Preventive medicine is the best medicine

According to cms.gov, National Health Expenditures in America "… grew 3.9% to $3.5 trillion in 2017," which is a truly astonishing number.   If, all this money being spent on healthcare made America the healthiest nation in the world, that would be one thing, but in fact, the health statistics of America, are disappointing in comparison to other western nations, in addition to the salient fact that America outspends those other western nations at an appreciably higher level.

While there are all sorts of reasons why as well as theories on to how to best fix the nation's health expenditures conundrum, it would seem that the most obvious way to deal with these issues at hand, is to address health issues before they become chronic, through preventive medicine, and, in particular, utilizing prudent means such as vaccinations, hygiene, eating habits, diet, yearly physical examinations, blood work, and exercise.

In point of fact, most public schools require some sort of physical examination before a child is admitted to that school, and if this is not already mandated by federal fiat, should be amended by federal law, to the effect that all children attending public school, must be subject to a yearly thorough physical examination, including blood work, and any and all other sensible tasks that should be accomplished to assure that child's good health ought to be reasonably examined and dealt with, for the best time to deal with potential health issues is at the beginning, as opposed to being done so at the end.

Further to the point, this government, should provide to all adult citizens of this nation, a voucher for a free yearly medical examination, in the hopes that by doing so, that information about incipient diseases such as cancer, diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular issues, would be diagnosed at a much earlier stage, and therefore possibly ameliorated; rather than being diagnosed in an emergency room or similar, at a later stage in which options are more limited as well as being much more intrusive and expensive.

The health of a nation is important not only for the well being of that nation, but also for the productivity and cost efficiency of that nation.  What is especially disconcerting is that America is the richest nation in the world, with the best medical facilities in the world, and arguably the best physicians in the world, but the reflection of its population in regards to its health in whole, belies those very facts. 

This country should make an effort and has an obligation to make the effort to not only develop well the mind of its children in its public schools, but to pay attention to the physical body of those students, for good health habits begun at a young age have not only a good purpose, but are far better, than taking a benign neglect attitude, for mind and body do go together.  So too, for adults, America needs to make it their purpose that the health of their people is a priority that needs to be properly addressed, especially for those that are of lower socioeconomic levels for their health is most at risk, because of their lack of good and affordable healthcare, which precludes them, so often, from receiving the preventive medicine that they need, resulting in an unnecessary amount of poor and debilitating bad health for them, thereby unfairly reaping the suffering, while all Americans pay that expense.

The people have an unalienable right to self-determination

It is important to recognize that legitimate governments are instituted amongst mankind for the benefit of mankind, and in particular, those governments rightly constructed, first and foremost, make it their point and their being to uphold and defend the unalienable rights that each denizen of that country and of that community are born with, and no legitimate government has the right to infringe or to take away any of those unalienable rights, without just cause.

One of those unalienable rights is the right for each individual within that community or within that country to have self-determination, which basically means the right to determine what it is that a given person desires to do without external compulsion unjustly limiting such, making therefore each person truly free to choose what it is that this individual so desires to do, subject only to the constraint of their abilities as well as they not unduly interfering or precluding other such individuals of their own free right to self-determination, and of in particular, for instance, infringing upon others their right to choose, or to take away their right to be free in their own person.

Those that no longer have the right to self-determination, because this has been wrongly taken away from them by force, or by governmental decree, or by unfairness of the law unequally applied, are not free, and have had a great wrong done to them, for those that are precluded from free choice, are, quite obviously, not free.  It then follows that those that are not free, are in essence, existing within a construct, in which those that control that freedom, control them, of which, those controlling that freedom, have usurped the unalienable rights of another.

To unjustly take away what is unalienable from anybody, is a great wrong, in which, many institutions have been built upon the lie, so propagated, that these other elite people and establishments, in positions of power, claim that they know what is best for a given individual, even though that individual is not them, of which this is justified as being in the best interest of the person who has lost their unalienable rights; but in actuality, the essence of the matter is that those that take away what is unalienable, do so, almost exclusively, not for any perceived benefit of those that have lost their unalienable rights, but rather to exploit, to control, and to empower their own selves, at the expense of those that have had their unalienable rights wrongly taken from them.

The reason that self-determination is so vital and so important, is because what we are and what we become should be something that is a domain within our own control and by our own volition, and no other.  For, in the scheme of things, the happiness, liberty and freedom that we endeavor to have, should never be seen as something that is somehow freely bestowed upon us by the state, as if the state has godlike powers; but rather should be seen, as something that is rightly earned by all those endeavoring to do so, in which communities and countries are created to help build better those foundations that will benefit the people as a whole, all gathered together as a working team, determined to improve their world, freely chosen and freely achieved.

Population and economic power

Currently, the United States has the third highest population in the world, with 329 million peoples and also has the highest national aggregate GDP.  The two countries that have a larger population than America, are China and India, in which, India will soon surpass China in population, and each of these countries have over 1 billion peoples in their nation, today.  As of 2019, China is second to the United States in national aggregate GDP, and India is fifth.  However, it is projected by the Center of Business and Economic Research that by 2033, China will have the highest national aggregate GDP, and India, which currently rests fifth in the world, will have risen to third.  Additionally, it is projected by thoughtco.com, that by 2050, the United States will have slipped from third in population in the world,  to fourth, having been surpassed by Nigeria.

The United States, declared its independence in 1776, and the Treaty of Paris was signed between the United States and Great Britain in 1783, in which, America's census of 1800 estimated that there were 5,308,403 Americans, at that time; whereas in 1801, Great Britain had a population of 7,754,875.  Not too surprisingly, at that time, Great Britain was the greater power, yet, Great Britain, today, does not rank in the top ten of population, and is only seventh in national aggregate GDP, though, there was a time that this was "the empire on which the sun never set." 

