Survival of the fittest and the rise of racism

The problem with an insidious philosophy that believes that human society reflects in its natural order the survival of the fittest, is that such a philosophy leads to a rather convenient conclusion -- though flawed and quite fallacious -- that those at the pinnacle of power within society are therefore the fittest. Additionally, it then so follows that such provides the basis for circular reasoning and becomes the raison d'être for all sorts of laws, injustices, unfairness, and inequality created between peoples, races, creeds, and sexes; all under the guise that the fittest have the exclusive right to do whatever they so will, because they are the fittest.

That is to say, within any society, in which the reality is that society is both unfair and non-egalitarian; there will not be any design for real improvement of the general conditions for the population at large, because the prevailing sentiment of those that are in power, is that such a country, is built fundamentally upon a belief that those that are at the top, are quite obviously the most fit of the peoples in that society, and because they are the most fit, it is therefore their right to do what they so will, for the betterment of those so fit, foremost, and only do what can be done for the unfit, as an afterthought or from charity, if that.

Lost somehow to the closed minds of those that so often have been in positions of power and authority, is the real salient fact that the reason that so many believed for so long, and still believe even today, that white people, are of superior intellect in comparison to black people or brown people or red people or yellow people, fundamentally comes down to those oppressed peoples' historic lack of opportunity, lack of education, lack of healthcare, lack of family structure, lack of safety, lack of justice, lack of capital, lack of  land ownership, lack of entrepreneurship, and lack of just about anything of value, in comparison to their overseers.

Not too surprisingly, when the results are stacked to favor one race to the exclusion of all others, than those that are judged to be unfit, have an arduous and daunting task to get their selves to even the starting line of opportunity, and are handicapped in just about every conceivable way, thereon out.  Further, the supposed unbiased results of the testing of the intelligence of different races are going to quite obviously favor those that have been prepared for such, as compared to all those that have not been.

All of this combined leads intelligent people, even well-meaning intelligent people, to conclude all sorts of nonsense, about other races, and other peoples, without seeming to recognize the most fundamental fact that the color of a person's skin has absolutely nothing to do with their intelligence; and further that the survival of the fittest, is applicable, at best, to the animal kingdom, and has nary to do with the human race, of which the mind and spirit properly developed is the builder of great societies and great nations.

It is social Darwinism, especially as propagated in the late 1800s that lead to the unnecessary delay and late integration of societies, a legacy that is still being dealt with, today, for far too many that are in positions of authority are truly unfit to be there, though they act as if they are fit to be.

The gossip that never ends

In the age of Facebook, blogging, and all other social media sites, many things that are posted, seem to have a life completely of their own.  That is to say, once something is posted into a public forum, the person that first posted it, no matter their intent, has for all practical purposes, lost control of that posting, which can often be re-posted, commented upon, edited, changed, and spun into an entirely different direction, without anyone's expressed approval or permission.  To a certain degree, that might be okay, if such a posting was merely a 24-hr posting, or had a relatively short shelf life, but some postings and re-postings, are especially resilient and because of that, they can create embarrassment or even far worse for those that are posted upon, with nary an end in sight.

Additionally, it is one thing for those that are in the public eye to be commented upon and to be posted upon in forums of all types, but those people are often well compensated as well as being consciously aware that in being a public figure that to a certain degree, they are living a life within a fishbowl.  On the other hand, most people are relatively unknown, and reasonably circumspect, of which, virtually all of those people, do not have an interest in being publically embarrassed or publically scorned, especially when they have no recourse to delete the post, or even to make an impassioned defense.

So too, there are things done in public, in which some people are only too willing to post such, whereas others within that same group, would prefer not to have that posted, whatsoever; but rather would prefer to remember those events through their memory or their own un-posted remembrances via their personal pictures or video.  The problem with social media posting in general is that the consequences as well as the appropriateness of things posted, are often not fully taken into account, or even not taken into account, whatsoever.

It is one thing, for people to get together and to remember moments, good and bad, embarrassing or not, and talk about them; whereas, it is an entirely different thing for someone, especially someone that isn't really one's friend, to have the ability to bring up posts of things about someone else that aren't really relevant to the present age, or should be left alone and forgotten, but instead they insist upon repeating these posts, in a manner that humiliates or shames another person, again and again, without end.

All of this would seem to indicate that social media sites need to design into their websites, a function in which the person that initially posts has the exclusive control of that content, and that those that copy and re-post upon it, are only able to do so for a finite amount of time, before that copy and all other copies so produced, are erased and eradicated.  This seems to be a fair and reasonable way to control posts, especially posts that have created controversy or trouble, so that these posts do not live on forever -- especially within that public forum, as well as to preclude certain others from having the apparent right to be unnecessarily mean and vindictive, as well as being a prudent protection for those that simply suffer from poor judgment.

Inherited wealth creates dynastic wealth, which is what America is supposed to have escaped from

America was long been seen as the land in which those precluded from exercising their right to free religion, as well as those that wished to escape lands that offered no opportunity to rightfully receive fair opportunity and fair wages, as being the epitome of an egalitarian society, of which, one of the cardinal rules for any democratic society to meaningfully demonstrate that indeed all men are given a fair chance, is to preclude to a large extent, the unfair receipt of inherited wealth with minimal taxation, especially because that leads to and creates dynastic wealth.  For it is the dynasties, so created, that undermine democratic societies by essentially corrupting those institutions, by the power of that money, status, and privilege bought.

It should be stated, that not all inherited wealth is the same, for the real problem with inherited wealth, simply comes down to it being a numbers game, and the larger that number, the more that is at stake, in which, those that are very rich as well as being very powerful, don't ever play to lose; which is why, America, now has  so much dynastic money which produces, far too often, children that will see that money as their own personal play toy, for them to do with whatsoever that they desire to do, so that their lives will revolve not around diligence, drive, and determination but instead around indulgence, entitlement, and leisure.

While it is argued by some, that those that earned the money are entitled to pass it on to their progeny, without limitations or restrictions, because it is their own to do with; that argument is specious, for those that, in theory, have rightfully earned the money, were entitled to utilize that money per their discretion during their lifetime, but at the conclusion of their life, that discretion ends; so that those that depart this world, should not be the captain of a ship, that they have long departed from.

