The precipitous decline in corporate taxes collected

Nobody really wants to pay taxes, but taxes are necessary for governments as well as its infrastructure to function effectively and to stay up-to-date.  The sheer size of corporations is something that most people have great difficulty, conceptualizing, of which, the highest amount of sales by any US based corporation in 2017, was WalMart, which had revenues of an astonishing $500,343 billion dollars.  The company with the biggest profits in 2017 was Apple with an incredible $48,351 billion dollars.

Americansfortaxfairness.org states that:”corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013."  Such a drop in tax revenues collected from corporations clearly indicates that corporations are extremely gifted at avoiding their fair share of paying such taxes, and thereby effectively burdening individuals with even more of such taxation.

So too, this makes it very clear, that those corporations complaining about how high corporate rates are vis-à-vis other countries, which was successful in dropping the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% in 2017, effectively duped the government.  For the truth of the matter is that few corporations, ever paid at 35%, having readily demonstrated that through their sophistication of maneuvering money all around the globe, and other assorted end-a-rounds, that they are quite gifted at tax avoidance.

When it comes to taxation, the best entities to actually tax are those entities that actually have the money to be taxed, of which, today's mega-corporations have loads upon loads of dollars that should be fairly taxed.  Yet, the ensuing decades from the 1950s onward, clearly indicates that corporations are not paying their fair share, thereby burdening individual tax payers by shouldering onto them far more in taxation than is fair.

Additionally, it doesn't make any logical sense that individuals are charged their taxes based upon a progressive tax rate as determined by the government, whereas, corporations are subject to a flat tax, of which they not only don't pay even close to that rate, but strangely those corporations making modest amounts of profits, are taxed at the same flat rate, as those companies that are making billions upon billions of dollars.

The fact that the corporate share of federal tax revenue paid has dropped so dramatically, clearly demonstrates that corporations are working hand-in-glove with the taxing and governmental authorities, for corporate profits have never been greater, yet, the percentage of taxes so collected from corporations have essentially plummeted. 

This means, when it comes to budget deficits, a very good argument can be made, that such deficits could be reduced considerably, if corporations were more appropriately taxed as they should rightly be, and if this government, made it a point, to actually monitor and to audit corporations so as to extract more money from those companies, so that they will once again, pay their fair share.

In addition, if the largest corporations in America paid a higher percentage of their profits to federal tax authorities, no doubt, this would, in effect, strongly help to redistribute money from the superrich to those that are struggling and thereby reduce somewhat the income inequality within America.

There is no national ID card in America

Although, in many respects, America in its citizen surveillance has never had so much ability to be so intrusive into so many lives, yet, there are still a few things that America policing agencies do not have access to, such as a national ID card and database. If there was a requirement to have a national ID card, this would obviously necessitate having to produce such a card, upon being requested to do by policing authorities, as well as other agencies, public or even private as a form of identification check.

While it is true, that a driver's license serves as a quasi-identification card, not everybody has a driver's license, nor is it a requirement to have a driver's license upon one's body, while not driving.  So too, each individual is required to have a Social Security number, but this number is NOT for national identification purposes and citizens are NOT required to provide their Social Security number to police or other legal authorities, though, the Social Security number in conjunction with an individuals' driver's license behaves as the quasi-national ID.

This would seem to indicate that Americans have some free air to breath, knowing that they actually have the right, at least on paper, to be about their business without having to actually produce papers that prove who they are.  The practicality of the matter though, is that those that are not able to satisfactorily identify themselves to policing authorities will often find that, their freedom of movement, is seriously restricted or under assault, which quite obviously demonstrates that national ID law or not, the freedom to not be disturbed, unless under exigent circumstances, seems to have vanished.

While there are plenty of people that actually support a national ID card, they are fundamentally trading convenience or a false security for something that in the hands of those that wish to do harm, is a very effective discriminating tool to do so; because easy identification of those that have been classified as unacceptable, for whatever reason(s) makes it very straightforward in being able to separate the franchised from the disenfranchised. 

When government authorities know exactly who you are, and exactly where you are at, the rounding up of people that are an inconvenience to state authorities, is not only easily accomplished, but it could be argued, is going to be something that will be accomplished, in way or another, sooner or later.  The government wants to know everything about you, not so as to aid you, though they may speak of aid, and may even offer some kind of aid, but the prevailing reason is to control you, to manipulate you, and to eliminate all those that are not in lockstep with the prevailing governmental desires and decrees.

The national ID card is a very effective way to get everyone to get with the government and its policies, and to more readily discriminate against all those that are not with the government and its policies, basically, stifling civil dissent.  A government that serves the people, does not need a national ID card, but a government that desires to be served by the people, does.

The stock market and the top 10%

The stock market goes up and it goes down.  So too, there are several television stations that are dedicated to nothing more than stock markets, international or domestic, which in the biggest scheme of things, is mostly of interest to those that actually own stocks.  While, it is true, because of pensions, 401Ks, and mutual funds, that stocks or their equivalency are actually owned by a fairly wide swath of Americans, the bulk of such monetary ownership, pretty much matches the wealth of America, which means, that such wealth is at the very top echelon.  In particular, as reported by time.com:  "the richest 10% of households controlled 84% of the total value of these stocks in 2016,” as stated in a recent paper by NYU economist Edward N. Wolff.

This means, or implies, that for mainstream America and those that have even less assets and income than that, the stock market really doesn't matter much to them, because they have no direct investment in it.  However, when it comes to the economy, money, and jobs, it would be a mistake to not recognize that stock market rises and stock market crashes, most definitely has a significant effect upon people, and is especially of real relevancy when the market crashes and burns, such as during the Great Depression, when unemployment went up to 24.9%, or the Great Recession of 2008-09 when unemployment went up to 10%. 

