons are familiar with and good church goers make a concerted effort to avoid such.  Still, in church or without, there are constant debates as to what is or is not a sin, in which, many believe that somehow sin is fluctuates with the times of the age.

Life though, isn't really taking something as significant as sin, and then interpreting sin or re-interpreting sin to fit into whatever construct that has been established in one's mind, nor is life about mindlessly conforming to man's law, which is often mutable, inconsistent, and substandard, but rather life is really about getting oneself into harmony with the Creator of it all.  So that, sin should actually be looked upon as anything which takes us away from God, which thereby loses our friendship and devotion to God, with the result that muddies our relationship with God, and that ultimately turns us away from God.

Think about this very carefully, for those that find this rather hard to understand, which is that in order to be in harmony with God, in order to become one with God, our mind-spirit must be 100% in accordance with our God, any anything that take away from such, is, when distilled, sin.  This is not to say, that each day we should be constantly meditating quietly with our Lord, or contemplating  only upon His words, while doing none of our duties for our brothers and sisters on earth, for that for a certainty, is selfish on our behalf, for we are truly responsible for our neighbors here on earth; instead, rather, it means that our activities, our thoughts, as well as our actions, should be in conformance with the truth, love, mercy, and justice of God, for these are the very attributes of our God.

We have no greater friend than the Incomparable One that created us and our hearts will forever be restless till we rest back in conjunction with our Creator.  Beyond all duties, beyond all obligations, there is the overriding need to seek out the True Light, for all else, are, at best, mere reflections of such, and none of these, will ever truly satisfy ourselves, for the purity of Our Lord, can never be tarnished in any way, form, or manner. 

We, that truly desire to be servants to our God, demonstrate such service, in our devotion to the fruits of the spirit, which are: "….love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance…" (Galatians 5:22-23), as these are indeed the spiritual stepping stones needed for each of us to find our way back to our Almighty One.  Those that are true friends with our Creator have no sin, and those that sacrifice that friendship for momentary glory or selfishness, sacrifice such to the detriment of such friendship.

The Utility of College Education

The government provides us with "free" public education until we graduate from high school, in which, all things considered, since that education is free, it would behoove those attending such, to take advantage of that zero cost and thereby acquired skills, a skill-set, good habits, good focus, and a plan for furthering that education whereby in all likelihood, they or their family members will be on the hook for a substantial amount of the cost of post-secondary education, for the thing about college, depending upon the institution, your location, and the actual college itself, is that the amount of money that has to be devoted to it can easily exceed $100,000 or even more, with absolute no guarantee that the student will receive a collegiate graduate degree, whatsoever, but in any event, successful or not, the bill will be due and payable, and cannot be discharged even by personal bankruptcy.

Since, a vast segment of the population, struggles with bills on a monthly basis, the taking on of any debt, especially substantial debt, should be carefully and thoughtfully considered, for to try and fail in the college realm, has lifelong financial consequences.  In addition, the dumbing down of college curriculum, the addition of an endless amount of virtually useless college majors, along with for-profit colleges both online or in class that are deliberately inclusive because they are practically useless, makes maneuvering the roads of where to go for those desiring to attend college, much more hazardous and problematic.

Fundamentally, the thing that many students get wrong, is that the name of the institution that one does graduate from, while having a value, should be weighed against the cost of attending such an institution should one be accepted, so that, colleges of great reputation, may not have the utilitarian value that makes it really worthwhile for a given student.   So too, the two most important things about attending college are actually graduating with the degree and preferably graduating with a degree which has real relevancy to the actual job that you apply for and receive, for if you end up working in a field which has little or nothing to do with your major, it would imply rather strongly that the practical purposes of that major were misstated.