Those that have labored hard to earn money surely do appreciate the trials and tribulations that they have gone through; whereas those that simply have received inherited money, though they will not likely admit to it, suffer from the enervation of their ambition and desire, and thereby this corrupts them.  So that, rather than being productive agents of their communities, they instead set themselves apart from the mass of humanity, preferring only to live with and within small exclusive enclaves of like-mindedness, in which, the money that should rightfully have been used for the betterment and reinvested for the advancement of the community as a whole, is instead used to indulge those spoiled ones without limit, and for their pleasure.

Money matters.  Those that inherit or know that they will inherit substantial amounts of money are often unable to correlate or to acknowledge that money should ideally be seen as the appropriate compensation for hard work and good preparation; but rather instead they see money more as a tool to simply buy and to get their own way, to protect and to embellish their own, with nary a concern about anything else other than protecting and enhancing their familial dynasty, come what may.

Modern day peasants

Far too many people want to really believe the narrative that America is a country of meritocracy and egalitarian principles, of which the core of America is its vibrant middle class, which is the middle ground between those that have it all and those that don't have a damn thing.  That middle class still exists, and while statistics can tell us all sorts of things, of which, some read such to contend that the reason the traditional middle class appears to be hollowing out, is really because so many of those are moving up to higher incomes; whereas others read the very same tea leaves as instead being that the middle class is under assault, in danger, and disintegrating, in which the present population growing into adulthood, have far less opportunity, far less security, and far more debt than any other generation of its age, so seen.

In point of fact, America has a huge and persistent problem with a rather uncomfortably large underclass of which as reported by 20somethingfinance.com, 55% of the American population are struggling in which, "36% are living paycheck-to-paycheck, 19% are actually worse off than that – accruing debt."  At the same time, that there are so many that literally have nothing or are under constant stress in regards to timely paying their bills, as well as simply existing or not drowning, there is an elite upper class of the superrich that have enormous assets of unfathomable scale, and are basically untouchable; in addition, to those same superrich functionally running the government and its institutions for their benefit. 

It would seem that the so-called dream in America, that all have a chance to succeed, is for huge swaths of Americans, an absolute lie; especially for all those unfortunate people that have little or no opportunity, little education, little or no assets, and little or no hope.  Additionally, the police presence in poor communities isn't there to ameliorate the violence and despair that is so evident in those areas, but rather to let it be known to that population that the police are ubiquitous, legally protected, armed to the teeth, handcuff happy, and devastatingly lethal.

Yet, though America in many ways, is far worse off in the sense of the futility of so many being unable to lift themselves up by their bootstraps as compared to the 1960s, riots such as was seen in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, Baltimore, Washington DC, Detroit, and so on, is for the most part, not happening, currently.  Perhaps, that could be plausibly explained by the growing acceptance and mainstreaming of things such as marijuana, pornography, and mindless entertainment of all sorts, in addition to the assistance by the government in providing food stamps and Section 8 housing; as well as just a more inclusive society in general, especially in being able to see different creeds, different races, and both sexes, strategically displayed in positions of authority or class.

That said, this persistent underclass of so many that lack both opportunity as well as hope, essentially means that these are our modern day peasants, sustained only by the escapism of drugs, drink, mindless entertainment, and sex; yet, seldom actually starving or going without the basic necessities of life.  So too, all those that are gainfully employed but never actually getting ahead of the curve, don't seem to recognize that with their employment often being "at will," as well as working at non-unionized companies, that the game is fixed, so that, they too are left with apparently just drugs, drink, mindless entertainment, and sex for their satisfaction; never to get ahead, all because the comforts of the very, very rich is built upon the backs of those that are their peasants, in fit, form, and function, if not quite yet in name.

The early tax preparation refund ripoff

Regrettably, a significant swath of Americans are somehow not able to fill out and file their own taxes or don’t feel competent to do so without the aid of tax preparation outfits.  It is one thing, for those that make a lot of money, equity trades, have businesses, other assets, and a lot of other considerations, that would in prudence necessitate the consultation of a tax professional which seems quite reasonable; as compared to the million of Americans that really don’t have much more than W-2s, childcare, and not much else, but still fell the need to get their taxes prepared by an outside company.

If, in the getting taxes done, those that did so, simply paid a reasonable fix fee, then probably, in the scheme of things, since the filing of taxes for those that have income is a legal requirement, as well as a necessity in order to get tax refunds for the Earned Income Credit or for having more tax dollars withheld during the year than necessary, than this would seem to be a prudent step and a reasonable course of action; but in America, where the dollar seems to be the king of many decisions and the be-all and end-all of life, it has become a way for those in the tax refund preparation industry to exploit the ignorance of basic mathematics of their clientele as well as to appeal to their  client’s instant gratification monetary needs.

In point of fact, the government, allows tax preparation companies to offer a service that is extremely profitable to them, which is to provide the option to advance the tax refund to their customer base in return for a fee for having done so.  A fair analysis, though, would seem to suggest, that tax preparation companies that provide this, should be more seriously regulated in the amount and reasonableness of such a fee, akin to financial institutions as in banks and credit unions which are regulated in the legal usury that they can charge; and in particular, taking into full consideration that since tax refunds for a significant amount of Americans is the only time in the entire year that a hefty amount of money will accrue into their hands, that this should by all accounts be respected and not be exploited.

Of course, in America, when there are millions upon millions of dollars to be made off of millions of people that are in most cases,  financially stupid and inept, than there will be created parasitic companies that will market their tax preparation services, including advances on tax refunds as filling a need, but in short, it’s a ripoff, costing consumers on an annualized basis interest of nearly 36% on the monies so loaned, in addition, to those very pesky and annoying fees for prepaid cards, ATM access, and so forth.

Those people, for the most part, paying those fees and interest rates, are the very people that really do need every dollar that they can get a-hold of, but instead are having siphoned off from their pocketbooks meaningful amounts of dollars, of which these tax preparation companies are exploiting the weaknesses of those people, in a blatant betrayal of actually providing a fair service to them, of which those that have labored to earn the money, should really get all of what is rightfully theirs.

