Having the vote matters or does it really?

Never had so many people been able to vote, or have access to vote, and while there are exceptions to this rule, most notably disenfranchised minorities and disenfranchised felons, most everyone that is at least 18 years of age, of either sex, is eligible to vote, which was not the case when this country first established its Constitution, which limited voting to white, land owning males.  While the fact that so many people can vote of diversified backgrounds and perspectives, for their representatives both locally and nationally, as well as for the President, judges, and propositions, the results of that voting does not seem to jibe all that well to consensus views on a lot of salient topics; in addition to the fact that the things of most vital importance don't seem to be put up to a democratic vote, but are decided behind closed doors by our legislators, judicial administrators, or executive fiat.

For instance, the legalization of marijuana is something that ten States of this union have passed, as a State law, but under the federal law, nothing has changed in regards to marijuana, which is still classified as a Schedule 1 drug, which is the same classification as heroin, peyote, and methamphetamine.  In addition, though there are a total of thirty-two States that permit medical marijuana; according to federal law marijuana is not medically legal to prescribe, irrespective of whether it has been State prescribed to a given patient or not, it is still against federal law.  Yet, as shown on pewresearch.org, "About six-in-ten Americans (62%) say the use of marijuana should be legalized," and though it must be said, that the majority does not always get it right, clearly those that would want to see marijuana at least decriminalized throughout this land, and thereby removed from being classified as a schedule 1 drug, would be an overwhelming majority of voting Americans, yet, that is not the law.

So too, one of the most important areas of law, is the tax code, of which vox.com, reports "that upward of 60 percent of the public says they are very worried that some corporations and wealthy individuals aren’t paying their fair share," yet, taxes have not gone up in recent years for the wealthy and corporations, but actually have gone down.   This again, is demonstrative proof that the people are not getting what they want to get in regards to a fair and equable tax system, yet in theory, this is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

In actuality, this country is effectively run by the very wealthy at the expense of the people as a whole.  For instance, as reported by cnn.com, "The richest 1% of families controlled a record-high 38.6%..." whereas "The bottom 90% of families now hold just 22.8% of the wealth."  This signifies, that the richest 1% of this country in aggregate own nearly 70% more in assets than the bottom 90% of the families combined; yet, the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer, of which, each member of the 1% gets exactly one democratic vote, as compared to each member of the 90%, getting exactly one democratic vote, yet, somehow the 90% gets outvoted.

The only possible explanation as to why there is so much disparity in wealth, and why the people as a whole have so little viable power, is that the very rich are part and parcel of a government that they run for their exclusive benefit; of which, the democratic votes that people make are often either of no material consequence, or of no effect; and this oligarchy does a masterful job of convincing the people that they a choice, when however, the coin flips, the people always lose, and the puppet masters always win, because money buys influence, propaganda, and all the votes that are needed for them to win.

The freedman's bureau and justice

In 1865, the war was coming to its conclusion, and an abiding question, faced by America, was what to do with the approximately four million slaves, that were now freed, but without property, without money, and often without education.  Basically, to just free slaves, which was accomplished because of the Civil War, but not to provide these liberated slaves the tools, infrastructure, and aid to become vibrant and equal citizens within America, would be seen only as a job half done.

The brilliance of Lincoln was exemplified by his work with Congress in envisioning, constructing, and thereupon passing a comprehensive bill, known as the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, which was an important piece of legislation, passed in March of 1865; however, only one month later, Lincoln was assassinated.  How much this Bureau would have accomplished with someone as wise and as skilled as Lincoln in command, is open to debate, but no doubt, with Lincoln in office, it would have done far more than this Bill accomplished, for though the words were there, to be of true benefit to blacks, by creating a structure to provide gainful employee, by setting up institutions of schools for literacy and education, and by providing equal justice for blacks in a court of law; in actual effect, ultimately, this Bill was a severe disappointment.

The most basic point of this is not so much that the freedman's bureau was created, and then subsequently ended up not accomplishing what it had been set forth to do; but rather, the recognition that over 150 years ago, the freedman's bureau, along with the passage of the 13th through 15th Amendments to our Constitution, were the very basis for blacks, of all situations, but specifically those that were formerly enslaved, to become full and vibrant citizens with equal rights and opportunities that had been previously wrongly denied  to them.

In addition, because it was the south that rose up against the north, and it was the south that rebelled against the north, and it was the south that created disunion from this indissoluble union; defying the highest law of the land, our Constitution, along with taking up arms against their fellow citizens--then, it most definitely should have been the south, in which, they would have to make amends for what was their sin and their wrong, that they could not and would not let go of, to the very point of civil war.

In point of fact, the newly freed black people, had an absolute right to all the abandoned southern lands that they had labored upon with no compensation; in addition to the right to have granted to them, lands for their usage and livelihood, especially in consideration that for many blacks, that all that they did and performed previously was based upon the land, and especially in recognition, that most newly freed blacks were, in fact, uneducated and illiterate.  So too, this government had an absolute obligation to provide a sound education to all those of the newest generation of freed blacks so that they could obtain opportunity, previously denied to them; along with a court of justice that practiced what it preached, of fair and equal justice without prejudice, for all.

The freedman's bureau set the table for these things to happen, and many tried hard to make that happen, but it did not happen; and even until this day, this country has still not done all that this country could do, for those that were done so horribly wrong.

Government subsidy of the minimum wage to $15/hour

The federal government has mandated a federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour, which seems like a ridiculously low number for any one person to try to make some sort of living from, but even that minimum wage has exceptions made to it so that certain professions in certain States are permitted to lower the minimum wage to even less than $3/hour if that person, for example, is a server in a restaurant, of which, the belief is that their income will not come from their wages, per se, but from the tips of the consumers.  In addition, States are permitted to raise the minimum wage above the Federal level within their State, of which 29 States have done so.

While it is true that $15/hour does not go as far in certain areas of the country, that represent a high cost of living, such as New York City or San Francisco; there are other cities such as Buffalo and Kansas City in which the cost of living is very reasonable, but be that as it may, $15/hour, in a country in which, people are permitted to move from high cost of living cities to lower cost of living cities or wherever they so desire to move to, in addition to the fact that States and cities have the option to help subsidy those that reside within their State or city, $15/hour is probably considered to be a wage that is high enough that most people can make a fair living from it, in one way or another.

