Corporate lies: "Don't be evil"

Public corporations are primarily in the business to benefit their investors, stockholders, Board of Directors, the Executive office, as well as their employees.  Additionally, public companies that are traded on the stock exchange are very cognizant of the fact that their growth, profitability, earnings, gross margin, and future projections, absolutely matters to those that have invested their money into that corporation.

As might be expected, corporations that are under the tight control of management, and especially those corporations that are privately held, are able to perform and to do actions within that corporation that the outside world will typically not have much of a material impact upon, because these corporations are often privately held, and thereby answer primarily to just those owners, for better or for worse. So too, by definition, non-profit corporations and non-profit institutions, by virtue of the fact that they are not in business to make a profit, but rather are in business to provide a service, typically are companies that do not need worry about making their quarterly numbers, because their mission statement is something that supersedes being measured by money.  On the other hand, public corporations, despite how lofty or noble their mission statement may sound on paper, and despite well-meaning souls within that corporation, recognize explicitly and implicitly that the fact that they are public entities with investors and stockholders that demand performance, intuitively recognize that these are the people that they need to please, which often puts immense pressure on their lofty and noble mottos.

Corporations such as Google, which for a long period of time had the corporate code of "don't be evil," perhaps meant well when they took on such a code, but to believe that in practice, that is how Google actually behaves in fit, form, and function, would be to deliberately deceive one self, for Google makes an incredible amount of money, essentially off of advertising, and all those billions of dollars that comes into Google's hands from advertising, is the end result of the gargantuan amount of personalized information that it has on each of its users, which it has aggregated, analyzed, processed, stored, and sold so that ads can be generated for its users that are specific to that user, which is what advertisers absolutely desire.

While it might not sound like evil, to merely passively store information about individual users, that isn't really the actual case, for that information is deliberately analyzed and thereupon distributed to advertisers specifically so that they can sell their wares to their intended target audience, thereupon allowing Google to make their billions.  Additionally, information is power, and every Google product allows Google to know more about that user, of which, that information could easily be transferred to other agencies or companies for a price, or could at some point be compelled to be provided to the national government, so that government could thereby control, manipulate, and penalize individuals within that country; of which, a disingenuous company, might still somehow say, that they themselves did no evil, but the fact is that those that create things that in the wrong hands could create all sorts of oppressive, diabolical, and evil things, without doing everything in their power to preclude such, are themselves, evil.

The real world bullies

Bullying in one form or another, has probably been around forever, and especially for certain unfortunate kids going to school, bullying is an unwelcome rite of passage; though bullying is certainly not limited to just school, for it can occur in the work environment, home environment, and really just about anywhere where people congregate together.  One of the reasons that we have been hearing so much more nowadays about bullying is the fact that cyber-bullying makes bullying that much more malevolent, for while it is bad enough to be physically and mentally bullied, it can be far worse to have to deal with social media bullying which can be absolutely relentless in its effect and impact, because it is seemingly inescapable and inerasable.

As bad as bullying can be, and especially as bad as cyber-bullying is, there is almost unrecognized, another type of bullying which most people, especially those that conduct it, don't typically recognize, or refuse to recognize as bullying.  While it is fair to say, that most people do not have particular sympathy or much empathy for a bully, it is surprising how many people are actually bullies, in the real world, but somehow still remain blithely unaware of it.  It must be said that bullying, can be defined in a number of ways, but a very basic definition of a bully is a person or an organization that uses their superior strength or superior position to intimidate or to harm or to force someone else that is weaker or in a poor position, to adhere to that bullies' will and desire.

So then, all those that exploit and take unfair advantage of the weak and vulnerable, whether they use force or not, are, by definition, bullies.  That is to say, most people believe that if two people come to an agreement, whether that is employment or some financial transaction, and that neither person is coerced into doing something against their will, that all is fair.  Of course, forgotten within these so-called "voluntary transactions" is the inconvenient fact,  such as if one person or organization has an immense amount of knowledge or understanding about a given transaction, of which, further they are aware that the other person does not, than quite obviously such an advantage allows them to bully over the other person.  So too, all those that are lacking education, experience, citizenship, viable options, and so on, are often going to have to make the best deal that they can under the most unfavorable conditions, and that deal, more times than not, isn't going to be fair on its merits, but rather the party with the advantage will be bullying their way to an unfair deal, simply because their position of strength is unassailable.