The main reason and the most significant reason why the United States will be surpassed in national aggregate GDP in the near future is because its population is considerably smaller than China, as well as being considerably smaller than India, and the numbers of the denizens within a nation, makes a material difference on how wealthy that nation is.  In point of fact, while there is something to be said about GDP per person within a nation; power, that is, real economic power, resides in those countries that produce, consume, and export the most domestic product in total.  That is to say, the countries that have the most economic might are in their way, the most powerful nations upon this globe, and a significant way that countries increase their economic might is the amount of population within that nation in conjunction with their knowledge and throughput, successfully applied.

The only possible and sustainable way for the United States to maintain its position as the economic GDP king would be to increase its immigration numbers substantially as well as to increase substantially its birthrate which has been declining for years.  In actuality, though, the only way to increase GDP markedly in the here and now, is to increase substantially the immigration of those that are younger, because younger people are far more productive for far more years, especially as compared to those that are near retirement age, or are in retirement, who consume far less, except for things such as healthcare.

The United States is blessed as a nation with plenty of space to grow and plenty of food to sustain a significantly higher population but does not appear to be motivated towards increasing its population, though there has always been a very high correlation in regards to the increase of immigration, bringing more prosperity to this nation.  The fact of the matter is, great nations need not just great people, but also great amounts of people, and the United States has placed itself in the position of being surpassed by China, simply because it wants to shut the door on immigration, and basically concede, without a challenge, its crown to another.

Physician-assisted suicide

Physician-assisted suicide is legal in seven States and the District of Columbia, in which doctors are permitted by those State agencies to prescribe medicine which will terminate a patient's life.  Whether or not one agrees with this act within these States is superseded by whether or not a physician should actually be the instrument of assisting a patient suicide and therefore still be considered to be a physician in good standing.

That is to say, should a physician be an instrument of life and the extension and quality of life, in addition to the attributes of being compassionate and supportive with their patients, or should a physician per that physician's discretion, under the perceived voluntary desire of their patient, be the instrument that takes away life from patients, by prescribing and then having administered the drugs that will effectively do that deed?

In addition, should not all patients have the right to know before a physician treats them as to whether or not that particular physician has directly or indirectly assisted in the suicide of a given patient?  For, if this is so, how is it conceivable that having first prescribed the medicine that has taken away the life of another that this particular physician would not then be more inclined to continue to prescribe such medicine since the inclination to do so, has already previously been displayed?

So too, does not each patient within a hospital have not the right to know whether within that hospital, assisted suicide has been performed or not?  And, therefore knowing the answer to that question, should not that patient have the right to be in a hospital that is consistent with their belief as to whether or not they would ever consent to assisted suicide in their case? 

In point of fact, all patients that interact with physicians need to know exactly what Hippocratic Oath, that such physician did or did not take, and specifically whether or not that physician has taken an oath to the effect that: "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect," in which each patient of every physician and within every hospital should have a clear and unequivocal understanding as to what the position is of each physician and of each hospital, before they are admitted to such as a patient.

Further to the point, it is a catastrophic mistake that physicians are even permitted to assist in any patient's suicide, for such besmirches greatly the profession, itself.  Instead, in those States that permit assisted suicide, the person prescribing the medicine should be a special type of degreed individual, which specifically deals only with death, so that, this person, would be the one that prescribes not only assisted suicide medication but also would be the one that performs abortions and any and all other legal acts of death to what would be viable life. 

Perhaps there is a need for assisted suicide medicinal prescribers, but that need should not be fulfilled by physicians as is currently performed in certain States, today, but by some other entity; for the most vulnerable amongst us, deserve so much better, than physicians that assist them in killing themselves.

The new transitory

Every day, things happen, of which many of those things happening, really aren't worth recording or having a permanent record of, forever.  Yet, in the age of social media, video recording and posting, audio recording and posting, and picture recording and posting, along with written media of all persuasions, things that are said and done, can conceivably migrate from being somewhat forgettable or somewhat regrettable, which basically means things that formerly would have been seen as being transitory, can and are becoming permanent.

While there are many notable events and deeds, which deserve to have a permanent record, such as a graduation, or a wedding,  or a birth, or other seminal events that are meaningful, and often are positive; there are also many events that are not positive, involving people losing their temper or making a fool of themselves, or choice words badly spoken or written, or other regrettable and embarrassing events, that for some opportunistic people are seen as a good opportunity to record and post such, in a forum, in which, once posted, such can be re-posted, ad infinitum.

While some of these things so posted are innocuous, cute, and even inspirational, there are plenty of posts that are deliberately made to shame the other, or in the hopes of creating a scandal, of which, pictures, videos, and even written words, especially when taken out of context, can easily change the significance of what really occurred and the editing of media can change the emphasis of what actually happened in a way in which what is being shown is fundamentally an unfair portrayal.  Of course, truth be told, there are plenty of embarrassing and ugly things that are recorded and posted, which are a true portrayal of that moment, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they need to be seen again and again.

Everyone makes errors and mistakes, of which, most people that make those errors and mistakes, are not really interested in seeing or having to re-live that moment, again and again, for they feel, with some justification, that what is being shown is not a fully accurate portrayal of who and what they really are;  but if this is what is shown about them, again and again, then it becomes almost futile to try to negate what has become the new norm for how they are seen and perceived.

All of the above means that when what is being published and shown via social media and other such means, is functionally out of the control of the subjects that are part and parcel of it, than for all intents and purposes, their persona is not under their control.  It would be one thing, if all this was done somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there are many people that have agendas, or are just plain mean-spirited and therefore take things that should simply be forgotten in due time, or left alone, and build instead a foundation that is hurtful and destructive to another, in which, the other person has little recourse except to accept the public shaming, essentially because the ubiquity of social media and the resiliency of video and pictures,  have taken what was previously transitory, into the twilight zone of the new transitory, which makes it in so many ways, permanent and indelible.

Groupthink and intolerance

Most people like to pride themselves in how tolerant that they are in regards to other people and their viewpoints.  Of course, not too surprisingly, those that self-evaluate have a tendency to give themselves a relatively high score, whereas when it comes to others, especially those others with opposing viewpoints, they are often viewed as being intolerant.  While it is true, that each of us is entitled to our own viewpoint, it isn't healthy, to just surround ourselves only with people that agree wholeheartedly with what we are saying or doing, because a valued part of life is challenging and investigating our own treasured viewpoints, even points of view of long standing, to see how sound such is, when truly tested, whether such testing is done internally or externally, because in that manner we grow and learn.