As reported by oxfarmarmerica.org, "Overall, 58.3 million workers (43.7 percent) earn under $15 an hour; 41.7 million (31.3 percent) earn under $12 an hour."  That represents not only a staggering percentage of Americans that do not make$15/hour but also represents a staggering amount of working Americans in total that do not make $15/hour, and while people may protest and fight for a nationwide increase in wages to $15/hour of which the burden for paying those wages would rest upon the businesses that currently do not pay those wages, there is another way to basically accomplish the same goal.

While it is difficult to calculate exactly how many billions would be needed for the Federal Government to provide on a biweekly basis, a direct subsidy to all those that are working, but making less than $15/hour, it can be calculated using a "back of the envelop" basis as follows:  that it is estimated that on average 58.3 million workers are making $10/hr, so the Federal Government would need to make up that $5/hr, multiplied by eight hours in a day, then multiplied by fifty weeks in the year, and finally multiplied by 58.3 million workers, which would equate to a total of $583 billion.  While that number is indeed staggering, it could be mitigated by the following: Earn Income Tax Credit (EITC) for 2017 was $65 billion, and this would be reduced considerably; further, as reported by wikipedia.org, "Roughly half of this welfare assistance, or $462 billion went to families with children," which would also be reduced considerably, and further not all of those 58.3 million workers are actually working a forty hour week.  In addition, this Federal Government, for FY 2019, is scheduled to have a deficit of about $1 trillion, and yet, this government still stands, so adding another $350-500 billion to it, would not collapse said government.

Finally, unlike a lot of other government programs, which are purposeless, pointless, chaotic, and inefficient--a program that subsidizes incomes in America, would go directly into the very hands of people that will, more times than not, spend it on personal consumption within the United States, of which, more personal consumption, equates to a higher GDP, and will, therefore, help make America great, again.

Why are there no superrich animals?

In this world, there is only one being, that has the potential to become superrich, and that is the human being.  For instance, in the animal kingdom, while there may indeed be a hierarchy within a given animal pack, there isn't any kingdom or nation-state so to speak; though animals are known to be territorial, so that animals through their aggressiveness, strength, and tenacity, eventually sort themselves out into those that are leaders and those that are followers, of which, those that are the current head of the pack, will, as they age and are injured or become ill, be replaced in turn by a younger version of their own self.  What you do not see in the animal kingdom, is any one animal that is treated as an actual king or queen, where all the other animals pay that particular animal king or queen, tribute.  Pretty much, it can be said, animals have to work to get what they get, and those that are especially strong and dominant, have others that will work to placate and please them, to a certain extent, but usually within just that given animal pack; so that, while we might say that the lion is king of the jungle, few, other animals, actually pay any tribute to that lion king, though those other animals may very well try to stay out of its way.

On the other hand, mankind is clever, so clever that not only does mankind know how to utilize strong animals as beasts of burden, but rightly or wrongly, they are quite successful at exploiting and utilizing other people as pretty much the same sort of thing.  This also means, that there is a limit as to how many people are going to be able to be superrich, and that limit is going to be relatively few, because there is only so much wealth that a man can produce off of animals and land, itself.  This so means also that additional concentrated super wealth is going to necessitate, in most circumstances, treating one's fellow man as subservient to that person who knows how to expertly work the angles, work the government, and work the justice arm in a way that the game is grossly tilted to one man's particular favor, and disfavors virtually everyone else.

For instance, one of the most profitable ways to become superrich, is to utilize other people's money in the sense of their monetary investment into your corporation or business development, in which by eventually going public, well positioned companies are able to instantly create a public stock market capitalization in the billions, and thereby those with a high percentage ownership position, become superrich.  Then, in order to maintain their superrich status, those billions of dollars are utilized in a focus manner in which competitors are bought or merged into the parent corporation, consolidating money and power into one corporate hand; which benefits those privileged few at an outrageously very high rate.  As for those that purchase or utilize the product or service so being sold, because they are dealing with a monopoly in fit, form, and function, means that they are going to have to pay more than what they would pay if there was actual vibrant competition; so that, done often enough over a very wide customer base, means that the privileged superrich few, will extract or exploit from others, extra dollars that will go into their pockets, at the expense of all others.

The Constitution, new territory acquired, and slavery

In order to form a more perfect union, the thirteen States of the confederation, assembled together for a Constitutional convention that ultimately resulted in a written Constitution, ratified by the States in 1788.  At the time of ratification, all those States that still permitted slavery within their borders were allowed to maintain the institution of slavery; however, the Constitution addressed slavery in a manner in which, the importation of slaves, as of 1788, (which at that time importation was only permitted in the States of South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia,) was subject to being banned in 1808; and in fact, on January 1, 1808, President Jefferson signed into law, the banning of the importation of any slaves into America.  This meant, that from January 1, 1808, slavery in order to sustain itself within America would have to re-populate itself from those that were already enslaved within America, and further that slavery, was only permitted in those States that allowed that peculiar institution.

Based on the fact, that the importation of slaves was eliminated in 1808, along with the fact that the northern States had proven that slavery was not an institution that was necessary for economic growth; it was felt, by many esteemed personages, that slavery as an institution, would over a period of time, simply fade away and dissolve.  Obviously, that did not happen, and further to the point, when America acquired additional land, beginning with the Northwest Ordinance of 1784, Thomas Jefferson proposed on the draft of that Ordinance that "after the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States...", of which this was rejected and thereby removed from that Ordinance.  Therein, this meant that the peculiar problem was not resolved in 1784 for future States, nor was this addressed at the Constitution Convention; for America, which began as a union of thirteen States, expanded into additional States, from territories acquired, in which, the southern States, were absolutely united, in recognizing that they needed to maintain enough veto power in the Senate, to protect their peculiar institution, so that new States admitted to the Union were admitted in a manner that for each free State admitted there would be a corresponding slave State admitted; all done, despite the fact, that western nations which had been previously intimately involved with slavery, the slave trade, and the importation of slaves, had reverse course, in the recognition that slavery as an institution had no place among progressive nations and was thereby an affront upon humanity.

The problem that America had with slavery, was not contained within the Constitution, for those that wrote and ratified the Constitution, were well aware of the institution of slavery, of which, the belief of those of the north, was that time and justice was on their side, and that if the fuel of new slave importations was banned, which it was in due time, than slavery would eventually flame out, which it did not.  What the provisions of the Constitution did not do, was set in stone, the conditions that territories which became new States would have to adhere to in regards to the institution of slavery, in which, because certain new territories thereby permitted slavery, those that had a vested interest in slavery, were able to readily stoke the fires of slavery, to the point, that the ensuing conflagration was inevitable and those burning fires, still smolder until this very day.