This signifies that when the very rich are getting their tails burned by a persistently falling stock market, that mainstream America will not be far behind in suffering the ill effects of lower or even negative economic growth, leading to layoffs and reductions in job promotion, wages, hours work, and opportunities; for when the rich are licking their wounds, they aren't going to be expanding their businesses, or investing more money into the corporate world, but rather they will be net equity sellers and investing a lot less of their money into equities, making it a foregone conclusion that corporate businesses will have to cut expenses to accommodate this material change.

This indicates that when the rich turn tail and run, it matters; simply because of the fact that so much of America's wealth is in the hands of the very rich, so that when an economic tumble comes, the rich will not hesitate too long in taking their money back from their erstwhile investments, and simply sit on it instead, because they have enough wealth already, that they need not recklessly risk it and thereby they do not.  

This is the inherent danger of the unequal distribution of wealth, for wealth that isn't invested into the economic engine of growth for America, or is mal-invested, leads to unemployment, and the inevitable recession or even depression.  The stock market is a fair reflection of the confidence that the top 10% have in America, and when that confidence is breached, it's the other 90%, that is, those that have little or no say on the matter, that essentially suffers the brunt of the damages, and it is these people that stand in line at the soup kitchens.

Approval and disapproval

Most people have a strong desire to see themselves validated by others, especially by others, that they respect and interrelate with.  If, such approval, stopped with only those that were most important and pertinent in our lives, that might indeed provide material benefits, for those that know us well and have our best interests in mind, are certainly people that should be engaged in order to get appropriate feedback and to help us to become the best people that we can be.

On the other hand, seeking approval from everyone is a path that can only lead to dissatisfaction and hurt.  The very first thing to be cognizant of, is self-respect begins with ourselves, so that, those that feel a need to be liked or approved by everybody, are inevitably, compromising who and what they really are, in order to ingratiate themselves with others.  While, this may even be effective in certain social situations, the downside is incredibly harsh, for when our happiness and satisfaction is actually held in the hands of another, then they so have the power to use such as a whip or as a carrot, in order to more easily control the situation for their benefit.

While it might be okay to fantasize about being loved by everybody, recognize that such is always just a fantasy, for even the very best amongst us, are not now and never will be universally liked or loved.  For instance, some people are hateful, for their own reasons, of which this may be because of their own failures, frustrations, envy, and jealousy.  Others may not like losing attention when outclassed by someone of far more impressive credentials, and so and so forth.  The list of reasons why someone would not like us is literally endless, and because of this, trying to seek the approval and respect of everyone, is not ever possible.

While most everyone has a desire to be liked, that is not the same thing, and should not be confused with, being respected, so that, to be liked by one's peers, may just come down to following their lead, agreeing with them, and always going along to get along; whereas, a person of integrity, does well the things that actually actuates them, for the overall betterment of themselves as well as for others, of which, by staying focused, and on point, this will garner them the respect of those peers with discriminating minds.

There isn't a necessity of needing approval of just anyone, especially from those that don't really know you.  In addition, even those that do know you and care about you, may have their own agendas from time-to-time, of which their expressed disapproval  or approval are a means to manipulate or to control the situation, so one should not only consider the source but also the motivations behind the source. 

This is your life, and it cannot be someone else's, for they have their own lives.  Those that are too fearful to do this or that, unless expressly approved by someone that is not them, are forging the chains of their own imprisonment, not seeming to recognize, that they were created to be free of such entanglements.

Facebook and the Faustian bargain

Facebook likes to advertise itself as simply a social media site, but in point of fact, it is almost inconceivable that a social media site that did not correlate, integrate, cogitate, and analyze, everything posted from the millions upon millions of users of such a site and the intricacies of that usage; providing all this actionable information to advertisers and marketers of all sorts for a very pretty price, could be worth a market capitalization of over $600 billion dollars, which is the current market capitalization of Facebook.

Facebook says an awful lot of things, of which one of the more pertinent ones is their effort to give people the impression that Facebook is on the user's side, thereby implying pretty much that everything Facebook does is done on behalf of their users; in addition to reminding their users that because Facebook is free, and therefore of no monetary charge to the consumer, users are able to freely enjoy the benefits of the site by keeping up on current events, their family, their friends , and making their own Facebook posts and likes.

However, there are some things that are free, but have in actuality a very real price attached to them, and in a world, of which computer processing power and capabilities have never been cheaper or better, all those "likes" that people put on their Facebook page, and all their personal information and interrelationships that they have carefully constructed, are there for the taking for those third party entities as authorized or quasi-authorized by Facebook, along with "bad actors" that basically permit all these organizations to know Facebook users in a manner that not only is in almost all cases not beneficial for them, but actually puts these entities in a very strong position to exploit  and to manipulate Facebook users, in a manner that is both effective as well as relentless.

This then means that the Faustian bargain that has been constructed is that the typical Facebook users' personal life, of which, their belief is that all is foremost under their control, is actually far more exposed to marketers and advertisers, as well as other assorted entities, in a manner in which for them, unbeknownst or not, they have  ceded far more control of who and what they really are in essence, to those that do not have their best interests in mind, but rather are delighted to have a commodity or an asset to monetize, of which the Facebook user gets paid, nary a dime.

Further to the point, young people, and especially all those that post and utilize Facebook as almost their personal diary, have not yet developed or have failed to develop the discernment, maturity, and wisdom, to truly comprehend that some things are best left unsaid, uncommented upon, and are forgettable; for they fail to comprehend that in the Facebook world everything is remembered, classified, recorded, and subject to endless sophisticated algorithms.

The thing is Facebook knows their users, in a way that treats each of those users as a valuable piece of property and thereby, in ways both large and small, those that freely post on Facebook are essentially freely providing all of their personal substance to Facebook, of which, the only real thing received in return from this false flag social media site is a modern day steroid version of Big Brother, which serves well the purpose of greedy for-profit commercial interests as well as the intrusive security interests within America, all in good service to the devil, that delights in such.

