Corporate three-strike law

For habitual offenders there are laws that have been passed on both the State as well as the Federal level, that stipulate that after three violent or serious felonies, the offender is thereupon sentenced to life in prison.  It would seem that if this law is considered to be fair to be applied against individuals, then it should also be fair to be utilized against corporations; though the structure of such a law would need to be somewhat amended, since few corporations, for example, actually directly murder any one individual.  It is well to remember, though, that corporations have been convicted of environmental crimes that have led to serious health issues and subsequent deaths of individuals, as well as crimes such as illegal money laundering, outright fraud, and other assorted criminal offenses, of which, most of these crimes could and should be considered to be felonious in nature.  So too, any corporate crime that impacts the health of a given individual or the well being of an individual, could be considered to be violent to that individual because of its overall deleterious effect.

All of the above means that what is obviously considered by the general public and prosecutorial agencies as being good for the goose should also be good for the gander.  This signifies that justice departments should begin to put into place the necessary legal process to begin treating corporate criminals in a manner in which those that are habitual offenders are punished as being incorrigible and hence unable to be successfully rehabilitated.

Although corporations have been adjudged to being the equivalent of a person, an actual corporation cannot actually be locked away; however, the next best thing to the locking up of a habitual offending corporation is to divest that corporation of all of its assets to competing companies that are in compliance with the law; and in absence of any competing companies that are qualified, then ownership should revert to the people, and thereby the people’s governmental representatives.

Not only would the corporate law of three-strikes put all offending corporations on clear notice, but it would clearly clean up the very mess that corporate crime has systematically created and made for this country and this world, in which corporations would no longer be able to get off with a mere slap on their wrist, or some sort of monetary penalty, but would instead suffer the indignity of being taken over by their competition or by their government.  Finally, it could be said that corporations would truly have to face the music for being legally considered to be people and bad behavior would be punished in accordance with the law, fully applied.

The sad but true thing about corporations is that they know, as the law now stands and is applied, that individuals within that corporation, no matter what they do, and no matter what they authorize, and no matter how many people become ill or die, that those individuals will in virtually every case, not be held accountable.  While the corporate three-strike law would not change that, it would change the behavior by those humans within that corporation, because being taken over by a competitor or by the government, essentially means that it is no longer business as usual, but rather the reaping of what these corporations have so sown.

A nation of plea bargains

According to the nytimes.com, “about 97 percent of criminal cases are resolved by plea bargains;” this flies in the face of Constitutional guarantees of an impartial jury, as well as a speedy and public trial.  To a certain extent, this isn’t any real surprise, that so many cases end up being plea bargained, for as reported by statista.com, from 1990-2017, there was not a single year in which arrests in America was less than 10 million peoples, and with that amount of people being arrested, the only way to process through all of those arrests, is to create some sort of an assembly line, which plea bargaining, most definitely does.

There are several problems with plea bargaining, of which the most obvious one, is that rather than those that have been arrested having the presumption of innocence, they are instead, more or less, presumed to be guilty; which is why prosecutors, having presumed the arrestee as guilty, at least of something, thereby make it a point to bargain with the offenders in a manner in which a deal or “bargain” can be struck.  Further to the point, the laws on the books are often so onerous and stringent, that prosecutors are able to use those laws, strictly interpreted, to wield considerable power over the accused, so that if they are unwilling to accept such a deal, and should they thereupon be convicted in a court of law, their subsequent sentence and punishment will be far greater.  Additionally, while most sensible people see plea bargaining as an unfair advantage that the prosecutor has over the accused, that unfair advantage has an awful lot to do with the fact, that poor and disadvantaged arrestees cannot afford their own counsel, and are thereby stuck with overburdened and overwhelmed government sponsored defense attorneys.  On the other hand, those that have money, don’t mind plea bargains, whatsoever, because money buys whatever justice that those that have been arrested can negotiate on their own behalf, in which, those that have a lot of money can buy all sorts of influence, which is why corporate criminals, especially, are almost always able to negotiate or “bargain” their way to a very satisfactory resolution.