One of the most dangerous aspects of groupthink is how intolerant some influential people are within that particular group, so that, when it comes to actually hearing or reading about an opposing viewpoint, such is the perceived threat, that those in power, will not even consider hearing or discussing such, and any within that group that challenges that conventional viewpoint, is considered to be on the verge of being an outcast, or being banned, or being punished, for having the audacity to even consider that there is another side, worthy of consideration or listening to.

The main reason why those engaging in groupthink will not tolerate dissent within their group, is that they cannot afford to have any cracks within their machine, especially internal cracks, because such may weaken the group as a whole, and that weakness, is something that they perceive, would be exploitable by the opposing side, and lead to the very fracturing of the group, and thereupon its groupthink.  That is why, so often those that preach that we should have tolerance and respect for the other side, as we would want them to have with our side, are immediately silenced and dealt with forthrightly, because the line has already been drawn in the sand, and dissent of any sort, crosses that line.

Therefore, because of groupthink, neither side is able to come to an accommodating agreement with the other, because neither side, believes that there is a middle ground between one another or will overtly admit to such, even though, there may well be.  So too, because of the fear factor within the group, even a minority within groupthink, can effectively control the group, because when internal dissent is summarily punished to the degree that those contemplating such, recognize that to do so, could conceivably cost them their livelihood, their home, and their safety, they will often sacrifice their tolerance of others, for the perceived safety of the group that they are a part of.

People and groups that aren't willing to at least occasionally listen to the other side espouse their viewpoint in a respectful and considerate fashion have traded common civility and common sense, for the pride of selfishness, that will not broker any dissent or opposition, whatsoever.  What this does, in effect, is create divisions between people, in which, there is little hope of reconciliation, because neither the people or those groups, are willing to concede that they don't already know everything that there is to know, and that therefore the other side is wrong and ignorant, even though, it is possible, even probable, that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Sanctity of life, necessitates God

Western nations have increasingly taken upon themselves a more secular viewpoint, of which God is being consciously pushed away from the public sphere, and is now considered to be only really acceptable for sensible people to contemplate such within the private space of their home, or their church, or in their thoughts; but what has been forgotten is that all of the unalienable rights that citizens have, and the transcendent concepts that are valued so much and are still impressed upon us, are all fundamentally based upon having and knowing our Creator, from which these unalienable rights come from.

That is to say, without God, there is no sanctity of life.  So too, without God, all the rules and regulations, all the laws and punishments, all the rights and wrongs, are not defined and circumscribed by natural law as received by mankind from God; but rather is instead, replaced by manmade law, as defined and determined by mankind, of which these laws are ever changing.  Which means, for those that believe that God has no place in this world, is that life cannot have sanctity, that life cannot have meaning, and that in life, everything is permitted, subject to the power of those that make the laws, uphold the laws, and enforce the laws.

This means, for those that believe not, that they basically live within a construct that is defined by mankind, which indisputably favors some at the expense of the many, which is unfair in its application and its outcome, and that does what it can to favor the chosen at the expense of all others.  So too, this means that some lives are of more value to those that control the power reins, whereas other lives have little or no value, and because this is the power structure so constructed, then decisions are made which support and uphold this particular viewpoint, which is inimical to the life, liberty, and the happiness of mankind as a whole.

All those that do not believe that the sanctity of life, necessitates God, are in the scheme of things, not true believers in the sanctity of all human life, or are not being honest about their innate belief in God.  For instance, those that believe in the sanctity of life without God, are going to be outplayed, outmaneuvered, and outfoxed by those that also don't believe in God, with the exception being that those people also have taken their lack of belief in God to its logical conclusion, so that without God, there are no moral absolutes and therefore they are permitted to do whatever that they so desire, subject to the power structure within that domain.   On the other hand, those that believe in the sanctity of life, without expressing a overt belief in God, in which these people are actually leading lives of love, compassion, concern, patience, and generosity towards others, are actually demonstrating in action that they are functionally God believers, whether this is acknowledged directly or not.

For there to be sanctity of life, there must be a Creator of that life, of which that Creator must be the epitome of truth, justice, and love, without any conditions whatsoever being imposed upon those that have been given life.  So too, those that have life, must at their most fundamental level be constituents of that Creator, of which, that life, is beyond time, and forever eternal.

The danger of excessive global debt

According to Institute of International Finance, iif.com, "The global debt-to-GDP ratio exceeded 318 percent in the third quarter of last year (2018)." This debt is made up of governmental debt, non-financial corporate debt, household debt, and financial sector debt, of which, the debt-to-GDP ratio at 318 percent is only slightly below the previous record of 320 percent as recorded in the third quarter of 2016. 

The most basic thing to recognize about debt is that debt is created by those borrowing money; of which, that money so borrowed plus the interest associated with that loan as well as any assorted penalties are due to the loaner of that money, all of which, must ultimately be paid back.  At least, that is the general theory of debt and the payback of debt, but in many respects, there are probably trillions of dollars of debt, that will for all intents and purposes, never be paid back.  Further, there are trillions of dollars of debt, that will continued to be rescheduled, reconfigured, and rearranged, till time itself ends, because the debtor functionally cannot really pay back the debt, and the originator of that loan, functionally cannot afford to recognize that debt as being lost.

So too, for all those that contemplate if and when, interest rates will normalize to the rates that the cost of loaning money has historically been pegged at in the modern era, are certainly beginning to recognize that those interest rates will probably not normalize anytime soon, because those that are indebted can't even pay back their loans at these historic low interest rates, because they cannot in aggregate realistically service those loans.

Additionally, the fact that companies that borrow money, have to pay that money back and service that debt, or at least service as much of that debt as they can in order to appear current, signifies that some portion of the monies that might have been allocated for equipment, infrastructure, or labor has to instead be utilized to pay back the loaner of that money.  This would indicate that the more debt that is taken on in total, the slower pace the global GDP growth will be, not only because the accumulated debt has to be paid back in some scheduled way, but because the sheer size of the debt so generated is dwarfing the amount of GDP created from all that money so loaned.

