Sales Tax on Home Purchases

The given sales tax rate that an individual pays is State dependent as well as subject to county, borough, city, or other special sales tax assessments that may be applied.  In America, there are five States that do not have a statewide sales tax, which are Oregon, Montana, New Hampshire, Alaska, and Delaware, though Alaska, for example, does have some boroughs that separately charge a sales tax.  When it comes to exemptions from sales tax, there are all sorts of exemptions for all sorts of things, with the biggest exemption being materials that are bought for resale, which aren't charge a sales tax, until such a time, as that the material has been made into its final product, as well as groceries in many States are either not taxed at all, or are taxed at a significantly reduced tax rate.  In any event, unless you live in one of the States which has no sales tax,  most people pay sales tax routinely, of which, the item that one would typically purchase that would have the greatest sales tax impact in aggregate, would be one's vehicle, in which, a purchase at the average new vehicle price of $33,560 would if one is also paying the average sales tax rate of around 7% would mean that the sales tax collected on the sale of that vehicle would be $2349, a not inconsiderable amount of money. 

The foregoing, makes you wonder, why States don't charge a sales tax on each home purchase, although the simplest argument against such, is the fact that homes have yearly property taxes that an owner must pay each year which seems sufficient and perhaps fair.  The thing is, though, a sales tax is a one-time tax, so those purchasing a house, could reasonably be expected to come up with the money to pay that one-time sales tax, especially as the most common mortgages are at thirty years in length.  Also, keep in mind, that sales taxes in general, have special exemptions, and different rates depending upon certain items that are purchased, signifying that States in conjunction with their localities, could setup a sales tax so that it is progressive, or exempts the first $100,000 of the purchase price of the home, and so on and so forth. 

While, no doubt, purchasers of homes as well as the realtor business would be up in arms in regards to a sales tax being assessed against home sales, the bottom line is that sales tax in every single State that has one, didn't originally exist in any of those States to begin with.  In addition, the beauty of a sales tax for individual States is that the money is collected on behalf of that State, in addition to its localities, boroughs, cities, or counties, signifying that a sales tax so collected would be able to be re-distributed throughout the State.  So too, the very people that can afford to purchase a home to begin with, or the exact same people that can afford to pay a sales tax on the purchase of a home, so the wherewithal would still be there, and, in fact, a good argument could be made, that the implementation of a sales tax, would reduce somewhat speculation on homes, and would in its impact, help to stabilize further the housing market pricing mechanism.

In point of fact, State governments are always at least thinking about sources of revenues, so that, rather than like Arizona, which strangely imposes a small monthly rental tax on renters, they should instead look to charge the buyers of the housing product, a sales tax, for they are the owners, and most material purchases in this country have a mandated sales tax imposed.

The Constitution v. Government Control

America has a wonderful Constitution, which has stood us well for over two hundred years, but rights, even natural rights, unfortunately, can expand or contract, depending upon the governmental apparatus that the population has to contend with.  Today's government in virtually every aspect has never been more invasive into the privacy of individuals, for truly, it can be said, that the government knows everything about you, and that knowledge gives that government incredible leverage over the individual, for the government and all its resources impressed upon a given citizen, means that that citizen has no chance, of being able to stand their ground, unless that citizen's ground is combined witha Constitution of real substance, for without that, all is surely lost.

Our Constitution bestows upon us many rights, rights that are ours, but these rights can be wrested from us, if the courts, if the legislature, and if the executive branch, corrupt such, to benefit those that effectively run the government as they so desire.  For instance, we somewhat take for granted that we can speak, write, worship, and think, whatever that we want to be, but in actuality, our words, our speeches, our worship, are all under surveillance virtually all of the time, for the implicit privacy that we believe that we have when we are on our cell phones, or on the internet, or through email, or attending our church or our mosque, is subject to observance and recording because when we are either out in public, or utilizing a public network, or the event or service is open to the public, than such recordings or observation can be made, and with today's powerful computers, algorithms, and overall processing and correlating abilities, the government has the ability to comprehensively and fundamentally know who and what we are about, which is knowledge that they can exploit to their benefit, if need be.