House of Representatives and fair representation

At the time that the Constitution was written, those that were enslaved, for purposes of how many seats that would be allocated to each individual State in the House of Representatives, were counted as:  "three fifths of all other Persons," thereby providing for those States that enslaved fellow human beings, an entitlement of representation for an extra three fifths per person that was so enslaved.  The 14th Amendment to our Constitution overturned the three fifths per person of those so enslaved, for slavery was eradicated by the 13th Amendment, and therefore the 14th Amendment counted the whole number of persons within each state for appropriate representation in the House of Representatives.

Since, the eradication of slavery, we have since progressed into a new era of strict immigration policies, of which, there are now millions upon millions of people residing in the United States of America that are not actually citizens of the United States, and further are considered to be illegal aliens and/or non-citizens within America, yet, these illegal aliens and non-citizens, are considered  to be for purposes of representation within the respective States-- whole persons, that are counted exactly the same  for such apportionment as those that are citizens.  In short, every physical body within America, as recorded by the census every decade directly influences how many seats are allocated in the House of Representatives, thereby in its own way, rewarding those States that have more illegal aliens and non-citizens as residents of their States, with additional apportionment, at the expense of those States that do not.

Perhaps a better way to get a fairer allocation of representatives within each State, is not to count the physical bodies within the State, at all, but rather, count only those that specifically are enfranchised to vote, and only those that are actually registered to vote, as opposed to those that are of age, but have elected not to enfranchise themselves or have had such enfranchisement revoked, because of a felony conviction or similar.  After all, the representatives within Congress should be a reflection of those that actually exercise their democratic right to vote, and the numbers of those representatives should be a true reflection of actual voters within that State.

If how many members of the house of representatives per State, was based not on the sheer numbers of people within a State, but the actual numbers of those so voting in that State, than each State would have a high incentive to get more people to register to vote and to actually vote within that State; in addition to probably deciding to re-enfranchise more of those that have previously been disenfranchised for a felony conviction or similar.  This seems to be not only a fairer way to correctly apportion how many representatives that are allocated within each State, but a more honest reflection of what representation and voting should actually be about.

So too, with each member of the house of representatives up for election every two years, the census for such allocation numbers per State, should also be done every two years, and if it was based on who is eligible to vote, per the voter rolls, such would not be an overburden upon the States in appropriately knowing and counting how many voters each State actually has.

The taxation rate of wage earned income

For the most part, those that make their wages by receiving a paycheck for their work, are doing so, because that is the way that they earn their living, therefore, the tax rate that they pay on that wage income is of special pertinence to them.  So too, the tax rate that people pay on unearned income, such as through dividends, capital gains, and interest makes a material difference to those individuals receiving that income, but these two forms of income are two very different things.

For instance, the fundamental difference between wage income and unearned income is that the person making that wage income is actually laboring for it, whereas the person that is receiving that unearned income, certainly is not personally laboring for that income; rather the money that has been invested is earning income for the owner of that money.  While both of these forms of income are taxed, the fundamental question actually comes down to the fairness of such taxation, especially in regards to which form of income should be more heavily taxed, and  which should even be taxed to begin with.

Originally, the federal income tax applied only to the wealthiest Americans, and not to ordinary earning Americans.  In fact, it's fair to say, that the original federal income tax was specifically passed to "soak the rich" but has morphed into soaking relatively modest wage earners and above, with all sorts of workarounds for the very rich to avoid paying their fair share, or their anticipated forecasted share.  This would indicate in practice, that the Federal tax authorities believe that the easiest way to collect taxes, is to collect it from individual wage earners, upon each time that they receive a paycheck, as a sort of a pay-as-you-go system, of which, various taxes are taken out of wage earners' paychecks, for State, local, Social Security, Medicare, and Federal taxes.

On the other hand, with unearned income, such is only subject to the higher ordinary income tax rate for dividends and short term capital gains; of which this pales in comparison to all those that have a wealth of money and are gifted at getting their taxes reduced to a minimum because they are helped greatly by the fact that the long term capital gain tax rate is just 15%, and subject only to  the 20% tax rate, when their taxable income is above $464,850 for those that are married; whereas wage earners that are married, are subject to a 35% tax rate for all taxable income above $400,000.

Clearly, wage earners are getting the short end of the stick, especially all those that are laboring and making at least a decent wage or better, for they really are net tax payers, and not privy to special tax considerations and set asides that the biggest corporations and wealthiest Americans are able to avail themselves of.   In point of fact, wage earned income should be taxed less, and unearned income should be taxed more, for the difference between the two, is that wage earned income is from actual labor and productivity, whereas unearned income, is fundamentally, unearned by any personal labor, whatsoever.

Quit Pretending

Once you deviate from truth, your life just becomes a lot more complicated, because having told a story, or exaggerated, or just outright lied about something, it's nigh impossible to actually remember everything that you have said to everyone, and eventually having done that, this will bite you back and reflect clearly to others that you are not truthful.  Perhaps you are okay with that, or even more than okay with that, but it would probably be better to reduce or eliminate the lies, and to actually be the person and/or do the things that you really want to do and to accomplish.

So too, when you basically are all of the time pretending to be something that you really are not, to everyone, in ways, big and small; at some point, you are going to lose track of who you really actually are, because in order to live with yourself, you have to kind of start believing your own tales, though, all the time knowing, deep inside, that such tales, even well done, are just tales, just the same.

The clearest way, though, to get a good grip on your life, is to actually consciously pay attention to literally everything that you are saying and doing on a given day, and then stop yourself, anytime that you are doing something deceptive, misleading, or just being dishonest; and the more times that you have to stop yourself, the more that you will know exactly how unbalanced your life actually is.

The message that should thereby be crystallized, is seeing clearly those areas of your life that you are unsatisfied with and consequently have been propping up within your life with some misrepresentation; signifying that rather than pretending or wishing that you were different, it would actually be more productive to do those things that would make you a better person, instead.  That is to say, some people will expend an incredible amount of time and brainpower trying to wear a mask that isn't them, rather than just trying to improve who they currently are and to thereby become closer to what it is that they so desire to become.

