The Preamble to our Constitution

The Preamble reads as follows:  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  Our Constitution is this country's highest law, and that preamble sets forth the very attributes of what that Constitution entails. That is to say, the preamble, sets the stage as to what the purpose of this government is, of which, the very first part, is that this is a government of, by, and for the people, and to the degree that laws and legislation are passed or enforced that reflect this, then such is in accordance with the Constitution; and to the degree that this is not so, than these laws are inimical in form to that Constitution.  This thus means, that a government of, for, and by the people, in which that government, or portions of that government insists upon the necessity to perform all sorts of acts of significance, both domestically as well as internationally, which are opaque, non-transparent, and secretive to the general public as a whole, are operating in an area of governance that is rife for abuse and misuse of those powers, so delegated to it.

Additionally, this government has an inherent obligation to establish fair and equally applied justice for all, without favoritism to any; for justice by its very definition, cannot ever be justice, if it is arbitrarily applied, unfairly applied, or applied in a manner in which some are categorized differently than others.  After all, if anyone within this nation is accorded beyond the common respect of the laws so promulgated, which do not apply to them in the same way as they should to all, than this country operates under a justice program that is discriminatory and is not just to the people as a whole.

Further, it must be stated that the best government is always going to be that government that operates in a manner in which the people live within a construct in which their environment to the extent that such is reasonably attainable -- is one of peacefulness, calmness, and tranquility, for a country that is not at peace, is obviously a country that is illiberal, unequal and unjust.  So too, the government, as representatives of the people, must make its best efforts to promote the general welfare of those people, for a people that are lacking the basic necessities and accouterments of life, and further are precluded from a fair opportunity to attain or to earn such, is a government that is not promoting the general welfare, but rather is a government that is typically promoting some that are privileged and well positioned, at the expense of the people as a whole.

Lastly, even in a country in which there is a general peacefulness, a general justice, and a general prosperity, if all these attributes come forth, only from the general public having to sacrifice to a very significant extent, their liberty to voice their own opinions, or their ability to worship in a manner that is their personal choice, or are further constrained in what they are allowed to read and thereupon to think upon, or are unfairly limited to how and where they can peacefully assembly, or are not permitted to petition their government for a fair redress of their grievances; then within that construct, their blessings of liberty have been ripped asunder from their very hands, replaced instead with the machinations of a government that is not Constitutional in its fit, form, or function.

Capitalism should be about creating things of value and not financial deception

To a very large extent, most people do not have an issue with a company selling a product which is sold at a price point, that allows that company to make a reasonable profit upon it; and to the extent that competition as well as what the market will bear exerts influence upon such things, this is all well and good, in the overall process and workings of capitalism.

That is to say, capitalism at its finest, is the creation of goods and services that the public, at large, has a desire to utilize or own, in which, the pricing and availability of such, takes into account, that ultimately capitalism is a basically about trading those goods, aided by or through the use of the currency of the realm, of which the purchaser  of such has a need or desire for, and believes further to have been fairly bargained for, because, ideally, the capitalistic system, is free, open, and competitive.

Unfortunately, capitalism can be perverted in a manner and way, in which, it really isn't always about creating products and services that consumers have a desire or need for, but rather is created in a manner, in which the sole purpose of a given business is really about just making profit and profit alone; and further is about making that money, specifically, without actually creating anything other than financial chicanery, that allows such entities to basically make money out of nothing.

For instance, a case in point is the structure of the banking system within America.  The way that a given bank should be structured is that, customers, deposit money into those banks, and a specific and prudent portion of those deposits, are thereupon lent out to worthy customers at a loan rate that takes into account, safety, the return of capital, and a fair profit for the bank.  In actuality, though, a significant amount of bank loans, are done by those banks, which somehow have seen written into their rules and regulations, that they need to hold just a fractional portion of those deposits made, perhaps as low as 10 percent or even 5 or 3 percent, in ready deposits at the bank, in which the balance of that money so deposited, can then be loaned out.  Further, once that money is loaned out to a given business or individual, that business or individual can deposit that loaned money into another banking institution, in which once again, only a small portion of that money so deposited must be kept within the bank reserves, and the balance of that money, is available thereby to be loaned out, and this can continue on for many iterations. 

Essentially, the fractional reserve banking system, as implemented, creates money out of nothing, and then charges an interest rate and fees for that money so being loaned out, in which, in essence, the banking institutions make profit out of absolutely nothing, by simply being the authorized representative of the state that permits them to make this money, and thereby takes away through interest and fees, money from those that have earned it, fairly.  This thus means, what it appears to mean, that our largest banks, make billions upon billions of dollars upon the back of the working man when times are good, and when things go horribly wrong, they are considered to be too big to fail, and therefore the taxpayers bail them out, thereby suffering the ill effects of systemic financial deception.