This means, that plea bargains, should be seen for what they really represent; which is a way to wield “justice” as a hammer at the expense of the poor, as well as a way for the rich to buy “justice” at the expense of the general population as a whole.   None of this is to America’s credit, and all of it actually is to its discredit, for the poor and regular folks in the vast majority of the cases, simply have to cut the best deal that they can against a prosecutorial agency that has every advantage and none of the disadvantages in structuring a deal made at their discretion.  Of course, when it comes to the very rich, prosecutors love plea bargaining, because it allows the prosecutorial agency to broker a deal, behind closed doors, that will allow the prosecutorial agency to declare that justice has been served, when in actuality it has been bought, with the tacit understanding that the prosecutor can thereupon spin the story to the credulous public in whatever manner benefits that office.

In point of fact, plea bargains, are just one very small step remove, from what occurs in totalitarian states, that simply lock away those that are an inconvenience or a trouble to the state, simply because there is no power to stop them; as well as having the corresponding power to extort or negotiate with those that have money, appropriate tribute.

There are no impenetrable walls

There is a general misconception that a good wall keeps out the barbarians.  Unfortunately, history has proven time and time again, that those that believe a wall, in and of itself, can stop an impenetrable force, or stop devious designs, or stop those that are fiercely determined, or stopped those that will not be stopped, has been proven to be wrong, countless times. 

The biggest problem with a wall is the fact that it is stagnant, and a stagnant barrier is a barrier that anyone with any sort of sensibility can spend an inordinate amount of time, trying to come up with plans that will overcome that barrier, in one manner or another.  For instance, any wall can possibly be breached, by going around it, tunneling underneath it, or by going over it.  Further to the point, even the most impenetrable barrier, should such actually exist, can still be breached, if those that guard that wall, or have constructed that wall, or know intimately of that wall, are compromised in a manner in which, solid, actionable information is passed on to another, for those others to then take advantage of in one form or another, for many a wall has come down not truly from without, but truly from within.

While walls and doors have their place, the fact of the matter is that a wall or door will give ground to a force that is concentrated and powerful.  So too, a wall will give ground to those that are aware of its weaknesses, and soft points, and so on and so forth.  The purpose of a wall, whether it be at a border of a country, or to demarcate exclusive neighborhood housing, is more to be seen as the marking of territory, and the semblance of a defensive structure to protect and secure countries and neighborhoods, but to absolutely secure such, necessitates far more than any wall can provide, which would also commonly entail intelligence, materials, manpower, equipment, and an overarching strategy.  Even then, a superior or more devious force can still rather readily overcome any wall.

There was a time when forts had their value, and even today, forts have value, but the problem that a fort has is that most forts in one form or another, can ultimately be cut off from supply lines and once that is successfully accomplished, the writing is pretty much on the wall.  So too, nations that are successful in cutting off all outside interference can only possible survive and thrive by being self sufficient in everything that they could possibly or conceivably need that they had previously procured or traded for outside of their self-imposed walls, and should some of those supplies thereupon be necessary for whatever reason or reasons, than their isolation will be breached, and from there, so too will their walls.

There aren't any impenetrable walls because there aren't any impenetrable defenses; so that, rather than believing that such a wall can and therefore should be constructed, it would be far better to spend time and resources creating the atmosphere and knowhow to deal with situations at a more dynamic and comprehensive level; rather than believing that a big, bad wall is going to stop much of anything.

Restaurants and variable pricing

The sporting world has embraced the fact that certain games against certain teams, such as the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox, should demand a higher ticket price as opposed to games against the San Diego Padres or Florida Marlins.  In addition, since many people have workday commitments, the ticket pricing of weekend games should also be higher, of which, this has been implemented, with the overall result being beneficial for the baseball team's bottom line.  Quite frankly, sports are very good about proving discounted tickets for games and dates that are going to be in low demand, and have recalibrated so as to charge higher prices for tickets for games and dates that are going to be in high demand.

The American public as reported by consumerreports.org spent in 2015 an "estimated $720 billion at restaurants," and though a significant amount of that expenditure was at fast-food restaurants, so too was a significant amount spent at table service restaurants of differing quality, popularity, and prestige.  Most of these restaurants, charge the same amount per menu item, seven days a week, regardless of whether that restaurant is busy or not; and while there are plenty of restaurants that offer coupons, or discounts, or other incentives to come into that restaurant, a lot of times, there isn't any restrictions on those coupons, or a lot of thought put behind those discounts.

In point of fact, some restaurants that cater to a business crowd are much busier during the workweek, whereas most restaurants are much busier on weekend nights, but the pricing of the menu items doesn't often reflect the fact that at times when a restaurant is busy, that they should seriously consider, amending their prices a bit higher in order to capture additional profits and to improve their gross margins.  In an era, in which, so much of what is priced, is digital in its design, and with so much analytics available for businesses to study in regards to weather, weekends, and special events, it is foolish not to at least consider amending a restaurant's pricing, depending upon how busy or not busy that particular restaurant is going to be.