Fine Art and full disclosure

In a world in which masterpieces of art are auctioned off for millions upon millions of dollars, one would think that those buying and trading such, would really want to know absolutely everything about that piece of art, and in particular, its restoration history.  Truth be told,  just about everything in masterpiece art world, really isn’t completely on the up and up, and deliberately so, because when art galleries, museums, and auction houses, discuss with reverence  historic artists such as Michelangelo, Rembrandt, da Vinci, an so on, they know that in virtually every case that the art so being displayed is not now entirely by their hand, and if full disclosure was made, would not therefore actually be considered to be authentic, by any real definition of that word.

The very first hint that there just couldn’t conceivably be a way that paintings created 400-500 years ago, could still maintain vividness of color as well as their robustness is the very basic knowledge that most sentient people are aware of, which is that material objects which are not climate protected, one hundred percent of the time, from any and all of nature’s elements such as wind, rain, and sun are going to ultimately find those elements to be debilitating to any work of art.   Additionally, even art that is kept indoors and hence away from the most obvious harmful elements, still will suffer from the ravages of time, from humidity, light, and other factors, most particularly when that art is not deliberately protected at the highest possible level.  So too, the construction of most art pieces is not done in a format, which consciously considers that the length of time of its material constitution and construction elements is somehow the prevailing consideration of that art piece, and hence the viability and quality of masterpieces is finite, without an act of restoration.

So then, it could be said, and probably should be said, that some of the finest masterpieces in museums and art galleries, are at best, a faithful and devoted restoration of the piece as it was original conceived, in a style of the artist that so painted it; but in many cases, probably a disturbingly high percentage of cases, the restorations have been done so many different times, by so many different hands, by so many different degrees of skill and knowledge, that to say a given piece is a Rubens is not the whole truth.  After all, if movies, can run disclaimers that state that this movie “has been modified from its original version,” most definitely all of these fine masterpieces need the same sort of disclosure, if not more.  In fact, in the interests of full disclosure, there should be a history, or the best attempt of a history, of all the restorations done to any piece of great art, especially that art, that people flock to see from all over the world. However, this probably won’t be done anytime soon, if ever, because what the art world most definitely does not want to do, is to discredit the authenticity of the institution that benefits in particular some very highly placed individuals, but would instead, prefer to stick with the current narrative that most people, don’t seem to challenge much; though it would be nice to really see, for example, an original Botticelli, untouched and unvarnished, though faded and ravished through the ages of time, just to be able to appreciate the real authentic thing.

It is far easier to start a war, then to justly end one

For a world in which its leading nations consider themselves to be civilized, we do not in reality, live in a civilized world; for in a civilized world, differences between nations and nation-states, would not be “resolved” through acts of war and terror.  So too, in order to properly defend a country, countries would not need to have standing armies of enormous size and power, nor armaments that have been specifically built not for defense but for offense.

In a fair and civilized world, before any war was waged or entered into, each country contemplating such a war, would have to make a case to a respected world politic of countries, specifically outlining their cause or justification for war, and then have those member states debate upon it, before coming to some sort of just resolution, that would preclude as much as possible, actually having a war.  Regrettably, countries such as the United States of America, as well as other nations, simply declare war against other nations or nation-states without any real and meaningful debate, whatsoever; for countries that are already prepared for war, with all the armaments, logistics, and personnel ready to do so, just go ahead and do it.

As bad as declaring a war against another nation or nation-state is, this is often compounded by the fact that there doesn’t often seem to be any end plan for such a war, other than to destroy, damage, kill, and annihilate the enemy until submission.  Somehow, lost in the act of war, is the very purpose of the war, of which, if that is not clearly understood by all responsible parties then the end result will always be destruction without its appropriate attendant restoration.  Further, if the act of war, fails in the end, to benefit the people of the countries that have participated in that war, then all that bloodshed has pretty much been for nothing.

Those that truly believe that war, that is, the deliberate and targeted  killing of other human beings by nations, is the best way to resolve differences, essentially believe that force equates to righteousness and right; but justice, itself, belies that viewpoint, for justice is the honest weighing of all factors in regards to a dispute, of which, force unleashed is seldom the just answer to any dispute.

So too, far too many countries, deceive themselves as well as deceiving others, when it comes to the conditions that aid and abet those decisions that lead to war, by not recognizing, that many disputes between nations, are, in reality, disputes between the political, military, and industrial leaders of those opposing countries, in which, the common citizens of those respected countries typically don’t have much a dog in the fight, but simply have an abiding desire to have a decent life.  

That said, all wars should rightly be judged almost solely on the aftermath of that war, so that those that start wars but are unable to benefit and evolve mankind for having done so, should be subsequently stripped of their legitimacy for their insistence upon choosing the sword of force, rather than the table of democratic negotiation and fair peace.

Royal palaces and the commoners

In the United States, the White House, consists of approximately 55,000 square feet, which seems pretty big.  However,  on the other hand, royal palaces, all over the world,  are absolutely astonishing in size, which often is  something that is problematic for the average person to actually fathom.  For instance, though many of the very biggest palaces have become  museums, such as the Louvre Palace,  now known as the Louvre  Museum, in which, this former palace occupies an incredible space of over 2,000,000 sq ft.  Additionally, there are still plenty of present day royal palaces, such as the Ak Saray in Turkey, which is the presidential palace, which also measures over 2,000,000 sq ft.  Basically, countries all over the world, have either histories of royal palaces that are absolutely unfathomable in scale or presently still utilize royal or presidential palaces of enormous scale; and while it could be said, that large palaces are necessary in order to conduct the business of the state, it could also be said, that size matters, and therefore the size of those palaces which are colossal, are purposely constructed that way.