Cheap salvation is never going to be real salvation

America seems to specialize in the selling of shortcuts, of which, there probably isn't a more meaningful shortcut in life, to be bought, if it could be bought, than one's own salvation.  And while indulgences are no longer sold to the faithful -- far too many preachers and religious doctrines make it appear far too easy to escape from one's damnable sins and actions in this life, by simply professing some lukewarm belief that by our acceptance of Christ, that we have miraculously therefore been absolved of our sins, and that subsequently we will not have to worry about some sort of eternal damnation.  For those that believe such, the just desserts they will surely get, for nothing of significance in this life, comes forth, without the true sacrifice of blood, sweat, and tears; of which, our very own salvation is one of those things that insists upon not only a sincere and concerted effort to accomplish such, but a fierce struggle or wrestling with those demons in our conscience and psyche which have precluded us from previously doing the right thing and from being strong in our personal character.  Further to the point, all those that have sinned greatly, must not only give up their former ways, wholly; but have an inherent obligation to make up for what they have done, wrongly; for every step and action taken in the wrong direction, logically necessitates a corresponding step or action in the right direction.

The bottom line is that the salvation that we desire is the salvation that we must achieve; and that achievement is primarily going to come forth from our own efforts, as opposed to being blessed forthwith by some other entity, that supernaturally brings such salvation to us.  Remember well, that in this world, we are responsible for running our own race, and thereby no other can run our race for us.  This thus means, that we too are responsible for our own salvation, and while others may help to lead us there, and also be of real material aid in pointing us in the right direction to get there, or help us in building the foundation that will be necessary to get there and to remain there, the sustaining effort required is surely our own.

Far too many people claim far too readily that they are saved, or have salvation, but even as they speak those words, they intuitively know such is hollow and void of real meaning.  That which costs us little or nothing, in time, in effort, and in diligence, is often not worth much more than nothing.  To find that which truly saves, requires personal sacrifice, as well as an acknowledgment that we have been wrong, and thereby a determination that we will keep our concentration in order to do what is right, for those that have been tested and failed, time and time again, are surely not those that have found salvation.

To fall on one's knees and thereby sincerely plead for salvation, is not even getting the job half done, for true salvation necessitates true works of good, and those that have not those works, are never going to be the saved, for they are nothing much more than pathetic imitations of those that talk and mean well, but never get around to performing all the good, that they were surely capable of, and that which still needs to be performed.

Corporations have an obligation to take into account the public interest

All sorts of pundits believe that the primary duty and the primary obligation for public for-profit corporations are to, above all, make money on behalf of its employees, Board of Directors, and shareholders. If, this premise indeed be true, than essentially for-profit corporations, which are artificial entities, are thereby created in order to maximize their profits, and hence have no material inherent obligation to the general public, at all. That sort of mindset is the very reason, why corporations need to be regulated, monitored, and reined in, because when the making of money and profit is the main impetus behind any corporation, then that making of that money, colors all decision making by that corporation, frequently to the ill effect of the public and society, at large.

That is to say, when money is the god for corporations, then those that believe such will go to extraordinary lengths to serve that god, faithfully. This thus means, that many corporations will cheat, collude, pollute, exploit, lie, deceive, use, corrupt, and do just about anything in order to make that money, for that is the driving force behind the engine of their desires. This doesn't necessarily mean that all corporations are inimical to the public, but rather it definitely means that a significant portion of those corporations, care little for the public interest, and care a whole heck of a lot, about making their profit, and will thereby do what needs to be done, to assure themselves of that profit, come what may.

Corporations are incredibly powerful, because the biggest and strongest corporations, have gargantuan sums of capital to operate with, that dwarfs not just individuals of modest net worth, but even dwarfs those that have immense personal worth, because corporations have market capitalizations of even $1 trillion and above, which is a truly staggering amount of money in the hands of a specific company; which essentially means that the only possible entity that can hope to rein in corporations with immense capital, is the national government, itself.

Because corporations, are subject to rules and regulations, in regards to, for instance, to the environment, to labor, and to finance, then those corporations are absolutely obligated to conform wholly to those rules and regulations. Further to the point, as artificial entities created by the state, the state therefore has the power to enact and to thereby enforce upon corporations, the general rule of law, that each corporation, in its behavior and in its operation, has an inherent obligation, to, above all else, conduct itself in the public interest. In other words, when corporations are not subject to the oversight of the public interest, as enforced by the national government, then, in a way, those corporations have morphed into being something so created, which may effectively ignore the public good.