That is to say, nobody is hardly free, if what they are saying, if what they are reading, if what they are writing, and if what they are doing, is being recorded, processed, and analyzed on a real-time daily basis, by a government that certainly does not answer to the people, but is a power onto itself.   When we were little children, our parents and teachers had a responsibility to watch over us and to correct us, for our own safety and for our own betterment, for they had at their core, our best interests in mind.  On the other hand, the government does not love us rather they want to categorize us, as either friend or foe, so as to have the upper hand upon us, meaning that we may have to consciously amend our behavior so as to become more compliant with governmental desires or decrees, because we are fearful of governmental power, unleashed directly or indirectly upon us.

All of this combined, means that inexorably and relentlessly, we have ceded nearly completely our public space to the government, and implicitly virtually all communication forms as well, so that citizens are left only with their freedom of thought, but even this last bastion of freedom, cannot long stand against a government that has the technology and wherewithal to act upon that as well.

The slave Trade was abolished in 1807-1808

The primary reason that so many slaves came to the West Indies, Brazil, and America, was that they were taken from their African origins and transported to these other countries, by the running and usage of ships specifically made for that very purpose.  In both America as well as Great Britain, there was a moral outrage that certain human beings were treated as chattel, forcefully taken from their homeland, and bought, treated, and sold as if they were cattle.  Although many saw this injustice and desired strongly to outlaw slavery, the practicalities of that day and age dictated that this was politically impossible, so instead, alternatively, they were able to enact in 1807 laws that abolished the slave trade (the United States law to this effect was passed in 1807, but came into effect on January 1, 1808).  The passage of this significant piece of legislature seem to signify that since the territories controlled by the British Empire as well as the United States itself, would no longer be legally importing slaves that this would over a period of time, reduce significantly slave populations, which basically became true for the British Empire but not for America.  The most meaningful reason why American slave populations actually rose each decade after the slave trade was abolished, is that America for the most part, did not have the same sorts of diseases such as yellow fever and malaria that decimated so many slaves in the West Indies, as well as the fact that despite the illegality of the slave trade, slaves were still imported in significant numbers into America. 

Though both America and Great Britain had navies, Great Britain's navy was the strongest and the most powerful navy in the world, in which, Great Britain devoted resources and time to eradicating illegal slave running from Africa to the territories that were part of the British empire and were fairly successful in so doing.  America, on the other hand, devoted minimal energies to interdict slave trafficking, in addition to the fact, that rather than importing slaves through ports it had previously used while the slave trade was legal, had many of their newly trafficked slaves imported through Texas and Florida, of which neither became a State of the union, until 1845.   So that, while the eliminating of slave trafficking in the British empire led to its logical conclusion which was the eradication of slavery, itself, by British Parliament in 1833; regrettably, on the other hand, in America, the slave population increased from as reported in the United States census at 1,191,362 slaves in 1810 to an incredible 3,953,761 slaves in 1860, this during a time period when the importation of slaves into America was illegal!  No doubt, part of this increase could be attributed to the slave population increasing through reproduction, but a significant amount of this increased number came from the illegal slave importation, so that, when the slave trade act in America was passed in 1807, the impression that by so doing, that slavery would over the years, gradually fade away and thereby become less and less of an economic necessity or need, was found to be wholly false, instead, the issue became such a conflict and inimical to what America represents, that a great civil war was fought, in order to resolve this issue which had torn this country asunder.

Laws, in general, are only as good as the equal application of that law as well as the equal enforcement of such.  In Great Britain, the abolishment of the slave trade did indeed lead to the abolishment of slavery, of which, this was done without revolution and a minimum of bloodshed.  In America, the abolishment of the slave trade, led to a certain segment of the population ignoring such, for they knew that they would suffer not, until such time, when a President was elected that they feared would call them to account, in which, this led to the fateful steps that abolished slavery in America, but not until thousands upon thousands died in this just but bloody cause.