In point of fact, most royal palaces, are absolutely astonishing not only in their scale but also in their amenities, furnishing, and status.  On a historical basis, in a world before literacy became common place, as well as a world in which royalty was considered to be God’s secular representative on earth, those commoners that could even consider the audacity of believing that they were entitled to an equal voice or a voice at all, would be in virtually every case, intimidated by the sheer size, magnificence and scale of the palace, the people within the palace, the power behind and within the palace, and just about everything in-between, and therefore would simply have had little choice but to continue to submit to that royalty, despite the fact that commoners historically, as well as today, vastly outnumber royalty, yet royalty still takes in the lion’s share of just about everything of value, and passes on to the commoners all those things which are valueless.

Anytime that as a tourist, people visit a royal palace, or what once was a royal palace, it is thereby easier to comprehend that in era when commoners had no voice, had no literacy, and had no choice, that any commoner would acknowledge implicitly if not explicitly, that those of royalty, could only be in that position, because it was their God-appointed position to be there, and it was therefore the commoners’ place therefore to be in their lowly appointed place.  

All the ostensible images of power, strength, and grandeur that any government displays, is not necessarily displayed because it is necessary to do so, but rather as a present reminder to the people, and especially to the commoners, that protest is absolutely futile; and therefore rather than to die ignobly, it is far better to appreciate that those in royal power, are the elite, which are wholly separate from the people, and thereby live in palaces or palace like places, and are feted and treated as if, for all practical purposes, that they are gods, though they are not.

Towards the victim’s revenge and the death penalty

The United States is the only G7 country that permits capital punishment, and it remains the only established western nation that permits such.  While not every State of the union, permits capital punishment, it is still the law in 30 States and those convicted of crimes and sentenced to the death penalty in those States are subject to that sentence being carried out.  While there are all sorts of debates about the death penalty, itself; and an awful lot of hullabaloo about those being sentenced to die, being executed in a civilized and humane way, all of this misses the point -- that if the United States insists upon embarrassing itself to the world at large, by its bloodlust for what all other established western nations have already abolished, than why not just embrace that bloodlust, itself?

That is to say, those convicted of heinous crimes deserving of capital punishment by a jury of their peers, have obviously committed a crime, that in most cases, has at least one victim, if not more.  While in some or perhaps in a majority of those cases, that victim is dead; that is definitely not the case in all of such cases.  Additionally, most victims are survived by relatives, so that, when it comes time to execute a given criminal, there is almost always some representative of the victim or victim’s family or its relatives that are present or allowed to be present for that execution.  

But why should that victim or its relatives, have to just sit there and basically watch the convict, die through a passive lethal injection, which would not appear to be all that cathartic, whatsoever, but would seem more akin to watching someone just go to sleep?  Rather, there should be law, mandated in all of those states, stipulating that when it comes time for that execution to be carried out for the death penalty, that the victim or the next in line as designated through court documents, has to execute with their own hand, the convict, their own self.

Not only that, but the execution, could only be carried out through the thrusting of a knife through the body of the convict, of which the convict would be strapped to some sort of containment frame, that would not allow the convict to move or to protect their body, and a State issued knife would be provided to the victim, with some rudimentary instructions on how to use it as well as being provided with the knowledge of the areas of the body of which such knife thrusts would be especially damaging. Additionally, this person would be given a time limit in order to carry out the execution, of which, after that time, if the convict was still living, that convict would be given appropriate medical attention and would thereby be confined to life imprisonment for the duration of their natural life.

While some might argue, that this would be the epitome of “cruel and unusual punishment,” the response by some clever lawyer would be that it is only the federal government that is precluded from exacting “cruel and unusual punishment,” so that that the victim of an especially heinous crime deserving of the death penalty, should be afforded the reasonable opportunity to enact an “eye for an eye” in response.  In any event, such a law, would seem to richly satisfy the bloodlust that defines Americans, and therefore would be quite apropos.

The 4th of July, means absolutely nothing, unless…

Each year in America, the 4th of July is celebrated, as this nation’s independence day, but many people are not cognizant that at the time that this declaration was signed and ratified by the thirteen colonies and by their representatives, that America was for all intents and purposes still a colony of Great Britain.  That is to say, the 4th of July should more properly be remembered as a resolution for that independence, but did not in and of itself, create that independence.  Instead, America would have to battle Great Britain, in a bloody revolutionary war, until 1781, to effect its independence, and had it failed; the 4th of July, would not mean much of anything, except as an answer perhaps to some obscure trivia question, for many a colony or civilization has risen up against its master, only to be absolutely crushed.

So, first of all, for the 4th of July to mean anything, whatsoever, that revolution to effect that independence, has to succeed, which it did.  Secondly, and really of even more importance, that revolution having succeeded must then live up to its lofty goals and ideals, of which, many a revolution and revolutionaries have succeeded in their arm rebellion, only to fundamentally after having taking over power, not been any improvement over the government that they so overthrew.  In regards to America, the standard that they must be held to, is a very high standard, for America in its declaration declared foremost that all men are created equal, and further that their Creator has endowed those men with certain unalienable rights, in addition to the salient fact that just governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of those so governed.

America has existed as an independent nation since the Treaty of Paris in 1783; so plenty of time has passed in which a reasonable person can therefore render a reasonable judgment as to whether or not America has lived up to its Declaration of Independence, or whether it has not.  In regards to all men being created equal, though it has taken many generations, bloodshed, and amendments to the Constitution, itself; America legally has created an institution in which all people are subject to equal rights, as well as equal laws, but, sad to say, a law is only as good as its effect in reality, and for this, America, is clearly a country that favors the few at the expense of the many, which has been the case since its inception.  In regards to its Creator and those certain unalienable rights, America has in recent generations attempted to redefine itself, as a country in which there is a impregnable wall of separation of state and its Creator, and further the state has taken fundamental steps to remove the Creator and treat such as an irrelevancy, and thereby those unalienable rights, have been replaced by the state, so that now what once was unalienable have become alienable rights, for it is the state that declares what is right and what is wrong.  Finally, a just government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, but America has functionally created a privileged and powerful elite class, that is above the law, and that effectively rules this nation and vacates the voice of the people.

In summary, the 4th of July is a promise broken, and a promissory note, defaulted.  Those that celebrate the 4th of July, mostly do so, without comprehending that America has not yet lived up to its Declaration of Independence, and doesn’t appear that it ever will do so.