The global financial system is able to maintain its stability, not so much because it is stable, but rather because any meaningful instability of the current global financial system, could and probably would result in a global financial catastrophe.  Yet, there does not appear to be any viable solution to the phenomenal debt overhang that poses as something akin to the sword of Damocles, even though all of the major players are cognizant that something constructive needs to be done.  For the time being, the players keep playing, and the dancers keep dancing, but there is going to come a time when the music will stop and the chairs will be short, of which, there will still be some winners, but there will also be a whole lot of losers, and for a certainty there will be plenty of blood on the global streets.

Satan and deception

All things being equal, Satan, also known as the adversary or the great enemy of goodness, is delighted in all those that do not believe in God, or believe in a God that has flaws, faults, and limits, or believe in a God which fundamentally fails to recognize God as being omniscience, omnipotence and forever, eternal.  Basically, the more unbelief in God and the more unbelief in the goodness of God held by mankind, the more delighted that Satan is.  So too, Satan does not want human minds to be conflicted as to what they really are, which are souls created by God, but rather wants them to see themselves instead as being limited to just this material experience, and ideally without knowledge or belief that they have a spirit or soul, and therefore to believe that this material life is therefore their only existence.

In point of fact, Satan knows all about God, recognizes the unconquerable power of God, but knows very well that God is patient, loving, and kind, in which, even misguided souls such as Satan have their place; for without darkness to contrast with Light, or evil to contend with good, then the drama that tests and challenges mankind on earth, would basically have no real substance.  After all, no test can really be conducted against the character of a given individual, unless there are real choices and real consequences of that test, so Satan plays the part of representing that there are indeed other options other than just surrendering oneself to God.

Yet, it is important to note that the battles here on earth most definitely have consequences, of which, those consequences are ultimately paid by those individuals that fail their tests, for each individual is ultimately responsible for their own volition so exercised.  This means, for everybody here on earth, that those that are ignorant of the truth, suffer for it; and those that deliberately walk away from truth, also suffer for it; whereas all those that know the truth but deliberately misled others, suffer most of all, for themselves as well as for having done their neighbor wrong.

In all of this deception, Satan delights, for Satan holds absolutely not a whit of power in Truth, for Truth is the ultimate power, which is, unconquerable.  This means, that Satan must operate in the shadows, in the doubts, in the character flaws and mistakes, that humans are so prone to make, and by working on those human foibles, Satan can have loads of fun at the expense of those so tricked or fooled.  Of even more satisfaction to Satan, though, are all those that after receiving a little taste of doing wrong, or doing evil, or lying, or deception, become enraptured by it, and therefore on their own, with nary any prodding by Satan, perform acts on an even bolder scale, of disruption, hate, and intolerance, making for a more miserable life for so many.

Satan wants as many as possible to forget that they are actually souls created by God, seeing themselves instead as just material beings, subject to material laws, of ill health, lack, finiteness, and death; knowing that those that live lives without good purpose and meaning, are functionally lost, and susceptible to all sorts of wicked enticements which amuses Satan to no end, at the expense of all those, that have been deceived by that great deceiver. 

To flee or not

Before there were modern weapons, or various other weapons of war which allowed a person to target and to therefore harm or to even kill a moving target from a distance, then running away and fleeing from a situation in which one's position was no longer considered to be tenable, was a reasonable thing to act upon.  For basically, to outrun an opponent, or to flee from a negative or a dangerous situation, or maneuver through fields or forests in a manner that someone else would have a very difficult time in tracking an individual, was a viable as well as a sensible way to live to fight another day.

So too, fleeing had its place also as a way to get back to the home base and to thereby inform the community or the troops, that there was danger on its way, and therefore to allow that community or soldiers to better prepare and to better defend against such an intrusion.  All of this makes sense, and certainly in warfare it was common for reconnaissance to be practiced as well as intelligence gathering to be conducted so as to best prepare strategies and to have foreknowledge, in which those doing such reconnaissance, did so, recognizing that the objective was never to engage with the enemy, but to collect information and then essentially flee back to safe territory.

In today's world, each side has a multitude of weapons that have the ability to kill or to harm others from a distance.  Additionally, in many combat situations, ultimately one side overcomes the other, and when the side that is being vanquished, recognizes such, then a decision must be reached by those combatants as to what is the best avenue for them to take, of which, within those choices, one can retreat, or flee, either in a planned maneuver or chaotically. 

It may come as a surprise to some, but when one side is no longer fighting, or is sporadically returning fire, the other side, cognizant that the danger to them has been reduced considerably will in most cases, increase their fire power and will chase down their opponents, not so much because they have a blood-thirst to do so, though, they might; but rather, because like a bully that knows that their opponent has not the means or the size to fight effectively back, these soldiers recognize that when they are no longer in mortal danger, that to follow their orders from their commanding officer to engage the enemy is now a lot easier to adhere to.

In point of fact, those that turn their back and flee, are inviting targets for any soldier or anybody in policing authority, to shoot at, because when the rules of engagement have already been clearly set, then fulfilling them when the situation so fully favors the pursuer over the pursued, is something that the pursuer is going to do; because at the end of the day, almost all soldiers and policing authorities are an integral part of a chain of command, and when that command allows them to shoot to kill, often both their accuracy and shots so fired are far more active when they face little or no endangerment to themselves.

"Condemn the fault and not the actor of it?"

From Shakespeare's Measure for Measure, Angelo responds: Condemn the fault and not the actor of it? Of which, the meaning of this is that it doesn't make any logical or legal sense to Angelo, that a fault be condemned without also the actor of the fault suffering the appropriate legal punishment for having committed such.  So then, his argument is that faults or crimes, have actors of those things, and it is those actors that must suffer the consequences of their bad actions.

