Respect, disrespect, and self-respect

People die for all sorts of reasons, of which one of them is the perception that some people have of being disrespected, which can and sometimes does tragically result in violent repercussions.  The thing is, though, those that have the greatest self-respect, typically are not going to be thrown off by someone that is demonstrating some sort of disrespect, especially if the person that is being disrespectful, isn't really knowledgeable about what they are addressing, how they are addressing it, or to whom it is being addressed.  After all, just because someone is purposely being provocative, or annoying, does not necessarily mean that a response to such is necessary or even appropriate, because simply not paying it any mind, is often times a legitimate response.

However, many people, do take offense at being disrespected, especially when that disrespect is done in a public forum, and feel that if they do not respond, that they are acquiescing or even agreeing that they are deserving of such disrespect, and that by not doing so, will further serve to show that they aren't really deserving of respect, and perhaps should rightfully be disrespected.  Whether any of this is true or not, meaningful or not, worth responding to or not, is situation specific, but those that wear their respect on their shoulder, will find that this type of scenario comes up a lot more frequently, than those that do not.

The most important type of respect is the respect that you owe yourself, or not, depending upon your merits and accomplishments, followed by those that are your family members and peers.  When those that are closest to you, disrespect you, or you perceive that you have been disrespected, your response should be consistent to who and what you really are, for someone that has a relatively high regard for their own self, should be far less inclined to overreact to someone disrespecting them, because you should already be secure in who and what you really are, and not worry about pesky people, that perhaps don't really know their place.

On the other hand, when you don't have a lot of self-respect, and someone close to you disrespects you, the common tendency is to react rather vigorously, which can make for a very volatile situation,  over something that often has a lot more to do with your lack of self-esteem as compared to their lack of respect.  So that, for those that don't like to be disrespected, recognize that probably you will receive a lot less disrespect if you work on the attributes that will make you a better person, of more value and worth, along with just becoming more comfortable with who and what you really are, so that, as a balanced and mature human being, you will recognize that, more often than not, the problem of disrespect, lies almost always with the person so initiating it, because they have issues that they want to take out on others, to deflect away from their own defects, so that, even though such disrespect seems personally addressed at you, it is really their poor way of coping with an unsatisfactory life, taken out on you, and it takes two to play.

Exploitation and poverty

There are nearly 7.5 billion people in the world, of which, according to dosomething.org, "Nearly 1/2 of the world’s population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day."  These figures are absolutely astonishing, especially for those that live in the comfortable conditions in which they not only make considerably more money than $2.50/day but have air conditioning, indoor plumbing, good food and good healthcare, transportation, and all the accouterments of reasonable success or even better. 

While there are a lot of theories and arguments about why we have so many poor people, of which it is reasonable to assume that things such as a lack of education, or a lack of opportunity, or laziness, or drug abuse, or economic systems, or because it is a zero-sum world, that each probably holds some truth to it; but the bottom line, though, is that the most obvious reason why today there are so many poor people, has a lot more to do with governmental systems and corporate structures, that create the  exploitation of the poor, for the benefit of those that exploit them.

That is to say, those that are very rich and/or very powerful, are absolutely determined to remain in that position for themselves, as well as for their family, in addition to their compatriots, and in order to do so, it is, in short, necessary that a structure is in place, that favors them at every turn of the card, and disfavors those that in mass could be a threat to the system as it is.  So that, the masses of people that do not have that beautiful mansion, that do not have judges on call, that do not have connections at the highest level of government as well as at corporate structures, that therefore are on the outside and not on the inside, are going to, in one way or another, in one form or another, need to be kept at bay, for there is way too many of those masses, which are a constant real possible threat to the few.

This then does mean that the mass of mankind must be exploited at every conceivable turn, in every conceivable way,  and kept distracted from seeing the reality of what is really going on, but instead are enticed to somnolence and complacency with intoxications and entertainment of all sorts in order to keep the population relatively pacified, in which, the little money and opportunity that they may have, is never enough to not be in some sort of hock to some sort of entity, forever, for those that have little financial strength, therefore have little maneuverability, and those that can't pay the bills are never going to boss around those that make those bills. 

The fact that three individuals in America, have as reported by cnbc.com, "… collectively more wealth than the 160 million poorest Americans…", can only really sensibly mean this basic thing, that the mass of mankind has little or nothing of substance or sustainability to stand upon, with no one to champion their cause, because in order for that sort of extreme wealth disparity to actually happen, this can only be because millions of people are exploited day in and day out, and that the institutions that are currently in place, are inherently biased against the mass of people, so as to favor the very few, the connected, and all those that ingratiate themselves to them, at the expense of the 160 million poorest Americans, who are seen as a resource to be ruthlessly plundered and exploited, so as to keep them weak and helpless, so that they will not raise their hands, nor their heads, to revolt.

Wishing and doing, right and wrong

While it seems rather obvious that wishing for something, but not taking the constructive steps to accomplish that certain something, cannot possibly be on the same page as actually taking the steps to do that certain something, as well as actually doing that very thing, yet, there are all sorts of people, that live in a world of wishing well for themselves or others, which has its place, but doing little or nothing to actually do something of substance for themselves or others, not seeming to understand the very big divide between wishing well and doing well.

In point of fact, as it is written in scripture, "…The harvest is indeed plentiful, but the laborers are few…." (Luke 10:2), for there are a multitude of good people, that definitely know the value of a good cause, but somehow never seem to have the energy or the vitality to actually do much about it to help those good causes, though, they are quite content to enjoy the fruits of those that do exert themselves for that cause, of which those that do put themselves in harm's way, recognize implicitly that they personally will hardly benefit, but that it is the right thing to do, because it needs to be done, and society will be better for it having been done.

The fact that you have good ideas has its place, the fact that you wish to do wonderful and great things is obviously far better than wishing to do evil and horrible things, but if you aren't able to actually provide some sweat labor to the good cause, then you haven't done what you really should be doing, and what you really ought to be doing.  The main progress in the advancement of society has come from those people that selflessly devote themselves, bravely to the cause of justice, fairness, and equality, in which, those that are on the front lines of such an effort, typically, personally gain little, while risking and devoting a lot, but they do so, because their efforts are the necessary efforts to make society better, which necessitates confronting injustice, unfairness, and inequality and fighting nobly against it.