The federal war against marijuana has been fought and lost

It seems absolutely remarkable, considering that the usage of marijuana is a federal offense, that there is anything such as legal medical marijuana, but as incredible as that might seem,  that is the case in 32 States of the union; and then, even more amazing is that legal recreational usage of marijuana is the law in 10 States of the union.  What makes this seem so improbable, is that the reality is that federal law trumps State law, and not only that but importantly the history of the United States is a history in which individual freedoms and State freedoms have basically been curtailed by federal law and federal power trumping over them.  So that, the federal law in regards to marijuana does not equivocate about marijuana, whatsoever, in which marijuana is classified as a schedule 1 drug, which means by federal law that marijuana is considered to have ”… no medical value and a high potential for abuse.”

Yet, somehow in the last twenty-odd years, marijuana has become decriminalized in many States as well as being medically prescribed within a majority of  States, in addition to becoming  legal as a recreational drug, regulated by those States, that have legalized it within their State jurisdiction.  None of this makes any sense whatsoever, because quite clearly, the possession of, the selling of, and medicinal use of marijuana are all federal crimes, subject to federal law and its penalties, and there are no exceptions to that law.

The thing about federal laws is that there are so many of them, so that laws that are not equally applied to all, or selectively applied to some, or not applied at all to anyone, are laws that will allow lawyers, States, and citizens to possibly circumvent what is the law, by simply ignoring federal law, and thereby considering federal law to be a nullity, and proceeding with that mindset.

At this point with the majority of States having either decriminalized, medically accepted, or permitted the recreational use of marijuana, with the federal government, during all of this time, simply sitting on its hands, has effectively created a situation in which it is now too late for the federal government to stop something that for all intents and purposes is now legal, or medically prescribed, or decriminalized within the United States.

This would seem to imply that it is only a matter of a relatively small amount of time, before the federal government, legalizes marijuana throughout the entire United States, so that the federal government, can at least generate some federal revenue from marijuana, as well as to set up federal rules and guidelines for the possession of, the usage of, and selling of marijuana.  This so signifies that the federal government’s war against marijuana, has been fought and it has been lost, and that marijuana for all effective purposes going forward is going to be treated more akin to something like alcohol and will no longer be treated as a schedule 1 drug.  

Whether all of this is good or not, misses the biggest point, of which, the people of this great nation, should well remember; which is that the people in conjunction with progressive and imaginative legislators, have a voice, of which that voice, can successfully trump federal law, even federal law of long standing, because this is in substance, supposed to be a nation by the people, of the people, and for the people, and revolutionary State marijuana legalization laws are proof positive, that this can indeed be true.

The misapplication of knowledge in regards to the tree of knowledge

To have knowledge and to know the substance of that knowledge is meant for the benefit of mankind, of which, it is never in the knowing that is the substance of error, but rather it is in the misapplication of knowledge that mankind becomes personally responsible for that misuse and thereby must make it right. That is to say, anytime that knowledge is used incorrectly, for example, to benefit someone at the expense of another, or to deceive another, than that person doing such, has taken knowledge and used such for a wrong purpose of having that knowledge.

Another way of putting it, is that the true purpose of knowledge is not to “hold over” on someone else, or to take unfair advantage of another, but rather the purpose is to do good and to be of benefit to others.  So that, when it comes to Adam and Eve, and the tree of knowledge, the warning against eating from that tree, is not that by doing so, Adam and Eve, would by that act, become agents of evil or sin, but rather that when provided with the awesome responsibility of knowledge, Adam and Eve, to their discredit, could not handle that knowledge in a responsible manner and thereby they fell from grace, by their willful lack of that responsibility.

This so indicates that the more knowledge that each of us has acquired, the greater our responsibility is to utilize that knowledge as agents of good deeds and good acts; as opposed to doing those deeds and acts that would be negative or evil.  In addition, those that seek knowledge for knowledge’s sake, will often lose sight of who and what they really are, and having lost that focus to the source of all that is, will not be able to comprehend that the greatest attribute of any one being, is not knowledge, itself, but rather oneness with our Creator, of which, knowledge, improperly handled, separates our being from that unification.

It has been said that knowledge is a form of power, and it most definitely is, so that, ideally such knowledge should be under the control only of a power that is omnipotent, just, and infallible, which ultimately is true; for if that knowledge is held in the hands of an entity that knows not that their responsibility incurs a obligation to all, then the result will be a land of confusion.  So that, when it comes to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the inability of Adam and Eve to thereby become infallible when biting into the awesome insight of true enlightenment is the very reason why earth is not a paradise.

So then, the fall of mankind is not in the eating of that fruit, but rather the fall of mankind is in the fact that so many are keeping their eyes shut and thereby living purposefully in ignorance, rather than recognizing that the die has already been cast, and thereby mankind’s only true mission is to utilize their knowledge in a manner in which all will find their way back to that of which it all originated from.

Government’s just powers come only from the consent of the governed

A government of the people, for the people, and by the people can only be a government in which those that are governed are governed by their explicit consent to that government, which in the scheme of things, is a government which governs well by being fair and beneficial for the people.  Further to the point, that government, and thereby the people that make up that government must be answerable and accountable to the people.  It can be said that all governments that perform this fundamental function well -- are good and legitimate governments, whereas all those that do not, are in all probability, illegitimate and in all likelihood, coercive in their governance.

Each citizen of any country should look at their governance by those that govern them and must recognize the importance of first knowing what good governance is, and further, to comprehend what clearly represents the characteristics of bad governance.  Those that live within a construct in which that government appears to be a law onto itself, in addition to that government being fundamentally unaccountable to the people, as well as being effectively unalterable in its structure as a government by the people, are living in a despotic country, that has wrongfully denied its citizens their inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This signifies that each time that citizens cede power to their government, or consent to do so, or have their liberties curtailed, then those citizens are, by definition, less free and have less choice, because their liberty has been traded or taken from them in order to receive, perhaps, at best, benefits that the government can thereby bestow upon them, which, in theory, is in a manner that is fair and equable to all.  Instead, in most cases, when that government decides, without accountability to its citizens, who the winners are, and who the losers are as implemented and decided by that government -- then that is the very beginning of a government that favors some at the expense of the many, and therefore no longer represents a government of the people, but rather is the personification of a government that uses its powers to aggrandize unto that government, powers that really should be in the hands of the people, especially in consideration that those that govern have a sacred obligation to serve and to protect those people.