The pursuit of profit by corporations, above all else, is never going to be a good thing, because the lust for money must be tempered by the obligation that corporations have to the very people that created the foundation of their being. This signifies that a more robust national government must regulate to a far greater extent, corporations, and in particular, those corporations that have undue influence upon the economy, in which the people's voice has effectively been silenced.

The new American Aristocracy -- inherited wealth, corporations, and dynastic foundations

America is the richest nation in the world, of which, those that are the founders of having created some of that immense wealth, inevitably will die.  One might think that upon the death of anyone of a very large estate, that since they cannot take such wealth onto the world beyond, that therefore a very significant percentage of that wealth would as a matter of course, be distributed fairly to the peoples of America, by virtue of a meaningful estate tax; but alas, that in effect, is hardly ever the case.  This thus means, that fortunes, that were initiated as long ago as 1802, in the case of the Du Ponts, or 1858, in the case of the Rockefellers, still exist, and not only do they exist, but have in many cases, increased considerably in the wealth of these family dynasties.  Further to the point, corporations are artificial creations of the state, that are in the present state of laws, perpetual; so that corporations, will thereby continue to operate and to make money for its stockholders, as long as their business model is successful, in which then, some of these corporations therefore get so gargantuan, that the market capitalization of, for instance, Microsoft, now exceeds $1 trillion, which is in itself, greater than the annual GDP of all but fifteen nations.  Additionally, in order to escape estate taxes, foundations are created by rich people, of which these foundations are often deliberately set up as perpetual; so that, as long as the money so drawn from those foundations, does not exceed the money being made or added into the foundation, such foundations, exist in perpetuity, such as the Rockefeller Foundation which was created, way back in 1913.

To state the very obvious, money matters, and those that have money are able to unduly influence all sorts of policies, especially when countries such as America, permit revolving doors, in which the regulators and enforcers of businesses and markets, often come from the highest offices of those companies, so being regulated.  Not too surprisingly, when the fox is guarding the henhouse, then these corporations are going to be the beneficiaries of such, usually at the expense of the people as a whole.  Further, legislative acts are always going to be influenced by the money that is brought to the table by lobbyists, as well as by sophisticated lawyers that are aiders and abettors of writing laws that are so convoluted and obtuse, that to the unenlightened, it really isn’t clear what the law is actually set to achieve, but those that have written it, have written it specifically to benefit the rich parties that they answer to.

America was supposed to never become an aristocracy, but rather to be an escape from European aristocracy, in which America was created to be a new country, demonstrating a new way, which would represent egalitarian principles in fit, form, and function.  However, when immense amounts of monies are held in the hands of those that need not answer and will not effectively ever answer to the people, in which those monies are essentially above the law; then this country is no longer a country of, by, and for the people; but rather has devolved into being a country that serves almost exclusively those that have the power that money and good placement provides, for what they own, they therefore effectively run.

The lust for wealth, above all else, is wrong

America is a capitalistic society , of which, for many of those that are on the winning side of the equation, there is a certain pride and belief, that what one has made or earned or taken, is rightfully theirs, and that they owe therefore little or nothing to anyone else for having achieved that success.  This means, that the biggest economic winners in society, often look upon taxation, environmental issues, long term consequences, and their incumbent obligations to community and government, not as something that should be fairly and gladly addressed, but rather as a bill to be postponed, or to pass off onto someone else or to leave such with society at large, or something that must be fought tooth and nail against, for they having obtained that money, do not countenance any of it, being taken away.

When any society, is setup in which the biggest winners do not feel any or little obligation to help the common people of that society, at large; and further, make it their point that despite progressive laws to the effect that take some of the wealth of the rich, which needs to be redistributed to the poor through grants, monies, benefits, or opportunities, in which they resolutely resist doing such, by availing themselves upon their considerable power to circumvent this, than that society is not functioning in a healthy and sustainable way.

If, within American society, the belief is that those that earn the money, no matter how that money is "earned", are fairly entitled to all of it, of which, every attempt by governmental agencies to obtain a portion of that money in the form of taxation or other means, is seen as something for those rich entities to thereupon use their power and money so as to buy influence, or lawyers, or legislature acts, so as to delay through strategies that put off what is due, to a tomorrow, which never comes due, than society, as a whole, suffers for it.

Further, when those that earn that money, do so in a manner in which the long-term consequences of what has occurred to earn such, does not take into fair account, environmental damages, collusion, unfair competition, favorable taxation, favorable treatment of governmental lands or natural resources, exploitation of fellow citizens, and the perversion of laws to favor certain individuals and companies at the expense of the people, then that society suffers for it.

