Hand sanitizers and grocery stores

It's quite common, nowadays, to find upon entering a grocery store, or a shopping mall, or the airport, to find a convenient hand sanitizer to utilize in order to cleanse one's hand of germs.  In fact, at grocery stores they even offer hand sanitizing wipes to clean off the handle of the grocery cart that you push around the store.  Since germs can spread from the hands of one person to another, there is something beneficial about hand sanitizers but one must also keep in mind that hand sanitizers are effective, but not nearly as effective as good soap and clean water, in addition, a hand sanitizer does nothing to preclude germs from being spread by someone sneezing or coughing or someone else with dirty hands, themselves.  Further, hand sanitizer like a lot of things that are sold to Americans in the first place, is sort of a substitute for the very best way to cleanse our hands of germs which is soap and water, because soap and water, done right, involves, getting your hands completely wet, lathering, scrubbing, rinsing, and then drying your hands, which is what you see done by your doctor in your doctor's office, and is by far the most appropriate way to cleanse your hands.

Not too surprisingly, hand sanitizers contain chemicals, in which, it is claimed such chemicals are not harmful, but triclosan, which is a chemical commonly used in antibacterial sanitizers is known to detrimentally alter hormone regulation in animals, so that, one should take into consideration, that one probably shouldn't routinely use hand sanitizer as the preferred way to keep your hands clean, but more as an adjunct when you are precluded from using good soap and clean water.  It is a good thing, when people are responsible and concerned about germs and the spreading of such, which can occur from one person to another, in which illnesses can be passed from coming into contact with infectious germs, the most appropriate way to interdict such germs, is to keep one's own hands clean through soap and water, and to reduce one's contact with their own eyes, nostrils, and mouth.

If the message that grocery stores want to get across to its customers, is that they want you to be safe, and thereby to reduce the spreading of germs onto produce and fruit by the fact that you have used a hand sanitizer, one must commend such, but such real difference that is made, probably isn't nearly as much as one might imagine or believe.  It is, instead, more of a fairly simple and straightforward way to send the message that the store cares about providing you with a shopping experience in which you feel more safe and clean in that experience.  The bottom line, though, is that hand sanitizers are a weak substitute for good soap and clean water, in which, the basic teaching of such, as well as other hygienic areas in life that we deal with on a daily basis, would do a whole lot better if each of us had a clear understanding of the important value of appropriate cleanliness and how to most effectively accomplish it in our own lives, as well as to how to be more considerate of others in the public sphere in regards to the spreading of germs. 

One source, many saviors

Christ is the exemplar of all exemplars of how to be a savior to his fellow man, for Christ willingly sacrificed and surrendered his life on behalf of mankind, to demonstrate that we need not fear physical death, nor the powers and principalities that surround and try to control us, but instead that we must recognize that there is One voice, far above all the noise and confusion here on earth, who is the mastermind of it all, that knows us through and through, and to honestly recognize in truth that the very essence of what we honestly search for is our return in wholeness to God.

Our earth contains many, many souls, all housed in physical bodies, with each typically suffering through the trials and tribulations of a given day.  These fellow souls, are our brothers and sisters for we all come from the exact same true source, therefore as our fellow brethren we have a responsibility and a vested interest to help one another, for a helping hand offered at the right time, light given in a moment of darkness, all of this combined is of great assistance from one person to another, for all of us, have had this need, at one time or another, for assistance, so that all of us have a responsibility to the other, to repay such favors bestowed upon us.  We can best do this by assisting others in their time of need, by offering encouragement, hope, love, sustenance, employment, advice, and any of those things which come from the fruit of the good spirit.

Each of us has fallen short, have sinned and done wrong to our fellow travelers on earth, perhaps again and again, in which, having made those mistakes, we must work through those errors in order to rightfully take our place in Heaven.  However, those that have sinned, and in recognition of such sin not only acknowledged such to God, but have taken active means to help their fellow brothers and sisters by becoming that rock that offers hope to the hopeless, help to the helpless, and direction to the directionless, have thereby by becoming active in their actions and purpose to others, find that they have help to  remove the mire and dirt from their previous ways of error so as to more appropriately reflect the illuminating light of our Higher Consciousness which so guides us.

The highest truth of all is given freely to all, so too, the greatest duty that we have to perform on earth, is to help make this world a better place for having been here, and we demonstrate this by our actions and deeds, especially in the interaction that we have day by day with our fellow sojourners, of which, many of such, have a need to be able to lean upon someone stronger and of good character for their legs are tired, their mind is a mess, and their spirit is uncertain.  This then is our primary mission, to be that lighthouse on the rock of truth and justice, so that lost souls can find their place of sanctuary, rest, invigorate, and renew themselves, so that they can become what they were created to become, one with God, by virtue of their love and neighborly actions in this realm.

The Supreme Court, Judicial Supremacy, and Judicial Review

It is quite common, nowadays, for historic and important decisions that have made their circuitous way to the Supreme Court, for the public, to wait with bated breath for that decision, typically under the impression, that whatever decision the Supreme Court makes will be binding upon the entire country, for these nine justices are apparently the sole determinates of law, in addition to by their decisions, essentially not just clarifying law, but making new law, which thereby becomes the law of the land.  If, this was the way that the Constitution was supposed to work, than America does not really have a need for either the legislative branch, which makes the laws of the land in accordance with Constitutional limits, or even the Executive branch, which carries out the laws of the land, for if, the Supreme Court, depending upon who makes up that court, can dictate what, in their majority opinion, the law is or is not, and have that opinion, thereby have the force of law, to which all lesser courts must obey, as well as the instruments of justice must then so accommodate, than the people, their legislature representatives, and the executive that has been elected into office by the people, all are actually under the collective thumb of nice unelected Supreme Court justices.

In point of fact, the Supreme Court, whether they get a particular decision Constitutionally right or Constitutionally wrong, that decision should only be binding on that particular case as rendered, but should not be considered to be binding or precedent setting unless that decision as delivered by the court is basically unanimous, as well as consistent with similar court decisions previously determined, and does not, in itself, create a whole new dynamic, previously unseen.  The reason that this must be true, is that the Supreme Court, itself, has on many occasions, rendered a decision, only to reverse such a decision at a later time, because the decision was made via partisan bias,  or sectional bias, or any sort of bias or misinterpretation, which in whole is inconsistent with the Constitution to begin with.  That is to say, factious decisions by the Supreme Court, that upset the body politic, must be carefully construed, for when the Supreme Court takes it upon itself, that it is the sole arbiter of what the law of the land is, how it is interpreted, and what it represents, than the people are no longer masters of their own destiny, but instead have a Constitution which is in principle, mutable without amendment, by the unelected Supreme Court.