You are meant to make the world a better place

There are those that believe that we live in a zero-sum world, that is to say, a world in which there is a limited amount of good stuff, and thereby the object of the game is to get as much as you can of the good stuff, and hence the devil takes the hindmost.  This type of selfishness is created by the false belief that there is a limited amount of good stuff in the first place, but in actuality the limits placed on mankind, are the limits of his imagination, his skills, his throughput, his efforts, and his teamwork, so that limits that are imposed, are self-imposed, and a zero-sum world view is wrong, for the sum of all its parts will either grow or even shrink, depending upon how mankind cooperates or not with one another.

Certainly, the first issue that must be considered is the mindset that each of us has, in which, fair to say, those that have troubling or selfish mindsets, probably aren't going to be doing or thinking the things that makes the world better for them having been here.  That is to say, wrong thinking, leads to wrong actions, though truth be told, because we are gifted with free will, we are therefore free to choose what to do or not to do, but recognize that the corollary of free will, is that we must surely reap what we sow, for better or for worse.  After all, it is pure folly to believe that what we do and how we act, does not have consequences especially for those that we deal with on a daily basis, of which, while we cannot control what others actually do or don't do, we have a responsibility to recognize that our interactions with others have influence upon them, for good or for evil.  This means, in recognition of such that we should want to behave in such a manner that we provide a benefit for others, and not a hindrance, for in having done right we are doing our part to increase enlightenment, as opposed to darkness and ignorance.

So too, recognize the logic that if each person in their own way, is helping to make the world a better place for their being here, than that world will bit by bit, step by step, good act by good act, will become that better place.  The type of change that so many profess that they want, cannot happen overnight, for it starts in the hearts of mankind, then their actions, then their persistence, then their caring, and then their love, in which, all that, put together, consistently, will result in a better world.  For if the world is not made in the image that you wish that it was the fault is most definitely not in the stars, but in us.  No doubt, most people will proclaim that they lack the power or the influence to affect change, which is only true in the sense that they lack some powerful magic wand, but that isn't what we need to worry about, what we need to worry about and concentrate upon is the people that we deal with day-by-day, in which, we must endeavor to do right by these people, in things big and small, every single day. 

Endeavor to make the world a better place by beginning with yourself, so as to better yourself and then endeavor to help others as you can to be better themselves.  Do this, and your life and this world will be better for you having done so.

The squeeze on the middle class

In America, there are the super-elite represented by the very rich and the very powerful, though there is also represented in America a very significant underclass that will seemingly never get away from being that permanent underclass, in addition to a middle class that finds that as reported by pewglobal.org that it has contracted from 62% of the population in 1991 to 59% in 2010.  Further to the point, in comparison to eleven other Western European nations, America while having the highest percentage of  their adult population classified as upper income, also has the lowest percentage classified as middle income, while unfortunately also having the highest percentage classified as lower income, indicating that the disparity of incomes is far higher in America than all other Western European countries, in which such disparity is very troubling, considering that in aggregate America is the richest nation in the world and should therefore logically have the lowest percentage of lower income adults, which it most definitely does not.

One of the biggest changes in America, since 1991, is how much smaller the world has become, as business, in effect, has become globalized, which for certain mega-corporations in America, is good, because being able to successfully market and sell their products abroad, helps immensely the growth as well as the bottom line of these corporations.  Unfortunately, the skew of income numbers, indicates, that this globalization, primarily benefits the few in America at the expense of the many.  That is to say, when the production of goods can be done outside of the United States, for a cheaper overall price, than more goods will and are being manufactured overseas.  Additionally, labor itself, is often utilized where it can be procured more cheaply, which means that labor has become more globalized, especially in consideration, that multi-national companies often have their footprints all over the globe, making it logical for such companies to employ workers from the countries that they do business in.  All of this combined, means that the middle class is becoming squeezed in America, because jobs that once went to Americans, have been transferred overseas, to new emerging middle class people in countries such as China, in which those middle class people, buy as well as create and manufacture the goods that used to be manufactured domestically, which obviously helps the bottom line and growth of companies, but does little to help the lower and middle class people of the United States.