Further to the point of majors that are never activated, is that the sheer number of college graduates, from whatever colleges, cheapens the value of such an education in the real world of jobs, which is especially troubling for those that owe the money for such an education.  That is to say, for example, the more people that have liberal arts degrees, would mean that there are more people applying for the same positions, which not only would result in a downward pressure of salary requirements or offers, but would, as a matter of course, mean a lower and lower percentage of those receiving such a degree finding successful employment in that field.  Education is not like a "Field of Dreams", in which it is, get the education, and they will hire you in that field, but instead it is more akin to a calculated gamble, in which many people don't recognize it as such, believing that the degree itself solves all, but alas, it doesn't.

The above signifies that college attendees should be motivated to seek our majors in fields in which there is not already an oversupply or anticipated oversupply of graduates in such fields, as well as being value conscious, so that a prudent student would shop for the best college deal that they can get, in recognition, that in most instances, a degree from one college is basically of the same worth of another, and that therefore shopping for luxury brands as opposed to practical, should be consciously thought through.

The Government always says that they are after the "Bad Guys"

When the government, the police, the media, or the justice department, start off with "we had to get the bad guy," that should send a signal to your brain, that in actuality the story that is about to be told isn't close to being the truth of the matter.  The reason that so often we hear that a certain country needs to be bombed, or a certain person needs to be assassinated, is because they are "bad", and this bad must be eliminated not so much by good, but by the power of those that claim the moniker of doing good.

Everyone wants to take the moral high ground, and thereby sell themselves as upholding goodness and justice, whereas life, itself, is far more complicated, far more nuanced, and far more intricate, than the cookie cutter sound-bites that we get.   The fact of the matter is that certain people do bad things, but to then conclude that these people are simply bad, or that certain countries do bad things, so therefore these countries are simply bad, is convenient, an excuse, but is inherently unjust and untrue.

The fact of the matter is that demonizing people or countries is rather convenient especially for those that control the narrative but is often not truthful or just.  Truth be told, the mighty and powerful are not always good, not everyone that puts on a military uniform is good or just, not every police officer that proudly wears the badge does justice to their department, not every person or country that is typically perceived as "good" is good, and certainly not every person or country that is drawn as "bad" is bad. So when governments that are long standing with Constitutions that are exceedingly well written, take it upon themselves to try to box those that they cannot control, or those that the wish to exploit, or those that have a different but legitimate mindset, into the category of "badness", one must recognized right away, that this is done for the sole purpose of selling the idea to the general population that good has a responsibility to eliminate bad, which is a rather simplistic and often tragic viewpoint.

Too often in life it is the victor who writes the history, and it is that victor that places itself in the role of goodness, that defeats those that represent badness, which merely is just another way of preaching that "might makes right", and is a disservice to the truth.  While bad actions should never be rewarded, so too, those that take on the guise of being good, while in actuality, creating unnecessary havoc, confusion, intolerance and hatred, should be held accountable for their deception and deliberate obfuscation of the truth.

Too many countries and too many people behave in actuality just like the Pharisees of old, "they love the place of honor at banquets… they love to be greeted with respect… " (Matthew 23:6,7), but in reality they are the hypocrites of the highest order, believing themselves to be without sin or dishonor, while all others fall far short of their exalted selves.  Sure, evil exists and persists, but it is self-serving to see it always in others, but never within ourselves.

Buy Local -- Your Money Matters

The big chain stores, both online and your traditional brick and mortar, seem every year, to take more and more market share from independent shop owners and other stores that aren't able to successfully compete with them.  From a pure competitive standpoint, the competition isn't even fair to begin with, for behemoths such as Wal-Mart, for instance, are often able to negotiate special terms with city and country officials, to forgo property tax payments for years upon years, along with the subsidy or easement of road access and so on and so forth.  This means, that what it costs for a Wal-Mart to create, build, and operate their store is typically far cheaper than those that are in the same marketplace and wish to compete against them, for not only does your Wal-Mart reap the tax benefits, but also because of their sheer size they are typically able to get the best deals from vendors,  who are often not even based within America, so that when Wal-Mart advertises that they are selling at "everyday low prices" they are pretty much telling the truth about the pricing, but not bothering to tell the truth about how they got to that pricing.