Therefore, those that believe that the Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land, as a law unto itself, have it Constitutionally wrong, as the Supreme Court has no other duty than to determine whether a particular legislated or applied law is in accordance with the Constitution on a case-by-case basis, in which, such decisions over a long period of time, when consistent, set precedent for the laws of the land.  Additionally, those that believe that the Supreme Court must by its very nature, determine whether laws duly passed  by the legislative branch are constitutional or not, and thereby are enforceable or not, in which it is the Supreme Court that than decides whether such legislated law must then be voided, have granted onto the Supreme Court a power that no other branch of government has, and is inconsistent with a government of the people, in which it is those people, that determine the nature of the government that they so desire, in accordance with the Constitution.  To wit, the Supreme Court, cannot ever, nor is it now, the final word, of what the law is or is not, for that final word, is actually the Constitution, itself, of which, the sole interpretation of this Constitution, is not for the Supreme Court, alone, to say, but instead, is a matter, of the whole, for the people, their legislative representatives, and their elected executive office holder for each has their part to play in conjunction with the judiciary as to the correct understanding of the Constitution.

Employee Contracts that allow you to be "Shopped"

In general, the longer the employee handbook is and the more convoluted it is in its rules of do's and don'ts, the more that you can be assured that the stuff in there is primarily for the benefit of the employer and certainly not for the employee.  For example, those in the field of apartment or housing leasing, and those in the fields of restaurant service, are depending upon the employer of such, subject to being "shopped" by an outside party.  The meaning of being "shopped" is that a paid consultant comes into the establishment as a "customer" or potential customer, and proceeds to record the conversation of the interaction between them and yourself, with a report being written, and video/audio footage being submitted to the employer who contracted with them.  The purpose of the whole "shopping" experience is not some sort of pretend exercise, but to receive valuable feedback in the "real" world as to whether one's employees are following the company procedures on how to properly address customers, their response to customers, their professionalism, and the overall experience being in conformance with company priorities and standards.

You might think that none of this is really necessary if the Manager actually did their job, and periodically monitored conversations, and did follow-ups on "traffic" that came into a property or to a restaurant, but apparently that isn't good enough, so an "independent shopper" is hired instead, which, because such an interaction, involves real consequences, can mean the loss of one's employment, because your "shopping" score is too low, even though your previous reviews have been positive, and/or the general perception at the company is that you are a good employee.  The fact that any one score could cost you your employment as well as the fact that you can be shopped at any given time, just adds unnecessary stress to a job atmosphere which isn't really necessary.  That is to say, if the abiding point of "shoppers" was to critique and improve employees as necessary, ultimately resulting in a meeting in which there was a give and take between employer and employee, that would be one thing, but it's an entirely different thing, to accept one survey and thereby terminate or suspend the employee as if that one experience is the summary judgment of who and what they are within that company.

While it is understandable, that when a company is not meeting its sales targets or profitability, that it may see the logic in receiving an independent feedback from a "shopping" company, or periodically to request to be "shopped" in order to confirm that employees are performing per the standards of the company, the fact that the "shopping" is setup to go after the employees specifically, but seldom the managers of such, and therefore does nothing to address poor training, poor work atmosphere, and poor exemplars by management,  demonstrates that even when a "shopping" experience determines that an employee is not meeting the standard, doesn't necessarily resolve a thing, for if the management and training by a particular company, is fundamentally poor, than the employees will often reflect that in their performance. 

Sure, "shopping", may have its place, but the reality of it is that a management that gets to know its employees, that cares about its employees, and that walks that place of employment to observe carefully interactions between employees and customers, will learn just as much or more, than a "shopping" experience can ever really deal with, for good management works with its employees, rather than relying on a version of subterfuge or intimidation in order to keep them in line.

Seek what is true

While there are things in life that are relative in the sense of the limits of your perspective, in the sense of the limits of your background, in the sense of the limits of your insight, in the sense of the limits of your intelligence, and so on and so forth, truth has never been one of them.  There is but one truth, those that believe that there is more than one truth, or that truth is relative, know not what they are talking about, and such "thinking" clearly displays their ignorance, for if there was really more than one truth, all of life, would be nothing but an endless chain of chaos and confusion, which, upon looking at how societies and people interact on earth, would seem to imply that such is the belief in regards to truth of many.

Ultimately, without doubt, there is but one truth, though the paths that each of us take may materially be different from those that take other paths, making each path unique in its own way, those paths, will as a matter of course, like streams to a mighty river, merge into one, for the result for all that seek the truth, is the arrival at the very same place, no matter how diverse, initially, our thoughts and our lives have been.  

While we are encouraged by our parents, by our education, and by our lives, to learn the skills that will do us and our families well, allowing us to thereby become productive members of society, there is an inner need that far exceeds the skills of any trade or craft, and that is, to seek the very meaning of life, the truth of it all.  For how does it profit a man, to have all of what this material world offers, only to recognize that they still cannot prevent age from advancing upon them, or ill health, or any combination of things, that will eventually and inexorably take their physical life away, signifying that they that thought that they had conquered, have instead been vanquished, forevermore.

Instead, the very first thing, that all should be encouraged to do, is to think, is to contemplate, is to understand that the search for what is the truth, is the most meaningful journey that anyone can take, for if you work very hard, and are very diligent, but know not what the appropriate goal or purpose that life is, however, will you find it, except by some incredible happenstance.  On the other hand, those that make truth, the first principle of their life, will find that the structure and the thinking behind such, fundamentally is different, and they then are able to develop the appropriate perspective to visualize what is truth, so that this knowledge fundamentally changes them from delusion to clarity.

We live in physical bodies, in which if our body is our master, we become sense creatures that are activated by the pleasing of those senses, but the body does not last, it is ever changing, making it clear, that truth, is not physical and thereby tied to material things, but that truth must be beyond time and space, it must be eternal, without beginning and without end, immutable, unchanging, and it is this truth, that we must seek, that we must know, which until it is re-discovered, our hearts will remain restless for truth is the be-all and end-all of all journeys.