When you have nothing, why fight for your country?

There are a lot of countries that have a significantly skewed distribution of income as well as a lack of opportunity, so that, the vast and overwhelming majority of the population has little or nothing, and with no real hope that this will change for the better.  In that type of situation, it sure doesn't make much sense for those unfortunate people to thereupon take up arms to defend their own country against foreign or domestic enemies; yet, often times the people with virtually nothing of worth appear to willingly do so.

The most common reasons why citizens of a country that have nothing, will still fight, is that though they have very little, they still have obligations and responsibilities to their family, so for their sake, they will take up arms in the hope that by doing so that they will be able to provide for and to protect their family.  Additionally, many nation-states utilize negative inducements to compel their people to take up arms, for, it not, the state, itself, will eradicate that individual or imprison them, so given the choice, between some small self determination and opportunity as opposed to absolutely no self determination, people will often take up arms for their country.

The thing though is that those that very little personal incentive to fight, often do not make good fighters, because obviously their heart is not in the battle, for they know in the big scheme of things, that they at the end of the day, won't really benefit from putting their life and limbs at risk, hence they have a strong tendency to do what little that they have to do that will not necessitate being subsequently punished by their own military authorities, and in battle, trying to avoid as much as possible, getting injured or killed.

In point of fact, those that literally have nothing to defend, because they own nothing, are going to go into battle with a diametrically different mindset as compared to those that most definitely have something to lose, and especially all those that have a lot to lose.  In fact, the poor man sees battles and wars, as an opportunity to not so much make a name for themselves, but more as a chance to change their circumstances for the better, and to the extent that fighting hard will provide such, they will do so; and to the extent, that they believe that it won't, they won't.

All of this really means that those countries that have a governance which truly provides fair and equal opportunity in all salient areas of interest to all or nearly all of their citizens, is going to get the type of soldiers and citizens that will when called upon, fight hard for what they have, for they truly have something to fight hard for.  On the other hand, all those countries, that keep their boots upon the necks of the vast majority of their populace, are essentially putting themselves in jeopardy of fighting two wars; one domestically and one externally, in which, when push comes to shove, those that nothing to defend, will as much as possible, do next to nothing, to help those that do.

The interdiction of illegal drugs at border crossings

There isn't much doubt that much of the illegal drugs that enter America, come from our southern neighbor, Mexico, and to interdict such drugs from entering this country, America spends an inordinate amount of money on border control, border agents, border walls, and heavy security at border entry points, which slows border crossing traffic to a standstill.  While, to a certain degree one could applaud the amount of drugs confiscated by the U.S. Customs and Border protection agency, of which, as reported by azcentral.com, "During the 2016 fiscal year, CBP agents seized 246,000 kilograms of marijuana, meth, cocaine and heroin at southwest ports of entry compared with 589,000 kilograms outside ports of entry;" this is mitigated by the very fact that significantly more drugs were seized outside ports of entry (e.g. outside vehicle ports of entry at border crossings); indicating, that drug cartels are quite skilled at crossing the border through the air, through the sea, through drones, through underground tunnels, and through remote ground crossings that are simply not patrolled. 

The idea that by building a wall that is 2,000 miles long, and 30 feet high, with even more border patrol personnel, even more sophisticated monitoring devices, even more monies allocated, and so on, will somehow reduce the amount of drugs coming into the United States to something approaching zero, is simply delusional.  For one, there is simply too much money involved in the illegal drug trafficking trade that affects both sides of the border, that such an amount of money would still have its corrupting influence in aiding and augmenting the trafficking of those narcotics.  In addition, wars have proven time and time again, that the mere building of a wall, in and of itself, will not, provide absolute protection and an impenetrable defense, though it may well help, but to believe that such a wall, will simply stop business as usual, is deceit at its very worst.

Even the belief, that most illegal narcotics are simply being driven over the border, is fundamentally wrong, for drug traffickers, know for a certainty that border crossings, no matter the deception and sophistication involved are always going to be risky, as compared to an end-around such as tunneling under the border, flying a plane below radar detection, utilizing drones, utilizing sea containers on transport ships, finding areas of low patrol, or traveling by sea.

The fact that the United States, declared a war on drugs in 1971, and yet the drugs are still widely accessible in America and the drugs are yet still coming to America, indicates wholly that this war as being fought by the United States, noble or not, has failed, completely.  This would indicate what far few people wish to actually discuss, which is that the border patrol for the most part are interdicting small-time players, whereas the big-time players are able to quite successfully export their drugs over to America, probably for a lot of reasons, of which one of the most salient ones, is that money greased and gifted to the right people in America will get business done; whereas more laws, more walls, and more border patrol agents, really won't.

Retail gasoline prices and the appearance of collusion

According to chron.com, "Total U.S. spending on gasoline is projected to rise 7.5 percent from 2017 to nearly $365 billion…" in 2018, in which, "the average U.S. household would spend roughly $1,900 on gasoline in 2018."  Quite obviously, anyone that owns a gas powered vehicle, correctly understands, that their vehicle requires gasoline in order to be operated, so that, whether gas prices are high or low, consumers are going to have to pay whatever that they have to pay, in order to accomplish their given tasks, such as going to school, work, play, or entertainment.

The importance of the price of gasoline can also be demonstrated by the fact, that unlike most other shopping experiences, gasoline prices are prominently displayed so that consumers of such are well aware of just how much it costs them to fill up their car.  In addition to that, there are a multitude of gas stations, that consumers can avail themselves of, though some gas stations are limited to serving only those that are members of a warehouse club, such as Sam's Club or Costco; or offer additional discounts only for those that shop at their grocery store, such as Kroger, depending upon how much money is spent on groceries, providing consumers then with an additional discount per gallon of fuel purchased.

The thing though about all these gas stations, is that the pricing within a particular county, or within a particular city, or within any area, in which the tax rate for that gasoline is the same tax rate for all those other gas stations, is that the retail price of that gasoline does not vary much from one station to another.  Perhaps, it could be said, that is simply one station matching the price of another, and demonstrates fully the vibrancy of competition in this great nation.  Then again, the fact that there is such a minute difference in prices from one gas station to another, probably reflects that each gas station is pretty much mirroring the other gas stations, and making sure then to keep within a few pennies of the other, so that in the scheme of things, there isn't any real material difference between one gas station price to another.