Of course, in a competitive and material world, there are plenty of situations in which, no matter how much effort is expended, becoming that person that you believe that you want to be, just isn't possible, but that is missing the forest for the trees.  Actually, the most important concept to comprehend, is to work hard on building the characteristics, or the back story, so to speak, of what it is that you want to become in character, and that in itself, will make you not only a better person, but bring you closer to what it is that you desire to fundamentally be.

The closer you become to being the real you in your interactions with others, the less you will have to worry about pretending to be what you really are not; and the sooner you will understand that most people will accept you for who and what you really are, especially if you are working on being a better and more caring person to others.

Judicial activism

There are plenty of people that appreciate judicial activism, especially when that activism, benefits their cause, specifically.  The thing is though, the Constitution is a written document, and those that believe that such a Constitution is a living document, or an evolving document, are really in a fundamental sense, using that as the raisons d'être for their beliefs, making it seem as though what they are accomplishing or supporting through the overzealous judicial branch is appropriate, sound, and justified; when, in fact, it isn't any of these things.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and that Constitution is a written document, which specifically must be adhered to, of which, there are policies set forth for amendments to that Constitution, of which, to date, there have been a total of twenty-seven amendments that have been ratified to our Constitution.  When the Constitution is respected as the highest law, the people through their legislature representatives are still able to effect change through amendments to the Constitution.  However, judicial activism, at its worse, is actually a runaround that limitation, so that, new rights and new laws, or current rights and current laws, or the interpretation of rights and the interpretation of laws, can and have, suddenly been changed by that judicial branch.

This basically means that the legislative branch, as well as the executive branch, and by definition, the Constitution, itself, are all capable of being superseded by the Supreme Court of this land, when that court interprets such, in any manner that they so see fit to interpret it as.  This then becomes a land in which the unelected judges, that are appointed for life terms, effectively interpret and make laws that this esteem group so wishes to enact, negating the voice of the people, in the most undemocratic way that such can be done.

This does mean, that the popular vote on propositions by the people, and thereby enacted by the legislature of that people, are subject to being overturned, dismissed, and overruled by the judicial branch; even of laws that are long standing and historically sound.  Not only is this clearly an abuse and misuse of the Constitution, but clearly such decisions will favor one class of citizens over all other citizens, and specifically will favor the ideology of that court, so that, the supreme law of the land, is the prevailing ideology of that court, and not the Constitution.

The only possible workaround to judicial activism, is to purposely put judges back in their place, of which, the greatest exponent of such an ideal, was Abraham Lincoln.  That is to say, when President Lincoln took office, the law of the land was apparently the Dred Scott decision, that stipulated that blacks were not entitled to citizenship or constitutional protections, but of this decision, it was defied by Lincoln and the North.  So too, the Supreme Court ruled that the President had not the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, during the Civil War, but Lincoln did so suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

Lincoln, was a true Constitutionalist, for he stated on many an occasion, that though he detested slavery, that he did not believe that the Constitution gave him the right to overturn such in those States that permitted such.  In point of fact, slavery was not constitutionally overturned until the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, demonstrating that the Supreme Law of this Land, is quite capable of positive change; and judges that do not recognize this salient fact, need not have their judicial decisions, obeyed.

Dissent and petitions

The 1st Amendment to our Constitution clearly states in part that it is: "….the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," which is exactly what a government of the people, for the people, and by the people should be about.  That is to say, it is not the government's responsibility or certain representatives of that government to determine that certain dissent and petitions will not be permitted or allowed, whereas other orthodox or favored petitions will be aided and abetted.  This government essentially should allow an open forum of ideas, conversations, and debates to be part and parcel of this country, of which, by doing so, makes for a more vibrant and inclusive society, as opposed to one that deliberately is set on stifling inconvenient dissent.

Of course, not everything that people say is really worth listening to, but they have a right to say it, and if there is an audience for it, so be it.  No doubt, some of those things being written or talked about by certain people, is of no real merit, but then again that is also true of numerous things that the government wishes to promulgate, with the caveat being that the government has the power and tools to make their voice heard; whereas, the people, for the most part are limited in their budget, limited in their time, and limited in their voice to actually being heard.

When those that have a different viewpoint and wish to petition the government, or to dissent against the government, are not permitted the means to do so, than the very things that may warn us, or that may improve us as a society, are being silenced, which may be of a real detriment to the country and the people as a whole.  While there are a few people that will change their viewpoint and their opinion about subjects of real import in a blink of an eye, in point of fact, most people do not; and hence, ideas that may not be popular now, that may be dismissed currently, may, at a future point be seen as not only being better but as being correct, and not only that, they were better and correct when first expressed.

The most important thing to recognize is that those that are in power, have a tendency to not want things to change, because their position is rather comfortable, so then, they have a very strong incentive to keep things just as they are, primarily, so as to continue to benefit themselves, at the expense of others.  On the other hand, those that lack power, and/or have little voice, want what they are saying to actually be heard and contemplated, not only because they believe in what they are advocating, but also because they have little to lose, and possibly a lot to gain, not just for themselves but also for others.

When the government, or any entity, makes it their point that they will, either undercover, or out in the open, stifle all dissent, by whatever means that they can do so, and do not pay the price for such a violation of 1st Amendment rights, even claiming, that the majority supports such an action; then the country has effectively neutered its 1st Amendment, for the 1st Amendment right of the people to assemble, clearly means the people have the right of dissent, which is the right to think one's own thoughts and to thereby freely express them, which this government has not the right to interfere with.

What the cross truly means

The cross is the premier symbol for those of the Christian faith, of which, many people wear it as a matter of habit, or of preference, or in recognition and respect for the Christian religion.  While the wearing of any symbol that identifies you with that particular faith, has its place, it is important to also recognize the meaning of such a symbol and the incumbent responsibility that one has for wearing it; for a symbol that seems to stipulate that you are a valid representative of the Christian faith, but without works reflecting such, is a rather hollow representation of where one actually needs to be.