The reason that good causes fail, or are so long and drawn out in the coming, has little to do with evil really being the match of good, but rather that, far too many people, provide lip service to good causes, but are not willing to provide the effort and risk necessary for those good causes to triumph over evil, as well as the opposing side, because the current status quo conditions benefit them, are quite adept at keeping the dogs at bay, because they are selfishly motivated to keep what they have, by any means necessary, and are actually truly devoted to their cause, even though their cause is both wrong and nearly always, self-centered.

There are very few good causes that have come to successful fruition, without a lot of labor, effort, devotion, and commitment, in which those exerting themselves, often suffer for the cause, but do not relent in their cause, because they are driven to see the success of their cause, even if they won't necessarily directly benefit from it, because they are the ones that don't just wish for things to be made right, but are doing what they can to actually make things right.

The export and import of genius

When you take a look around at the CEOs of America's biggest multi-national corporations, along with governmental officials at the highest levels, as well as the professors and scientists at our highest institutions of learning, in addition to our research and development departments, one can't help but to notice that many of the very best and the very brightest are not actually native born, that, rather they are, in fact, those that have immigrated here, whether at a young age, or at their collegiate age, or whatever age, they subsequently made this their desired and ultimately their official residence.

The progress that mankind makes at this stage of its development, has a lot more to do with the intelligence of its people, especially those that at the highest levels are able to effectively utilize and develop upon foundations, theories, and structures, in such a manner, that mankind can continue to make important breakthroughs in all sorts of endeavors, that make for the advancement of civilizations, as opposed to those previous eras that relied more upon brawn, luck, or pure happenstance.

This does mean, that countries that are somehow able to import or to obtain the genius minds of other countries, have enriched themselves, and to a large extent, made those countries that lost those geniuses, poorer for that lost.  This would certainly indicate, that countries such as the United States will continue to get even more rich and even more successful, than those countries that do not have the most appropriate infrastructure or lack the sensibility to have a good rule of law, or lack other various accommodations, or lack economies of scale, or just plain lack opportunity, so that they are constantly susceptible to losing the very people that they need to help build their country and their infrastructure up, because in most cases, those that are the very brightest, are going to gravitate to where they will be able to truly test their wings on the most meaningful level.  

This would certainly indicate that those countries that make it a point to accommodate in one form or another, those that are especially gifted in a way that keeps them engaged with their country of birth, are fundamentally doing the wisest thing that they can do, so as to keep their homegrown talent, for every country that loses their homegrown talent to the United States is shooting themselves in the foot, for though, the United States is actually an embarrassment in their aggregate education global ranking in regards to science and math, especially when compared to other countries that have educational budgets that are far smaller, as well as governments that are often far less secure, the United States hasn't really lost too many steps because of it, for it still dominates the world in corporate power, in GDP, in its military power, as well as in Nobel prizes so awarded, demonstrating that it isn't the aggregate educational score that is so important, but rather which country has the most superstars and super teams, and that country is the United States,  for far too many countries allow their best to leave them, and they are far poorer for it.

The deliberate demonization and dehumanization of certain human beings

The history of mankind clearly shows again and again, man's inhumanity to man, of which, wars, selfishness, fear, and greed, bring out the worst in many a person and civilization, time and time again.  The thing about war, in any of its myriad forms, is that most of the participants in warfare, don't really have an axe to grind with their opponent, and in absence of such a grievance, aren't particularly motivated to participate in a war, though, countries and their governments are usually highly skilled at providing such motivation, of which the primary one comes down to the demonization and the dehumanization of the enemy, of which, to acknowledge the enemy as being a fellow human being, of someone who is just as worthy of respect and consideration as one self, is not even an allowable thought.

This means, that in order for something like slavery to actually be permitted or countenanced, or to wantonly and to indiscriminately kill the opponent in war, the very first thing that must be accomplished, is the propaganda or proselytizing that makes it clear that the other is either not a true rational human being in the proper sense of the word, and therefore is something like a subspecies to a human being, or is quite frankly, not human at all, and rather more appropriately seen as vermin, rubbish, scum, diabolical, devilish, or as something that is for a certainty, god-forsaken, and not worthy of any sort of decency or respect, being accorded to it.

This then, makes it rather easy to indiscriminately kill your opponent, because the person doing the killing does not see the other as fully human or even considers that they may actually be human.  It also makes it rather easy to take someone that is regarded as less than human, and then for humanitarian purposes, so to speak, train that captive as if they are an animal, and treat that captive as a beast of burden, of which, believing that the captive is an animal, the person that is in control, feeds, trains, and uses that captive as an animal, and will not consider in their thinking, anything that would have a strong tendency to upset that belief, because to even consider that somehow the captive is  human or has human-like capabilities, would necessitate a re-evaluation as to whether what is occurring is actually right or wrong, for an animal, clearly is a species, that mankind has total dominion of, and thereby can do whatever that they so will to that animal.

Most people, like to consider themselves to be fair, and to believe that their actions, are therefore fair-minded, so too, most people clearly believe that murder and the taking of another human life is wrong, while recognizing that there are some notable exceptions to that rule; as well as most people, believe that to own another human being and therefore to be able to do whatever that it is that they wish to by virtue of that ownership of that human being, doesn't sound morally right.  Yet, we are surrounded by armed conflicts, wars, and the enslavement or oppression of other human beings, virtually, all over this globe, indicating that most people, are just fine with the killing and the owning of others, just as long as they are able to believe, that those others aren't really human, or at least, aren't human enough.

Fundamentalism and feminism

A lot of people are not very versed in their history, so that, when they look around and see that men and women seem to have the same sorts of opportunities, be they educational or employment wise, are allowed to vote, purchase homes or cars, and travel wherever and whenever that they so desire, subject or limited only to the money that they have access to, it does seem like a pretty fair and equal world.  However, that is the way things are on paper, even in the best of civilizations, and certainly was not the norm, one hundred years ago, or even fifty years ago, but it is the norm, for many countries in the western hemisphere as well as it being the norm for various other nations across this world.