While it probably can be stated that gasoline stations do not knowingly collude with one another, because that is a rather serious crime with serious punishment to go along with it; the fact of the matter is that retail gas stations do not need to collude with one another as long as they have a general understanding that they will not deliberately undercut one another in a manner in which, they lose, and the consumers win.  In fact, the gasoline business is a volume business, and those retailers of gasoline well understand that as long as their margins are positive, they will do just fine; so then, unlike most other businesses which are actually truly competing, the retail gasoline business, does not ever sell gasoline at the price that would adversely impact their historic margin rates, not because they could not afford to, from time to time, but because they don't need to and they won't have to because nobody with sensibility will ever break the unwritten rules between them.

Whether a given consumer drives all around town to find the best gas price or not, the bottom line, is that whatever savings there may be, can be measured in pennies, here and there, and despite whatever brand that gas station so represents on its signage, they all pretty much are the same, for though the name may differ, their game is essentially the same.

This is a government for and by the ruling class

Ah, America, land of the free, land of sweet liberty, land of equal opportunity, as well as fair justice and equality for all.  That, of course, is the America, that this land is supposed to represent, of which, thousands upon thousands have given their last dying breath to fight so nobly for those very ideals, but the reality is that America isn't free, and it sure doesn't have nor is it a government by the people, for the people, and of the people.

The thing about wealth, power, and status, is that those that have it, will not often voluntarily relinquish it; and further that those that have it, believe they are deserving of it, for they see themselves as somehow, clearly superior to and above the common man, and therefore will do all that they can to see that their status quo, remains unassailable, and will utilize all things, fair and foul, to better their own situation, at the expense of most everyone else.

It certainly is not happenstance that a small elite class effectively rules this country, for in order to do so, takes concentrated effort, concentrated wealth, and concentrated power applied in an unrelenting, firm, but relatively benign manner so that the masses will not even consider revolting against their masters.  That is to say, the first principle is that the military-police-technological-industrial arm of the state must be in lockstep with one another, recognizing that by all working together that they can collectively reap vast benefits from the richest nation that the world has ever witnessed, which provides them with all the accouterments of the good life, without being at risk of losing it to anyone or any other nation-state.

The next step, is to make sure that the masses, are always up in arms and very fearful about something or other, either domestically and/or internationally that appears to be a very real and present danger to their way of life and viability, that thereby necessitates an outrageously strong military-police state, with invasive agencies that know everything about them, so that they can therefore lie down safely at night, believing that all is well.  For this type of security, millions will sell their souls, just to be considered to be safe.  As for those that seem more reluctant to get onboard with all the intrusive domestic surveillance, or bogus wars such as the "war on drugs", or complain too vociferously about poverty, fairness, income inequality, and lack of opportunity, these people will be selectively rounded up and imprisoned, or marginalized in a way that they will have no impact or influence.

While it might not seem conceivable for the average America to actually believe that this isn't a democracy, and that this isn't a representative government, in fit, form, and function; the proof that it is not, is clearly demonstrated by the fact, that as reported by the washingtonpost.com, "the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined."  This means for a very privileged 1 percent of this country, they effectively are matched by 90 percent of this country in wealth; or stated in another way, 90 percent of this country are subservient to the 1 percent of this country that run it; and the other nine percent directly or indirectly serve that 1 percent in order to live their own very good lives.

In a true democracy, 90 percent of the people, could never be effectively run over and controlled by 1 percent; but here it is, in black and white, of which that is the reality of the situation, and when and if, that 90 percent truly wakes up, there will be blood on the streets and mansions in flaming ruins.

The Bible is not inerrant

The following statement that the Holy Bible is not inerrant, should be a statement that should not be considered to be controversial, yet for certain conservative Christian sects, in addition to perhaps some other religious faiths, and those that don't really study or know that much about religion, such a statement, almost seems blasphemous, and no doubt during specific historical periods, those that did not adhere to orthodox beliefs in regards to the prevailing religious faith, suffered even unto death, for not believing in the way that they were instructed to believe.

The Bible itself, consists of about 1,200 pages and about 800,000 words, depending upon the particular translation of the Bible, along with the books or chapters that are part and parcel of that Bible, of which, different religions, add or subtract, different chapters, such as the book of Wisdom, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees, and so on and so forth.  In addition, there is no one scribe that wrote down the words of the entire Bible, for the Bible was written over a period of about 1,500 years, of which this Bible was written in different languages, in different countries, with different source materials, with different translations, with different meanings, and through all this, not a single word of the Bible was originally written in English.

So too, words are themselves, not fixated in time but are subject to change, interpretation, nuances, and biases, so that, different scholars can read the same scriptural passage and come to significantly different conclusions.  In addition, there are a minority of scholars that believe that the Bible is to be read in a literal manner, whereas there are many other scholars that see some scriptural passages as being metaphorical or allegorical.  It is also of critical import to recognize that there is not a definitive source material available that covers all of the Biblical material that has become part and parcel of the Bible, which means that without the original source, there cannot be a guarantee that the words recorded are actually correct.  Not to mention, that there are a multitude of Biblical translations that are available, in which, the words expressed differ enough that there is no true consensus on certain Biblical passages.

All of this, in and of itself, pretty much makes it clear, that the Bible, is not inerrant, for when there is no perfect source material, written in a language which allows no room or maneuverability for interpretation or no room for words to change even a wit from what they were meant to say at that time and place, then quite obviously, errancy of some degree becomes the norm within a given Bible, and it cannot be prevented or perfectly rectified.

Still, none of this even involves perhaps the most important part of the Bible and the words that are written inside of it, which is that the printing, publishing, and distribution of the Bible, is something that could only be initially accomplished through the conjunction of the aegis of religious authorities and the highest authorized government offices, so that anything so written that would reflect poorly against the orthodoxy of the prevailing religious authority or would encourage the people as a whole, to get riled up and to thereby desire to rise up against their ruling authority, could not then, nor could it now, be written into the Bible. 

While the Word of God is most definitely inerrant, for God is absolute perfection; man's interpretation of that Word, as give in the Bible, is not; for mankind is imperfect and rather prone to changing things to suit their own selfish desires and thereby to take that which was inerrant and pass it off as if it was.