The thing about shopping at Wal-Mart, is that your money that is spent purchasing what appears to be cheaper goods, sits in the Wal-Mart cash register for a moment, before the bulk of that money goes out and on to regional headquarters and well beyond, whereas if your money was spent locally at an independent store or a regional division of an independent store chain that was essentially local within the community at large, than your dollars would mainly stay within that community and would re-circulate within that same community.  Sure, no doubt, Wal-Mart pays wages to their local workers as well as contributing somewhat to the employment of some transportation in regards to goods that arrive at their given facility, but local stores do the same and more, because they bank within the community, their corporate offices are local to the community, and thereby for the most part the dollars spent shopping at their establishment, stay within that community.

Of course, for many families, money is rather tight, as well as they want to make the best decisions in the expenditure of that money, but often there are establishments, such as restaurants, entertainment venues, convenience stores, and various department stores, that are competitive against the big box players, on a like for like basis, that would definitely appreciate your business as well as keep that money flowing within the community.  Logically, money spent at local establishments helps to keep your neighbors employed as well as being better for the local infrastructure that is necessary for every community in order to function well and to grow.

Every time that you spend your money, you are voting with that money, and if that money is spent without forethought on mega corporations and the like, this money has in essence been siphoned away from your community, which primarily benefits those that are to a certain extent, exploiting or extracting your monetary resources to satiate their own.  When, on the other hand, you spend your money on local establishments, you are directly and indirectly helping your community, by contributing to the velocity of the money that resides within that community, in which, the more that is locally spent and re-spent, keeps people employed and helps a community to stay strong and vibrant. 

It isn't so much that Wal-Mart or any of the big box corporations are evil, it has more to do with the fact that Wal-Mart's corporate overseers primarily see your community as something to profit upon in a manner in which they benefit more than your community benefits from having them there.

Liquor Store/Package Store

Depending upon where you live in the country, different States have different laws when it comes to the distribution and selling of liquor spirits, in which, you might think, that a business that specifically is selling liquor, would always be known as a liquor store, but in fact, that isn’t always the case.  There are areas in the country in the south as well as the northeast, that designate their liquor stores, under the moniker of "package store" which when first coming upon the term, it just doesn't make any real sense, as most people would not intuitively associate a package store with liquor, but like many things in life, there is a story behind this.

There are many reasons and theories given by various people as to why liquor stores are known in certain States of this country as package stores. For instance, some theorize that it's called a package store because some obscure State law necessitates that patrons cannot leave the premises with a liquor bottle without it being bagged, which has been henceforth translated into the vernacular of a package store.  Then there is those that say that back in the day, saloons and bars both sold liquor to consume on the premises as well as that they also sold liquor to take home, in which that liquor had to be "packaged", that is, bottled,  and hence the term package store.  Further, as reported by robertfmorris.com, the actual shipment and distribution of liquor initially was typically done through the usage and transport of kegs and barrels, because the transportation and distribution of such was not only much more convenient for the manufacturer but also more reliable in the sense of the prevention of breakage for the conveyance of these spirits, in addition to the fact, that once received by the saloon or liquor establishment, they would then be able to re-package the liquor distributed to them from kegs into bottles for the sale of these spirits to their consumers by drink or by bottle.

Eventually both the reliability of shipping goods in bottles and the distribution of such improved, in addition to the fact as further reported by robertfmorris.com, that State governments after prohibition stipulated specific rules and regulations that precluded distributors and sellers of liquors received of being permitted to take a barrel of liquor and thereby to re-package it into bottles on their premises, for fear that they might dilute or adulterate it in some way, doing such, in all probability to increase profits or to benefit certain proprietors who were in on the activity.  This meant, that the selling of liquor to the public was restricted to selling the liquor in the original package as distributed to the liquor store to begin with, which also meant that the manufacturers of liquor bottles now had more incentive to see that the liquor that they sold had their name attached to it which would represent their name well, and would also represent a product that was consistent in taste and strength.