Still, sad to say,  there are many other nations in which a patriarchal system of governance is still the norm, whether that is in conjunction with religious authorities, or strictly state sanctioned, but in either event, in many areas of the world, women are restricted in their opportunity to be educated, in their freedom of movement, in their dress, in their employment opportunities, in their rights, and in their marriage, and the more restrictive that these conditions are, the less flexibility that these women have to develop their own minds, or to seek valued economic opportunities, or to become sovereign within their own selves.

In an era in which the world has become fundamentally smaller, it is both problematic as well as futile to believe that with the exception of some very small and isolated enclaves, that people even in the most restricted nations, will not be somewhat cognizant of what others are doing and the freedoms that these people are able to avail themselves of in these other countries; and that thereby to then believe that half of the population that is being denied  fair and equal access to some of humanity's most fundamental rights such as self-determination, education, and achievement, would not somehow be resentful of such a denial, and further, that nation-states that treat half of the population as being entitled legally to nothing more than being treated as the property of the male species, would be a nation-state that would find its progress, be it economic, intellectual, or just about anything of merit, to be handicapped by its lack of diversity as well as its closed-mindedness.

Such fundamentalism, whether created out of good intentions or not, has little or no room, to be justified in the present age, for laws and doctrines, even of the highest order, are susceptible to wrong interpretation and wrong implementation, of which, those that are most fundamentalist in their structure, no matter how diligent and resolute that they may individually be, will find, that the dead weight of so many people upon their shoulders, as well as the constant and unrelenting opposition by the vibrant and lively underground of those that do not support such oppression will undercut them at every conceivable avenue, so that their very narrow-mindedness will  of its own accord, preclude them from seeing what is just out of their sight but is gaining upon them, which is that true justice will have the final say.

Inmate Phone costs

Nobody really wants to be in prison or in jail, but in a country, that incarcerates, over two million individuals, it's a fact of American life.  All of us, in one form or another communicate with each other and through this modern age, it has never been easier or cheaper to communicate with one another, even over great distances and from coast-to-coast, so that, the days of having to pay for long distance service, though, they might still exist for the few Luddites that won't change their ways, aren't really a factor for most everyone else, in which every call initiated over a person's cell phone is under the most prevalent cell phone plans treated the same whether it is local or long distance. However, there are still situations, of which being incarcerated is one of them, that the cost of phone communication, whether initiated from inside the incarceration facility or outside of it, are prohibitive in their cost structure, overtly exploitative, unfair, and punitive in their effects.

While, most everyone expects that there should be rules, regulations, and punishments associated with being incarcerated, so that, utilizing a phone for communication is subject to certain hours and restrictions, that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that calling to a given inmate or receiving such a call is structured in such a manner that the monetary cost for the initiator of those calls is both uncompetitive and unreasonably high, leaving the inmate or in reality, family members of the inmate  in an exceedingly raw deal of having to shell out real money for each precious minute spent on the phone, in which, when the calls are "collect" or are considered to be long distance, the charges get even more expensive, and in any event, without any other viable options, those on the outside must pay these exorbitant costs in order to just have a conversation with their loved one on the inside.

The reason that these costs are so high, is quite obviously, because the way that the present system works, is quite beneficial for the exclusive deal being provided to the phone communication provider, as well as quite frankly, the "kickback", in effect, provided to the incarceration facility for the privilege of granting said company the right to be the exclusive phone communication provider.  None of this should be happening, especially in consideration that the very people that are incarcerated to begin with, more times than not, are impoverished, and their family members on the outside, typically are in difficult financial straits, themselves, in addition to, from a humanitarian perspective, that there is a substantial benefit, in having people that are incarcerated being able to readily communicate with those that they care and love, making for a better social situation, on the outside, as well as on the inside.

In point of fact, as reported by theverge.com, there are "… a small handful of companies that dominate the $1.2 billion US prison phone industry," which indicates exactly how much money is at stake, demonstrating that it is high time to make some fundamental changes as to how communication is conducted within incarceration facilities, that takes into account, that wantonly profiting off of people that are imprisoned, as well as taking unfair advantage of their families that are stressed out emotionally as well as financially, is a grand disservice to  all fair-minded people, and has no place in this country and should therefore be given no quarter.

Who will watch the watchers?

We live in an era in which tracking people in everything that they do has become the new norm. So that our activities are often monitored , recorded, or watched when we are on the internet, through our social media, while traveling on public roads, and while walking in public places, so that more times than not, such activity is recorded or monitored, or subject to either of those things, of which that monitoring is done by governmental agencies of all stripes, quasi-governmental agencies, or through private enterprise, though most of the players and companies in the private enterprise sphere, are publically traded through the stock exchange or are controlled by publically held and traded corporations.

As most people are quite aware of, information is definitely a form of power, and when the watchers know pretty much everything about you, or are able to rather easily put together a composite of you that is erringly accurate, any common sense citizen, should be concern about that very thing, especially when there are characteristics about them, that they would not want to have publically divulged, or that would make them feel uncomfortable that others knew this about them, especially by agencies and people that are not visibly known or answerable to them.

While the government as well as private enterprise, spend an inordinate amount of time, stating that such information is safe with them, or is necessary in order to provide personal safety or to provide benefits to you, such statements are self-serving and are not only not backed up by anything other than the words so spoken or written, but fail to answer the most fundamental question, as to who is watching the watchers?

In point of fact, a country in which, its citizenry is under constant surveillance, may or may not be a safer place to live in from a crime perspective, though, in all probability, street crime as we currently know it, would probably be reduced, though, crime of other sorts, would probably be developed, because criminals are very good about finding a way to exploit situations, and overt monitoring will not stop crime, though it will probably change the perpetrators and the nature of certain crimes.  In any event, while the ostensible purpose of all this monitoring is for the protection or benefit of the citizenry, it is absolutely no stretch of the imagination, to recognize that when the watchers know everything about you, that such information is exploitable, for nefarious or monetary reasons or both.