"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it"

The above quotation comes from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall from the Cohens v. Virginia case, and is just as apt today, as it was back in 1821. Further in the same case, he stated, "But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake resides only in the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them." All of this clearly states the principle, that this is a body politic, of all the people, by all the people, and for all the people, and any case law that is inimical to the people, is in all probability, unconstitutional as law.

This then signifies that any laws that are created or exercised in a manner that unjustly favors one special group of people at the expense of the people as a whole, is in all likelihood, inimical to the Constitution and is thereby a pox upon this country.  It follows then, that the decisions in regards to the highest law of this land, the Constitution, must be consistent to that Constitution as it is, as opposed to being what a certain party or group of people, might prefer it to be.  For, if the Constitution, is presented to the Supreme Court of this land, of which that Supreme Court therefore makes it putty, for them to pull and play with it at their discretion, than that Constitution ceases to be of any true and lasting value.  So too, if the Executive branch of this country, issues executive orders, that effectively are utilized as an end around the legislative branch or judicial rulings, so too, those executive orders, should be seen as void and a nullity, in regards to Constitutional law.  Finally, if the legislature branch passes laws and bills, based or strongly influenced upon bribes, special interests, lobbyists, and special favors, of which the results of these new laws and bills effectively supersedes the authority of people, by those representatives undercutting the people's legitimate interests in order for those legislative representatives to better their own personal interest, so too, this is clearly unconstitutional.

There are, in this county, absolutely no just powers, unless those powers are executed by the people's representatives in a manner that those that are governed are so being governed by a rule of law that upholds their unalienable rights, and further that these laws in effect are specifically created for the good, happiness, and safety of the people.  Only under those conditions, are those laws legitimately created, and only under those conditions, has the implicit consent of the governed been so generated.

When any nation, even one of long standing, has corrupted itself in such a manner, that its governing document, means whatever the prevailing winds of the Supreme Court so desires it to mean; so too, when the Executive branch of that government, usurps legislative and judicial authority to create ipso facto laws that are for the benefit of the well placed and few; and finally when the legislative branch, passes laws that are so convoluted and labyrinth that nobody has bothered to read its pages, and that nobody has the time to debate, that effectively are passed into law so as to deliberately bypass spirited and public debate; than that country, that has a written Constitution, has seen that Constitution unmade, not by the people, but by a select and privileged group of people, that do whatever will benefit their position and power at the expense of those people, that they have all solemnly pledged to serve.

You'll never be able to invest like Buffett

Everybody wants to make money and most people want to take the money that they have earned and make additional money from that money, which is known, as investing.  Truth be told, a lot of people, are fairly honest, at least to themselves, about how good or how poor that they are at investing, and all those that recognize that they aren't all that good at investing, have a very strong tendency to gravitate towards people that appear to be quite competent and also appear to have a history of high investment returns, which resonates especially well with people, that want to make that "easy" investing money.

Somebody like Warren Buffett, who is a billionaire many times over, and comes across with his folksy wisdom, as somebody's favorite uncle or grandfather, seems to give the illusion, that whatever that Buffett is able to do, that somebody else will be able to do just as well; but as in most things, the proof is in the eating of the pudding, and what Buffett has been able to accomplished, cannot be replicated in any way, form, or manner by the average person.

While Buffett says a lot of sensible things, such as investing in things that you know, investing in the long term, as well as the value of evaluating business prospects fairly, of buying when the stock price fundamentals are in line with the true value and growth prospects of that company, and so on.  A lot of those things do make perfectly good sense, and Buffett's holdings as disclosed through his parent company, Berkshire Hathaway are public knowledge, but to simply mirror those holdings, is to copy something, without understanding the true ramifications of what that signifies, and without knowledge as to the exit sell plans as well as the future buy plans for Berkshire Hathaway, it all becomes rather murky.

In addition, Warren Buffett, unlike the average investor, is incredibly sophisticated, knowledgeable, and works closely with a team of professionals that know exceedingly well the whole breadth and scope of the investing business; as well as being able to draw upon their considerable financial resources, experience, and leverage to make deals with companies that are frequently in some sort of difficulty, thereby providing an expressed advantage for Warren Buffett and his associates.  None of these things are going to be available for the average investor, and how much money Buffett has made, because he is able to utilize all the tools of his trade, so as to basically buy retail companies at wholesale or even fire sale prices, is obviously a huge component of how Buffett has been able to make billions upon his billions.

So too, companies that Buffett has owned for a very long time, such as Coca-Cola or American Express, are companies that have market capitalizations of billions of dollars, of which, when first bought by Buffett, they were far smaller enterprises, that are still owned by Buffett, mainly because they are leaders in their respective industries, as compared to their being able to generate consistent double-digit growth, and therefore, those now getting into these mainstream corporations, aren't so much betting on these companies, per se, but are really betting on the American and worldwide economy continuing to grow at a reasonable pace.

You can't invest like Buffett, because market conditions have changed since Buffett began his historic rise many decades ago, so that while that one door is pretty much close, no doubt, another door has been opened, and those that are able to find that door, will do just fine.

RICO and corporate crime

The United States is a nation of seemingly endless laws, of which one of those laws, is entitled the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) which permits and facilitates prosecutorial agents in being able to successfully prosecute the leaders, instigators, and developers of criminal offenses, in which those higher ups have previously been able to shield themselves from being directly involved in a specific criminal offense by using underlings to perform those crimes, thereby effectively absolving themselves of such; but prosecutors are able through RICO, to find them accountable, as the enablers of a criminal enterprise and thereby its criminal actions.  Most notably, RICO has been used against certain high ranking members of organized crime, but it also has been used in other areas, though, mainly against known criminal enterprises.

There isn't any good reason why RICO, or a law similar in structure to RICO, should not now be passed into law, specifically created to go after corporations and corporate criminals.  In point of fact, corporations are found guilty all the time of malfeasance, fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, collusion, stock manipulation, and other assorted crimes; in which, those prosecuting those companies, often, when it is all said and settled, merely fine the corporation money, perhaps then monitor their behavior over a set period of time, perhaps revoke some monetary bonuses paid, but almost never hold a corporate individual personally liable to pay the incarcerated price for those crimes.