This means that the type of progressive thinking, made, by example, Henry Ford back over 100 years ago, in which Mr. Ford more than doubled the average daily factory wage for his auto workers, leading to the inception of the industrial middle class, while improving both productivity as well as sales, has been replaced by the rather simplistic mathematical formula, which is if it can be built cheaper overseas, and/or if employees are willing to work at lower wages, than by all means, do that.   In fact, that is exactly what so many multi-national companies have done, so that those in the cat bird's seat are making money hand over fist, whereas those in the middle class, find that they are more and more competing not against fellow Americans, but global employees, in which Americans historically have been fortunate to command a premium for their labor services over the years, based on their knowhow, technology, location, knowledge, productivity, and efficiency, but have seen that come under assault more and more by the globalization of labor and manufacturing, leading to lack of the necessity of a vibrant middle class in America, because there is more profit to be made by closing up domestic shop and leaving them behind.

Government Surveillance and Safety

As modern technology gets more and more sophisticated as well as more and more invasive, the common citizens of America are subject to being watched, monitored, and spied upon at unprecedented levels of which, most citizens, aren't consciously aware of how much information is being gathered by governmental agencies, of which, most of it is done under the guise of protection and security for the state against enemies foreign and domestic.

There isn’t anything quite sweeter, than government mouthpieces assuring the citizenry that their powerful and thorough surveillance tools are used only for the protection of the homeland of its citizens, of which, stories exaggerated or not, made-up or not, with fall guys or not, are then fed to the credulous media to be disseminated to the public in which the government surveillance state is shown to be the protector of the people.  While there might even be truth to this sort of propaganda, what is missing from the discussion is the fact that when the citizens cede or have usurped, all of their rights by design or by default to the government so that the government is permitted to see all in public, as well as to monitor internet traffic and cell phone traffic that may originate in private space, but will as a matter of course travel through "open" space allowing such to be "sniffed" by governmental authorities, than your life is an open book to the government, in which, at its discretion it can come after you, for violation of the law, for which, there is always some law, somewhere, that can be found to have been violated at some point, by everyone.

In point of fact, to give the government, the benefit of the doubt, the government seldom has an interest to go after most citizens, for most citizens are not, in fact, a clear and present danger to the government.  What the government really wants to do, though, is to consolidate and increase its power, apparently done for the benefit of the security of the nation, in which personal freedom is completely sacrificed, for the perceived protection of its citizens.  However, not too surprisingly, those citizens that are difficult, have unusual or provocative ideas, or dare to think outside of the box, are by virtue of these same ubiquitous surveillance tools susceptible to that government deliberating  targeting and neutralizing their dissent as well as their inconvenience to state agencies.  This, then in a nutshell, is the danger of a society in which its citizens have no freedom of assembly, no freedom of thought, no freedom of speech, because such freedoms have been eradicated in the service of state security.

A government that knows all about its citizens, is truly a government that has separated its apparatus in effect from the people, so that those governmental beneficiaries can now live and do whatever they so desire, recognizing that the law doesn't apply to them, whereas those that dare to stand in their way, are compromised, arrested, marginalized, or eliminated, with nary a soul to make a plea for their case, for to do so, will subject those voicing such concern, to suffer the punishment of the state that will broker no dissent, for either you are with the state, or you are enemies of the state.

Regulation of the Press, Religion, and Speech

Our forefathers fought a valiant battle to provide us with freedom, of which, that freedom consists of many important things, such as freedom of thought, freedom to find gainful employment, freedom of movement, freedom to conduct business on a consensual basis, as well as freedom of expression through speech and the press, and the freedom to worship or not worship as per the individual's desires.  These freedoms are the very essence of what this country stands for, enshrined in our Constitution and should as a matter of course, be freedoms that are well respected and well known by all citizens of America.

Alas, there are many inconvenient truths in life, as well as inconvenient untruths, that each of us must deal with on a constant basis, of which, for whatever reason, people are surprised again and again, that lies and damnable lies, are permitted to be spoken or written or worshipped to by individuals and institutions, in which some people, decry that such a thing could ever be possible or permitted.  This, unfortunately, is missing the forest for the trees, for if the only things that can be spoken of are just words that are truthful, if the only words that can be written are just words that are truthful, and the only worship permitted are contained within the established religion of a country, than you do not have freedom, you have instead created a government of censorship and regulation which is of itself, a violation of this Constitution.