If, at the end of the day, winners and losers, are solely decided upon the amount of monies that are held in their respective bank accounts, without taking into account, the ethics, the morality, the fairness, and their inherent obligations to do right by that society, by being of benefit to that society, than society suffers for it. 

While there is a lot to be said for any person or organization, that makes society better by creating and building things of value; it must also be said that when the beneficiaries of that creation, have done so in a manner of which, if all the actions so taken by them were completely transparent, one would thereby discover a copious amount of corruption, unfairness, and dishonesty of all types, then such a person or organization as that, should be seen for what they really are, a menace to society, as well as an anathema to society, and everything that is wrong when people and organizations put their lust for money, above integrity and their duty to do right by the people, that are their fellow members in that very same society.

Medical prescriptions as a public utility

In America, we are use to the fact that such fundamental needs such as water, electricity, natural gas, postal services, public roadways, public lights, and so on are regulated by some form of governmental agency, whether local, regional, State, or National.  It certainly makes sense that, for instance, our electricity is regulated as a public utility because life in this modern era would be totally different and even problematic without reliable as well as fairly priced electricity, because it is part and parcel of our everyday lives. 

When it comes to healthcare, and especially to medical prescriptions and pharmaceuticals of all types, America is an outlier in regards to how other western nations address such, of which, America takes the rather strange position, of believing that the best way to regulate this market, is simply to approve or not approve certain drugs after being federally reviewed, and thereafter essentially allow the marketplace, or the seller of such pharmaceuticals to charge what the market will bear for their prescription drugs.  That ostensible reason why this is so, is for the recovery of research and development monies by those companies, as well as to help augment innovative drug discoveries, by allowing these companies the opportunity to develop what will perhaps be a blockbuster drug that is of utility to the consumers of such, as well as a boost to the bottom line of these companies.

The fundamental flaw within the current structure of prescription drugs within America, is that the pursuit of profit at the expense of a given person's health, is of questionable ethics, for the construct in which America operates, seems to be that prescription drugs are just one more commodity that the rich or the well insured should be able to procure, whereas the poor and the non- or weakly insured, just have to deal with it, and suffer therefore the ill consequences of their weak position.  Further, it is rather unseemly for drugs to be priced at what the market will bear, which stipulates in that perverse mindset, that profits are more important, than the health of the people.

A far better way to deal with medical prescriptions is for such to be regulated, much akin to a public utility, in which fairness to the public in whole, as well as accessibility to all members of the public, are necessary to be mandated for something as vital as the good health of the people.  The fact that today's medical drugs are not regulated as a public utility -- signifies that America has taken a very large step back, from the pathway it previously took for national immunizations that are required for infants, which is for the health of not just those infants, but for the protection of the good health of society, at large.

Those large medical corporations that claim that they are working on behalf of the public, and that their prescription drug prices are fairly priced -- are remiss in not acknowledging that they are required to answer to their Board of Directors, as well as to the stockholders of their company, who are always demanding bigger profits, and higher gross margins; so to believe that they are therefore operating in the public interest is a chimera.  The health of Americans is something too important to be left to for-profit companies that currently operate outside the domain, of being regulated as a public utility, which essentially makes their business model, one that puts their lust of profit above good, fair, and affordable drug prescription prices.

We the people

The preamble to our Constitution states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…" and further we read in the 9th Amendment, the following words, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  These words are of immense relevancy to all of the people of these United States, for it demonstrates in form as well as in principle that the people are their own sovereign rulers.  Further to the point, it was considered at the Constitutional Convention to originally have the preamble state words to the effect, "We the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, …",  but this was rightly replaced with just we the people, indicating that those that buy into the false belief that State rights triumph over the people, or that State rights triumph over the national state of this union of States, are false to the Constitution, false to the people, and false to those individual States, that propagate such false propaganda.

This is indeed a country created by the people, for the people, and of the people; of which, the people of the individual States united into one body politic in order to as our Constitution preamble states to "…. establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…"  To the extent, that the people are in charge of their destiny, then the people are in harmony with that Constitution; and to the extent that the people are not in charge of their destiny, and are, for instance, subservient to the technology-military-industrial complex, then those people are not only not in charge of their destiny, but the country is in fit, form, and function operating in a non-Constitutional manner.

We now live in a construct, that although the people appear to have representative government, and are able to thereby vote in democratic elections; that the reality of the situation is that those that are in power, primarily have that power not from the people, but often are beholden instead to those that are the ones that provided the necessary monetary finances in order for those candidates to successfully run their campaigns and to win election.  In other words, the most meaningful contributions to candidates significantly often comes from corporations or wealthy elites, directly, indirectly, or through false fronts; and once elected, representatives are obligated to first take care of, not the people, but those that were essentially the means of their successful election. In addition, many representatives are often successfully persuaded by the ubiquitous lobbyists to get legislation passed or decisions reached, that favor their interests, often at the expense of the people.