This signifies, in a nutshell, that the best crime to commit, is always going to be corporate crime, because those creating such a crime, know almost for a certainty, that they will have the best legal help that money can buy, that they personally will not have to suffer a day in jail or to even be in jeopardy of having this done to them, and at worse, might have to forfeit some monies earned, or possibly, lose their job or have their job suspended for a time.  On the other hand, by committing these crimes, an incredible lot of money can be personally made, so the downside as compared to the upside is rather minimal, but an act such as RICO that was constructed so as to be deliberately enforced against corporations, would be a true game changer, by making those higher ups that are responsible for the environment of that criminal activity, to have to face the music themselves for those crimes.

Of course, most every single large corporation would fight tooth and nail to see that any revamped RICO law would not ever apply to them; clearly indicating that the people that run these corporations, more often than not, are de facto, criminals.  For, the truth of the matter is, that corporations cheat, steal, and defraud the public out of billions of dollars each year, of which the true beneficiaries of such behavior, are those at the highest echelons of the corporate executive suites, who often feel intense pressure to do what they have to do, in order to meet quarterly sales and profit goals, in which, unable to accept failure, will often resort to whatever it takes to make those numbers.

Why do we work?

One of the most important things in life is to basically prove that we have a brain and are capable of independent and perceptive thinking demonstrated by the successful utilization of that brain in meaningful action.  It therefore follows that one of the most important words to know in life is why, and behind the word why, should be some considerable contemplation, thinking, and asking, so as to supersede mere rote learning and indoctrination, and thereby to become a truly free will individual.

Just because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that is the best way to do that thing, or the most appropriate way to do that thing, or even that whatever it is, should be done in that manner.  A case in point, of upmost importance, is the very concept of work, of which, most lives are fundamentally based not really around family, not really around society, not really about what we like or prefer, but basically around work, and from that work, the getting of money. 

This signifies that before we go down that career path of work, and all that is involved in regards to commitment, schooling, training, time, and stress that it would behoove most everyone to actually think about what we are signing up for in the first place, and the true purpose behind our involvement with it.  For some people, this type of thinking isn't really necessary, because they just know that each of us has to work, because that is the way that it is done, has been done, and always will be done; whereas for others, they may not have even considered that there were options other than work, but life, in almost every circumstance presented to us, does have options.

For a lot of people, when boiled down to its very essence and core, the primary purpose of work, is to make money, so that a very simple formula is thereby created which is work, provides money, and money is necessary in order to successfully live some sort of life.  The former may be true but in order to examine it more fully, a given individual, might also wonder if there was another way to obtain money or its equivalency that didn't necessitate work; or something that was equivalent to work but that was so fulfilling or desirable, it didn't really feel like work; or whether what is necessary in life, even requires work as we know it.

This means, that we need to truly understand what it is that we really need or desire, first; and then from there, determine as to whether work is thereby the best or the only answer to those needs and desires.  That is to say, intuitively we must understand, that to say that we were born to work, doesn't ring true; but rather, most people, would substantially agree that we have an absolute need and desire to find, create, or hunt for food and water for sustenance, to socialize well with others, as well as a need for shelter in order to survive and to sustain ourselves.

The above would seem to say, that work as the be all and end all of life, isn't correct, but rather, it is our need and desire to sustain our body, provide or assist with our community, and to have a safe place to rest, that are often the true driving forces behind any one meaningful life.  Therefore to the extent that work as currently structured, can provide us with those needful things, that is a good and valid reason to work; beyond that, though, there are many more options that really should be thought about, investigated and explored.

Fiat money, fear, and gold

A lot of people have a tendency to look at the money that they have in their hand, or in their bank account, or in their assets, as being real, and to a certain degree the dollars that you have are real, but they aren't as real or as stable or as secure as most people, give them credit for being.  That is to say, the United States dollar is without a doubt, not a secure and stable instrument, which is the whole reason, why people when they are reading history or watching an old movie or an old television show, are able to see or read about some of the dollar prices, for gasoline, or for a meal, or for a hotel room, or for a car, or for a house as being unquestionably quite low in dollar amount cost back in the day.  Not to mention, the flip side of the equation, of those making money, in which, for instance, upper middle class workers had a yearly income of perhaps $3000-4000, back in the 1930s. 

Quite clearly, the dollar suffers from the ill effects of inflation, so that its value is eroding, sometimes rather speedily, such as in the 1970s, or more quiescent, yet devaluing all the same, such as at the present time.  In any event, the dollar is standardized as the coin of the realm, and is literally used for all transactions, all of the time, mainly because it is the legal tender of this country, as well as being the most convenient way to transact business, personal or otherwise.  That said, while it is absolutely true that countries, nations, and dynasties, come and go; so too, do their currencies, especially when those currencies are backed by nothing further than the full faith and credit of that nation-state.

The United States dollar is a fiat currency, and this currency is only as good as the government that stands behind it, and in particular that government's credibility, credit, longevity, and sustainability.  There are, quite obviously alternatives to using fiat currency, of which, the newest spin, is crypto currency; but there is also, still in existence, commodities, such as gold, that have historically been used by nation-states as currency, and gold is still seen today as having an intrinsic monetary value that individuals as well as countries see as being of worth enough, to actually store ingots or coins of gold for just that very purpose.

The price of gold is most often weighed against the dollar, of which, back during the FDR administration, gold was pegged at $20.67 per ounce, yet, today, gold which freely fluctuates against the dollar is currently priced at around $1231/ounce.    The price of gold, does rise and it does fall, but it does neither of these things in a very consistent fashion, except for only under one particular circumstance, which draws upon something that FDR once said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," and when the people and/or institutions are fearful, gold has a very strong tendency to go up, as compared to when things are considered to be under control and stable.

The basic reason that the price of gold goes up when things are fearful, comes down to the fact that fiat currency, is in the scheme of things, all about confidence, and to a certain extent, could be considered to be a confidence game, itself; and nobody, wants to be the sucker, so a prudent person will often look for something stable, when all hell is about to break loose, and therein lies the essential lure of gold.

Modern day indulgences

The Protestant church came into creation essentially related to the frustration and the dismay of the quite obvious corruption of the Catholic church; of which, one of the most corrupting aspects of that Catholic church, was the sale, more or less, of Catholic sanctioned indulgences to the faithful, for a monetary price, that would thereby alleviate and mitigate temporal sins from that individual soul, so that such would not suffer in purgatory or hell for the commission of those very sins, that the church as God's representative on earth, had "indulged" or, that is, forgiven.