Direct Subsides to the People so as to eliminate unnecessary Bureaucracy

According to cbpp.org in 2015 the federal government spent $938 billion on "Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies", in addition to spending another $362 billion on safety net programs, as well as massive outlays for Social Security, defense spending, and assorted subsides or tax credits for all sorts of institutions and corporations.  It almost goes without saying, that in order to divvy out such funds, massive bureaucracies on top of other convoluted bureaucracies have been created in order to maintain and sustain such over the generations that the welfare state has been in existence.  The elephant in the room, though, is if the whole purpose of helping out specifically the poor, the elderly, and the disadvantaged, is to get essentially money or its equivalency into their hands, why shouldn't the system be streamlined and simplified so as to achieve such, especially in consideration, that all citizens in America, are identified through their quasi-ID card, which is their social security number.

There isn't any good reason why current governmental policies are set up with all sorts of hurdles, endless forms, confusion, inconvenience, and social embarrassment in which often those applying for benefits, must kowtow to bureaucrats of all sorts, that honestly, are siphoning from those in need, the benefits that they need and are entitled to by law, by taking an unfair and undeserved piece of their pie, by their employment as well as because they are the "official" arbiters of who gets what and why.  A far better policy is to cut out the bureaucracy or cut it down substantially, and give the benefits to the people as directly as possible, in a form that allows them to utilize their benefits efficiently.

This means, that when anybody comes of age, that they are entitled to by the welfare state that has already been instituted within this country, to health, food, and shelter benefits, of which those benefits should thereby be considered to be a form of income for those people receiving such, so that, for those that are gainfully employed at a good wage, they would not be entitled to any benefits, and if they still availed themselves of benefits because they are of age, they would be effectively taxed 100% of such on their tax returns, whereas those that earn little or nothing, or have crossed a certain senior age, would receive their full benefits directly into their debit card or its equivalency, in which, should they find employment, or make some additional income, would see their benefit percentage reduced on a sliding scale, until such time as their income reached the national and/or State published median in which case their entitlement to benefits would be vacated.

A welfare state set up in this format, would entitle all citizens to the basics of their citizenship, in a far more efficient style, which would effectively eviscerate the welfare bureaucracy as we know it, freeing up billions of dollars to go to the very people that have need of them.  In addition, the true cost of this type of governmental assistance would be borne by the people, especially in the sense that the more inclusive society becomes in helping and aiding others to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then the less aid these people will need to avail themselves of, for this is in theory, the "united" states, consisting of a "united" people, which is one nation, indivisible, under the aegis of God.

Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Our justice system doesn't work very well, for the Sixth Amendment states in part that the accused has the:  "….right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State…" but, in fact, trials in America are not speedy and even worse, most of those accused of a crime, never actually have a trial, but instead plea bargain a deal, which is inherently unjust.  One of the most fundamental problems with mandatory minimum sentences is that if the crime you are accused of, has a mandatory minimum sentence attached to it, this puts incredible pressure on the defendant to plea bargain to a deal which will be less than the penalty of the mandatory minimum, so that whether the defendant is guilty or not, or whether he has exculpatory evidence or not, or whether he is innocent of the actual charges or not, and so on and so forth, pleas are made because it often is the most prudent thing to do.  Additionally, because trials are never speedy, defendants have a vested interest when they are unable to post bail, of which thousands of such defendants suffer from this, to make whatever deal that they can make, for they are already behind bars to begin with.

While there are reasonable arguments for mandatory minimums in the sense that two very similar crimes are committed at different locales, in which one defendant's sentence is far lesser than another, that, in of itself, with no other information, isn't a good enough justification, for every crime is different in its circumstances, in the perpetrator, and so on and so forth.  Then there is also the argument that the sure penalty of the law will dissuade potential criminals from committing the crime in the first place, but, in fact, most criminals aren't really familiar with the penalty that they will be charged for a particular crime, and hence, that isn't the controlling factor in their behavior, for despite all the crime and punishment, all of the mandatory minimums, crime keeps getting committed again and again and again, as if criminals aren't dissuaded by such potential punishment, no matter how mandatory.

So too, the most insidious part of mandatory minimums is the very fact, that somehow, it has become standard policy, that the best way to deal with crime, is to incarcerate people, but if this was really true to begin with, than America as the leader by a very wide margin in the western world for incarceration per population, would have already solved its crime problem but it has not.  This signifies quite clearly that any justice system that mandates minimum sentences for so many crimes has got it all wrong, for if certain minimum punishment really prevented future crime, then the crime rate in America would be trending towards zero, but it has not.

In point of fact, mandating minimum sentences seems to say, that judges are clueless as to how to appropriately deal with the penalty phase of a trial, that their discretion in sentencing is suspect, in addition to the inconvenient fact, that somehow, crimes are always cookie cutter clear-cut, so that the penalties for crime need not take into account extenuating circumstances or the humanity of the people being so punished.  All of this is fundamentally flawed, and mandatory minimums are in actuality and in impact, a form of injustice, that is cruel and unjust.  Mandatory minimums do not work; they never will work, they are a bastardization of justice, and mandatory minimums unfairly targets those that have the fewest resources to defend themselves appropriately, indicating that mandatory minimums dishonors this great nation and what it represents.

Racism and Domination

America has come a long way in regards to racism, so that while slavery was once legal and orthodox, it no longer exists, and while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court once wrote that the black man has: “no rights which the white man was bound to respect,” all sorts of laws since then have been passed, as well as critical Amendments which have been ratified to our Constitution replacing such former mindsets with a rule of law, that in theory, treats all equally and fairly.  The reality, of course, in the actuality of everyday life, demonstrates that overt racism, except in the most backward of communities and the most narrow of minds, is definitely a fringe element in America, but, unfortunately, a virulent form of "racism" has replaced it.

What has changed about racism is that today, people seldom proudly speak of being a racist, so that this type of thought has been suppressed.  Instead, what has replaced racist thoughts for specific types of people is simply racism by another name, and that name is domination.  That is to say, life has its hierarchies, and these hierarchies exist, but have branched away from a simplistic color hierarchy into something quite evil and insidious.  For instance, there are the obvious material and mindset differences between rich and poor, certain creeds versus other creeds, slim versus fat, smokers versus non-smokers, gay versus conservative straights, and so on and so forth.   Each side from these different camps, have a strong tendency to demonize the opposition, to see the other, as something less than what they are, to see them thereby as less human, and to see them as something that should and must be marginalized.