That is to say, it can be argued, and has been argued, that those that wear a badge of honor must do their part to show that honor in their demeanor and in their accomplishments, or they might even be considered to be worse than someone that wears no symbol at all, for their apparent hypocrisy.   Of course, in order to appropriately reflect what the cross means, would also necessitate, knowing what that cross means, of which, there is a wide divergent of opinion in regards to this very thing.

In point of fact, the cross should be looked upon as for what it demonstratively has told us thru Scripture, which is that, our Savior, Jesus the Christ, was crucified upon a cross, until his physical death.  That should definitely signify that the cross should be seen as a symbol for each of us, that we have a sacred responsibility to symbolically crucified our old selfish and sinful self, so that, we are thereby reborn, becoming therefore  a true representative of God's very own.

This means, that those that lightly wear the cross, without thinking through their incumbent responsibilities to the meaning of that cross, are not true Christians, though they may be good people, and may wish to be seen as such, but they are only surface Christians, and not Christians, through and through.  For the bottom line is that Jesus the Christ, went to his physical death, of which, such a death was a travesty of justice, but He did so, to demonstrate that not only is there a Supreme Power that actuates each one of us, and that not only is there a Supreme Power that is beyond this physical plane, but to let us know for a certainty that to become what we need to become is to recognize that we need to let go of our fear of physical harm and death, in recognition that we are not of this physical and temporary dimension, but that we are in essence, spiritual and eternal.

The cross should be our reminder that we will not become enraptured within a world, that though it may have its moments, is too often filled with injustice, hatred, strife, confusion, and chaos; but rather, instead, recognize that each one of us is a child of the very same God, so that everything that we do which is to fulfill our own ego needs and selfish desires, is a distinct step away from God, of which we need to bear foremost in our mind that the cross is our grounding point, which should serve to remind us, that we must reconstitute and resurrect ourselves, daily, to be that which is love.

Harmony

Today's modern world in a lot of respects has endeavored to throw off the shackles of superstition, which most definitely has its place, for superstition is the blind belief in something, without any valid substance to that belief.  However, it is one thing to rail against the stupidity of irrationality and certain forms of mythology, and another to discount or to discredit things that are unseen or are not able to be measured by current scientific instruments as not being in existence.

For instance, whether one believes in God or not, is each person's personal prerogative; but even the most scientific amongst us, implicitly recognizes that there an infinite amount of things that they don't fully comprehend, or haven't even a fathoming of.   Yet, so too, all of the scientific fields of this world are dependent upon the recognition that all is order, meaning that there are universal laws that consistently are the same, and therefore it is one of the prime purposes of mankind to discover those laws, visible or invisible, for the benefit of mankind.

This means that the universe in order to be known, must in fact, be organized, which indeed it is, for if the universe was chaos, random, and without order, then the study of it wouldn't be possible, for the basis of all scientific knowledge is built upon supportable foundations and verifiable theories, of which, if these are subject to change, like the winds on a given day, then all would be pointless, and unknowable.

This would indicate that the highest purpose of mankind is to be in tune, to be in order, and to be in harmony with the forces of this universe, for those laws are the laws that govern all, of which, these laws to have any lasting import, must be immutable, eternal, self-sufficient, omnipresent, and discoverable.  That is to say, any universal law which does not have the characteristics as so described, cannot, by definition, be the correct universal law, for the correct universal law, is one and the same, as having those very characteristics.

Further to the point, ultimately the very purpose behind everything that we do and that we contemplate upon, is to find the source and the meaning of it all; so that, those that are most knowledgeable, understand that the search that we are making is really the search for that truth, and anything less than that full truth, signifies that our most valued journey has not yet been accomplished.

So then, all those that do and seek for that which is harmonious with the highest order of being, are exactly doing what they are supposed to be doing; and all that is being accomplished and propagated which is opposed to such, is foundationally flawed.  It is well to acknowledge, that all that there ultimately is, is unchangeable in its essence, therefore our ability to interrelate with that, is the harmony which should represent our greatest calling.  All else is vanity and error, for there is only one truth, and that truth is the very reason for our being.

The job interview that isn't really an interview

The era of finding one company and making one's home there, for the duration of a career, is pretty much non-existent in the private sector at the present time, though, it does occur, but not very frequently.  So too, salary reviews, and annual bonuses, are something that most employees discover, seem to be less about a real review and merit, but are instead, more about a predetermined salary increase, that is usually within a very narrow incremental range.  This means, more times than not, that those wishing to make a substantial or meaningful increase in salary, no matter how competent, are probably going to have to seriously consider looking for another job, and negotiating from a higher level from the get-go.

Not too surprisingly, to a very large extent, the absolute best company to try to find new employment at, would be a competitor of your current company, because of the knowledge, pertinence and experience that you bring to the table.  This signifies, that when you are contacted by a competitor, most people, unless they are completely satisfied with the current employment, are going to have a tendency to want to look them up, especially if they are dissatisfied with their current setup, for here is a chance to not only to make more money, but also an opportunity to advance.

The thing about an interview, is that most people want to put their best foot forward, of which, not only should they want to, they actually should.  So too, in order to help prove your worth and value, the interviewee, is almost for a certainty, going to have to talk in specifics about what they currently do and specifically address it in a manner that demonstrates that they actually know what they are talking about.

 Additionally, people that are nervous, or are put on the stage, so to speak, have a tendency to talk more, than perhaps they desire to do so, especially if the recipient of the information, is either quite good at looking unimpressed, or asks just the right follow-up questions, which brings out even more information.

The unfortunate thing about life, is not everything that appears to be what it is, is what it is; of which, some competitors, deliberately want to bring in some of the best and brightest from the competition for an interview, not necessarily to hire them, but rather to learn about what those competitors are actually doing, thereby essentially utilizing the interviewee as a mole, to extract actionable information from.  While, of course, this is quite unethical in every conceivable way; it isn't illegal, and the information being so provided, can be of immense value to the company of the interviewer.