This seems to be a reasonable position to take and in fact jurisprudence throughout much of the world, punishes those that commit crimes, based on the crime so committed, of which, the perpetrators that enacted those crimes are the ones that suffer for having committed crimes.  Yet, centuries of crime and punishment, has not eliminated crime, and progressive countries such as the United States, which helped to introduce to the world the modern penitentiary system, must surely realize that penitentiaries have been a near complete failure, especially in consideration that such was created under the aegis that those convicted of crimes, would be incarcerated and through those controlled circumstances of being away from the vice and temptations of the world, would subsequently develop a good conscience and take to heart moral lessons of merit, to reform those that had erred.  That, for the most part, has not occurred.

In point of fact, those crimes worthy of condemnation, have actors that apparently cannot escape the personal condemnation of having committed those crimes, of which those actors, in many instances, are condemned not just for a period of time, or for the period of their incarceration, but rather, for all intents and purposes, condemned forever, by virtue of the fact that their opportunities, circumstances, and quality of life, is forever negatively tainted.

This would so indicate that for real comprehensive change to occur that the fault that each given individual commits should more often be looked at in a manner that separates the bad deeds, from the actor of those deeds.  For instance, there is not a single person that is without fault, yet, some suffer greatly for their faults, whereas others are forgiven of their faults.  This, in itself, is hardly fair, and especially unfair is when similar faults are treated in radically different ways, depending upon the influence of a given individual, the power of a given individual, the legal representative of a given individual, the policing arm of the state in its interaction with a given individual, and the law as interpreted by a judge in regards to a given individual.

That is to say, some faults are not condemned at all, depending upon the actor of it, whereas other faults are condemned for a certainty, because of the actor of it.  This would surely indicate that when the jurisprudence of a country determines whether a crime has been committed not by looking at the crime, itself, but rather by making a determination solely based on the actor of it, then it has missed the forest for the trees.    So that, fair to say, the resources of a nation should be spent more on alleviating the conditions, mindset, and ignorance that leads to crime, as opposed to dealing with such in an uneven manner, after the fault has already been committed.

Your health and your faith

Most everyone at one time or another, have suffered from some illness to the degree, that the person so suffering have felt not only that weakness and vulnerability deep inside of them, but also have often felt discouraged and even forsaken by that sickness, and only will feel themselves again, when they are back in good health.  This so indicates that good health is very important for virtually everyone, and why so many will try all sorts of things, and seek out all sorts of people, even those that are not medically trained to receive the healing to their physical body that they so desperately desire.

The one thing that so many people seem especially reluctant to try, though, is to actually go directly to the Great Healer, which is our God, of which that reluctance probably stems from those people lacking the appropriate faith and apparent recognition that they are truly children of God.  That is to say, for those that are believers in God, they must implicitly recognize that God does not subdivide people into lesser and greater children, but sees all of His children as being equally worthy of His love and therefore all that God has, is theirs, for the asking. 

Of course, this does not mean that western medicine does not have its place, for it surely does; and to ignore or to walk away from prudent medicinal actions, because one believes that God solves, cures, and saves all, is almost always a monumental mistake, especially for all those of great ego that pretend that such is faith, whereas such bluster masks as faith, but is not.

What is important to note, is that those that have the faith to believe that a gifted healer can heal them, should recognize that such a gifted healer could only have such legitimate power unless such came from a power above them that they draw upon, which is God.  So then, it behooves those that are faithful, to believe that they are quite capable themselves of being healed, if they are able to overcome their unbelief to believe that nothing is impossible for those that have the faith that moves mountains, and thereupon call onto the Greatest Resource of them all. 

The problem though, for many, is impatience, so that those people, will often rail against God or whoever comes to mind, when they are not healed, instantly; or they do not receive this, or they do not receive that, as if God is the problem, whereas, God is always the solution to any problem.  The fault lies not in God, but in our own self, as well as often a misunderstanding of the circumstances that seem to hinder our selves, or the misreading of the perceptions that come into our mind. 

When it comes to our body, we are the master of it, for the body does not have its own mind; instead there is one mind that controls both body and soul.   Therefore, let us see our physical body as being under our command at all times, and never forget that salient fact, for our body owes absolute obedience to us and none else, and those that faithfully believe this, are the masters of their health.

Whatever happened to the yellow pages?

Those that are of the youngest generation, probably have never heard of the yellow pages, and those of the oldest generation, may conceivably even still use the yellow pages, whereas those of middle age, are well familiar with the yellow pages, but haven't used such in years, and even may still have a copy of the yellow pages somewhere around their home.

First, the yellow pages, for the uninitiated, is a written physical phone directory, concentrating on businesses, and broken down into various categories, so that for those, that wanted to find an electrician or a plumber or a house cleaner, the yellow pages, would have listings for not only all those types of businesses, but some of those businesses, would actually have taken out advertisements within the yellow pages to help make their particular business stand out.  This directory was back in the day, provided free of charge to all homes and periodically updated every year, with the calendar year, prominently displayed on the front of the directory, to encourage its customers to put away the old directory, and start using the most current one.

It may be a surprise to some people, that the yellow pages, has not gone completely out of business, although its business model has changed, in which the physical directory has been essentially replaced with an online directory, available through the website yp.com.  How widely used this website is, and how valuable this website is as compared to sites such as angieslist.com, or homeadvisor.com, or simply typing in what a given person is looking for into the Google search engine is uncertain, but the yellow pages exists online with its own website.

The yellow pages could not have ever existed as a going concern without the advertising revenue that it received from those businesses that took out ads within the yellow pages, or posted within the yellow pages, of which, those monies previously earmarked for advertising are now typically spent on sites such as groupon.com, or utilized via community websites in neighborhoods of interest, or spent on Google AdWords, or even billboards, or Facebook, as well as any other means that businesses feel will be effective in getting their name known to those that they are selling their services to.

The previous advantage of one-stop shopping which the yellow pages offered, has been replaced with the need to utilize the internet in a way in which those businesses are able to effectively reach their customer base so as to have the opportunity to do business with those prospective customers, of which, new tricks of the trade are necessary, as compared to the old tricks previously used on the yellow pages in which many a business, put in front of their name, for example, aaaplumber, so as to be the first in the alphabetical list of plumbers that a given person would see when looking for a plumber, in the recognition, that being at the top of any list, is almost always an advantage.