The key word then for these opposing factions is domination, and that domination is important to each group, respectively, for they want their viewpoint, to be the prevailing viewpoint of their society, especially so as to take appropriate advantage that such a favored viewpoint gets within the application of law, but so too, from a psychological or even a perverse moral standpoint, as justification that they are right, for the law and/or the power structure of that given pertinent institution supports their position.  This then, therefore allows certain specific groups and individuals within society to effectively have more rights, have more justice, to have more equality, than certain un-favored groups, so as to exploit and therefore dominate them, which for the winners of such a game, allows them to live a good life, at the expense of those at the bottom of the barrel.

It is exactly this sort of domination that governments are instituted amongst men to prevent or to preclude, for if the government plays favorites, than the words of documents such as our Declaration of Independence, or our Constitution, mean little or nothing, if in application, they are effectively ignored. Yet, even a cursory look around America, shows in this theoretically meritorious society, gross and massive inequalities in virtually everything that can be measured, of which, the words on paper speak of equality, justice, and fairness, but the actuality shows a wider and wider divide.   While theorists can posit all sorts of reasons why this is do, the most basic reason is also the most obvious, which is that there is a favored class of citizens, that this government aids and abets, to the exclusion of all others, so that by their continual successful exploitation of others, they are able to maintain their dominance over the people, which must subsist off of the ever crumbling infrastructure left specifically for them.

Economic Opportunity and Abortion

Abortion is legal in America, of which as reported by guttmahcer.org there were approximately 926,200 abortions in America in 2014, of which, since peaking in 1981, abortion has been on a long-term downward trend line. The racial makeup as reported by guttmahcer.org of those that get abortions are "White patients accounted for 39% of abortion procedures in 2014, blacks for 28%, Hispanics for 25% and patients of other races and ethnicities for 9%," in which, the American census of 2010, indicates a white population of 75.1%, blacks at 12.3%, and Hispanics at 12.5%, demonstrating quite obviously that women of color have significantly higher abortion rates than do white woman.  Additionally, of those getting abortions, as reported by guttmahcer.org:  "… Forty-nine percent of patients had family incomes of less than 100% of the federal poverty level… An additional 26% of patients in 2014 had incomes that were 100–199% of the poverty threshold," so that in aggregate 75% of patients receiving abortions were defined as either poor or low income women.  Finally, as reported in Table 2 by guttmahcer.org, in regards to specific reasons that contributed to having an abortion, of which multiple reasons were permitted, the two most common reasons that were sited were: "having a baby would dramatically change my life," at 74%, and "can't afford a baby" at 73% for all respondents, which were also the only two responses that were given by more than 50% of those so surveyed.

This then makes it rather clear that woman that are impoverished, are significantly more inclined to get an abortion than woman that are not, indicating that in making the decision on whether or not to have a child as compared to aborting such, the income of that person is absolutely germane to that decision.  While, no doubt, some people would applaud such a sensible decision to postpone having a child until one gets their financial house in order, the canary in the coal mine, is the fact that people of color are disproportionately more poor than whites in the first place, signifying that lack of income has a material effect upon who does or does not decide to have an abortion, of which people of color have decidedly more abortions basically because their economic circumstances are poorer, they are poor, and they don’t want to add to their financial burden a newborn baby, of which, if their financial circumstances were not impoverished, they would probably choose to abort far less often.

The above implies strongly an insidious prejudice that abortions clearly cut across economic lines, so that, those that are impoverished abort far more often, than those that are not.  This means, whether well-intentioned or not, those that advocate to women that because their financial circumstances are suspect, that they should get an abortion, may very well be contributing to a type of economic eugenics, of which the poor are encouraged not to have children for they are poor, whereas those that have the financial means to have children are not dissuaded from doing so. 

Scripture states that: "The poor you will always have with you…" (Matthew 26:11), but if you are able to convince those poor people not to procreate, you will have far less poor people to deal with, so that if you steal from the people their good educational opportunity, as well as leaving swaths of people in low-economic ghettos with little economic prospects within their domain, and then propagandize to them about the cost and responsibility of being a parent as being an unnecessary burden to carry, then doing so, will reduce their birthrate meaningfully, through the dual means of birth control and abortion, so that you won't have to actually deal with the root causes of poverty, but instead you can abort their hopes, which essentially does the same thing.

First Thing, Improve Yourself

There does seem to be more people that want to advise others, than others that want such advice, which is either a function that there is an oversupply of wise people, or instead an oversupply of those that think they are wise.  While it is a good thing, for people that are truly competent and knowledgeable to want to pass such knowledge onto others, it is important first to take an honest assessment of your own value, of which that assessment is especially pertinent when received from people that you truly respect, people that are your contemporaries, and people that have your best interests in mind. In any event, such analysis will typically help you to become a better person and to thereby improve yourself, for those that are not in the process of growing, are at best, standing still, and at worse, regressing, for knowledge does not stop the day you stop taking educational classes, but instead ends the day that you close your mind to being a better and improved you.

The most wonderful thing about improving yourself, is that, first of all, it isn't selfish, for your improvement in character, in wisdom, and in insight, gives you the opportunity to impart such knowledge to others seeking such understanding, permitting you to become a mentor to others, to provide better guidance for others, and even if the overall quantity of people that take in your advice is few in number, even if is just one person, for that one, It is still very worthwhile.

Those that improve themselves, are following one of the most primary dictates in life, which is to be fruitful in what one does and what one accomplishes, for such fruitfulness besides benefiting one's own, benefits others, by your example and by the abundance of the myriad things so produced, often bringing forth a desire by others to emulate the type of success that you have, for people can be influenced by acts of good as well as by acts of evil, so that those that demonstrate in their life that hard, conscientious work ethic, are sowing the seeds of success for others to abide by.

One should never live a life in which one has to say, do the good of what I say, and not the evil of what I do, for when actions do not mesh with the words that you are speaking, you are a combination of hypocrisy, contradiction, confusion, and weakness, for if you really know what you should be doing, but do it not, the suffering for yourself as well as for the others that you interact with runs riot, for it is never enough to just know right, for actions do indeed make the man.