So then, unless the watchers are being watched by the general public, in a manner such as those citizens that make up a grand jury, or as those citizens that are a part of a civilian police review panel, so that, in all matters large and small, all of the information and video that is being aggregated, sorted, and analyzed, is subject to general public oversight, giving those people not only the right to see this information and video but also the right to ask questions that must be responded to in a comprehensive and satisfactory fashion, in which all of this is provided to the public as a service to that public, then the watchers are not being adequately watched or monitored, signifying that those that are the watchers are a class above all those that are being watched, in all matters, large and small, putting the sword to our individuality as well as burying our flag of freedom, replaced instead by the dipped flag of subjection, by those that are being watched.

Wages, minimum wage, and regulation

There are certain people and organizations that don't see the value of a minimum wage because such a minimum wage sets an artificial floor on wages, so that, even if a given individual does not merit that wage based on their productivity and throughput, that they received such a wage.  In point of fact, this analysis of the minimum wage is correct, however, even though the establishment of such a minimum wage, does bring about or can bring about, above market-wages for certain individuals, it is almost mandatory in today's modern world, in which unionization and collective bargaining has been at such a steep decline, that the minimum wage in its own way, serves as proxy as a type of union for the regulation of wages for all those at the lowest totem pole of wage empowerment.

This does mean, that in the absence of union strength in so many industries, that the greatest help that the government can mandate on its own to be on the side of labor, especially, for the most vulnerable labor, is to raise the minimum wage, for in doing so, this would effectively for millions of workers, essentially place on their employers the obligation of being mandated to pay a living wage, even though those receiving such a wage increase would be or may well be getting an above-market wage; then again these are the very people that need such a wage in order to live, of which, if industry of all sorts was required to pick up this increase in wages, they would find a way , sooner or later, to more effectively utilize and to train these employees so as to get more value from that labor. 

In the absence of collective bargaining, and especially in the absence of having highly marketable and in-demand employment skills, those that are seeking a job, are in an extremely disadvantageous position, for without the aid of an union that has structured something of value for them, or of a living minimum wage, than those that need a job, pretty much are going to have to accept what they can accept, especially when they do not have the ready means to easily travel to other places that perhaps pay better or have better conditions. 

In point of fact, it's unfair for the government, that is, the people, to have to pay or to provide social services to all those that are unable to function or to live without being subsidized, despite being gainfully employed, so when corporations and other institutions do not pay a living wage, that lack of a living wage, necessitates such being augmented instead, through the government, which is the people, so that in principle, it is those corporations and other institutions that reap the benefits, the profits, and the excesses of their success, to the exclusion of the people, in general, which isn't fair and it isn't right.

In reality, except for high demand employees of all sorts, those that are seeking employment, typically do not have much negotiating power, and must pretty much accept the prevailing wage so being offered to them, the work hours so being offered, and the benefits so being offered, whereas, if there was a cost-of-living baseline wage established that set a minimum national standard that all are entitled to for those that are laborers, then, businesses would adjust to this new cost of doing business, which would help the most vulnerable, and make for a better and fairer society.

Incarceration, contraband, visitors, and correction officers

America incarcerates more people than any other country in the world, even though America is not the most populous country in the world, with marketwatch.com, indicating that there are 2, 217,000 prisoners in America, a truly staggering amount of incarcerated people.  Most of those that are incarcerated have a strong desire to have their love ones, friends, or just about anyone, come and visit them, of which there really isn't any good substitution for an actual physical meet between those that are incarcerated and those that are not.

For whatever reason, prisons and jails in all sorts of jurisdictions having been changing the rules in regards to who gets to visit, how they are allowed to visit, and whether the visit will even allow a physical meet of any sort.  One of the reasons why those that incarcerate people, claim that they need to control those that visit their loved ones in prison, is that the incarceration institutions claim that those that visit, are the very people that are bringing in contraband, of which, though, there are a very small percentage of people so visiting, that do attempt to bring in contraband, categorically it can be stated that in actuality, this is not how contraband gets into prisons.

In point of fact, it is the very people that are minding the store, the correction officers, that bring in the contraband, for who else, knows everything about what is or is not monitored, and who else gets the free pass from other correction officers, when a scanner goes off, other than those same correction officers.  The way that things work within an incarceration facility is a microcosm of how things work on the outside in the sense that those on the inside know the score and how to work the angles to benefit themselves, which is exactly what certain correction officers do in order to augment their salaries or to ingratiate themselves with people that can help them in one form or another.

Anyone that actually believes that all the contraband that gets into prisons, somehow is getting in via contact visitation, is far too credulous for their own good, for any specific visitor, is not only visiting for brief periods of time, in addition to those visits being infrequent, but also, visitors are quite aware that in many instances that they may be subjected to a real strip search themselves, or be denied their visitation rights, so that, basically no common sense visitor, will deliberately bring in any contraband, whatsoever.

As the nypost.com wrote in regards to a Department of Investigation (DOI) using an undercover agent, that "….one of its agents posing as a correction officer wasn’t stopped walking into two jails with a trove of contraband despite magnetometers that started ringing."   The reason that so much contraband gets in time and time again, is because those that are incarcerated have a need for that contraband, and those correction officers providing that contraband are well compensated for it, in which, those that are the cleanest, from the incarcerated to the visitors, to the upstanding correction officers, suffer, because some of the incarcerated are privileged with that desirable contraband, while visitors are unfairly targeted as the distributors of such contraband, and honest correction officers are stuck in low paying dead-end jobs.

The big, big business of traffic fine violations

The first thing to know about traffic tickets in the United States, is that a given driver's susceptibility to receive such a ticket, is dependent not only upon the State that the drive in, not only upon the city streets that they frequently drive upon, not only upon the make and model of their vehicle, and not only upon their age and race, but perhaps the most salient fact of them all, is the given municipality that the vehicle is driving within and their priority of writing tickets to those drivers that ply their streets.

In point of fact, no matter how much police agencies, cities, counties, municipalities, States, and so on talk about how their police officers do not have quotas for the writing of traffic tickets, in almost every jurisdiction in America, there are most definitely, if not directly in name, quotas for ticket writing, assigned to each officer that drives a vehicle and earns a salary, of which, we know this by virtue of the simple fact, that municipal budgets are built around the collection of traffic ticket fines each year, in which, that allocation of budgetary money set aside for the collection of those fines, must be met, or there will be a shortfall in the overall budget.