It must be said, that the format of the yellow pages, actually translates well online, but the issue that the yellow pages has online is obviously becoming that go-to choice of patrons that would utilize their directory, as well as having businesses deciding to sign up and pay to be on the online yellow pages, for without enough eyeballs and businesses doing so, then today's yellow pages, for all intents and purposes, is irrelevant.

Stop-and-frisk and the Constitution

The fourth Amendment to the Constitution does an effective job of preventing this country from turning into a literal police state, by virtue of the fact that the people have the right to be secure in their own persons.  One might think, that the right to be secure in their own person would also apply within the public arena, but when the policing arm of the state are allowed to stop-and-frisk people at will, then the people are most definitely not secure in their person.

The famous Supreme Court decision in regards to Terry v. Ohio, was decided in 1968, of which the case involved whether or not a police officer was entitled to make a determination based upon their experience as to whether a given situation warranted the police officer's discretion to stop and search citizens, simply based on the fact that those citizens looked suspicious to the police officer.  The Supreme Court decision, decided that indeed, police officers were allowed to do just that,  and therefore it so follows, that stop-and-frisk, is judicially considered legal, just as long as such stopping and frisking is not done via simplistic racial profiling or used as a policing tool of harassment.

Of course, the thing about the law, and the interpretations of the law, is that certain laws in many respects are not fixed, and that such laws may, in fact, evolve over time, for better or for worse.  When any government, makes it a point, that the policing arm of that state can stop-and-frisk citizens, at will, then the people as a whole, have lost something of significance, to get, at best, in theory, a safer society.  Of course, there are many people that will sacrifice certain freedoms for safety, as well as there being certain privileged people that will theoretically sacrifice some of their precious freedoms, for safety, when in actuality those privileged people know for a certainty, that they and their kind will never suffer the indignity of actually sacrificing much of anything.  So then, what has really occurred in principle is that there are laws that are deliberately made and applied specifically against the disenfranchised, but only accidently applied against the franchised.

When the sovereignty of a given individual, depends upon whether they were born into favorable circumstances, or of a favored class, or are well positioned in society, whereas all others, must deal with laws that make them subject to the indignity as well as to the danger of being stopped-and-frisked at the will of the authorities then you clearly do not have a law that is equally applied to all but you have instead a law that is used as an excuse for the state to always have the upper hand and to be able to perpetually have their boot upon the people's neck.

In point of fact, the very structure of stop-and-frisk in its inception and implementation, is prejudicial against those that do not have the resources or the wherewithal to travel the public streets, other than typically by walking, and the authorities know that the structure of America is a structure that allows it impunity to treat those that appear to be of a non-protected class in a manner in which, those that do not demonstrate appropriate respect and appropriate deference  to the policing arm of the state, will place themselves into the position of being, at best, inconvenienced, and at worse, subject to maltreatment and/or incarceration, if their obedience to those state authorities is not promptly demonstrated in action.

Not even one, left behind

No western nation incarcerates more individuals than the United States of America, and as reported by marketplace.org, according to the: "Vera Institute of Justice, incarceration costs an average of more than $31,000 per inmate, per year, nationwide."  Additionally, since this is the United States of America, our prisoners have rights, of which amongst these rights are those rights as contained within our Constitution, which means that prisoners shall not be inflicted with "cruel and unusual punishments," as well as having the right to petition the courts for redress of grievances.  In short, prisoners have a safe place to rest their heads, are fed and clothed, while often having entertainment and physical exercise facilities, as well as receiving free medical attention, of which, the only rights that prisoners consistently sacrifice are their right to privacy, their obligation to obedience, as well as the salient fact that they are imprisoned. 

All of this is what America does for its prisoners.  On the other hand, as reported by voanews.com, "A report by the U.N. special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights finds 40 million people in the United States live in poverty, 18.5 million live in extreme poverty and more than 5 million live in conditions of absolute poverty."  While pundits disagree vociferously on the definition of poverty, extreme poverty, and absolute poverty, as well as therefore the numbers of those falling into those categories, there isn't any doubt that there are a substantial number of Americans that are living in conditions of extreme poverty, of substandard housing, of substandard schools, of substandard food, and of substandard healthcare, in this, the richest and mightiest nation that the world has ever known.

The fact that America apparently cares more about treating its prisoners humanely than those that are non-lawbreaking citizens, who suffer the ill and debilitating effects of extreme poverty is a disgrace to this great nation, for those that are born into extreme poverty and then are not given the chance to attend quality schools, and to be housed and fed in a humane and decent manner are having precluded to them, by virtue of that poverty, the fair opportunity to make something good of themselves in this society.

If, somehow this country has $31,000 per inmate to spend upon those inmates and the infrastructure of imprisoning inmates, then it surely has the resources to spend an equal amount of money, if not more, on each and every citizen of this country to have the very things that those that run this government, have in abundance and overabundance.  The fact that the safety net of America is a mirage, is a disgrace to this nation, and needs to be dealt with, forthrightly.  In 1964, President Johnson, gave the seminal speech of his life, in which as part of that speech, he said, "Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it."  Those that heard that speech and believed in that speech, most have been bitterly disappointed, for over fifty years later, the symptom, cure, and prevention of poverty has not yet happened, and poverty appears no closer to being eradicated in today's America then it was back in 1964.

Too often, America treats those that are impoverished and in poverty as if poverty is a crime, with the exception being that criminals that have actually harmed people and have stolen goods are fundamentally treated better, than those whose only crime is to be born poor or to live in circumstances in which they are poor.  There are many ways to judge a given country, and certainly one of the best ways is how that country deals with those that were born into nothing and have nothing, but could become something.  Take the trouble and the time to see the hidden and impoverished America and its poorest citizens, and recognize that they have deliberately been left behind, because those that run this nation see them not as people deserving of respect and human rights but rather as trash, to be casually discarded and forgotten about, as if they never existed.