While a physical bully exploits their strength against their weaker target, and a cyber-bully uses the social media as a cudgel to beat down their thoroughly outmaneuvered opponents; these are not the only bullies in life, for the reality of the situation is that bullying is all around us, and anytime that someone is unfairly taken advantage of by someone else, of which, the exploited person, through no fault of their own, lacks the fair capacity to do better, that is exploitation, and exploitation is a form of bullying because it is essentially getting someone to agree to do or conform to something that is inimical to themselves and advantageous for the bullying other.

The Democrats kill the unborn, while the Republicans kill the born through wars and incarceration

The two major political parties don't seem to realize the contradiction and hypocrisy that each of their respective party positions actually represents.  For instance, the Democrats are known for being pro-choice, and believe that it is a woman's right to choose as to whether she desires to give birth to her fetus or not, for her body is her own.  On the other hand, the Republicans equate abortion to a form of murder, and wish to overturn Roe v. Wade, and have made significant inroads upon the ease of women being able to avail themselves of their Constitutional right to an abortion, as rendered by the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. 

The contradiction of the Democrats for being so vehemently pro-choice is that they have to a very large extent bought into the construct that the only children that should be born into this world, should come from those that are emotionally as well as financially fit for the preparation of having those children.  The problem with that construct, is that America is in practice, absolutely economically unfair so that the very people that are needed to effect change, which are typically those that have been historically oppressed, are voluntarily killing their own potential offspring, and thereby actually reducing their democratic footprint, under the false guise, that one day, things will be better, failing to somehow understand, that democratic voting is most definitely a numbers game.  As for Republicans that take the apparently noble position, that all human life is sacred, belie that noble sentiment, by treating those that have been ill treated throughout American history, as people that are undeserving of liberty, opportunity, and hope; and thereupon utilizing the police and justice system as a form of oppression to incarcerate primarily minorities at unprecedented levels that no other western nation, even comes close to approaching.  In addition, America has the largest military budget that dwarfs all other countries, and insists that it needs to stick its nose into all sorts of military adventures and misadventures, in which those with boots on the ground, who are often minorities, are the ones that have to bear the consequences of those military interactions.

The Democrats believe falsely that the greatest right for a woman to have is the right to choose, but really the greatest right for a woman is having a fair and equal say at the table of opportunity, in regards to housing, schooling, and employment; of which, if this was done, the need or desire for abortions would plummet, for those with good housing, good schooling, and good employment, typically make the necessary decisions and exhibit the mature behavior which often precludes an unintended pregnancy.   As for the Republican position, in which, they desire that abortion essentially becomes illegal or that abortion effectively becomes severely restricted, such a position, only makes sense and can only be considered humane and noble, for those yet born, if the construct of America is reformed to such a degree that those previously denied good housing, good schooling, good employment, and a valid seat at the table of opportunity, actually get those very things.  Instead, the Republican Party is the party of exploitation and incarceration, in which, an abundant supply of the poor and disadvantaged, allows those at the highest echelons of Republican power to make their money and live well, by wringing their dollars from the sweat and blood of those that have no say.

The great sin of the silent majority

Most people, want to at least consider themselves to be good people, and most people want to believe that they are just in their decisions and in their actions; but, all this is belied by the great injustices that we see displayed in this world, time and time again, along with the fact that if this world was actually full of basically good people, we wouldn't need to arrest, incarcerate, and go to war, as often as is done, and all this is done all of the time.

Too many people, make it a basic point to live to their own self, or to live within their familial or social structure, and make it a point, explicitly or implicitly, to not get overly engaged in things which are outside their familial or social milieu.  While to a certain extent, this is okay, as well as the fact that people are entitled to make their own decisions so as to congregate with those that they wish to be with; there is also a fundamental problem, for society, by definition, means that we cannot and should not behave in a manner in which, each of us is our own island; but rather we must recognize the truth of the matter, which is that all of us are absolutely interconnected, and therefore the closing of our minds and the closing of our eyes pretending that we do not know or do not see things which are out of order and are thereby wrong and unjust, is a great injustice that we have done to others, because we have not done things that we could do and should do to ameliorate the injustices which are right in front of us, but effectively, ignored.

Those that do not speak out when they see injustice, especially those that believe that they need not say a thing because it does not directly or indirectly effect them, are wrong for their silence.  So too, those that do not speak out when they see injustice, but explicitly or implicitly know that they are in some way, form, or manner, somewhat guilty of that injustice continuing, have done wrong by being selfish, and thereby turning their back on helping to alleviate that injustice.  In all of this, the great sin of those that do nothing is not that they have directly contributed to that injustice, but rather, when given the choice to do something constructive to ameliorate that injustice, have chosen to do nothing.