Finally, one should want to improve yourself, for the sensible reason that there is no greater joy and because there is no greater legacy than a life lived well, for if it can be said, at the end of your life, that you have made your community a better place for the things that you have done and influenced, then you have well served your fellow man, having prudently stored up eternal treasure that will never rust, nor be stolen.

Law and Order and Christ

Whenever there is some trouble or the emphasis of such by news media organizations or similar, the kneejerk response by a wide swath of Americans, though not all, is that the solution to this problem lies in our need for more "law and order".  Not too surprisingly, those that cry the largest and longest for more law and order, are either the direct or indirect beneficiaries of such, for instance, law enforcement, justice departments, and those that work with them or on their periphery, as well as those that are convinced that people that do not look similar to their self, or act similar to their self, or are just sojourners within the community, should be carefully monitored and contained.  In short, the cries of law of order aren't really requests for the law being better applied, or for more order in an age of chaos, but more akin to protectionism of the status quo, and thereby for the law to be unequally applied so as to protect and serve those that are the favored class in opposition mainly to those that might infringe upon such status.

Ever since civilization began, hierarchies have been created, so too, in the time of Christ, there was such a hierarchy within the Jewish religion, as well as in the governance of the people by Roman authorities.  As Jesus the Christ, became something more than a mere sideshow to the common people, but someone that appeared to threaten the very veracity and legitimacy of the Sanhedrin, such a persona of Christ, became the most dangerous of all men, for a man that answers solely to the power above, solely to Truth, is a man that cannot be reasoned or compromised with, and hence, such a man can invalidate and compromise the very power of the elders of the Sanhedrin, even though that may not be a primary or secondary mission of Christ.  Additionally, while Rome was rather liberal in permitting the religious practice of Jews, as well as allowing the Jews to take care of religious affairs within their own, they had no liberal attitude whatsoever against any entity that threatened to upend the law and order of Rome, so that, once Jesus was labeled a rebel, and arrested for sedition, Jesus, was therefore subject to the full penalty of that Roman law which was crucifixion.  In short, Jesus, was caught between the authority of the Jewish religion, as represented by the Sanhedrin, who considered certain acts of Jesus to be blasphemous, and therefore subject to being stoned to death, and the Roman law, which brokered no rebellion, whatsoever, and utilized capital punishment as a matter of course in order to maintain their orderly rule.

All of the above, would imply, that if Christ had been alive in this present age of law and order in the United States, and considered to be a danger to a particular religion for his views that embarrass as well as making hypocrites of the highest powers of that religion, while, on the other hand, being perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be a mortal threat to the state of governance in an era of terrorism,  law and order would do what it always does, which is to manufacture a case, using whatever means so necessary, against such so as to silence or to minimize this person, as well as to conceivably to take extreme prejudicial actions so as to eliminate such a person, once and for all.

Those that cry the longest and loudest for more law and order are, in fact, the very same, as those that cried in that day and age: "crucify Him."

Should you ever attach a picture to your Résumé?

Anyone that is wise or sensible, wants to present themselves in the most positive light when actively going after employment, so that, there may be for certain people, an inclination to attach a picture to their résumé, especially if the perception is by doing so, that this will help them to get an interview for that job, and as much as interviewers want to tell us that they make decisions base on rational items such as experience, background, education, and so on, it just seems that when the initial introduction by a new applicant is done through a résumé, and that résumé has a picture on it, that picture will often influence matters, for better or for worse, no matter how much a particular interviewer denies it having done so.

While, in general, interviewers are not permitted to ask for or mandate a picture as a requirement in order to interview such, primarily because employers do not want to get on the wrong side of the EEOC, for insisting upon a picture in which requesting such places themselves in the unenviable position of having to justify how such a requirement does not violate age, race, or other discriminating factors, there is, on the other hand, the situation where the shoe is on the other foot, so that one's thought process should at least consider attaching a photo, of which, some people do, especially since they feel that they are going to be "outed" anyway, via social media, Google, LinkedIn or similar, so why not then get ahead of the curve and present typically the most conservative and professional looking facial photograph possible, in conjunction with their résumé.

Anyone that says that looks do not matter as regards to an interview, is not being honest, for in almost all situations, your look, will matter, at least to a minimum degree, if not more.  This means, one should definitely consider adding a photograph onto their résumé, but should only do so, with the following caveats.  The first caveat being that your look should be to the best of your ability, a look that you believe via the research that you have conducted a good representation of what you believe that the employer is looking for.  The second caveat is that the photograph should be as professional as possible, typically conservative in taste, and strictly a facial shot from the shoulders on up.  The third caveat is that if you are going to attach a photo to your résumé you may as well attach it to the top corner of said résumé, as opposed to the bottom or elsewhere, because that picture is your actual lead-in.

Then again, there are many reasons why a particular person would not want to attach their picture, which has a lot to do with an individual's perception of their look, and what it says about them, for a picture gives away one's basic race, one's gender, and one's basic age, all things, that may negate an opportunity for an interview, legal or not, so that all things being equal, prudence may dictate to skip the picture in the hope that a future face-to-face interview will provide you the chance to  overcome snap judgments built upon your facial look to begin with.

We live in a world in which people claim that they make decisions just based on the facts, but, in reality, that isn't true, and most definitely how your résumé is structured, formatted, the words that you use, and what it says, makes a material difference on whether you get the job opportunity or not, so that the adding of a picture to such, does change the nature of your résumé, so that it very well might help you or hurt you, for as long as humans interview other humans, first impressions as done via a résumé, picture or not, matter.

Physical Death and Liberation

As America becomes more of a secular nation, with its leading intellectuals having become more and more dismissive of religion in general, promoting that we humans are physical beings and nothing more, so that with physical death being the inevitable end of all that are born into this world, then clearly it doesn't take any real perception to reach the rather reasonable conclusion that all is completely and utterly meaningless.  It then follows from this, because physical death is the end, then, no doubt, death is the destruction of the self, is the destruction of the ego, is the destruction of what has been, and must thereby make for the rather forlorn and long faces for those that still live, while their loved ones are dead, forever.

To make matters worse, there are all sorts of deaths on earth, of which, unfortunate to say, some die without anyone to mourn for them, because of their isolation, or, even worse, because of their actions.  So too, there are others that die way before their time, having not even had the opportunity to prove their worth, because they are gone at such a young age, then there are others, that have lived long and fruitful lives, but age has taken a toll upon them, so death, though perhaps not welcomed, is considered to be somewhat merciful.