So yes, not every interview is an interview, of which, some of the fault lies with the present company, that isn't doing all that they could to keep their good employees engaged and properly rewarded; while most of the fault comes from the competitor, that rather than concentrating of getting their own house in order, take the shortcut of finding out, rather underhandedly, what the other guy is doing, by using the interviewee as their pawn to be debriefed.

The superrich and their enormous influence

There are two types of billionaires in America, which are, those that are personally worth over one billion dollars, as well as corporations that consistently have yearly profits of one billion dollars or more.  These two entities, more times than not, are often one and the same, and/or work together, to influence the government, politics, and laws, in a manner that they will allow them to continue to  benefit to the exclusion of all those that do not have that same sort of cash-rich influence.

The most important thing to remember about the superrich is that the one thing that they are not, are gamblers.  The superrich only want to deal with sure things and one way to assure themselves of having that security of a sure thing is to make sure that those that apply the law, as well as those that implement or influence tax policies, along with all else of meaningful material substance, must be in harmony with their desires, and if so, those that work those policies, will have job security.

To get even a small fathoming of how much money is involved when it comes to the superrich it is of vital importance to recognize, for example, that in 2015, Apple made 53.39 billion dollars in net profit; in 2016 Apple made 45.69 billion dollars in net profit; and in 2017 Apple made 48.35 in net profit.  All of these billions of dollars of profits, is not something that Apple wants to risk in any way, form, or manner; of which, such a yearly consistency shown by these gargantuan profits, indicates that Apple indeed is not at risk.

In regards to individuals, time.com, estimates that Jeff Bezos of Amazon, is worth 109.9 billion dollars, of which, that amount of money, in conjunction with the corporate power of Amazon, is an incredible combination that is quite capable of influencing just about anything of pertinence in a manner that will be beneficial or non-harmful to Bezos/Amazon, in which, Amazon appears to be an unstoppable juggernaut.

Even though Americans have legislators that in theory, represent the people as a whole; in which each individual person has one equal vote in our democratic system; the way that most people think and behave, is influenced not just by the people that they congregate with, but to a very large extent, by media of all sorts, of which that media voice, is influenced strongly and almost exclusively by the money that is provided to them, of which, there most definitely are strings attached, for news is quite clearly colored by the point of origin of the money so being received.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, of which, as reported by time.com, "…the three richest people in the U.S. own the same amount as the bottom half of America’s population," which is something that could only happen in a country that is either fundamentally and systematically corrupt or has a system that has been completely gamed by the superrich, or both.   Additionally, when it comes to the corporate side, as reported by qz.com, just a mere thirty publically traded companies accounted for 50% of all corporate earnings for all publically traded companies combined in 2015. 

The above, in a nutshell, means that a massive amount of this country's collective wealth, is essentially divided between the superrich individuals and the superrich corporations, whereas the mass of citizens and the majority of corporations are stuck fighting over a relatively small piece of the remaining pie; all done under the watch of our executive, legislative, and judicial branches which are well rewarded so as to make sure that the superrich basically get it all.

The southern aristocracy and the revolutionary war

Beginning in 1776, the thirteen colonies banded together to fight for the independence of America, yet, it has always seemed somewhat contradictory that the southern aristocracy would participate on the rebel side in such a war, as that aristocracy appeared to have a lot more in common with the British nobility, in the sense that the southern aristocracy, for the most part, generated their wealth from the land that they owned, by virtue of their tenant farmers, as well as upon the sweat labor of slaves, as opposed to actually personally being industrious, themselves.  So too, British nobility, maintained their status through the ownership and the productivity of their lands, done through the rental of such lands, the produce created, and through their exploitation of tenant farmers.

However, there were two distinct factors that encouraged the southern aristocracy to recognize that their future was probably more secure with the rebels; of which, the first was that the southern aristocracy had no voice or representation in regards to taxation specifically addressed against them, so that, this was always a clear and present danger as to their being able to maintain their position, wealth, prosperity, and property.  Additionally, the rebels made it quite clear to those that were loyalists that in the event, that the rebellion succeeded, which it did, than all lands own by loyalists, were subject to being confiscated by the new American nation, of which, the price of being on the wrong side of history, would be very heavy, indeed.

This then meant that for the most part, that the southern aristocracy supported the revolutionary war, and provided the rebels with men, materials, and knowhow to help conduct such a war, subject to having to also maintain enough domestic manpower presence in order to sustain control and dominion over their slaves, which was an asset that such aristocracy could not and would not desire to jeopardize.

So too, the southern aristocracy, recognized that the victory in this war, would create a vacuum in regards to governance, politics, and power, of which, because they were the richest and most influential people within their community, in an era in which democracy as we know it did not exist in colonial America, then such aristocracy would revel in the opportunity to replace those that were in governance with either themselves, their associates, or sympathetic parties to their position, which essentially is what occurred.

As it has been said, war makes strange bedfellows, so then while the southern aristocracy appeared to have a lot in common with the British nobility, they weren't actually British nobility, thereby making their decision to take their chances with their fellow colonists, a much more straightforward decision.  Yet, this southern aristocracy came to be at loggerheads with the northern industrialists, to an extent large enough, that despite a Constitution; the southern plantation system felt seriously threatened, especially considering that to a large extent, they appeared outmaneuvered and outplayed by the industrial north, creating a momentous rife between north and south, and in particular, between the southern aristocracy and the well heeled and well bankrolled industrialists, leading to our inevitable civil war.

Stand by Me

In this fast paced world of social media, never have so many had so many friends, of which, in reality, never have so many had so few friends.  After all, the real test of whether a friend truly is a friend is how they act and behave, when something absolutely tragic or heinous occurs, for that is the test that demonstrates without equivocation, which side of the fence your friend really stands on.