So many governments, on local, state, and national levels have fundamentally forgotten that their mission for being is to be an aid for the people, of which those people have gathered together into a compact, in order to form a better society, then if they were to remain separated.  If more people that worked in government, would perform their functions under the condition that their highest duty is to the people that they ostensibly served; and if the people, would more frequently and consistently hold that government accountable to them, then that governance would be more in keeping with its very purpose to begin with, which is to be just, equable, helpful, and fair to all.

Bang, bang

The United States has more guns in private hands than any other nation, in sheer quantity as well as in per capita statistics.  So too, the American military is the most powerful in the world, along with the domestic police force of America  being extremely well armed.  As much as critics may decry all the firearms that America has, or the reason why they have them, or the danger of having all those firearms, ad nauseam, those firearms are not going to go away anytime soon.

One of the main reasons why so many Americans have firearms, is basically the belief that having a firearm is necessary in order to have a weapon that will stop a criminal, or basically to have a weapon for practical self-defense.  Not too surprisingly, when  people believe that they need a weapon to protect themselves, that belief in and of itself, creates it own little arms race, of which until such a time as the mindset changes from the conventional wisdom that firearms are necessary for a good self-defense, than firearms will continue to be seen as a valid choice for that defense.

Lost in all the confusion about firearms, is the fact that people that buy guns, vary considerably in their experience with guns, of which, some people buying guns, have a military or police background, meaning consequently that they are usually quite competent in their knowledge of guns and their usage, thereof.  So too, there are people that while not coming from a military or police background, have utilized guns or rifles in hunting or other sporting endeavors.  Then there are others, that have utilized guns in target practice and finally there are other people that have never fired a gun, of which, some of those people, have barely a working knowledge as to how to properly handle a gun.

It almost goes without saying, that those that have bought a gun, and subsequently never take a course on how to utilize that gun, or just have had a modicum of gun usage training through target practice or similar, but, not on a regular basis, are probably fooling themselves if they believe that in a truly dangerous situation in which the thought is that the usage of a firearm is necessary in order to protect themselves, that they will actually be able to competently defend themselves.

Having said that, all this truly pales in comparison, to the very salient fact, that guns are extremely lethal and that shooting a firearm at a target, or at an animal, is never going to be the same thing as shooting it at another human being.  In point of fact, there isn’t much of a good reason, to own a firearm, if consciously or subconsciously the owner of that gun knows that they do not have the character to actually use it against another human being, with the exception of possibly being able to do so, under the most extraordinary circumstances. 

In point of fact, with the exception of a very small percentage of Americans, the vast majority of people, while perhaps capable of drawing upon a firearm, just can’t really bring themselves to actually use it against another human being, because their conscience of the gravity of the situation, precludes them from doing so.  This is why, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to own a firearm -- because many owners will simply never use one for the purpose that they bought it for, should that situation occur.  While life can indeed be full of potential dangers and moments of fear, it is truly the exception, and not the rule, when a bad guy is actually shot by a common citizen, for most people when confronted in a fearful situation by someone that is human, will not pull the trigger.

Facial recognition in airports and society

There are now international flights in America, that provide what purports to be a benefit for passengers, which is that before boarding a plane, they provide their passport at the boarding gate, and then stand in front of a camera, for facial recognition, of which, this is said to allow boarding to be faster.  In reality, this isn’t true because stopping and then standing in front of a camera, as opposed to simply providing the documents that have already been vetted by airport security is pretty much going to be a waste of time.  What it is, though, is a simple and convenient way for the purveyors of facial recognition software to verify its veracity.

The thing about facial recognition, which unlike fingerprinting or even DNA testing, is that the government cannot readily tell who someone is when they are walking down a public street, if all they have are a fingerprint file and a DNA database.  Whereas, with facial recognition, alongside a comprehensive fingerprinting database, as well as a DNA database, the government pretty much has everything that they require in order to build up an incredible amount of actionable information on citizens; so that, the watchers see, hear, and know everything, whereas those that are watched know virtually nothing about those that watch them, except for their pronouncements that this is for their own good, as well as for the safety and security of the country.

If the citizens of this country do not have a right to privacy in the public sphere, and further do not have a right to be left alone or to be forgotten, then those citizens in an era of facial recognition, in addition to all the other endless reams of data that is being gathered about them; of which all of this is being correlated, analyzed, processed, and stored, then those citizens cannot possibly consider themselves to be free and liberated citizens but rather must be seen, as pretty much as a cattleman sees his cattle that are branded, which is, as his property, thereby for him to dispose of as appropriate, including the slaughterhouse.

It is one thing for citizens to use facial recognition to unlock their phone, or to unlock their house, or to enter their place of employment; it is an entirely different thing, though, when facial recognition is being used by the government or even private enterprise without some sort of vigorous and meaningful peer oversight.  In addition, it is one thing for any technology to be used for the benefits and security it provides and then have that history, pretty much wiped clean at the end of the day, as compared to the very same thing being done, but forever after being stored and controlled by an entity that answers to no one.

Those that are in either the business of unfairly exploiting people through advertising by virtue of knowing everything about them, or else in the business of having comprehensive actionable information which will allow that entity to compromise virtually anyone at any time for their sins or questionable acts, have aggrandized onto themselves god-like powers, without actually being impartial, just, and wholesome.  This signifies that the more invasion of privacy ceded to private enterprise or government overseers, then the more endangered that citizen’s freedom and liberty will be.