The very thing about sinning is that most people that have done wrong actions and wrong deeds, are usually fairly cognizant about them, though, there are many that create lives of denial and justifications to placate their conscience, but basically, in truth, those that sin, know that they are sinners.  The fact that people know that they have done wrong, quite obviously creates a real conundrum for those that believe that their soul survives physical death, and of further concern is that the afterlife necessitates a thorough review of the acts that a particular person has committed or omitted, in painstaking detail.

While there is many a person, that takes solace, correct or not, that Jesus has died for all our sins, and that if we accept Jesus in our heart, that our sins are truly forgiven by God, such, appears to be, one of those shortcuts to salvation, that doesn't appear to be fair or just.  Whether the former is literally true or not, one can make a very strong case, that those that have sinned like the devil, and then at the 11th hour, through sincere repentance, are somehow forgiven and absolved of all guilt from that sin, are probably going to find, that an indulgence such as that, does not now, nor has it ever, existed.

Essentially, any preaching that puts together some formula, that somehow absolves the person of heinous acts of commission, without taking into the account, the other parties or principalities that have been hurt and damaged by those actions, probably doesn't have it correct.  Be that as it may, true repentance, necessitates propitiation of sins through the overt acts of goodness to overcome and to offset wrong deeds so done.  This should appear rather obvious, for those that have done wrong, and truly recognize it, almost always have a deep and abiding desire to make up for those wrongs by correct and right actions, and implicitly recognize, that they need to.

So too, when we look at modern day indulgences, the most obvious of them all, is the very same game plan and structure that existed when the Catholic church openly sold such indulgences; which is basically, that those that have money, and lots of it, are somehow able to pay their way into Heaven, through their generous acts of charity and foundations while here on earth.  The very truth of the matter is that you cannot now nor could you ever buy your way into Heaven, or buy indulgences for the remission of sins, for God freely gives and cannot be enticed by the entreaties of mere mortal man.  Rather, while money works extremely effectively here on this planet, for virtually anything of substance, it does not work outside of this material plane, and all those that trust in the almighty dollar to get them certain privileges, immunities, and favors wherever they so sojourn, are going to ultimately find to their dismay, that being frozen up to their neck in hell, leaves them no choices at all.

The southern aristocracy and the Civil war

History may teach us a lot of things, of which, not all those things are actually correct, and sometimes what is being taught is deliberately deceptive.  When it comes to the Civil war which cost the lives of 620,000 men and untold millions of dollars wasted on all the killing and infrastructure destroyed, it is a crying shame, that so few, could cause the destruction and loss of life for so many.

One basic theory about the Civil war is such was fought over slavery and to thereby keep the Union together, for a house divided against its very self, cannot stand.  So too, it was said, it was about State rights, that a State had the right to secede from the union, or to nullify Federal law.  There are a lot of theories about the Civil war, of which, basically none of the mainstream theories of our Civil war, really gets it right.

That is to say, the most appropriate way of looking upon our Civil war, is not ever to see it as a war of State rights, for States did not then, nor did they ever, have the right to secede from the Union, for this Union of States, is permanent, and allows no exceptions or exemption to its unity.  So too, while a house divided will not stand, the Northern States were amendable to slavery in the sense, that they did not believe that the Constitution as it stood, and without amendment, permitted the abolition of slavery; but once those States so seceded and created their own rival government, with its own authority, then it was the right and the sacred duty of those Northern States to put down that rebellion directed against the Union, especially in consideration of who it was that actually fomented such a rebellion.

In point of fact, the southern rebellion primarily was generated by those that were in authority in those States that pushed so strongly for disunion, and those that were most interested in rebellion, were those that had the most to risk and quite obviously the most to lose, if the present system, built around slave labor was somehow to become illegal or dissolved.  In the south, the power was held solely and exclusively in the hands of the plantation elite.  That is, those that own the best, most plentiful, and most productive lands also owned the greatest amount of slaves, and in an era in which agriculture was truly sweat labor, having those that labored that were considered to be property of those that owned such, was extremely lucrative and beneficial for those owners. 

Because the plantation owners held the most property, as well as holding the lion's share of material assets, they made it a point to be in full control of the legislative, judicial, extrajudicial, press, and any other pertinent phase of that State's political process.   So too, for the most part, this meant that free white men, did not dare bite the hand that fed them, for in the class hierarchy of the south, being white, brought a certain degree of courtesy, respect, and  status, reserved for those simply born white, even if they were to a large extent, uneducated, uncouth, and exploited.

The southern white men that suited up and went to battle to defend the "honor" of the south were hoodwinked into doing so, for they did the fighting and they did the dying.  The defeat of the south was the one-time opportunity to put a sword to those great plantation estates, the landed elite, and to bring true democracy, freedom, and opportunity to the south.  The fact that in the aftermath of this great Civil war, the southern aristocracy was able to rise up again, same as it ever was, is something that even present day Americans must still contend with and is a cancer upon this republic.

The common good and laws

There are plenty of people that believe that there “ought to be a law,” and the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of laws, of which so many of them are: confusing, contradicting, pointless, convoluted, outdated, and intrusive, demonstrates wholly that those that believe that there ought to be a law, seemingly get their way; and to a certain degree, because so many politicians and government officials of high importance, are lawyers, or have a background in law, then not too surprisingly, they are proponents of passing a lot of these laws.

Quite frankly, for the common good, laws that are pretty much unknown, misapplied, or are used as a weapon against certain people at certain times, are all laws that are not for the benefit of the people.  Yet, laws most definitely have their place, because any government governed by a written Constitution, has an obligation to live up to that Constitution, and the Constitution of this United States, is, in fact, the supreme law of the land.  This would seem to imply that all laws subsequently passed, legislated, and enacted must be in accordance with that Constitution, and all laws that really have little or nothing to do with that Constitution, probably should not and need not be passed into law.

Unfortunately, as in many a civilization, the law makers, recognize that the more laws, restrictions, and covenants that are passed, essentially cedes to those law makers, the interpreters of those laws, and the judicial/policing arm of the state, more power to whole sway over the population, so as to better control the population for the benefit of those law makers and their adjutants.  That is most unfortunate, for the very purpose of the Constitution is not to restrict the people, unnecessarily, but rather on the contrary to restrict that government of the people, from dictating to the people what they can or cannot do.