According to jeffdavislawfirm.com "…roughly 41 million speeding tickets, which is over $6 billion dollars each year," will be collected throughout the United States, each year, just for speeding, so that the issuance of these tickets is a very big business, and some small towns have earned quite a notoriety by deliberately targeting out-of-town vehicles that are traveling within its domain by issuing the drivers of those vehicles, tickets, so as to meet their fiscal budget in order to have a viable and sustainable law officer presence within that town to begin with.

For the most part, the tickets being written by officers and the high dollar amounts of such fines, not to mention the additional penalties for not paying on time, which subject the driver of such a ticket, to further fines, possible license suspension, court fees, and higher insurance rates, is something that has morphed into being part and parcel of the necessity of having such in order to budget for the police officers on that police force, so that, without police officers collecting enough in aggregate of traffic ticket fines, then such municipal budgets would run a deficit, and police officers, or other areas of governmental services would have to be reduced or eliminated.

This so indicates that traffic citations are a regressive form of taxation, for such tickets are not generated in a progressive manner against the income of those being so ticketed, rather such a traffic ticket fine aligns with the fixed dollar amount per the civic code of the community issuing such a fine, in addition to the unfortunate fact, that those of color, are more often pulled over and ticketed than the percentage of such drivers would necessitate, if all was actually random and fairly applied.

The bottom line is that the issuance of traffic citations has little to do with driver and road safety, but rather instead has everything to do with taxing those that drive along our public roads with monetary citations so as to help aid municipalities in meeting their budgetary concerns, of which, such taxation through these tickets, is unequal, unfairly applied, subjective, arbitrary, and subject to abuse by those that issue those tickets.

Consistency in our actions one to another

Some people have a tendency to get confused about things like morals, ethics, good or evil, right or wrong, or at least act the part of being confused, whereas for the most part, whether something is good or evil, is fairly straightforward, and implicitly recognizable. One way to recognize the difference between the two is simply to imagine yourself either in the other person's shoes of a given situation, or to imagine if everyone else in the world did the same sort of thing as you are currently contemplating doing, which will often provide the much needed perspective as to whether the deed is right or wrong.

That is to say, if you believe it's fine to lie to someone, especially about something that is of real material importance, but then, unbeknownst to you, they were to do the same thing to you, in all probability, you would not appreciate the fact that they lied to you and thereby took advantage of you, so the only reasonable conclusion to recognize, is that lying is not something that should be done, and thereby we should do our part not to participate in being a willful player in the lying game.

On the other hand, let us say that we do generous acts for other people, expecting absolutely nothing in return, perhaps because it makes us feel good for having done so, or perhaps because we want to do our part to help other people, that need such help, so that, if other people, were to have the same sort of outlook, this would obviously add to more generous acts being conducted one to another, and hence leading to a more generous world, therefore a better world for our generosity, which is good.

This so indicates that when we deliberately throw trash on the ground, cheat on our tests, steal small and trivial things, or change stories in such a manner that we are made to look better than we really are, that none of these things, repeated by others at the same scale, is going to actually make our society better, even though each of these actions, are relatively speaking, fairly minor.  So then, we ought not to do those things, if we truly believe that none of these things are actually contributing to making the world better, for one another, and since we cannot control the actions of another, but can control our own actions, through self-discipline, then we should control our actions, and thereby lead by example to others.

The deeds and actions that we do should be consistent to what we truly desire that we would receive from others in our interactions with them, so that, if our preference is to deal with those that are honest, fair-minded, and courteous, that should be the way that we conduct ourselves, for thereby, that would be consistent, as opposed to believing that it's okay, for us to lie, cheat, and deceive, from time-to-time, but it isn't okay for anyone else to do that when it benefits them, at our expense, from time-to-time.

Great societies and healthy relationships are built around positive qualities, of which, these attributes are equally available for all to utilize, if only, we would more often and consistently do the very things ourselves that we wish that others would do in their interactions with us.

The elite and their Return on Invested Capital (ROIC)

Corporations have a responsibility to their shareholders, to their board of directors, and to their employees, to try to make a profit, of which, profits are made, by the capital so invested into the company, that is wisely utilized so that the cost of goods, and other associated expenses, are less than the gross profit and ultimately the net income of that company.  Those companies that consistently grow and make consistent profits are considered typically to be of more value than companies that are inconsistent in their growth and inconsistent in their profits.  Further, to the point, companies that are proven generators of good profits, especially profits of a sizeable percentage, are considered to be the best run and best managed companies of them all.

While there are many ways to evaluate the effectiveness of a given company, one of them is looking carefully at the Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) of a given corporation, in which, for simplicity sake the formula for ROIC as defined by fool.com is: ”ROIC = After-tax operating earnings / (total assets - non-interest-bearing current liabilities)".  The ROIC for the median of all corporations in America, has grown modestly over the last fifty years, however as reported by brookings.edu, " Excluding goodwill, for example, the 90th percentile of such returns has risen roughly fivefold, from about 20 percent in the mid-1980s to an eye-popping 100 percent in 2014," demonstrating that certain, specific corporations are absolutely dominating their domain and making historically high ROIC returns, which is completely unprecedented over the last fifty years.  Additionally, these very high ROIC returns from a capitalistic and competition standpoint makes little or no sense, since those companies that are experiencing extremely high ROIC returns, should be subject to those returns over some period of time being reduced considerably and to adhere more closely to historic median averages, for high returns in any investment, should ultimately result in competitors reducing such a return by virtue of that competition.

Further to the point, brookings.edu reports that: "Among companies that, in 2003, had a return on invested capital in excess of 25 percent, only 15 percent had a return below that threshold in 2013," which clearly indicates that rather than competition coming in and reducing the ROIC of these elite corporations, that these corporations, for whatever reason(s), appear to be immune to such competition, and hence are able to return outsized ROIC results.    While that might be good for those super performers it isn't good for America as a whole, for it means that a small segment of American corporations are generating an outsized ROIC.  So too, this indicates, that when a company's ROIC is, for instance, 50 percent, as opposed to the median return of ROIC from 1963 to 2004 of about 10 percent, that the company with the ROIC of 50 percent, needs only to reinvest just 20 percent of every dollar so earned, in order to grow exactly 10 percent, indicating that the balance of that return can be used to pay dividends to their stockholders, buy back stock so as to increase their stock price, or buy out other corporations in order to dominate their business niche more, or all of these things, combined; whereas the corporation that makes just 10 percent on their ROIC, needs to invest all of it back into the company in order to continue their growth at that 10 percent.