Yet, the great religions of this world, recognize death for what it really is, the transition from the limits of the physical form along with the release of the blinders of limited perception and insight, replaced with the unlimited horizons of love, truth, justice, and fairness, of which time and space, are seen for what they are, constructs necessary for mankind to live in this dimension, but having no part in the dimension beyond.

The most basic and the most fundamental problem that those that do not understand that we are immortal beings encased for a limited time in a physical form, is that if you do not recognize or know what or who you really are, as well as ignoring the unalienable inner voice that each is gifted with in order to help guide and to keep one focused, than you will do far less than what you could do in order to progress and thereby help make this world a better place for all, or, even worse, you could make this world far worse by your actions.

Liberation, most definitely, is any stage in which you are able to not only perceive the way that things really are, but are also able to release yourself from whatever imprisons you from not reaching the being that you should be.  It isn't so much that our physical body precludes us from being liberated, it is more that far too many people believe that the needs of the physical body in conjunction with its ego, should trump all, whereas, in actuality, we are here to master and/or to supersede our physical self, so as to appropriately see that all this is indeed vanity, that we all are in fact, in this together, all created equally, and all never satiated till we rest once again, in the bosom of our Creator that created it all.

While there is sorrow when anything good dies in this world, the end of all sorrows lies not here on earth, but in the conscious recognition that this world isn’t the end or even the beginning, but instead the staging for our re-birth into what is.

Social Security Lump sum payout

For virtually all private sector workers they are compelled by law to pay into Social Security via their paycheck payroll deduction, so as to receive their future Social Security benefits, upon retirement eligibility. Whether you see the value and wisdom of the Social Security program or not, that is the way the government has structured it and you cannot start receiving benefits for all of the years that you paid into the Social Security system, until you reach at a minimum the age of 62, with the current law structured that those that were born in the year 1960 or later, having their full retirement age being set at age 67, in which they will receive 100% of their calculated benefits per month, and those that postpone their Social Security payments until they are age 70, will receive an extra premium per month for having made that specific delay.

While there are all sorts of calculations available to help figure out which Social Security payout age would be best for you, one also must calculate in their particular financial as well as health situation in order to come up with the best decision.  Currently, unlike some pension funds, the Social Security administration does not allow you to opt-into a one-time Social Security lump sum payout, although for people that delay their Social Security payments until after their full retirement age they are permitted under special circumstances to get a retroactive lump-sum payout, but alas this is limited to a maximum of six months of benefits.

As you might expect, different people have different needs from their Social Security benefits, in which certain people don't even need their monthly payouts because their assets are so great to begin with, to people that definitely need their social security monthly payouts, but even that monthly amount isn't enough to take care of their basic financial well being, and, of course, everything in-between.  It seems surprising, that in a country as large and as sophisticated as America, that a program hasn't already been developed that allows retirees of Social Security age the option to replace their future Social Security monthly payouts and replace this with a one-time cash-out payment.  There are obvious reasons why someone might opt for that one-time cash-out payment, despite the fact that such a payment must be discounted to its present-day value, which is that money up front allows you the opportunity to pay off bills, and/or to buy things that you need or desire today, rather than never really having enough cash to do so in the future.  Additionally, for savvy investors, even with their future Social Security payments being discounted to their present-day value they would be freely able to take such a lump sum payment and invest it as they so desire in the belief that such an investment plan would be superior to what they would have received via monthly payments by the Social Security administration.

The bottom line is this, the Social Security payments are an obligation that the government has to the individual for being the fiduciary party in receiving such from paychecks throughout the lifetime of a given laborer, therefore, that obligation should be available to that individual in a form that includes a one-time lump sum payment discounted to the present day, and this option should be made posthaste, for not only will it benefit in particular, those that are struggling, but it will also benefit the economy by virtue of the fact that monies that are spent or invested, now, increases economic activity.

No doubt, the government and critics will argue, that some people having received a one-time lump sum payment will be irresponsible, and thereby will become wards of the state, but what of it, for isn't it their money that the government has put up for their safekeeping in the first place?  Those that are of retirement age as defined by Social Security should be permitted to do what they so desire to do with their Social Security money.

Inheritance and the Wealth Gap

America prides itself on being perceived as a meritorious country, and to a certain degree it is, yet, because America has existed for well over 200 years, we have become a country that passes on its legacies from one generation to the next on this soil, of which, some of these legacies are simply the stories, principles, and memories that we all communicate from one to another, as well as for some families, material assets that are passed onto the younger generation, and it is these material inheritances which account for a significant reason as to why certain people and certain classes of people are able to have a significant leg up in comparison to those that receive little or nothing materially as their inheritance.

That is to say, most people make their money by their labor, in which wage earning statistics are broken down into all sorts of categories, from race to education to sexto location and so on and so forthWhat has perhaps surprisingly changed for those that classify themselves as white, is that in aggregate, Asian-American's median household income as reported by Wikipedia.com for 2015, absolutely crushes White-American's median household income in which Asians' are at $74,246 and Whites' are at $59,698, while Black-American's are at $36,544. 

Further to the point, as reported by pewhispanic.org the median household income for Asian-Americans was greater than White-Americans in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010, yet as reported by stlouisfeg.org, using constant 2013 dollars, White-Americans had a median family household wealth of $130,102 in 1989, whereas Asian-Americans had a median family household wealth of $64,165 in 1989, and White-Americans had a median family household wealth of $134,008 in 2013, whereas Asian-Americans had a median family household wealth of $91,440 in 2013.  For African-Americans in 1989 their median family household wealth was $7,736 and in 2013 was $11,184.  This clearly indicates that White-Americans, despite making far less in household income than Asian-Americans still have a quite impressive advantage over Asian-Americans in median family household wealth, despite their significantly lower household income, and while the percentage gaps have been closing between all races v. White-Americans over the last twenty-five years for the median family household wealth, White-Americans despite having far less college education in aggregate v. Asian-Americans, still lead the pack.

This gap in median family household wealth in favor of White-Americans can only be explained logically by one factor, which is the amount of inheritance that one family generation passes onto its progeny.  This then reflects that White-Americans in aggregate, begin their life with an inherited advantage over all other races in America, which, makes it far easier for them to enjoy, buy, and maintain the material assets that they so receive as well as to add onto this with the labor that they create in their own endeavors. 