In actuality, when everything is going well, the friendships are there, but in this real and complicated world, there are going to come times, when something unforeseen and unexpected happens which has real consequences, of which, friendships truly are made or unmade.  For instance, as reported by huffingtonpost.com, we find that: "one in 25 Americans was arrested," in 2011, a percentage and a number which is truly staggering.  Not only is the sheer number of arrests, almost unfathomable, recognize that being arrested, essentially means in almost all cases, being handcuffed, and hence your freedom of movement being revoked, being transported to an incarceration facility, being subjected to probable custodial interrogation, and eventually, after all that, arraignment. 

Not only does this mean that those that have been arrested are in an extremely vulnerable situation, but also besides needing good legal representation, they additionally need somebody that is dependable and empathetic to their situation to handle what needs to be handled, due to their incapacitation.  In addition to that, the charges that are made against that individual are public knowledge, which is necessary in order for somebody on the outside to deal with the bail, as well as to help in contacting a good attorney, and being clearly appraised as to the serious of the charges against that person.

Unfortunately, in this country, there are way too many people, that seem to have forgotten that in America, unlike some other nations with suspect justice systems, that everyone in a criminal court of law, is innocent, until proven guilty; therefore, making the proof of guilt the burden of the state, rather than making the proof of innocence, the burden of the person on trial.   In addition, way too many credulous people believe that if a given person is arrested, that the person being arrested must have been arrested for a valid reason, believing that they don't just randomly arrest people in America.  The fact is, that not only are mistakes made all of the time, but people are arrested for all sorts of reasons, of which, some of those reasons have a lot more to do with arresting people that are an inconvenience or a thorn to the system, as it is.

So then, those that are arrested are not only in an extremely vulnerable position but they are also exposed, for the public and their friends to take their shots at them, even though they have been convicted of nothing.  Unfortunately, many friends, will readily cut their ties, if the charges are especially notorious or reprehensible, because the charges, in and of themselves, have branded that arrestee so distinctly, that being afraid for themselves of being associated with such a tint, they will therefore disengage themselves as a friend, in order to maintain their status and their own non-involvement. 

This absolutely means that getting arrested has consequences that extend far beyond the actual person being arrested, and those that stand by that person are true friends in every sense of the word, and those that don't, never were.

Uniformity of opinion

One of the most disappointing things about growing up, is the slow but sure recognition that the world does not revolve around us, and for some people, they never seem to get over this important fact.  The thing is, while on the one hand, we are all similar, in the sense that we are all created by the same Great Hand; we also are all different individuals, for our circumstances are different, sometimes, diametrically different, and in many a situation, we are so very different, that in all probability, that difference will not be rectified in any due season.

The fact that we are not all cookie-cutter people and do not have Stepford-like spouses, makes for a diversity of opinion, and helps bring forth the necessary spiciness of life; for if all were exactly the same, there would then be, by definition, an extreme amount of redundancy.  It is therefore, very important, in a country that prides instead as this being the land of freedom, that each of us, is equally entitled to our own thoughts, our own opinions, and our own viewpoints; which is one of the very valid reasons why the First Amendment to our Constitution, stipulates that this government will: "… make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…" and these words in order to actually have real meaning, necessitate that in practice, each of us is entitled to have opinions that are different, and that it is not the governments' place to determine that certain opinions and viewpoints are orthodox and therefore correct, whereas other opinions are non-orthodox and therefore incorrect.

What is especially pernicious is when any government or entity, takes it upon themselves that their viewpoint is the only acceptable dogma, and having the guns, judges, and possibly the majority on their side, make it their purpose that any dissent should be and must be silenced.  In point of fact, freedom of speech, and freedom to have one's own opinion, isn't worth much, if you are unable to freely express it and instead are compelled by law to kowtow to the powers in force.  Rather, for these soaring words of freedom of speech, to have any real meaning in the real world, it comes only upon those times, when such opinions being expressed, are frown upon, vilified, and are upsetting to certain people, for this then is the true test of whether these words are paper tigers, or tigers, themselves.

There are many things that people need to keep in mind, of which, one of them is that people's opinions are not only capable of change, but often do change upon even matters of great importance, for when the facts change or the information presented is quite clearly germane and perceptive, then only a stubborn dunce of a person, doesn't at least consider that their viewpoint may indeed necessitate a change, to accommodate this actionable information.  So too, when those in power mandate that all opinions have to be this certain specific way, or else, then all those that are still in dissent, will be eliminated; so that only those with uniformity of opinion will exist, but the cost of such uniformity will be the death of freedom, the death of free thinking, and the death of a free voice.

Justice and judges

There are plenty of people, that insist that everyone should just "obey the law," of which, even if this was an idea worth emulating, this couldn't be done at any level or at any time, for virtue of the fact that this country has so many laws, that meander and contradict one another, that it's impossible for any one individual to even know of all these laws, let alone to correctly comprehend them, over and above the important point, that even lawyers, along with judges, don't clearly know what they law is, themselves.  That is to say, if the law was clear cut in every single case, all judges' decisions would not only be unanimous, but also would never be reversed by any court of appeals, which itself, would be redundant.  In addition, the lawyers that are arguing on the opposing side of the equation wouldn't have a viable job, for knowing for a fact what that law is, would indicate to them the ultimate futility of arguing against the predictable judgment of that law.

In truth, that isn't how the law, lawyers, justice, and judges actually work in the real world.  Additionally, and quite germane to the situation, is that judges have in cases large and small, reversed the decisions of lower courts; and even the Supreme Court, the highest court of this land, has reversed its own decisions, so that, yes, the Supreme Court has ruled one way in a particular day and age, only to rule an entirely different way, in a different day and age, superseding its own previous law.  All this would seem to indicate that rather than Lady Justice being impartially blind, with all pertinent information equally weighed; that it would be far more accurate to state that justice is mercurial, specifically, because the judges so ruling have ideologies that cloud and influence their judgment.