So too, such concentration of wealth, as demonstrated by the ROIC, implies strongly as this being a significant reason as to why the median wage for workers has been stagnate over the last four decades, since those wages are concentrated to only a very few companies to the exclusion of all others; in addition to the salient fact that those that are able to garner a consistent ROIC of 25 percent or above, are quite obviously taking more monies from the general public by virtue of their higher profits of their goods so being sold, and therefore, redistributing money from the masses to those that are in the privileged catbird seats of those special corporations that have truly gargantuan ROIC returns.

What makes for a great religion?

People, depending upon their background and their faith, are going to have all sorts of different beliefs about what makes a good religion, with some stating that one should have unquestioned faith in the 100% validity of such a religion and thereby all of its tenets so promulgated, whereas another may believe that obeying all health, dietary, and prayer instructions are the most necessary parts, whereas there are those that believe that part of their faith is spreading that faith far and wide beyond their neighborhood and communities.  In summary, for every religion, there are all sorts of beliefs of what constitutes loyal and orthodox believers.

While people are entitled to believe and to follow whatever faith so interests them, for the most part, religion shouldn't be about dietary rules, and religion shouldn't be about having to pray in certain directions and at certain, specific times, or at certain specific events, and further religion shouldn't be restricted to only certain bloodlines or communities that have been designated as being the favored people of such a religion, and the practice of any religion should not devolve into anything that becomes in its purpose, rote, routine, or unnecessarily restrictive, intolerant, or reactionary.

In point of fact, religion should seldom be about the physical body, but really it should be about a social gathering of like-minded people that are brought together not only for their own mutual beneficence, but also brought together so as to take their faith and its practices and to put forth those beliefs into the real world in practical and vital ways that will benefit all peoples, whether they are true believers or not, by displaying in action the fruits of that religious faith.

That is to say, the best religions, recognize that a religion that stays only within an individual family, or that stays only within a specific congregation, or that stays only within a particular community, should as a faith, be actively doing all that it can to see that social reform and its incumbent benefits is brought forth not only for their congregants, but for society, in general; that is, that faith should be democratic in its purpose and in its effect, rather than  elitist, so that the monies, dedication, and efforts put together by congregants are done in a manner that benefits widely, society as a whole.

So too, great religions, do not discriminate against the gender of those so propagating that faith, but make it part and parcel of their mission, to see that their congregants are well educated and learned, and makes it their point to help in that education, in addition to allowing the equal opportunity for religious progress for either gender within that respective religious faith. 

Additionally, all good religions make it their principle that each person has a personal responsibility for everything that they do and everything that they say, so that, by having such a responsibility, they are held accountable for the things that they do, or don't do, within their community as the true testimony of their faith.   In addition, a good religion recognizes that each individual, is sovereign unto themselves, of which, though they do have inherent obligations to the group, their faith, as well as to society, that the choices that are made, are, in fact, their choices, and the consequences of those choices, are their responsibility, alone.

A religion that makes people look good from the outside, in the sense of politeness, dress, diet, prayer, comportment and such, does little good though it might look nice, rather, it's about developing the inner core of that individual in a manner that the congregant is not only good for something, but good for society, and helps to make that society better, for having that belief.

Justice, the just, and the law

There are plenty of people that believe that we should "obey the law," in fact, we are told by the highest authorities all of the time to obey the law, but in a world in which laws are so often not clearly defined, in addition to laws being arbitrary as well as discriminatory, and laws that change with the times as the prevailing wind so blows it, so that a law that use to apply no longer does, or a law that never was, now applies, and especially in the unequal application of law, itself, this would seem to clearly show that the law in so many ways and forms is a travesty of true justice as it is so often applied against those that are the "law breakers."

So too, despite all these laws, and the justice system, that in theory, provides a lawyer, even for the most indigent, for each defendant brought before a court of law, the actual reality of how law is applied and exercised in America, is uneven and unjust, so that quite often defendants of those accused of breaking the law, aren't even given their day in court, for their charges are "plea bargained" to some lesser charge, of which, those that have the smallest amount of resources, whether that be their own knowledge, or whether that be their overworked public defender, or both, are less able to mount a defense, and are essentially browbeaten into accepting a "deal" because of the full weight of the state and governmental prosecutors being pressed against them.

All those that love law and order, as well as all those that somehow believe that justice is truly served in America, as well as other countries that appear to have clearly defined laws and legal codes, are forgetting fundamentally, that the law almost always is written and applied, by the ruling class of such a country, in which, that ruling class, above all, will protect their own, while applying their boot to the neck of all those that are insignificant, or a threat to the system, or people that simply will not keep their mouths shut.

The biggest contradiction, though, of those that scream loudest for more law and order, comes down, to something which has real meaning and significance, for those that believe that Christ, is indeed the Savior of this world, should therefore pay close attention to the words that so follows, for that Christ was mocked, brutally beaten, then nailed to the cross, and thereby crucified until his death upon that cross.  Was this justice?  Was this right?  Was this the law?

In point of fact, the statements made by Jesus that he was the Messiah, as we read in Luke 4: 20 "… Today, this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing,” was considered by the Jewish authorities of that time to be blasphemous as the High Priest Caiaphas, so ruled.  Additionally, we read in Matthew 21: 5 "… behold, your King comes to you," of which Roman law would not allow anyone to speak of being a King or the head of the state, of which the interpretation of such would be that the words of Jesus were an insult to the Roman Emperor and thereby treasonous to the state of that empire.

This meant that Jesus, by law, had committed both the crime of blasphemy, as well as the crime of treason, of which, proper and legal punishment of that time, was death by crucifixion, and such was his fate.  Those that believe that the law is always correct, as well as believing that the purpose of laws is to maintain order, should then see and must see the crucifixion of Jesus as being just, and of justice of having been properly served. 