While there is such a thing as price gouging, and restaurants do not want to ever get into a situation in which they alienate their customer base, the addition of a small incremental increase in prices on certain menu items, probably will not be met with much of a protest at all by consumers; in fact, many consumers might not even notice, or perhaps sort of notice, but not really register a complaint.  Further to the point, prices can be adjusted downward on slow days and nights, and consumers, especially those on a budget, will be more appreciative of that reduction in pricing.

It just seems silly for restaurants to have one-price that is the standard all of the time, when, in fact, most restaurants have peaked days and times, along with special situations, that increase their client base, of which, any good manager, should want to see this as an opportunity to bump up prices or reduce, as appropriate, their restaurant pricing so as to help maximize their business income, and failure to do so, indicates a failure to understand that a business owner needs to successfully seize a good opportunity when they see one.

Keeping the faith is not good enough--we are called to spread that faith

No person is a castle unto themselves, and further to the point, true faithfulness in any religion, necessitates the need and desire to see that other people are able to be co-beneficiaries of that faith.  That is to say, there isn't any real good point in keeping to yourself, the very characteristics that enable you to be a good person; but rather, it is important to spread that faith to other people, that then allows those other people to live a better life and to be better people, themselves, and this then continues from one person to another.

So many people are reluctant to share their faith, because they themselves recognize that they are imperfect, perhaps deeply flawed, and additionally may have a past history that reflects that they have made some poor decisions.  In addition, people are reluctant to share their faith, because they are not able to skillfully debate back and forth with another about the merits or even the most basic principles of their religion, because fundamentally that is something they don't have a clear understanding of; but, what they do know, is that their faith has changed the direction of their life, that their faith has improved their outlook, as well as their perspective, and all this has made them a better person for having that faith.

The thing about being a believer, though, is that it shouldn't be a secret, but rather it should be something, that is made known to others in conversations and interactions that naturally occur.  That is to say, people are only too willing to share a successful diet result with one another, or tips on how to save money on insurance or other activities; so too, they should be willing to share with another, what has brought them peace and serenity to their being, so that they are now a more calm person, with a more generous spirit and heart.  So that, when a given person, notices that change in one's personality, rather than being evasive about it, or elusive about it, it is far better to express in one's own way and one's own words, what it is that has helped to transformed you, for the better.

It is important to remember, that this isn't really about proselytizing or doing anything formal, per se, but it is more about when given the opportunity to allow other people to know who and what you really are, that the words that you then express, should actually honestly reflect that.  Because your faith has changed you as a person, or has made you better as a person, you should be desirous of seeing that others have the opportunity and the benefit of hearing what you have to say, and seeing by your actions and demeanor, the fruits of that faith.

The only true faith is a universal faith, that is, it works in effect, for everyone, under all circumstances; therefore such a faith should be freely passed from one person to another, so that the whole body of people can truly benefit from it.  Faith isn't really about the intricacies of any particular religion, but really it is all about recognizing the commonality that we all have via our creation by the very same Creator, and therefore our greatest duty is to treat our fellow people as our equals, deserving of the same respect, courtesy, and love, that we wish for ourselves.

The precipitous decline of the U.S. savings rate

The most basic principle behind working is to garner enough income in order to pay expenses for things such as health, education, clothing, food, and shelter, with anything left over being put aside into savings.  The importance of savings is manifold, of which, one of the more important reasons to save is to have money set aside to live upon when one is no longer able to work, or interested in working, or able to find work, or to serve as an augmentation to retirement income, or as a necessary emergency fund to draw upon, should an unexpected situation arrive. In addition, monies saved are often necessary in order to make a down payment on a home, or on a vehicle, as well as in recognition that money saved, makes additional money.

As shown on statista.com, in the 1960s the average personal savings rate throughout that decade was 10.4%, in the 1970s the average personal savings rate throughout that decade was 12.9%, and in the 1980s the average personal savings rate throughout that decade was 11.2%.  However, beginning in the 1990s, the average personal savings rate throughout that decade dropped to 8.2%, and then with the beginning of the 21st century, from 2000-2011 there was not a single year in which the savings rate was even at 8.2%, and with the exception of a savings rate of 11% in 2012, in no other year, has this been higher than 6.4%, and the savings rate in 2017 was a very anemic 2.4%. 