If, the people, are not comfortable when words are spoken or written that are hateful, upsetting, not in conformance with one's one opinions or thoughts, lies, and so on and so forth, the appropriate responses to such are to ignore it, to respond to it, to argue against it, and so on and so forth, but an inappropriate response in this country, is to stipulate that because you heard or read something that you don't agree with, that therefore that speech or what has been written must be censored, and thereby going forward, further speech such as that, must be regulated by governmental oversight or fiat.

The above type of thinking is flawed, for either this is an open society, with true freedoms or it is not, it is either entirely one thing or entirely the other, because when a society is open, you are as a matter of course, going to come up against thoughts, words, and actions, that you may not agree with, but those expressing such are entitled to do so, with a very few notable exceptions, such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.  On the other hand, if you believe that such thoughts, words, and actions, must be regulated, you are essentially requesting that the government or its equivalency shut those people up, thereby making each person and institution subject to governmental oversight, governmental regulation, and governmental punishment for expressing themselves in a manner or way that you or society doesn't approve of.

This is a country of free speech, of a free press, and of free worship, which should be the fundamental rights in any just society, for the appropriate discourse of ideas must allow the free exercise of one's own thoughts in order to help formulate a society that takes responsibility for their own actions and deeds, so as to become in whole, a more complete and better nation for its respect for diversity and free will, allowing each in their own way to have freedom and liberty.

Military Aerial Bombardment and the recoding of such

America lives to bomb other countries, for a lot of reasons, of which, two of the most important are that bombers are seldom taken down by anti-aircraft gunnery or other aircraft because of the sheer distance in height that the bombers are when dropping their bombs from the sky, in addition to the fact, that the American public, does not like their soldiers dying in foreign wars or foreign insurrections, so that if the job can be done from the sky with minimal risk for our soldiers, then so be it.  Of course, you would think the most important reason for bombing countries is that bombing works and does it job efficiently, but in actuality, bombing, by its very nature, destroys or damages, indiscriminately, an incredible amount of infrastructure of all sorts, as well as killing, maiming, and inconveniencing civilians.  So too, because the bombs are dropped from so high up in the air, the overall damage on the ground, is something that is difficult to fathom or to comprehend, signifying that the recording of bombing missions by commercial-based drones, modified for their tasks, by the military, then streams such videos to the "cloud" would be of invaluable feedback.  That is to say, bombing missions are mission specific, so that an aircraft that contained, for instance, several DJI Phantom 2 Quad-opter drones, in which each unit retails for less than $500 on Amazon, could possibly be used to record video, in which a hobbyist, has already created video as reported by popularmechanics.com, of such a drone recording video at an estimated 11,000 feet in the air. 

The logistics of how these modified commercial drones would be utilized in order to record bombing sorties, can be left up to the military geniuses to begin with, but it certainly seems possible in the realm of things, that such an expense would be trivial for what these drones would provide via streaming live recordings before their batteries run out, which would be the actual footage of the immediate aftermath of bombing missions done on foreign territories, and one could easily make the argument, that this feedback of what and how effective our bombing missions werewould have a meaningful impact going forward, for it isn’t enough for the military to simply state that a particular mission is successful, without a more comprehensive proof of what destruction was wrought by the bombing of a foreign target.

In an era in which the America public, in general, wants to see far less boots on the ground, so that our soldiers are not at risk, in addition to America being the default first source to venture into conflict areas, there should be an obligation to actually have footage of what exactly is occurring when bombs are dropped onto their targets, so that adjustments may be made by those conducting such sorties, to reduce unnecessary civilian harm, to reduce unnecessary civilian infrastructure destruction, and to thereby advise our military authorities as to the overall effectiveness of our military operations done through such aerial bombardment.  This means that inexpensive aerial drones that are structured to stream back live video would serve as our "eye in the sky" , providing raw and unedited footage that would help immensely in telling the tale of each mission launched.

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.