Today, the term package store, as a synonym for a liquor store, just seems quaint, in which, such a naming convention has a lot more to do with government rules, regulations, and laws, in regards to the distribution and the selling of liquor, than anything else, logical or not.

Credit Cards and your protection

Credit cards are ubiquitous in America, in which, many people that have credit cards need them in order to literally make ends meet on a weekly basis, so that, when their credit card is declined at a grocery store, or department store, or wherever, they often are in relatively dire straits because they do not have available to them, additional credit on their debit card or any other credit card, because they are already "maxed" out.  This means, when a credit card holder is actually making a legitimate purchase and all previous purchases have also been legitimate, finds that their credit card is declined, it isn't necessarily just inconvenient, it can be somewhat catastrophic, for when you depend upon something that literally is your last line of defense, and it fails you, through no real fault of your own, that's a serious problem.

What makes a credit card that is declined, so upsetting especially to those that are absolutely dependent upon them, is that when a phone call is initiated by the holder of the credit card to the bank of record, in which, invariably during the conversation, the person representing the credit card issuer, will state, words to the effect that the card was declined or frozen, "for your protection", or "for your security", which may sound like the appropriate thing for them to say, it really often represents a rather weak smokescreen.  The reason these words are so annoying, is that the credit card issuer denying you your credit when, in fact, all charges are legitimate, has precluded you from accomplishing the very things that you need to accomplish on that day.  Further to the point, denial of credit at that particular date and time puts you in, at best, an embarrassing situation, and at worse, a literally hopeless one.

In point of fact, credit card rules in regards to fraudulent charges are quite fair to the consumer, in which, some credit card issuers do not hold their card holders liable for any fraudulent charges whatsoever, whereas others only hold the cardholder liable to the maximum amount permitted by federal law which is just $50.  The upshot of this federal law, though, is that the issuer of the credit card is consequently, since they are on the line for the fraudulent charges, in a position in which they want to be very diligent in the protection of that credit so that they are not stuck with fraudulent charges that they cannot recover from either the merchant or the person that perpetrated the fraud to begin with.  This means, that algorithms by the credit card issuer are created that in almost all cases, initiates the fraud alert, and that it is this algorithm that determines whether a pattern or charge necessitates the freezing of a particular person's credit card account.  While that certainly makes sense, and certainly seems reasonable, it also means, that conservatively done, there will be a meaningful portion of fraud alerts that are "false" positives, which is obviously rather unfortunate for the credit card holder that has no illegitimate charges.

The thing is, the utilization of a credit card by individuals is never a right, it is a privilege, so other than contacting the credit card issuer and trying to resolve the issue in real time, consumers are at the mercy of the bank that has issued that credit card.  That said, most people would be a bit more understanding of why credit card companies do this sort of thing, if instead of stating to the consumer that the reason the credit card was frozen was not for the protection of the consumer, but in actuality for the protection of the bank, because in reality, that is exactly what it is, because these credit card issuers are in the business of making money, and when some charge or activity is flagged, whether wrongly  or rightly, they want to stop it in its tracks, because it's their money that is on the line, and that for them, is paramount.

The Content of Your Character

They say that beauty is skin deep, but living in America, with all of the makeup, surgeries, weight-loss programs, and the inordinate amount of attention certain people take to their looks, this would seem to strongly suggest, that this isn't really true in actuality.  So too, the darkness or lightness of one's skin, is actually base on one's amount of the pigment melanin displayed in each individual's skin, of which, this amount of melanin, even with children from the same biological parents, can vary quite considerably.  It is this amount of melanin found in our skin, that determines for the most part, how light or how dark that we will be, though, the amount of time spent in the sun, without sunscreen or other protection, can through the UV rays of sunshine, darken one's complexion.