Nobody listens to me

Good communication is a vital part of any successful personal relationship, as well as being of immense value in business dealings.  Yet, many people complain each and every day, that the other party is not listening well to what they are saying, or not really paying attention to what they are saying, or simply don't seem to be listening at all.

One of the main problems with listening is the impatience displayed by the other party, in their rush to say, whatever that it is that they really want to say, without taking fully into account what the other person has said.  So too, many people go through the motions of listening to the other person, but in reality, only feed back to them trite phrases, so that they can impart what they feel to be of much more importance.

Additionally, there is a tendency during any sort of communication, for one party, or even both parties, to believe fully that what they have to say trumps whatever the other person has to say, because that person feels that they are smarter, more knowledgeable, or more important, so that, it would behoove the other party to just be quiet for a little bit, and for them to listen to the other person, so that they could learn.

The main reason that so many people believe that they are not being listening to, is actually because, more times than not, the other person is not actually listening to them, but rather just waiting for a pause in the words or a lull in the action so that they can say their part.  Another reason why so many people are convinced that they are not being listened to is that the other person has not reacted in a manner that would indicate that they have actually heard and comprehended what has been said.

One way to get around all of this non-listening is for the person that is supposed to be listening, to actually sum up, what the other person has said, before they go on to say their own part, and then for the person that has been talking, to confirm that this summation is accurate.  At least, by doing that, there is a general agreement that the other party has listened.  It is, though, one thing to listen to another person and actually understand what they are saying, and quite another thing to listen and then do what the other person desires that the listener should do, because the former involves just listening, whereas the later involves a commitment by the listener on behalf of the one that has been speaking, of which, the listener should carefully consider whether doing whatever it is, that they actually are in adherence with it.

That is to say, for those that say that nobody listens to them, because those that hear them talk, do not ultimately do anything different, after that talk, does not necessarily mean that they have not listened, but probably means, instead, that they do not wish to be obedient or in conformance to what the talker desires to be done, because they do not agree with it; but to confirm that this is so, the listener should acknowledge that they have heard what has been spoken and then indicate why they are not in agreement with it.  That way, rather than that speaker saying nobody listens to them a more appropriate response would be that nobody obeys them, as these things are quite diametrically different. 

So then, if you really want people to listen to what you are saying, pay more attention to what other people are saying, and acknowledge such so that it is clear in their mind that you have heard what they have spoken; and then when you speak, request that they show you the same consideration that you have previously shown them.

Low, low interest rates are not an unmitigated good

Ever since the financial crisis, the United States has tried to normalize its interest rates, of which, the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates significantly below the previous rates implemented over the last two generations; so that, since 2008 at the height of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve dropped its interest rates to unprecedented historic lows, and it was not until December of 2015, in which it slowly began increasing rates, but as of March 2019, the Federal Reserve has effectively stopped raising interest rates in which the Federal Reserve has stated publically that it intends to keep the Federal funds rate at the current 2-1/2 percent, in the absence of any untoward economic and inflation factors that would necessitate movement of that Federal funds rate in either direction.

For all those that borrow money, the fact that the cost of borrowing money is so low, is quite beneficial, for as they say, a dollar saved, is the same as a dollar earned.  On the other hand, for those that are savers of money, and hence have historically received interest bearing payments through money market funds, certificates of deposit, and in general, the loaning out of money, this last decade has precluded those people and institutions from earning any real return on their money, and subsequently has meant that those people and institutions in order to make money from their monetary assets have had to look at other instruments of investment, in which, those instruments are almost always going to involve significantly more risk.

Additionally, for institutions, the cost of money, is a significant factor in the taking on of additional debt, so that, companies that are even of the highest credit rating, are tempted when interest rates are incredibly low, to borrow money, not so much because they need it for the expansion of their business, but rather because many of these corporations, in order to get around corporate federal tax codes, find it beneficial to do so.  Additionally, companies borrow money at exceedingly low rates in order to leverage up and to buy other corporations, or for dividend payments, and so forth.

The problem though for today's banks that issue out loans is that because the amount of interest that they are receiving on those loans are historically much cheaper than in previous generations, those banks in order to maintain or to increase their profits, must make up for the lack of "spread"  and yield on those loans with volume, instead.  Unfortunately, though, at the end of the day, there are only so many truly credit worthy corporations out there and then there is a steady drop off in quality of loan worthiness.  The end result of having all of these historically low interest rates, is that, the balance sheets in aggregate of these corporations, because of their borrowing, have increased substantially, and if and when, those balances sheets in aggregate, are not able to keep those loans current or to pay back those loans at all, then another sort of financial crisis will occur, from the accumulation of essentially bad loans that will never be paid back.

So then, with artificially low interest rates, we find that rather than the money being borrowed in which the economy as a whole benefits, instead, the economy benefits somewhat, but far too much of that money is misallocated, into overleveraged balance sheets, in which, the stability of the financial system rests upon a foundation of low interest rates, forever; and should the day come when interest rates are truly normalized, those that are indebted, will not be able to service that debt, leading to another financial crisis of epic proportions.

Undeclared War

The Constitution grants the power to Congress to declare war in which the last time that such a declaration of war was granted by Congress was in 1942, in which, the Senate unanimously approved a declaration of war against Rumania.  Since, that time, no war declaration has been issued from Congress, yet America has been involved in wars that have cost the lives of thousands upon thousands of soldiers as well as civilians, in Korea, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and so on, ad infinitum.

It would be a mistake, though, to believe that it only has been since 1942, that the imperial Presidency has ignored Congress in its wartime activities, incursions, invasions, and engagements, for almost since the inception of the United States, this nation has been involved in undeclared wars against countries such as France, in 1798-1802, Colombia/Panama in 1903, and the Philippines in 1899-1913.

All of this basically signifies that America is an imperial power, so then, logically it so follows that it is not truly a representative government, because it does not consult upon some of its most vital decisions with those that represent the people, but rather that this imperial power behaves in the same sort of manner as governments that are essentially autocratic in format, and/or are enthralled to the military-industrial-technology complex of those respective countries.