The mistake that people make again and again when it comes to injustice, is not taking a step back and seeing the bigger perspective, which comprehends that an injustice that is not dealt with forthrightly, is an injustice which can easily metastasized in a manner in which it will eventually reach even those that believe that they are immune to it.  And when that happens, those that have been silent and now have found their voice, will often find, that nobody will heed to their call of help, for in the end, those that formerly stood idly by, will reap the harvest of what they have truly sown.

Penalty Major and Penalty Minor in Soccer

There is not a lot of scoring in soccer, of which, it is estimated that the average amount of goals scored in a European match is around 2.5 goals, and about 7% of those goals scored over an entire season, come from the penalty spot.  Additionally, about 75-80% of penalty kicks are converted, so that, in a game that is low scoring, being rewarded with a penalty kick, is hugely influential in the result of any given game; and thereby, not too surprisingly, there are players that employ theatrics and trickery in order to procure a penalty kick, over and above, that split second decisions, about whether a penalty should or should not be given, is not always that cut and dry for the referee.

As currently constructed a penalty decision has a huge influence on the outcome of a given game, so that, dubious or not, questionable or not, when a penalty decision has been made, it is highly meaningful.  At the same time, some referees will be reluctant to call a penalty, especially in games that are tied, or quite competitive, because they do not want to see the game settled on a penalty decision, when there is still time for the game to be decided through open play.  The very best workaround for the way penalties are currently constructed in soccer, is to subdivide penalties into major and minor, in which major penalties would be ones that to the referee are absolutely clear-cut, with no equivocation in the referee's mind, that a player has been clearly fouled in the penalty area, and therefore that penalty should be treated as it is currently, with a spot kick 12 yards away from the goal line.  On the other hand, for infractions that are not as clear-cut, and are questionable at least on some level, these would be designated as a minor penalty, but still subject to a penalty kick, because the foul occurred within the penalty area, however, the spot kick, rather than being taken from 12 yards away, would be taken instead from 18 yards away, which is the very outer edge of the penalty area.

The distance for the newly designated penalty minor, would be six yards further away from the current penalty spot, or an increase of 50% in distance, so that in all likelihood the amount of spot kicks that would be successful from that distance would drop to somewhere around 45-50% because of that distance.  This new designation of a penalty minor in soccer would be a fair solution to the current problem of games being decided over fouls which are questionable to begin with, and having this replaced instead by a penalty kick which has a much less likelihood of succeeding, would be a reasonable solution.  While, no doubt, with this rule, there would be more penalties called overall, that increase would probably be relatively slight; yet, the outcome of having many more penalties kicked from 18 yards out, would mitigate the extra penalties called, and make for a fairer outcome.

While soccer is not known for making any dramatic rule changes, the best way to implement this rule, is to try it out in one of the lesser leagues, or during exhibitions, so as to see how it plays out in the real world, and then have those that manage the sport to vote upon it.  It would certainly seem to be a change whose time has come.

True religion

Many governments fear religion, unless that government is theocratic in principle, for governments fear all those things and beliefs that they are unable to control or successfully manipulate, and religion, is one of those beliefs that can readily supersede one's loyalty to one's nation, if a choice must be made.  So too, much of mankind fears religion, for the sovereignty of the individual must often be surrendered to that religion; or the danger of being on the wrong end of whatever is the prevailing religion of that community or country, as well as the punishment for failing to adhere to a given religion, which may cost a given individual their livelihood, their opportunity, their education, their housing, and even their life.

All of these various things are reasons to be wary of religion, but no matter the government, whether it be communistic or an anathema to organized religion of any type, or the punishments meted out to those that have unorthodox religious beliefs, people have a natural affinity to seek that which is the truth beyond all truths, and innately recognize that religion often is the instrument that helps to bring forth enlightenment, as well as the recognition that those of similar faiths are able to help one another, as if they are family.

While estimates of how many religious faiths there are in this world, is probably in the tens of thousands, there are in actuality, not a terrible amount of religious faiths of any real popularity and prevalence, of which, most people are well aware of those religions.  So too, while the color of our skin is something that we born with; religious faith, is something that people should they be inclined, can change their preference or desire for as they best see fit, or convert to, as necessary, even at the point of a sword.