Questions and answers

A lot of times people state that those that give the best answers have to be the most intelligent and astute people, and while that may well be true, a belief such as that, discounts the value of the person that is asking the right quality questions.  For instance, most teachers tell their students that there is no such thing as a stupid question, but in fact, there most certainly is; especially questions that are asked in which clearly the student has not been listening or paying attention to what the teacher has been repeatedly saying on a given subject, for that question asked, is a reflection of their lack of focus.

So too, there are plenty of conversations in regards to matters of real importance, in which a given person's inability to ask the appropriate and salient questions, in order to efficiently receive in turn answers that are of actual value, indicates someone that lacks perception, insight, and preparedness.  Sometimes, indeed, questions are being asked that aren't really germane to the subject matter at hand, representing a true reflection that the person asking the questions doesn't readily understand the subject matter or isn't concentrated upon that matter, and therefore, the answers received are not going to be nearly as much benefit for them because the right question has not been formulated.

Additionally, those that aren't able to come up with good questions, are the very same people, that aren't able to do their part in order to have a meaningful conversation; which perhaps is why so many people spend so much of their time with their heads down, and their thumbs moving, texting back and forth with one another, because they are clueless as to how to actually engage another peer in a consequential conversation.

While it is true that most people that answer questions well, are themselves able to ask questions well, it is not true for everyone, for there are plenty of people, that are quite book smart, but lack street smarts, and that lack of knowledge, means that they don't know the best questions to ask in order to get the information that they really require.  So then, those that may actually have the right answers, may also, at the same time, not really know the right questions to pursue, and in order to progress within a given endeavor it is important to know not only the answers but also the necessary questions; especially since part of any quest, is to ascertain everything that needs to be known, in order for that quest to be successful, and that necessitates formulating the right questions in order to get the right answers.

Additionally, those that do not question things, often enough, are not progressing as far as they could progress, because they are frequently too accepting of the orthodox viewpoint, rather than seeing things as they are, and then having the courage and curiosity to want to question as to whether those things can be better; for it is, more times than not, those that push beyond conventional wisdom, that helps mankind to advance, because progress necessitates taking into account different perspectives, different viewpoints, and different questions, all of which will produce different answers, because only when a given subject matter is thoroughly examined, does the right answer become illuminated.

Social media, scandal, and firestorms

It use to be that in order for a scandal to take off, that it would have to either spread through word of mouth, or be instigated through the main media organs of the time and age, such as newsprint, radio, or television.  Nowadays, a scandal can literally be enflamed within less than a few hours, basically through people's social media accounts which aren't necessarily just local in nature, anymore, but global.  This means, fundamentally, that nearly every day something scandalous has been seen and commented upon by literally thousands upon thousands of people, and sometimes even millions.  While, to a certain degree, this might seem to be fair play, in reality, it almost never really is.  That is to say, those who are secretly recorded by someone or simply recorded without their expressed approval, exposing them thereby to the general public, for example, in embarrassing circumstances, are themselves often not able to stop the dissemination of that video, which usually never really even gives them a chance to weigh in with their side of the story.  So too, things that are said and done in private, can be indiscriminately posted for public consumption, which isn't fair for those that thought what was said and done was private, but now has been disclosed by one of the parties involved.  Additionally, there is just something intoxicating for lots of people about scandal, especially scandal involving things that are engaging to those particular people and their lives, of which, lost within the firestorm of the scandal, is that the real people exposed or involved in that scandal are definitely affected by it, but are unable to effectively countermand it, for like a forest fire that spontaneously begins, there isn't any known beginning and there isn't any easy way to put the fire out, except to let it, hopefully, burn itself out.

This means that for many people that they now live within a construct in which they cannot necessarily control their reputation, for there often isn't any one responsible party to hold accountable for a reputation destroyed.  Further, video and pictures, almost never tell the entire story, but only a prejudiced portion of the story; in addition to the fact, that editing tools are ubiquitous so that what is being displayed as true and accurate, may not actually be either of those things.  In the world before social media, newsrooms could and were held responsible for the content that they disseminated, in addition to the salient fact that discussions would ensue about whether to release a particular piece involving national security or personal foible to the public.  This has been replaced, instead, by people that post, re-post, and comment on things that perhaps would previously have never seen the light of day, or would not have picked up enough traction to really grievously harm a given individual. 

As it stands, the structure of social media makes it a medium which is perfect for the real-time transaction of data, of which, some of this is actually good and vital, in the sense that more people can be reached in a highly efficient way that can provide those people with information of relevancy and worth.  On the other hand, it is the same medium that can be extraordinarily destructive towards certain people, of which some of these affected people are either very young or very vulnerable or both.  This means that those that utilize social media accounts need to be more responsible about their posts, and in particular, those posts that are scandalous in nature, because what goes around, comes around -- all at a velocity and impact, previously unknown.

The land of the free and the home of the brave

The star-spangled banner, which is the national anthem of the United States of America, declares proudly that America is "…the land of the free and the home of the brave."  But, seriously, where can we truly find this mythical land of the free and the home of the brave, because surely it cannot be America.  At least, it cannot be the America as it behaves in the present day.

For instance, no country incarcerates more of its own people, than the United States of America.  In fact, in comparison to all other western nations, the United States is an outlier to an extreme measure in regards to incarceration, in which, the sheer numbers of those incarcerated in America are so large, that as Hillary Clinton stated the United States, "… is home to 25 percent of the world’s prison population."  By definition, those that are locked up are not free, and further to the point, the fact that so many are locked up, does not make those that are not incarcerated, somehow, more free.  Rather, it must be said, that the more people that are locked up, or are trapped within the criminal justice system, the more endangered the general public is to the very same sort of thing possibly happening to them, because when it comes to incarceration, truly America carries a very big stick that they will apparently wield with impunity, for they know that even the world at large, are fearful of even insinuating that America treats its own people in an inhumane and unjust manner, though it does exactly that.

Additionally, no land can truly be considered to be free, if the structure within that country favors certain elite people and classes of people at the expense of those that lack primarily income, stable family structure, and opportunity; for those that are born within a construct in which the schools that they attend are fundamentally disadvantaged, and in addition are denied fair access to meaningful employment that will  help catapult them out of their cycle of poverty, than those people are surely not free.