While we can applaud hard work and diligence, along with understanding that families have a need and desire to take care of their own, what isn't quite right, is that when politicians talk about eliminating the estate tax (aka the "death tax"), or reducing the impact of such a tax even further, they are essentially aiding and abetting the same favoritism for the same favored race, as has been done since America's inception, in which to continue such isn't fair, equal, just, or appropriate.

Certain Unalienable Rights

The seminal document for all Americans is its Declaration of Independence, and a careful reading of such, we come upon these immortal words: "… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are…" in which most people finish the sentence correctly with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, many people gloss over the absolutely critical point which is that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are unalienable rights but not the only unalienable rights that we are entitled to, as the Declaration of Independence clearly states that these three unalienable rights listed are some of those unalienable rights, but not all of our unalienable rights.

Scholars have postulated that the Bill of Rights (our first Ten Amendments to the Constitution) completes the set of our unalienable rights, those these Amendments to the Constitution don't carry with it the actual title of Unalienable Bill of Rights, yet, in principle, these rights should probably be considered as unalienable, which means that each of these rights as enumerated by our Bill of Rights are of extreme value, pertinence, and importance to the citizens of these United States.

From that, we should be able to discern our unalienable rights by carefully and logically thinking it all through, for unalienable rights, by definition, supersede any legitimate or illegitimate governmental power, for these rights come to us not by the power of the government, not by the privileges granted to us by such, not conditionally, not rights that are ours some of the time and sometimes are not, but these are rights that we are born with, they are unalienable, and no state agency has the legitimate God-given authority to wrest such from the people for these were gifted to us by our Creator, and not by man.

These additional unalienable rights indicate that we have the right to reasonably defend ourselves from foreign or domestic hands, that we have the right to earn and keep the fruit of one's own labor, that there is permitted no taxation without fair representation,  that we are permitted to worship in whatever manner that we so please, in which, further, neither the government nor the people has the right to impose upon us who are what God we should worship to, that we entitled to speak our mind and to freely express those thoughts whether politically correct or not, that our press and other communication devices are free to distribute whatever news that they so desire, that we may freely associate with whomever we so desire, regardless of their race, creed, or social status, that all are born free and none are born into servitude, that we have the right to know the charges that are made against us by policing authorities and in addition we are entitled to receive a fair and speedy trial, in front and by our peers, that fines, bails, or punishments should be reasonable and fairly applied, and that we have the right to be secure in our own private property, fairly obtained.

There isn't anything more important than our unalienable rights, which is the real and legitimate reason that governments are instituted amongst mankind, for these governments are specifically created in order to protect our unalienable rights, and a country that makes that their policy in principle and practice, is truly a nation blessed by the very hand of God.

Controlling the Narrative: Conflict Diamonds

The very first question to ask is what are "conflict diamonds"?  The definition by the United Nations reads: "...diamonds that originate from areas controlled by forces or factions opposed to legitimate and internationally recognized governments…"  You might then think that there are probably all sorts of minerals or resources in areas of such conflict, such as: oil, plutonium, phosphorus, titanium, and so on and so forth, so is somewhat puzzling why diamonds should be something that is of particular concern, as opposed to these other natural resources and minerals.

The basic answer to that question is that diamonds, unlike many other resources have been essentially price-controlled by the De Beers cartel for years, so that the very best thing for any cartel that wants to sustain itself is to declare that diamonds that are procured from other areas of the world, in particular those are outside De Beer's sphere of influence, are somehow tainted, so that in essence, because those diamonds are tainted, De Beers subsequently is still able to command a premium for their diamonds, knowing that they need not have to worry about being undercut.

Another important issue, is De Beers, itself, in which De Beers is by far the biggest producer of diamonds in South Africa, a country that was known for decades for its policy of apartheid, which was considered an anathema to the international community, and although, apartheid has come and gone, De Beers still remains, though De Beers has historically not been noted for its liberal conditions towards blacks, but rather has been seen at best as employing blacks in the grunt and dangerous work of the actual mining, and at worse, just outright exploitation.

All of the above points to the very obvious concern, which is, why does a company such as De Beers get a free pass, as if they have never been guilty of essentially taking the lion's share of profits for themselves, their stockholders, and their board of directors, while in return providing native South Africans with nothing even approaching the wealth that has been successfully extracted from South African soil by De Beers essentially running and dominating the show, in which not even the elimination of apartheid, fundamentally changed the nature of De Beers business or control.

To say that diamonds should be divided into conflict and non-conflict diamonds might make good copy, but in reality, the great bulk of diamonds that are mined in Africa are mined by black hands, while the real beneficiaries of these diamonds are white hands and white capital, but somehow that story is completely ignored, in favor of some sort of arbitrary distinction that diamonds that are mined in countries that are not in revolt are legitimate because they are considered to be blood-free diamonds, but the reality of it is that virtually all African diamonds are essentially mined by the sweat, bodily risk, and toil of black inhabitants that receive in return a small fraction of the worth of the diamonds so mined.

Diamonds are an expensive luxury item, in which the maintaining of pricing, distribution, and control are essential for maximizing such, so by controlling the narrative so that those that are outside your realm, are thereby designated as illegitimate because they have been branded as "conflict diamonds" this, in essence, becomes just a devious way to put a spike into your competition.

Temptation and Opportunity

Life presents all sorts of opportunities and choices for us, whether we are consciously cognizant of them or not.  Not too surprisingly, some of those opportunities and choices, are not things that are we should give in to, for the consequences though often times not immediate, are negative in their ultimate outcome, so that, having made that choice, we suffer for having made a poor one.  So too, it is necessary to recognize that in order to truly measure a man, one needs to test that man, for many a person believes that they are faithful when they are not, or believes that they are strong when they really are not, or believes that they are better than thou when surely they are not.  Therefore, some of the tests that we take in life, are in fact, to prove what type of man that we really are, for words are one thing, especially lofty words, and actions are the proof of whether those words have real meaning, and those that talk a good game, but fall short, are held more accountable, than those that are rather more humble about it, while also falling short.