Whether or not, America should have undeclared wars in the sense of  responding to an international urgency, crisis, or justification, is debatable on a case by case basis, but what really isn't debatable is the apparent power that the Presidency has to simply declare war upon whomever that Presidency wants to declare war against, without consulting with the constituency of this country, so that, in fit, form, and function this is neither a democracy or a republic, and it most certainly is not a country of the people, for the people, and by the people, but rather the people do not have an effective voice on matters that are of the utmost concern.

When any government in its actual functioning, circumvents its own Constitution, through Executive Orders, and twists and turns clear definitions of what war is or is not, so as to make it appear that the President has the right to engage in what is for all practical purposes actually war with other countries, incursions of all sorts, and the search and destruction for terrorists all over the globe, then such a government as that, is a government unto itself, and further those representatives that make up the legislative branch of that government have a voice that is effectively silenced or is irrelevant for all those that do not support these undeclared war efforts.

What is good for the military-industrial-technology complex is often not going to be good for this country, for wars are the type of thing, that have real consequences, of which, many of those consequences are not for the betterment of mankind, but rather serve to be something akin to "blood for oil," or "blood for strategic locations," as well as "blood for profit."What makes America great is not killing foreign people or the collateral damage of all those civilians killed, injured, and turned into unwanted refuges throughout the world; but rather what makes America great is being that beacon of freedom and liberty, as well as providing a fair shot at the pursuit of happiness, especially for all those that are the wretched refuse of life, yearning for something transcendent and priceless in its value

Re-thinking home and away in league ties

In European football, also known in the States as European soccer, there are numerous tournaments, in which the biggest tournament is the Champions League, and just below that is the Europa League tournament.   As might be imagined, there are all sorts of rules and regulations regarding the seeding of those teams, in addition to all sorts of contingencies addressed.  In the group stage, as well as the round of sixteen, quarter finals, and semi-finals, each of these fixtures features a pair of games being played home and away.  Additionally, each of these respective tournaments also has regulations in regards to the structure of those home and away games, in which, for instance, in the round of sixteen, the higher seeded team, which is the winner of their respective group, plays the first game of their leg of the tie on the road, and then the second game of the leg of the tie at home.  The feeling of those that structured this system, is that the higher seeded team would typically want to play the second leg at home, of which, by doing so, they would have the advantage of being in front of their home fans, and hence, even if entering into the second leg of the tie, having lost the first game on the road, for instance, they would have the wherewithal and support to overcome such a deficit at home.

While most pundits and managers believe that this is exactly the way it should be, it would seem that to add a little extra drama, as well as gamesmanship to the whole tournament format, would entail that whenever there is a situation in which the rule makers have developed a regulation in which their intent is to favor the group winner, or the higher seed, and  so forth, they should also write into those rule books an opportunity for that team to have the option, if so desired, to reverse the fixture, so that rather than playing the first leg on the road, they could instead opt to play the first leg at home.  While one might wonder, why any team would do this, the bottom line is that the manager of that team, should know or have a strong belief as to whether playing at home first, would be a material advantage in getting the positive result, so desired, and some teams may well determine that to "put the sword" to their opponent in the first leg, so as to basically make the return leg a non-event might well be an appealing option to them.

A rule such as this, would be fairly easy to implement, and further, in order to be fair to all parties, basically the winner of the group stage, or the higher seed, as the case may be, would be permitted the option of flipping the fixture order, of which, this option would have to be exercised within 48 hours of the announcement of the tournament fixture pairings.  This would therefore give the winner of the group stage, or higher seed, enough time to make a determination as to whether they favor such a change or not.  In any event, pundits, sports writers, and sports shows, really don't have enough material to commentate upon without repeating themselves ad nauseam, so that, in general, by adding this little twist, this would add some additional air time and speculation to the discussion of upcoming fixtures and strategy, and provide a wealth of opportunity for second guessing, all of which, would be good for the game.

The Facebook deception

Although Facebook recently changed their mission statement, their previous mission statement in their ascent to the pinnacle of social media power was: “To give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.”  In fact, Facebook has never given people the power, rather, it provides more power instead to governments and institutions that are able to manipulate, organize, and analyze all the information that people have posted on their Facebook accounts, so that people rather than being empowered are actually putting themselves into the position in which governments and outside agencies know everything about them, and that information, properly correlated, is an awesome from of power as well as control.  When it comes to sharing, there is real sharing voluntarily made between people that have similar mindsets, are friends, or associates, or family members, as well as valued others, of which such sharing often times, allows these people to become closer to each other, though not always; for some forms of sharing, can be divisive or misunderstood or misinterpreted or just not be appropriate.  In addition, the sharing of personal information with people that are not friends but have taken on the guise of being a friend, or jealous ex-friends with an ax to grind, or people of nefarious intent, are not the people that personal information should be shared with, but Facebook is an environment that permits this rather readily to happen.  To make the world more open, necessitates that governments and institutions are more transparent and open in all that they do, so that the people have a better understanding and comprehension of what is really going on, and to the extent that Facebook aids and abets such, this is a very good thing; but if such a government and institutions are not fundamentally open or transparent, then when one side, that is, the people provide a wealth of information, but the other side, does not, signifies that rather than such being seen as open, it would be best be seen as one side being able to siphon real information of value, from another, without giving up much in return.  To the degree that Facebook helps the world be more connected, and therefore allows people to better understand that we have things and attributes in common, in recognition that we are all citizens of the same world, so much the better, but to the degree that Facebook encourages people to be more divisive and cliquish in their behavior and outlook, the less connected that world is.

Facebook likes to say nice and wonderful things about how valuable and important that social media is, but Facebook itself, does not disclose the fact that its market capitalization and all of its wealth fundamentally is because they have reams and reams of very personalized data from all of its users, created by those users, and that data has a value that is apparently worth billions upon billions of dollars.  If Facebook was truly a social media site then what Facebook would do would simply be the conduit to allow seamless connections between people that desire to connect with each other on Facebook, and would not make it their place to collect very personal data on each of its users, and whether they own up it or not, or utilize semantics, or doublespeak, essentially sell such access to that data to the highest bidders.