No nation, has every used the atomic bomb to kill civilians, but America, which did so not just once, but twice, when it dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in which the dropping of atomic bombs upon civilians to kill them indiscriminately, is not brave and never can be defined as brave.  Since then, America has continued to bomb country after country, so that, a country as tiny as Laos, which as reported by legaciesofwar.org, suffers from being "… the most heavily bombed country in history."   The bombing of countries continues until the present age, in which Afghanistan, a country that America has been at war with since 2001, had more bombs dropped on it in 2018, then any other year, since that war commenced.  So too, America loves to utilize drones to target and to strike "enemy combatants" with the inevitable collateral damage of civilians that are killed, alongside the so-called "bad guys."

No matter how you slice it, and what words are used, the bombing and drone killing of enemy combatants is not brave, because those that are doing the bombing and drone strikes are virtually never physically at risk, and a reasonable definition of bravery includes the expectation that in order to be brave, one must actually be risking something of material consequence, or be in actual danger.  

It can be said, that those that insist upon wearing a crown that they do not deserve, will find that there will come a time when those that have the rightful claim for that crown, will seize it for themselves.

War, media, truth, and the press

The United States is the world's policeman, and insists upon fighting and engaging in armed conflict with nations, nation-states, and terrorists throughout the entire world; so that it is fair to say that since the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack on United States soil, the United States has been involved in armed conflict with at least one nation or nation-state continuously.   Despite all the current armed conflict, which involves killing enemies, killing enemy combatants, destroying infrastructure, along with the quite regrettable attendant civilian deaths and injuries from such warfare; we have, unlike the Vietnam War which truly was brought into the living rooms of all Americans, instead have armed conflicts that are almost never front page news.

It would seem that when it comes to warfare, that most Americans should want to know about it, but for the most part, it seems that what is going on overseas is just a sideshow, and disappointingly ignored by the public as well as the mass media; though there is coverage, but that coverage would appear to be managed in a way that seems to stipulate that continuous war and warfare really isn't a sort of hell.  While, this could be chalked up to general indifference, it would be fairer to state, that those that control the narrative, are able to also control what is or is not disseminated to the public at large. 

So that, in point of fact, while the killing of anybody, enemy or not, is an especially nasty bit of business, one might think that in an era of hi-resolution cameras, along with drones that are quite capable of providing excellent footage of the devastation and destruction of war, that there would be far more images of disturbing content that would be readily available, from those wars and armed conflicts, but surprisingly there really is not.

Unlike, domestic insurrections, in which citizens and news crews do a commendable job of recording incidents; when it comes to the warfare that we conduct overseas, independent journalists as well as mass media journalists, are often shackled as to what they can or cannot see and record, by being essentially chaperoned by US military personnel.   That is to say, to get to an authorized area of conflict, a given reporter needs transportation, and that transportation is going to come from the military.  So too, when interviewing soldiers out in the field of action, a military escort must be present, which quite obviously impacts what a given soldier will say in response to a question.  Also, often times, the actual proposed dispatches of reporters are first reviewed by military personnel, in order to amend, delete, or edit any dispatches which purport to contain military sensitive information.  Additionally, those reporters that are unable to consistently conform to military desires are simply subject to being removed as being authorized military reporters with their appropriate credentials revoked, pending any appeal.

In short, when the military is permitted to subvert the freedom of the press, by invoking national security or things of that nature, and thereby the filming and pictures produced, are essentially edited by that military, then the resulting picture for the public at large is not a true picture, but instead has been replaced by a managed picture per military dictates.  When the press is managed by the military, then that military is going to be in control of the narrative, and a country that does not allow its press to have fair freedom of movement to report upon the military excursions of their country, and further are not allowed to report unobstructed what they see, hear, and record, then you are going to inevitably have some very bad things happen because evil and wrong doing fear the illuminating light of truth, and prefer the darkness and shadows which allows such to ply well their trade.

Pay student athletes through boosters

College football and college basketball are big, big business, in which the primary beneficiaries of successful programs, are the colleges themselves as well as the coaching staff.  For instance, collegiate football coaches, frequently make millions, and the budget for the biggest collegiate football programs can exceed fifty million dollars, with at the end of the day, often a very meaningful profit going to the bottom line of these colleges.  As for the athletes, of which, there would not even be a game without their participation, they may receive full scholarships, or partial scholarships, or even some receive no scholarship whatsoever, and in any event, are never wage compensated for their actual play in the stadiums and arenas, despite often sold out venues and the millions that watch the games on television.

The reason why athletes are not compensated has little or nothing really to do with these student athletes being amateurs and therefore for the purity of the sport that they must not be paid; for apparently the thought is that money that reaches the hands of athletes would dirty the image and integrity of the sport, whereas that very same money that reaches the hands of colleges, along with their entire infrastructure, and the coaching staff, apparently is somehow not dirty.  While it is true that student athletes do reap some benefits from playing sports, such as receiving full scholarships, and the education that that the college provides, they are, in no uncertain terms, being exploited by those very same colleges.

In the scheme of things, if a given person wants to give money to another person, there isn't any law that precludes such.  This would seem to signify, that someone that is already classified as a "booster" to a given college, should be given the very reasonable option to direct some of their money into an account earmarked just for the student athletes of that program, and that monies received into it, would then be allocated to those athletes, of which, as long as a full accounting is provided to the appropriate tax authorities, as well as the money being divvied up to the athletes in some sort of fair and structured manner, that this would be a reasonable alternative to paying student athletes directly, as the money from boosters would simply be seen as a voluntary gift to student athletes, in which those athletes could, per their discretion, opt in or opt out in receiving such.

Perhaps having boosters essentially paying athletes would end up setting up even more of a divide between those schools with generous boosters and those schools without, but the structure of America already has that great divide to begin with; and reality of the situation is that anything that would help these student athletes to receive some sort of reasonable and well deserved compensation for their hard work and the sacrificing of their bodies in the field of sports, would be a vast improvement over the current outright exploitation of them, which basically is permitted because these non-profit colleges, are trying to disguise their true intent, which is that exploitation of those athletes for their exclusive benefit.