While there are many religious faiths that have all sorts of tenets, restrictions, codes, and instructions, all of this, has a tendency to divide and subdivide people one from another; especially when those of that faith insist that their belief is the only correct belief, or that their prophet is the only true prophet, or that their God is the only God, and all others are blasphemers or apostates to the faith.  All of this really misses the forest for the trees, for the whole point of religion and religious faith is not to have mankind go at each other's throats, as blood-thirsty savages, insisting that their God must be avenged, but rather that religious faith at its core, is all about taking disparate people and circumstances, throughout the world, and having a coming together of all people, so that together there is an acknowledgment, as much as it is possible, that each of us as a human being, has the exact, same Creator, and therefore we are all brothers and sisters, of one extended family.

The purpose of any good religion is for that religion to be inclusive, so as to bind together people, and especially people, that previously did not bind together at all; so that as fellow believers, each will see the other as having worth and value, because each of us is of the same created worth and of the same created value.  A true religion will not leave even one person behind, for a house divided, cannot stand; so that, we are either all sons or daughters of the one true God, or we are truly lost and do not know who we really are.

Globalization is imperialism

The word, imperialism, for most people, especially people of a progressive nature, has negative connotations associated with it, primarily because imperialism, depending upon the nature and the extent, can signify the taking of, explicitly or implicitly, foreign sovereign territory, as well as having undue influence upon economic and trade policies within other sovereign nations, so as to favor the imperialist power at the expense of that domestic nation.  So too, the power of imperialism applied, almost always means the corrupting of the subject nation under the implicit threat that those that do not kowtow to the imperialistic power will suffer the indignity of dismissal from office from their respective nation, irrelevancy, imprisonment, or even death, unless they comply.

In today's world, we do not often hear the word, imperialism, but instead we hear of the fact that the entire world is now interconnected, and that the globalization in which trade is conducted by nation to nation, is supposed to be of a great benefit to mankind.  While to a certain extent, globalization has its place, especially in the sense that trade can be a wonderful tool, to expand markets, as well as to provide potential cost savings to countries as well as people; the actually globalization as is currently exercised between nations is not now, actually fair in structure, or fair in its benefits.

In point of fact, those that make the rules of globalization are those that benefit the most from globalization, for many reasons; such as, for instance, domestic industries, especially those domestic industries in smaller nations, which do not yet have the infrastructure or capital to expand such, leaving them oftentimes eviscerated by globalization because modern nations have both the infrastructure and capital to significantly undercut domestic industries, so that, the importation of those goods into the subject nation, effectively puts small time operators out of business and out of employment.   So too, even in industries that benefit from globalization in the sense that more business is generated, and/or more exports are created, don't necessarily benefit as much as they could, especially when the lion's share of profits and benefits actually goes to the country that loans out the money, or sells the equipment, thereby leaving a much smaller piece of pie for those that actually take the risks and exert the labor.

The thing about globalization is that it is all about expanding markets, primarily and specifically for domestic industries of the global behemoths, so that those industries can thereby expand their profits and benefit greatly when other nations open up new markets and new opportunities for them.  So too, globalization allows the extraction of mineral resources of poorer and undeveloped countries by richer nations, in which, the nations with the knowhow, equipment, infrastructure, financing and connections are able to structure the business deals wholly in their favor, all under the aegis of providing material aid to those that do not yet have the wherewithal to do any better.

The true bottom line about globalization is that the rich and powerful nations see globalization as a construct that will permit these nations to continue to be rich and powerful, at the expense of smaller and unsophisticated nations that are treated as countries to be exploited and globalized for the expressed benefit of the imperialistic powers.  The fact of the matter is that if globalization was actually a level playing field, meant to give all countries a fair and equal opportunity to market their resources and capabilities, then those countries with historically low GDP rates would be accelerating their growth at astonishingly high rates, but most are not, because globalization as currently exercised is a form of exploitation, and those that exploit, unfairly augment their growth, at the expense of those that are exploited.

Don't buy where you can't work

Boycotts can be extremely effective against businesses and industries that are dependent upon, all races, creeds, and genders purchasing or utilizing their products, for very few businesses and industries have an interest in turning down dollars from those that wish to procure what they are selling.   Boycotts that took in account, that black people, for instance, were denied employment or fair opportunity, have been a part of social protest since 1929, and were an integral part of the foundation that created the civil rights movement, which culminated in the success of that movement in the 1960s.

However, despite legislation which has been in effect for decades, stipulating that discrimination is not legally permitted to exist in America, and despite legislation such as affirmative action, and all other progressive legislation passed to be of benefit for those that have historically been left behind, or denied fair opportunity, America, quite clearly, is a country in which, the dominant power is still contained with the dominant race of that country, which is white.  While, that should come as no big surprise, for those in power, seldom voluntarily relinquish it; it is important to keep on shining the illuminating light upon institutions that clearly favor some, at the expense of the many, as well as to fight back in non-violent ways that will effect change, against hiring practices that are discriminatory and are wrong.