While there may well be a lot of plausible explanations as to why the savings rate has declined so precipitously, the most obvious explanation is that rich people are very good at saving money, and those that are struggling paycheck to paycheck are not.  In addition, never have so many been indebted for so much for vehicle loans, student loans, and credit card loans; and quite obviously those that are indebted have to pay even more additional money for the privilege of having had that credit extended to them. 

The decline of the savings rate clearly signifies that the American consumer, is borrowing from the future in order to obtain things of the present, of which, how that will ultimately work out for the American consumer is a tale not yet completely told; but with seventeen years already recorded in the 21st century, what has been demonstrated rather convincingly is that being indebted is truly the flip side of saving money, and those that have no savings, are in a rather poor position, of getting out from under, which apparently is an exceedingly difficult task to accomplish.

The lack of savings is creating a bifurcated America, in which, the few own the bulk of the assets and capital, while a significant amount of Americans, have little or nothing; and the little that they do earn, and the little that they do own, is exploited by those that make the rules, and by those that write the laws, and by those that charge the highest interest rates and provide the worst deals to the very people that have not the capacity to negotiate anything better, because that essentially is the only deal available for them in town.

A nation that has a population that does not save, especially in a nation that is the richest nation the world has ever known, clearly demonstrates that income inequality is at levels so high, that something tragically bad such as the Great Depression could very well be repeated in the near future, all over again.

The real reason why you will ever have the poor amongst you

We read in Holy Scripture: "For you always have the poor with you…" (John 12: 8), which was true back in the time of Christ, and sadly, is all so true in today's modern age, in which never has there been so much material prosperity as currently exists worldwide.  Yet, as reported in dosomething.org,  ”…more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day…" and "805 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat."  The facts do not lie, though there is wealth all around us of an almost unimaginable scale, so too, there is poverty at astonishingly high levels, which is to mankind's great shame, for the poverty that exists, is for the most part, part and parcel of the very few that own so much at the expense of billions of those that have virtually nothing.

The thing about money, property, and assets, is that all of these things are a very vibrant form of power; for those that have, have enthralled to them, those that do not.  This signifies that the real reason why there are so many poor people has far less to do with them being lazy, shiftless, and indolent, but rather far more to do with landowners, business owners, and political party bosses, owning every square inch of space, and renting out what they own at a rate that the poor cannot afford to save any money from; in fact, they often become indebted, while also providing employment to the poor at wages low enough, that this will keep the poor, poor.

The thing about the few owning the lion's share of assets has a lot to do, with the superrich needing to be in a position, in which the masses of mankind are dependent upon them for their very livelihood as well as being dependent upon them for a place to rest their weary heads.   All of this, from the perspective of the superrich is necessary, for the lack of food, the lack of shelter, the lack of employment, and the lack of capital, means that the very poor are dependent upon the powers to be in order to maintain their very existence, as bleak as that may well be; and if that dependence upon the superrich was to disappear, than the control and manipulation of those that have little or nothing, would also disappear, and with that, real revolution, would not be far behind.

So too, the poor are necessary, just as slavery, was necessary, because to profit off of the labor of others, is a grand way to get very, very rich, without having to individually labor, for the superrich are all about having their food, entertainment, and shelter provided directly to them; with the right attitude and without them having to lift a finger, except perhaps to ring a bell or to make favorable financial transactions via the internet. 

The poor are there as a continual service to the superrich, for their exploitation is the game in which the poor cannot ever get ahead, and the justice/policing arm of the state is there to service the superrich and to make sure that the poor are always under control and passive.  The real reason why the poor will ever be amongst us, is because the superrich find that to be the easiest way to maintain their station, by essentially exploiting all others in a game of three-card Monte, in which the sucker believes that the game is actually on the up and up, whereas instead it is a game that is totally rigged, of which, there can only be one winner, and all the others, must therefore lose.

Why cops are hated and firemen are not

Of course, not everybody hates cops, in fact, truth be told, probably most people are pretty much fine with police officers, and further, they believe them to be necessary and useful; but the thing is, there is a very significant percentage of citizens that do not care for cops and have some very strong justifications and rationality for having such a viewpoint.  In point of fact, the main problem with police officers, is mottos such as "to protect and to serve" is an outright misrepresentation of what police officers actually are doing and accomplishing, which is especially demonstrated in areas of low-income, and minority demographics.  In those areas, in particular, police officers are often not looked upon as part of protecting and serving that community, but more as a harassment vehicle, outright annoyance, and a definite danger.