People are visual, so that in absence of any other factor to begin with, people have a natural affinity for wanting to identify or be with those that have the same sort of physical characteristics that they do, of which, one's skin color, is certainly something that is very obvious from the outset.  Additionally, as much as America wants to believe that it is a fully integrated nation, it isn't really at all, as recent immigrants, for instance, have a strong tendency to congregate in the same section of town or residency as other immigrants of their type, not typically because of some inherent dislike of others, but for the comfort of being surrounded by people that come from like-minded circumstances, and are similar to them in culture, habits, and desires.

It would be one thing, if at the end of the day, we as a society, could honestly say in word and deed, that we treat all others the same as we treat ourselves, and we would know that this is true, if statistics, knowhow, and experience back those things up, but unfortunately, they do not.  In actuality, we are often categorized by the boxing of people into arbitrary and simplistically defined different races, so that, statistics are built upon the construct that each of us, pre-identifies themselves with a particular designated race, even though, such a construct may or may not be relevant or even accurate to particular individuals or groups.  This grouping of individuals into different boxes of color is, in itself, divisive, as rather than demonstrating in action that people and government agencies are colorblind, they quite obviously, instead, view color as absolutely salient.

In point of fact, once you begin to consistently categorize people on race, or religion, or national origin, or sex, and so on and so forth, unto this or that category or subcategory, you have made a fundamental error, which is to judge the merits of any person, on attributes that they are born with, or born into, which basically negates the most important thing, which is the character of that person.  Further to the point, such judging is still often done, simply based on something as facile as skin color, as if one's skin color, or one's national origin, was a sentient human being, whereas the sentience of any man, is contained within the body, and specifically within the mind and spirit of that body, so that any agency or person that pre-categorizes someone based on something that starts with the construct of race or similar, has begun with a premise which is preordained to come to the conclusion that they so desire, rather than understanding that it is the character of the man, that makes the man, and it is the conditioning of such a man, that helps to buildup or tear down its character, so that social conditions that steal the humanity of any man or degrade such from birth, need be the the very first step to eradicate for lasting and meaningful change, which if given enough time to develop, will demonstrate that we actually are all one people, united, in these United States.

Do Female Teachers favor Female Students?

In America, over 75% of the primary and secondary grade teachers are female.  Additionally, quite clearly more females' graduate high school than males, and as reported by the washingtonpost.com: "In the 2009-2010 academic year, women earned 57.4 percent of all bachelor’s degrees," truly demonstrating the dominance in college degrees for females.  But if we were to take a look behind the curtain in regards to IQ scores or its equivalency between males and females utilizing the Raven's Progressive Matrices test,  as reported by psychologytoday.com which found that while "Setting the male score at 100, Flynn found that women scored the lowest in Australia (99.5), but in the other 4 nations Raven's scores varied from 100.5 to 101.5," or a not appreciably difference between the sexes.  In regards to SAT scores, however, males on the math portion of the SAT have statistically dominated females over the past fifty years, with as reported by aei.org, the 2016 SAT Math test results for the average American male scoring at 524 v. the American female scoring at 494.  In regards to the verbal SAT test, as reported by humanitiesindicators.org males have consistently scored higher but the gap has been narrowing in which females were just four points behind males in 2015, and as also reported by humanitiesindicators.org on the SAT writing test, females have consistently scored higher than males, with a gap of 12 points (490 v. 478) in 2015. 

All of the above, clearly indicates that males are not inferior to females in regards to intelligence as demonstrated by their scoring amounts on national testing exams, and in fact, males in aggregate, are meaningfully more proficient in regards to math skills, making it rather perplexing as to why the percentage of males attending as well as graduating from college has over recent decades declined in proportion to females, so dramatically.

While there are many theories as to why this is so, perhaps a contributing factor is that males are more inclined to join the military, or blue collar professions which are male dominated such as construction, plumbing, and electricians, while also avoiding collegiate pursuits such as nursing and teaching which are female dominated, yet that still doesn't feel like the full answer.