In the kingdom of capitalism, no country stands taller than America, so that, the very best way to make an impact upon that kingdom is quite obviously to hit them back where it really hurts, and that is in their wallet.  Everybody in America has some degree of money, and everybody in America, has choices as to where and how that they spend that money, of which, while small amounts of money may not appear to matter much, when those small amounts of money are multiplied against all those millions of people that have so little; the amounts in play become enormous, which literally amounts to billions upon billions of dollars, and where those dollars go, most definitely, matters.

That is to say, before a person spends their money, a fair question to ask in a country that is supposed to be the epitome of fairness, is whether or not that business or institution represents a place in which, the people that work there, from the executive office, to middle management, to the average employee, represents people that are recognizable, from your community, or from your school, or from your background.  In addition, the question should be asked as to whether that particular business or institution is hiring or has hired people from your community, or from your school, or from your background.

If, in fact, these businesses have not hired from your community, and do not care to hire from that community, and pretty much run their institution as a place that will not and does not represent a place that you or similar people can work at, then they quite obviously are not deserving of your business, so then, as much as it is possible, they should be boycotted, until such a time that they constructively create conditions for people of your community to not only get hired, but to actually hire them.

After all, if you can't work there, why would you ever want to actually buy there?

Plea bargains are not part of the Constitution

The Constitution is the supreme law of this country, and anything that circumvents that Constitution is anathema to the citizens of this fine country.  The problem with the justice system doing something that is wrong, or is a shortcut, or is a convenience, or is a power play by prosecutorial agents, is that if it is not stopped, it has a strong tendency to morph into something that thereby becomes unstoppable, and further to the point, becomes something that clearly supersedes Constitution law. 

Plea bargains are a bastardization of anything even approaching justice, of which, the whole point of an open court, and each side being represented by their own attorney, as well as being judged by their peers, is to create the very foundational basis of justice.  Plea bargains are essentially between someone that wields incredible power and is a professional in their industry; that is, the prosecutor as well as their agents, against often individuals that either have no representation, or a shadow of any real representation.  The prosecutorial agent exerts considerable pressure for a deal, under the threat, that the power of the state, will crush that individual in court, by utilizing the full power of the law as a cudgel, necessitating that a prudent person will see that a deal  need be brokered, of which, not a whit of this approaches a fair and open process, on either side, with absolutely nothing presented to an impartial jury of one’s peers, or the case, on its merits actually being examined, questioned, and debated.

Further to the unfairness, is the fact that a significant amount of plea bargains are done by individuals that have not been able to post bail, and hence, are already incarcerated in which, because their case appears to be in some sort of limbo, or like something out of Kafka’s “The Trial”, are in no position, to do much of anything, but make a plea, so as to at least know exactly what they are facing and to thereby close a deal.

Those that wrote the Constitution, debated upon the Constitution, put forth the Ten Amendments to that Constitution, and ratified the Constitution, believed that by doing so, that this Constitution was good law.  This thus means that plea bargains, which are an abomination to the Constitution and the principles of which that Constitution stands, needs to be either seriously amended or simply struck down as unconstitutional.

The chances of any Supreme Court having the courage to actually strike down plea bargaining, are virtually non-existent, however, the Supreme Court, when evaluating plea bargains in regards to Constitutional rights that all are entitled to, could, should it desire to do so, amend the rules of plea bargaining, so that, the absolute power of prosecutorial authorities would be terminated, and replaced thereby by empowering an impartial jury to hear both sides of a potential plea bargain, and then to have that jury be the ultimate arbiter of what deal could be constructed that would be fair, through a unanimous vote of that jury,  of which, all of this, would be done in an open court of law, rather than behind closed doors.

No doubt, even this fundamental re-structuring of a plea bargain, would be subject to abuse, but at least, making all plea bargains public and allowing the jury to be the conscience of the community would be a very welcomed and justified change.

Pharmaceutical Nation

As reported by  the book, Dark Ages, America:  “children in the united states now receive four times as many psychiatric drugs as children in all the other countries of the world combined.”  It would be one thing if all these psychiatric drugs produced better students, better grades, better SAT and ACT scores, healthier children, and a better America, but all the evidence to date, shows either the very opposite or, no improvement, whatsoever.