Land ownership and power

American colonists, in order to vote, besides being required to be a white male and at least twenty one years of age, were also required to own land of a certain worth, which they were responsible to pay taxes upon.  This meant, all other people, were not eligible to vote, and were subject to the will of those that were land owners and of the predominant race of the country. 

While today, land ownership is no longer a requirement to vote, those that own land, have fundamentally more rights than those that do not own land, even in an era which has left agrarian society behind.  That is to say, those without land, before modern times, were definitely at the mercy of those that own such land, so that tenant farmers, serfs, bondsmen, and so on, paid for the privileged to work farm land, but the contracts, such as were written and enforced, were almost always constructed in a way that the lion's share of any profits or abundance went to the land owner, and typically just a bare subsistence went to those doing the actually laboring, in addition to the fact, that those so laboring, didn't own anything, and were therefore subject to the whims and dictates at the owner's discretion.

Another reason that home owners have more rights, can be seen in our 3rd and 4th Amendments, in which the 3rd Amendment states in part that:  "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner…" and the 4th Amendment states in part that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…", of which if you do not own your own house, it is not your own property, thereby subjecting those that rent to the power and decrees of the owner of such, subject to Constitutional law.

So too, if we envision a world, in which, very little land is owned by the general population, and in which all public land, is subject to the rules and regulations of the ruling governmental class, than in such a country as that, those without land, would not, have a place of sanctuary for their physical bodies, they would, in effect, never have a physical place to rest themselves, and thereby no house to call their own, and hence, no place of true and safe refuge, having no home of their own.

So while in today's modern world, of which so much wealth and prosperity is created by using one's brain and knowledge, as compared to the previous way of yesteryear with the physical grind of working land for one's prosperity, if, at the end of the day, you as a person, do not own any land, or have a place that is a true public sanctuary, to repair to, then you are at the mercy of those governmental powers or private powers that own such land.  Further to the point, there must be a place to safely lay your head down to sleep, so that, those that own no land of their own, are ultimately at the mercy of those that do own that land, and if these owners collectively raise that rent, or change the conditions of such rentals to favor themselves, then intelligent or not, educated or not, productive or not, you are essentially no better off than those that were serfs or tenant farmers back in their day.

Prosperity and generosity

Logic would seem to tell us, that prosperity and generosity should be a loggerheads with each other, for each dollar and each hour of our time that we give away to another, is money and time that is taken away from our finite allocation, which quite obviously would not be directly beneficial to us, but would, in the scheme of things, appear to be detrimental, for our having been generous to others with our money and time.

The thing is though, the logic of thinking such as that, isn’t actually correct, that is to say, we live in a social world, in which in order to become successful, we are only able to do so, by working within the construct of such a society, which necessitates conforming to appropriate social mores and obligations, which indicates, that those that live strictly to themselves, are not team players, and are not beneficial to society, and hence, these selfish individuals will have  a strong tendency to not be as prosperous as they could be for they will often be held back by others, in matters large and small, for their turning away from their inherent obligations to society because of their lack of generosity to those others.

The fact of the matter is that those that are strictly about themselves, and therefore are totally selfish, represent something that is anathema to society, for if each person, did the same thing, and had that same philosophy, than societies would split apart, for the lack of concern and empathy no longer demonstrated within their activities and behavior, one to another.  Additionally, society would quickly break down into one that made essentially everything into a perpetual competition, and therefore a playing field filled with all sorts of deceit, traps, and double dealings, for within this game, in which only the winners received the lion's share of prosperity, it would definitely become a cutthroat zero-sum game.

On the other hand, when those who are successful, take their prosperity, whether that is one of wealth, or of knowledge, or of social skills, and make it their point to share such with their family and with their society, than the growth and strength of such a society will strengthen considerably.  Additionally, a strong society is quite obviously a more viable society, and a society that is generous and caring to all, is also a society that is more inclusive and therefore a healthier type of society.

So then, living to yourself, is a lonely existence, for those that take from society, but offer nothing back, are not the type of people, that will earn the respect and admiration of the other members of that society, and for that lack, they are less fulfilled and less satisfied then they could be.  Instead, it is those that make it their point to spread the wealth of their success with others, that progress further, for they well understand that for each succeeding generation to prosper more than the former, requires that the current generation imparts their wisdom in such a manner, that the upcoming generation will have not only a solid foundation to work upon, but the shoulders of previous generations to stand upon.

Verbal expression and the importance of good elocution

A significant amount of the information that we receive each and every day, comes to us, via the spoken word, of which, some people are quite good in their usage of their voice, as well as their emphasis on certain syllables in their speaking, whereas others are somewhat monotonous and lazy in their pronunciation as well as in their speaking.   The bottom line is while it always makes a difference what we say, it also makes a significant difference in how we say what we say, and especially in how those spoken words are emphasized and stressed.

The above signifies the importance of not only learning how to read and write, but also being able to properly express our language in a manner in which the words being spoken are being pronounced correctly, as well as learning how to speak in such a manner that the words so spoken, engage a given audience, as opposed to boring them, or annoying them, through the monotony of the delivery, or the lack of the proper emphasis or emotion in the words so being expressed.

This does mean, that proper elocution should be part of the educational experience, but not done in the manner so that each region of the country, should speak without an accent or lose their distinctive regional voice, but rather that they should speak in a manner that clearly understands the words so being spoken, how to enunciate them, as well as how to clearly and properly project oneself to their compatriots and peers.

In point of fact, when people read straight from a paper, with minimal eye contact with their audience, and a lack of body language, then about the only possible thing, that will keep the audience involved, is the actual elocution, modulation, and emphasis of the words so being spoken, and those that do that very well, will succeed in getting their message across in a competent and pleasing manner, whereas those that drone on in a monotonous tone, with no special emphasis on any word so being spoken, will almost surely lose their audience, even when the subject so being discussed, is one that interests them, greatly.