So too, police officers, as a matter of course, when they protect and serve, clearly demonstrate their allegiance to the power structure within a given community, which is what creates the tension between certain groups of citizens that are fearful of the police, as opposed to those, that see the police as helping to maintain order, as well as providing strong security.  In addition, police officers, are able for the most part, to stop and possibly even frisk any citizen at their discretion, without that citizen having much recourse to preclude such; which means that simply being out in the public for certain people, may open wide the door to harassment.  So too, police officers are armed with lethal weapons, of which, the usage of such, is seldom successfully challenged in any court of law, so that, police officers appear to have an incredible amount of power, of taking freedom as well as someone's very life into their own hands, of which, those officers are almost always protected by the system from any legal or punitive retribution.  Finally, too, police officers, issue tickets for all sorts of offenses, real and imagined, which cost constituents millions upon millions of dollars.

On the other hand, firemen are almost universally admired, for they truly do appear to not only "to protect and to serve", but have demonstrated time and time again, that they are only too willing to put their own lives in danger in order to protect property and to aid people.  Additionally, firemen often serve the addition duty of being first responders to medical emergencies, on behalf of their constituents throughout the community.   In short, one does not often find anyone that has much criticism of firemen, and indeed, there are many people that have a great deal of admiration and respect for firemen, because firemen perform their duties in a manner in which the people on the whole are truly appreciative of them.

Sure, no doubt, police officers and firemen perform different duties, but at the end of the day, both occupations are supported by the people's tax dollars and both occupations are supposed to be of true service to those same people.  The problem with police officers is too often, they are used by authorities, whether they are political, civil, governmental, and prosecutorial or business authorities, as an instrument of force to keep certain people in their place, and even more so, to keep certain people oppressed. 

In short, cops are hated because they are unfair, and firemen are admired because they are fair; and fairness, most definitely, matters.

Those that destroy your self-esteem

Those that have low self-esteem typically don't do well in life, or aren't doing well in life, and hence have low self-esteem.  However, not everyone that has low self-esteem got there by themselves, and for some people the path that got them to that low self-esteem, came primarily from somebody close to them that basically destroyed their self-esteem to the extent that the one suffering low self-esteem has still not been able to successfully recover from.

While it might seem a stretch to believe that mere words, sarcasm, and cutting remarks can break anyone's self-esteem, the truth of the matter is, that the more respect and the more direct knowledge that a given person has of someone, basically means the more credibility and legitimacy that they have, in which, no stranger, or passerby could ever have that equivalency.  What this indicates is that while cutting remarks from strangers or acquaintances may indeed sting, and may indeed shake a given person up, for the most part, people consider the source, and are usually able to successfully brush such off.  On the other hand, if your spouse, or if your parents, or if your best friend, basically severely criticizes and harangues you about the most important things in your life and of your being, all of which pretty much define you as a person, in a manner, in which there is no equivocation in what they say, those words, spoken in anger of not, can annihilate a given person's self-esteem.

Everyone wants to believe that they have value, and they especially want to believe that the things that they are most noted for, are of value, to other people, and especially are of value to those that they are closest to; so then, when somebody that is very close to a person, states in a very specific way, why that given person is so useless or in error or wrong about something that is quite important to that other person, because of the respect that the other person has for the one so talking, it therefore makes it very hard to walk away from such an encounter, unaffected, though some do.

There is all sorts of abuse that one person can do to another, of which physical abuse is especially noxious; but those that make it a point to destroy another person's self-esteem because they have been able to ingratiate themselves to another, learning all that they can about another, and what is of most importance and what defines another, is, in its own way, just as noxious, for when one person takes someone of good character, and fair self-esteem, and belittles them, and thereby breaks their confidence, then that person has, to a large extent, changed the very being of another.

While criticism, and constructive criticism, has its place, the true point of any criticism should always be to be of actual benefit to the person so being criticized; and those that hide behind false fronts, as in "always being honest and upfront", are actually masking their true intentions, which is often to breakdown another person's self-esteem.   The intent behind certain words that are being spoken, aren't always owned up to, but when that intent is fundamentally about breaking down another, what seems to go unrecognized by the offender, is those words, perhaps spoken in anger, haste or without discernment, can and often do have long-term negative consequences.

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.