Whenever we are tempted by something that we know has no good upside, the choice would if we are rational, be rather straightforward, but within mankind, there are innate traits, inclinations, and habits that some are able to master and some are not.  For instance, very young children are known for their need for instant gratification, for they really do need food or drink or comfort or to go to the bathroom, and are not shy in expressing such, but as adults we need to overcome some basic temptations, especially when we have been taught better and we do know better.  That is to say, as adults, the most common temptations actually align very closely with the most deadly sins which are: lust, pride, covetousness, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth.  This would surely indicate that we should be well familiar with these deadly sins for these are indeed the ingredients of the temptations that we will have to face up to in this world.

In order to be a master of anything, not only must you consciously know well your craft, you must be able to perform it well on a consistent basis, as well as being able to perform competently under the most trying of circumstances, along with having the discernment to cast aside things and barriers that get in your way while performing such focused work.  All these are the qualities of a master craftsman, so that, we should expect, that on a good day, all will go well, but on a poor day, that we would still be able to persevere and overcome obstacles in our way, in order to demonstrate in action that we are not just a "fair weather" worker.

The temptations that we face in life may be expected or unexpected, but temptations will come, and those that are able to overcome such, are those that then become the pillars of bright light in the house of our Lord, for God accepts nothing less than the attributes of what makes for the eternal music of harmony which are: love, humility, kindness, courage, chastity, patience, and diligence.  Therefore those that face temptation and overcome such have taken hold of that opportunity to prove themselves worthy students of good faith, deserving then of all the nourishing fruits for their loyal labor.

The Federal Government and Frugality

Frugality for people most definitely has its place, for those that are unable to pay their bills, may easily find themselves placed into a position in which such non-payment will result in the loss of their vehicle, the loss of their home, the loss of their credit capacity, and so on and so forth.  There are many people that are able to juggle their debts, but still suffer for being in debt, because of the massive interest payments that must be paid to their creditors as well as often being placed into a dubious credit category which means higher interest rates, often less credit capacity, in addition to the fact that some potential employers look at the credit scores of their applicants, equating to less job opportunity.  Clearly, then, for people, mishandled debt is bad, though, many people deliberately get into debt for school, for their vehicle, for their home, and are able to handle responsibly such debt, primarily because their earning capacity along with their overall budget savvy aids them in doing so.

Most of our State governments have balance budget amendments so that they are constrained in their spending in which these State budgets take into account anticipated revenues from their taxpayers as well as other payers in a given fiscal year which is thereby balanced against the legislated budget.  Yet, for whatever reason, the federal government does not have a balance budget amendment, which might be fine, if that government demonstrated its frugality in its expenditures, or a realistic plan that made some sort of fiscal sense, or the proven capacity to responsibly handle such debt, but in fact, the 21st century clearly indicates that the emperor has no clothes, for at the completion of Clinton's final year in office, the national deficit, rested at $5.629 trillion dollars, whereas as of July 6, 2017, as estimated by treasurydirect.gov the national deficit had risen to an astonishing amount of $19.844 trillion dollars.

While there may be legitimate reasons for any government to run a deficit, such as the procurement of land, for infrastructure, because of a foreign war that threatens their very way of life, because of a recession or depression, or some other national emergency, the fact of the matter is that the United States primarily runs such massive deficits because the legislative and executive branches of this government, does not have the courage to either get their house in order by spending monies within a balance budget, and/or has not the courage to raise taxes on the people and other institutions that pay taxes to the federal government. 

The problem that our present-day government has is that for whatever reason, it desires to provide benefits and services to designated people and institutions, but knows that in order to pay for such things, it would have to confiscate too much in taxes from those that would either be unwilling to pay such or have not the ready capacity to do so.  All this really does is to kick the can down the road, a road in which rather than taxing appropriately its people and living within its means today, the country has divided itself into those that reap the benefits of not having to pay their fair share by receiving more than their fair share presently, while essentially sticking the responsibility of that lack of keeping their fiscal house in order, onto the youngest generation or even generations yet unborn, because eventually those that are the creditors of these massive deficits will receive their payments off of the backs of those still alive to pay it, irrespective of the fairness, the legitimacy, or their capacity to pay such.

Tyranny and we the People

The seminal document in American history is its Declaration of Independence, for it is this document, which succinctly put forth what it was that we were in rebellion against, in which the foremost complaints against Great Britain was its tyranny that was injuring its subjects on this Continent as well as Great Britain's usurpations of our unalienable rights.  All this led to our successful and bloody revolution against Great Britain which ultimately resulted in the uniting of our individual States into the United States of America under its present-day Constitution, which begins with the preamble "We the People…"

Our Constitution signifies that we are legitimately governed by those that have been properly delegated to be in their positions of authority through the voting powers and representation of the people, and that therefore those that are in authority are not in authority because they have been born into it.  If necessary, the people are entitled to hold their representatives' feet to the fire for these office holders have a sacred duty to honor the Constitution which represents in writing the responsibilities that these representatives have to the people, and that thereby those that aggrandize unto themselves special privileges, special immunities, and special powers, have vacated their legitimate ruling of the people.

Those that are in the highest authority in this land, be it judicial, executive, or legislative, must always be the true representation of the people for the betterment of the people, recognizing that their power is only legitimate as contained within the Constitution, and to supersede or to overthrow the unalienable rights that each of us has been gifted to by our Creator, is fundamentally in error.

This means that when this government behaves in such a way that it demonstrates on a constant basis its tyranny over the people, through its constant standing military forces that busy themselves in every nook and cranny of the world, through the lack of trial by jury in the vast majority of our criminal cases, for taxes and laws that favored special elite groups while unfairly burdening the great middle class of this country, than such a government of tyranny must be called to account for itself, for its true legitimacy comes only from the consent of the people, as opposed to some sick preconception that they may rule as they see fit, running roughshod over the Constitution, so that the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean, so as to primarily aid those in power and their beneficiaries, so as to control  and suppress those that are not.

Those that are our representatives have a primary fiduciary duty to first to do right by the people,  and to specifically to obey and to uphold this Constitution, to administer justice fairly, to promote the general welfare which applies equally to all, to represent well this nation per its Constitutional laws, as well as to always to be held accountable and transparent to the people, of which these people have sacrificed again and again their blood, their toil, and their tears so as to create and maintain a nation truly blessed by the hand of God, to which the people and its representatives have a holy obligation to stand with each other when each of them is right, and to quickly make amends when either is in the wrong.