The ability to communicate well with other people, in our personal, educational, and business lives, is a valuable attribute, which is often important in order to not only work well and mesh with our peers, but as an integral part of being able to advance within organizations, as well as to receive respect from our associates.  Those that are quite competent but are unable to express themselves in a way, that doesn't run their words together as if each word represents the same value, and can't get their voice, above a constant annoying drone, will not be effective in getting across the very ideas and concepts that they are verbalizing to others, because their intonation belies that they actually care to do exactly that.

There are many people that are book smart, or street smart, but these people will almost always be surpassed by those of even average skills, that are able to verbally communicate in a manner that engages their audience, usually because of their elocution and inflections that capture their attention, which thereby means getting their message and their point of view effectively across in a very pleasing way.

Hedge Fund Managers and the outrageous money that they make

The CEOs of the top corporations headquartered in America are rightly vilified for the staggering amounts of money that they earn in comparison to the average employee at their firms, in which, as reported by cnbc.com, " a report from the Economic Policy Institute, the average CEO pay is 271 times the nearly $58,000 annual average pay of the typical American worker."  However, at least CEOs actually employ millions upon millions of workers and are an integral and valued part of the American economy.  On the other hand as reported by forbes.com, "In 2010 the top 25 hedge fund managers combined earned roughly 4 times as much ALL 500 of the CEOs at the top of the 500 giant corporations that make up the S&P 500 index."  Additionally, as reported by the nypost.com for 2017, "the top 25 highest-earning hedgies collectively made $15.4 billion last year, averaging more than $600 million each."

All of the above, serves to demonstrate that the top Hedge Fund Managers make a staggering amount of money, of which, not only is the amount of money that they earn, nearly incomprehensible in scope, but the income that they make is not taxed the way that the average American makes their money, which is by being taxed on their wages and salary income, at tiered levels which max out at 39.6%, but instead are able to avail themselves of the "carried interest loophole", which signifies that all or most of these outsized earnings that Hedge Fund Managers make are taxed at the much lower rate of 20% for long term capital gains, plus a 3.8% investment tax, which saves these Managers, many millions of dollars each year, and cheats the government and taxpayers out of seeing these super rich Managers pay their fair share.

In addition, Hedge Fund Managers, employ very few people, that is to say, as reported by pionline.com, the amount of people working at a given hedge fund was "… an average of 20 in the U.S.", whereas the mega-corporation WalMart employs 1.4 million people, in the United States, alone.  The structure of compensation for Hedge Fund Managers is that most hedge funds get paid 2% for the assets that they manage, as well as 20% of the profits so generated from those assets, signifying that, the fees and profits for such management, for very large hedge funds can be truly astonishing.  However, the fact of the matter is, that hedge funds do not produce anything of value or of worth, instead, they use sophisticated algorithms, game the system in every conceivable way, take advantage of knowledge that is not available to the general public, and do all sorts of inconceivable things to gain an edge in their "investments."  This signifies, whether, you view this as fair or not, that basically many hedge funds, make their money by siphoning from all other investors, little bits and pieces, here and there, which are done countless times, over and over again, of which, these small edges, make for outsized returns, that essentially offer absolutely nothing of value to the equity and bond markets, but rather are best seen as a hidden tax foisted upon the unsuspecting public as well as on mutual funds, so that the returns of the average investor are negatively impacted, ever so slightly, by virtue of Hedge Fund Managers, manipulating the system so as to make themselves money.

While not every Hedge Fund is run the same way, the nature of the beast of most of these funds, is to take advantage of market inefficiencies, that benefits these Managers, at the expense of all those that play fair, so that, a very small elite of people, make incredible amounts of money, while producing nothing of value, in which, at a minimum, they shouldn't be able to escape not paying their fair share of taxes, but again, these Managers are able to manipulate the tax system so as to benefit themselves, at the expense of the average taxpayer

Eat more meat

Human beings are omnivores, for they eat both plant as well as animal matter. Big cats such as lions, tigers, and jaguars, along with wolves, cheetahs, polar bears, and wolverines are carnivores, because they survive strictly on eating animal matter. When we look closely at the animal world of carnivores, those animals in the wild are almost never overweight, and basically the only times when carnivores carry any excess fat, is when, for instance, they need to store fat in the frigid winter times, when food is scarce and the temperature is cold, as well as the occasional times, when the food is so plentiful at one sitting, that they eat so much as to fully gorge themselves, but over the ensuing days they will eat less. This means, that in the wild, there are no fat carnivores, of which, the most logical reason why carnivores are not fat, is that their diet, is not fat producing.

Humans on the other hand, have continued to get fatter and fatter, especially within the last three generations, of which, the main culprit, for such a fundamental change within such a short period of time, can only come down to the diet that humans eat, of which, as mankind eats more and more food that has not nutritional value, such as snacks, sugar-based products, processed foods of all types, sodas, and basically all those foods considered to be "junk food", the obesity rate for mankind has reached epidemic proportions.

In recent times, all sorts of diets have been put forth to help mankind to maintain a more appropriate weight, along with exercise programs, proper eating strategies, pills and other chemicals to suppress the appetite, and so on and so forth, of which, these things in aggregate have typically not been able to stem the tide, but, some of these dietary strategies have been most definitely effective. One idea, though, quite unusual and uncommon, is the recognition that human beings can live and appear to be able to get all their nutritional needs from eating a strictly meat based diet, that is, becoming exclusively a carnivore. For instance, Eskimos or the Inuit in isolated areas of the world have historically, until the most recent of times, had no choice but to survive on eating just meat for generations upon generations, and have been studied quite thoroughly, in which, their health was found to be just fine, that is, they were healthy, despite a diet that did not contain any plants, vegetables, fruits, or modern processed foods.

This would seem to suggest, or more than suggest, that eating a high protein diet, with lots of animal fat, is not only not bad for your health, but probably will result in a lower weight or a more ideal weight for your body, in which your blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar levels will all be markedly improved. After all, there are no fat carnivores, in which many of these carnivorous animals are considered to be the strongest, fastest, and fiercest of all the animals in the animal kingdom, in fact, the carnivorous lion is considered to be the king of the jungle. On the other hand, pigs and chickens are omnivores, which aren't exactly strong, fast, or fierce, though they do make for some good eating.