It is important to remember, that the real reason why laws are passed, in the first place, in any civilization or community, large or small, is because all those things that in general that we most respect, have reverence for, and consider to be of upmost importance, are necessary then to be protected and strengthened by appropriate laws, so as to keep those things that we value the most: intact, stable, vibrant, and viable.

This means that the real point of good laws is to make communities better for people and for that law therefore to be consistently and fairly applied to everyone for the continual betterment of that community, without suspending the unalienable rights that all are entitled to.  The problem, that characterizes far too many laws created in today’s environment, is that these laws are structured in a manner that criminalizes activities and decisions, which often have no victim or isn’t really the necessary business of the justice or legal authorities to begin with;, all of which is for the supposed betterment of society, but rather what it does is to take behavior that may be considered to be unorthodox or unusual, and criminalizes it, for the purpose of intimidation, power, and control.

Those that truly believe that there ought to be a law, in a land in which there seemingly is a law for everything and every possible contingency, must surely recognize that laws upon laws upon laws, in and of themselves, do not make for a good society.  Rather, the only laws that are truly necessary are the very ones that uphold our unalienable rights in conjunction with those laws that a good and just civil society, truly need in order to secure those very things that make for that upstanding civil society.

Stock market trend lines

Stock markets claim to be the fair trading of equities in a public exchange, for the benefit of public corporations so as to receive capital necessary for the growth and stability of their company, as well as being the go-to place for individuals, pension funds, and institutions to "safely" invest their money into the economy and the engine of growth of their nation.  To a certain extent, such a description is basically true, but it is only true to the extent that those investing in the equity markets, have actually done their due diligence before the investment of their hard-earned money; and further that such an investment, in order to really be considered an investment, should be done from the perspective of the long term.

That is to say, when someone invests in buying their own home, they are, in the vast majority of the cases, investing in the long term, because that is the home that they are going to live in, and they are not, planning to up and leave within a year, or a few months, or a couple of weeks, or even a couple of days.  So too, those that purchase a brand new car, and sign the paperwork for a car loan of five, six, or even seven years, are typically planning to hold onto that vehicle for the duration of that contract.  On the other hand, the stock market while having tax consequences, depending upon whether a security is held for the long or short term, as well as having trading rules, in regards to whether someone is considered to be a day trader or not, basically allows those investing in the market to do so, in whatsoever manner that they may be inclined to do so, which means that for some people, they may get in and out of the same stock, so bought and sold, that very same day.

There are a lot of reasons why some individuals, hedge funds, and institutions are day traders, but quite obviously the most salient reason is because these people, whether through specific trading tools, algorithms, or whatnot, believe that they can make money by virtue of getting in and out of trades, within very short periods of time, and sometimes these time periods are literally less than a few seconds.  The thing about the stock market in America is that it is a known factor, which can be analyzed; it is also highly liquid, and importantly it has enough volatility on a given day for many a stock, that the correct timing of trades makes it theoretically possible to make good money, from just reading the "tea leaves" correctly.

In point of fact, tools have been created, such as the Average Directional Index (ADX), which can make the signal noise of a particular stock, clarified; so that a trend line for certain qualifying stocks can be established, and thereby a trade can be made in either direction, taking advantage of that trend line information.  To say, as some have, that Wall Street efficiently prices each security correctly and accurately, based upon all available information correctly analyzed and interpreted, has never been true, and never will be true, for markets, almost by definition, always have inefficiencies contained within them, along with equities being subject to being over or undervalued, while often having trends established for certain stocks, on a macro or micro basis.  Those, then, that are seasoned and skilled technical analysts and further are not emotionally tied to any equity or position based upon ego or subjective reasons, are able to read and to thereby exploit correctly stock market trend lines.

Law enforcement, corruption, and the public money

It is always a mistake to allow those that are in charge of enforcing the law, such as police officers; or of jailing and keeping of inmates such as wardens or sheriffs; to have direct access to the money that is necessitated in order to run these operations or to have fines and other infractions directly paid to the officer on duty.  That is to say, when an officer pulls a person over for speeding or some other infraction, common sense, dictates that an option to pay the fine directly to the officer that has written the infraction is the type of thing that would obviously be abused to the advantage of the officer so writing the infraction.  So too,  when the warden or sheriff is provided directly with the funds to provide the necessary foods for the inmates that the warden or sheriff is in charge of, quite obviously, that is something that would create a strong tendency for the warden or sheriff to directly benefit from at the expense of the inmates and their meals.

To run any police force or incarceration facility necessitates the need for money.  In the case of law officers, part of the budget that certain departments have to work with, is generated from the tickets and infractions so written to the population at large. So too, for police departments that are not funded directly with a portion of the proceeds from those tickets and infractions, these are typically funded by property taxes or other taxing agencies, yet, indirectly, the monies generated by that police department through citations and tickets is ultimately going to be channeled through the property taxes or other taxing agencies in a manner, in which the police department is able to sustain itself.  That is to say, for New Jersey in 2015, as reported by nj.com, "A total of $405,611,768 was collected in 2015 from tickets issued," indicating that police departments know that they must issue a more or less specific dollar amount of tickets and infractions each year, which is the preeminent reason why so many tickets and infractions are generated, because the system requires that quota, though, it isn't actually designated as such.   In point of fact, budgets are built around tickets and infractions, along with the monetary fines associated with these, specifically as an aid to governmental budgets, as opposed to being of a service to the general public, or to the general safety of that public, or the general good for that public.

The incarceration business is big business because so many people are incarcerated; of which, there are still some jails and inmate facilities that are run as almost private fiefdoms of the local sheriff or warden.  So that, States such as Alabama, have laws on their books that essentially allocate the monies needed to feed the inmate population to the sheriff, of which, not surprisingly, this rather easily lends itself to the siphoning of that money or the skimming of that money, by sheriffs, so that they literally take money earmarked for the feeding of inmates, find a way to save on that food, by substituting cheaper items, and thereby keep the excess of that money for themselves.

In any institution, in which, funds are sent directly to the authority that is charge of the disbursement of these funds, of which there is not appropriate checks, balances, and transparency, it is almost inevitable that someone will become corrupt.  So too, when police officers are cognizant that they are basically required to write a certain amount of infractions and tickets each day,  they will do so, because to not do so will result in disciplinary action, and in all this, it is the public that ultimately pays.