One theory, though, is as simple as "birds of a feather, flock together", so that because males from the time of their first entry into school, until their last day of secondary school, are taught overwhelmingly by female teachers, not male teachers, and because the role model of a male teacher is so often missing in action, that male students subsequently have less focus on attending college because implicitly they see further post-secondary education as suggestively female-centric.  Further to the point, in general, as suggested by books such as "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" there is the perpetuation of the feeling and belief that females best understand other females, and that males best understand other males, so that the extra meeting of the minds that female students have from being taught by primarily female teachers, encourages them to go ahead and get that college education, to the detriment of male students.

In a country in which the traditional nuclear family has markedly disintegrated over time, and in which more families are led by single family mothers than at any other time in our history, male students may very well need to see more positive male role models teaching at the school that they are attending in order to help them focus on important future goals that will benefit them and society, to wit, more male teachers that can identify and empathize with them on a personal level  would be markedly beneficial.

Vehicular Stop and Frisk

Most people want to be about their personal business without undue interference by police or various other agencies or affiliates in their day-to-day activities, of which, there are some people that simply are virtually never going to be stopped for much of anything, whereas there are other people, that have an unacceptably high percentage chance of being stopped by the police.  While there has been progress on reducing arbitrary stop and frisk programs in some major metropolitan cities, the fact that any city would simply permit a police officer to stop just about any citizen that they so desire to stop, and then once stopped, be able to justify frisking such a citizen under the most dubious of circumstances, is the very definition of an arbitrary police state, especially unfair that the people so stopped are typically those of color and/or of lower socioeconomic level.  These stop and frisks on the street by the police are most definitely a form of intimidation and harassment of a specific designated group, as the police would never do the same to senior citizens, wall street types, corporate officers, and so on and so forth, because those people have the means and power and most times implicit social approval to fight back.

It is a very sick theory to say in effect, young people are more prone to commit crimes, in addition more crimes are committed by young people without viable employment, in which more people of color are unemployed, therefore all young people of color are suspects and we will thereby stop and frisk them disproportionally to not only terrorize them and thereby to keep them in their place, but to let them know, that they represent a lower class of citizenship which should suffer such.  The upshot of all this is that certain people walking the streets in public are far more prone to being arrested, stopped and frisked, because they lack transportation to move about the city in a manner that would not necessitate them walking about in the first place.

That said, driving one's vehicle or being a passenger in such, is, in and of itself, possibly even a more vulnerable position to be in, for depending upon the make and model of one's vehicle, the tinting of such, the type of neighborhood the vehicle is in, and the ability for the police to pre-identify the ownership of the vehicle through that vehicle's public display of its license plate which identifies the owner of the vehicle, means that your vehicle is readily available for police, for whatever reason, to know beforehand, to whom they are pulling over, and thereby allows them, if they so desire, to pull over "suspects" that meet the profile desires of that officer or police department. 

There are several dangers for those in a vehicle when being pulled over, which are, especially for people that are not independently well off, is that the vehicle itself typically represents the means to get to and from work and/or school, simultaneously also representing their biggest asset as well as their biggest liability, and the fact that depending upon what happens at that stop, could mean the forfeiture of the vehicle, the impounding of such, and the complete search of the vehicle for "inventory control".  Of course, just as in a street stop and frisk, police aren't really allowed to just pull everyone over, but because they have discretion to pull over vehicles for "suspicious"  reasons as well as vehicle violations, of which these are all independently arbitrated by the police, this means that targeted drivers can pretty much be pulled over at will.  In addition, though police aren't typically allowed to search the entire vehicle, once the vehicle is impounded for "public safety", they can do so, for inventory control.

All of the above means that traveling the public roads by their car for certain peculiar people in America, is considered highly problematic, and so too, is their walking those same streets, thereby not only making them effectively prisoners within their own neighborhoods but essentially abridging their Constitutional privileges and immunities, their equality under the law, as well as making them insecure in their own persons and possessions.