This does mean, that for those that solicit the court, that only a very foolish and ignorant lawyer, would not take into their calculations, the ideological makeup of that court, and its respective judges, for clearly there are judges that are diametrically different from one another, so much though, that the outcome of a given case, can in many cases, readily be determined by the judge or judges so deciding that case.  This is also the prevailing reason why, so many people get up in arms, about Supreme Court nominees, for because of modern day partisan divisions, judges are deliberately selected, not so much on their jurisprudence, experience, and fairness; but rather as to where they stand in regards to the conservative/liberal spectrum, and quite obviously, judges that are one extreme or the other, can be counted upon to render their decisions by that ideology, and basically throw out the window, whatever applicable precedents, doctrines, and case law, that are pertinent, replaced instead by their personal preference.

When the law is no longer the law, but something that is left to judges to bend and to shade per their inclination, than the decisions so rendered, are done in a manner that dovetails with those so deciding those cases; and when those prevailing winds do change, as they invariably do, then similar cases will be re-decided and will overturn what has come before.  The end result is that the application of the law will be inconsistent, prejudicial, unequal, unfair, and flawed.

Hard work should be rewarded

America, sells itself as a nation of meritocracy, and to a certain degree in many different ways, it is.  However, income growth and income distribution, clearly shows that over the last few decades, that the rich have been getting richer, and that the concentration of wealth in America, the world's richest nation, has been getting concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, which is something that our progressive tax system as well as our equal opportunity playing field should actually be mitigating, but, in fact, this has not been occurring.

The most important thing, isn't necessarily that there should be a more even distribution of income in America, though, that would be nice; but rather, within America, that there should be a firm mindset, which stipulates that if you work hard, that you should receive whether directly or indirectly a wage, benefits and services package, that clearly reflects that hard work is fairly rewarded; rather than that those that work hard, but apparently are in the wrong profession, don't get much of anything, and must thereby struggle mightily day by day.

To demonstrate, how upside down this world is, companies such as Apple, are given special consideration for parking their profits overseas, so that, when a deal is struck, it is to their advantage; so as reported by cnn.com, Apple will just pay "…a repatriation tax rate of 15.5% for returning money to the U.S. from their overseas cash pile," saving them billions for not having to have paid the corporate tax rate which had been 35%.  So too, many of the richest and biggest corporations, such as WalMart and Amazon, amongst so many others, get special property tax rates, as well as special tax set asides from States, governments, localities, and counties, so as to essentially not pay their fair share of taxes.  In actuality, everyday, in every possibly conceivable way, the largest and most profitable corporations headquartered in America are able to through the usage of the best accountants, the best lawyers, and the best lobbyists, essentially receive special privileges and basically welfare from all sorts of governmental agencies and institutions, whereas, the standard laborer, can't even get a break.

In point of fact, whether a living wage as currently envisioned is instituted or not, isn't so important; what is important, though, is that the overall package for those that work hard and are putting forth an honest day's work, should be that they are all entitled to in one way or another: decent healthcare, decent housing, decent transportation, decent education, and a decent life; demonstrated by a pay and benefits package, subsidized by the government, if necessary, and created for that express purpose.

If, on the other hand, the United States, is not prepared to see that each of their citizens that are playing by the rules, and are doing their part to be productive, are rewarded for that hard work; at a time, in which America has wealth that is unprecedented in the annals of history, than there isn't any real hope that this will ever happen.   This should be a country that lives up to its credo, of justice, liberty, and equality for all, but obviously does not, for these words ring hollow; so that, America in fit, form, and function, is really a country run by the elite and the privileged, selling the illusion, that all is fair, whereas, the truth is, this fair is all so foul.

The cost of borrowing money

The cost of borrowing money for those of even the shakiest credit ratings, corporate or personal, has been at historic lows, but beginning in December, 2015, the Federal Reserve, began its process of raising interest rates, or the cost of borrowing money, in a Fed policy that is determined to normalize interest rates to something closer to historical norms within America, of which, tradingeconomics.com states that the Federal Reserve rate: "…averaged 5.72 percent from 1971 until 2018."  As might be expected, should the Fed come even close to reaching the 5.72 percent rate, there will be a seismic shift in not only what institutions and other investors will invest their money into, but also, in the cost of borrowing money.  In short, the last decade, has been an outlier for borrowers, in which their cost of money has been very low, as well as an outlier for savers, which have not been able to get much of a positive interest rate return in regards to short term instruments, such as money market funds, and short duration CDs.

America, itself, has a national debt that is already at historic levels and is headed even higher, so that the service of that debt, will take up an even larger portion of the budget of the United States, each year, as interest rates, increase.  In addition, corporations of all sizes and sorts, borrow money in order to augment their growth and to purchase goods as well as to expand their business, so when their costs go up, not too surprisingly, they are going to feel the squeeze of having to devote more capital to the service of their debt.  Finally, consumers of all stripes, but especially those that are just getting by or trying to get by will suffer even more from even higher interest rates than what they are already paying, so that their borrowing costs in aggregate, will take even more money that they don’t really have in the first place, from their pockets.

It doesn't take an economic genius to understand, that when the cost of borrowing money goes up, that businesses and individuals that are already struggling, are going to find that their struggle gets appreciably worse; in addition, those that invest in the lowest investment grade corporate bonds, will discover, that the return on their investment no longer matches up well with their risk, so they will need a substantially better interest rate in return for such risk, or they will reduce their risk by investing in a higher grade investment corporate bond that now provides a higher return than what it previously did.  As for those financial institutions that bankroll individuals, such as through credit cards, car loans, and student loans, they will find that as their default rate goes up, that they will tighten down the hatches, reduce such loans, and increase their fees, penalties and interest rates in an attempt to maintain their profits.

In short, for all those corporations, businesses, and individuals, that are just barely treading water when interest rates were at historic lows, now they will have to face the music, and therefore pay back what they have had loaned to them at a substantially higher rate, in which, that won't end well; it won't end well at all.