Of course, the medical and psychiatric industry wants people to believe that because of the advancement in knowledge and understanding of the human psyche, that this dramatic increase in prescription drugs is all for the better, because the children need it, in order to properly function in this world.  If, psychiatric drugs actually had the same sort of efficacy as inoculations which clearly save lives and are necessary, than those that prescribe psychiatric drugs should be commended and applauded; but, the prescription of drugs, especially the prescription of psychiatric drugs over an extended period of time, of which, the beginning of such a prescription is initiated while the recipient is still an adolescent or even younger, merits a comprehensive, thorough, and detail review by independent authorities, as opposed to some sort of blind and meek acceptance, that these drugs are an absolute good, when, in fact, they almost assuredly are not.

While the blame for all these psychiatric drugs can be laid at many feet, such as the medical industry, credulous parents, and the pharmaceutical companies, the easiest way to find where the primary blame lies, is simply to follow the money, and that money clearly shows that pharmaceutical companies makes millions upon millions in the selling and distribution of psychiatric drugs, and the doctors that prescribe them, or over-prescribe them, are absolutely complicit in the whole affair.

America has been duped by the pharmaceutical industry, which is a mufti-billion dollar profit-based industry that insists that for every little problem, real or unreal, that there is always a solution that is just around the corner, which a little prescribed pill, at a profitable price, will alleviate.  The fact is that life necessitates challenges, heartbreaks, and things that upset people, young as well as old.  Additionally, children that are labeled as “problem children” or “hyperactive” or any other label, which pins these children as being out of the norm, and therefore necessitating prescription medicine is usually not going to actually resolve the problem, but rather masks the problem, or creates a new and worst problem, or simply tries to solve a problem, which will actually solve itself, over a given period of time.

If, the medical profession, in conjunction with the pharmaceutical industry, were regulated in the sense, that their incentives were aligned with the patients that they see, then, for an almost certainty, less psychiatric medicine would be prescribed.  However, instead, the pharmaceutical industry literally makes their dollars by pushing prescribed pills on children as well as adults, of which these pills, are given the aura of being necessary or good, by virtue of the fact that they are medically prescribed, but the results of all these prescriptions indicates that this story is an absolute deception.

Suffering and redemption

Many people ask the question all of the time about why there is so much suffering and hurt in this world, irrespective of whether a God does or does not exist, of which, the most straightforward answer is that there is suffering because too much of mankind is selfish, greedy, deceptive, and mean-spirited.  That is to say, basically all the ills of mankind can be laid at the very feet of mankind, for doing wrong to each other, and for doing wrong to their neighbor, of which, those wrongs will create suffering.

Despite the fact that suffering is due to mankind’s abuse of one another, many people somehow still believe that suffering in and of itself, shouldn’t be permitted in this world, or any world, and at anytime.  If this would be true, than mankind, would have to forsake its free-will either voluntarily or by compulsion, and indeed, without free-will, and assuming there was a benign God in control, or some other benign-being, than there indeed would not be any further suffering.

However, as good as this might sound, an even better good, is for mankind to actually have free-will, and from that free-will to thereupon make decisions that are freely made, of which those decisions would make for a better world.  This would then demonstrate that the proper use of free-will is a way to prove that mankind has acted in accordance to truth, justice, and liberty, in a manner that bestows the ultimate respect and tribute to its Creator.

So then, it is fair to say that the suffering that any person, or peoples go through, is an opportunity for those that are suffering to challenge those that are creating that suffering to become a better person, by them ultimately recognizing that what they have done is wrong.  Further to the point, this is also an opportunity for those that suffer, to demonstrate that the correct response to those that create such suffering is not to match evil with evil, or wrong with wrong, but to endure the injustice and to keep on striving to see that such injustice will eventually, no matter the length of time, or no matter the cost, be overcome, by staying true to the course, and thereby acting in the face of adversity with courage and integrity.

Again and again, injustice happens all of the time, but that story does not end, not even through the death of one individual, or even of millions of individuals, but rather the story keeps on repeating itself, till time immemorial, until it is corrected and thereby becomes correct, no matter, how long that time is measured, in mankind’s terms.  This then means that the point of suffering is to have that wronged individual demonstrate their courage to maintain truth, fairness, and justice in the very face of untruth, unfairness, and injustice, and to be unrelenting about doing so; until mankind rouses itself from its slumber of ignorance and willful stupidity, to recognize that mankind’s conscience must be awakened, so that right and justice, will have its illuminating day, and thereby suffering replaced by unspeakable joy.

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.