In so many ways, the people have lost their sovereignty, because in general, they are typically completely out of touch with what is really going on in governmental offices of all stripes, and further are not privy to vital inside information; and in absence of a government that does not provide transparency in all that it says and does on behalf of the people, then the people, as a whole, are left with nothing much more than smoke and mirrors, and the illusion that they have a meaningful voice with their representative government.  This thus means that this government is really a government, favoring the few and the elite, which is the primary reason why all is not well, and why we the people, are not really free.

Make all police officers and district attorneys of color and there will be change

Progressive people of all types want America to transform itself, and to become what it was founded to be -- a nation of liberty, freedom, opportunity, fairness, and opportunity for all.    While each politician of vision and each generation of hope believes that change will come, such change within America, is at best, one step forward, and then invariably another step backwards or to the side; but hardly it seems, is there comprehensive, lasting, and meaningful change.  The main reason why change is so slow in America is that powerful interests do not desire for any change that will threaten that power, and thereby do all in their power to preclude such or to mold such, so that they maintain their status.

The justice and policing arms of the state have always been on the side of those that hold those purse strings, which is indicative as to why the face of the police and the face of justice, is invariably closely connected to those that want to assure that the masses are under their thumb, and thereby not inclined to enacting truly revolutionary actions.  This thus means, that the prevailing direction of police actions and justice support those of the status quo, to the dismay of those that simply want justice, equally applied, to be impartially enforced.

Those that truly want progressive change will continue to be thwarted, despite whatever laws are passed, because the problem with America isn't so much that the laws on the books are unfair, but rather that good law, and especially the spirit of good law, is routinely dismissed in American jurisprudence and through its policing policies.  So then, the only real alternative that would, in and of itself, fundamentally change America for the better, would be for all police officers, except for those that represent office support staff, and for all District Attorneys, to, in a stroke of a new Affirmative Action, be replaced forthwith, and without exception, with only police officers and District Attorneys of color, and specifically, replaced with all those that are non-white.

If America was to literally change overnight to a country in which the policing arm of the state, as well as the legal charging arm of the state, represented by the District Attorney, were all non-white -- then, without a doubt, the operation of those police officers, the arrests by those police officers, the justice so rendered in courts of law as to crimes prosecuted, diverted, or simply ignored, would change, significantly.  In point of fact, police officers, spend an inordinate amount of time arresting good citizens for ticky-tack crimes, of no real substance, such as drug possession, victimless crimes, and low-level offenses of no merit, merely to intimidate, inconvenience, harass, and to bully the people.  A police force of all non-white officers, would minimize such, and concentrate instead on real crimes, such as theft, robbery, rape, murder, and so on.

Further to the point, a world in which the police and justice arm of the state was non-white, would mean for all those citizens that were non-white, that there would be a distinct relaxing and a wholesale change in both their outlook and their overall freedom.  As for those, that are white, knowing that the police and justice arm, no longer looked the same as them, and did not enforce the laws in a manner that invariably favored them, they then, would begin to look far more frequently over their shoulder, and would, as a matter of course, become much more nervous, and perhaps eventually in attitude and outlook, more progressive in understanding that the world is really not all white, and that would be the change to thereby really believe in.

Modern-day cannibalism

Obviously, in America there is no cannibalism.  In a literal sense this is true, but in a figurative sense it very well may not be.  For instance, any person, that is exploited or has their fair liberty curtailed, has in a general sense, lost their sovereignty to another, whether that be an institution, a government, or other people.  Further, once a given person is no longer the captain of their own ship, and are therefore unable to take full advantage of their unalienable liberties so written into the Declaration of Independence, as well as implied or specified as such in the Constitution, then that person, is no longer free, and those that are not free are therefore in a compromised form of servitude.  This thus means that those who are created equally, but are subservient to a construct which has effectively negated such, are in a sense servants to that class of people, or government, or institutions that are effectively their masters.  Thus, in any situation in which one class of people is in perpetual servitude to another class of people, it can fairly be stated, that their vulnerable condition places them into a position into which every chain so forged upon their body transforms what once was a full human being into something more akin to becoming in substance, less than human.

The cannibalism so practiced today in America, is part and parcel of the American psyche, which too often sees its fellow human beings, not as those that have been created equally, and therefore are entitled to their Constitutional rights as well as to fair opportunity of the wealth that America offers; but rather they are predominantly perceived as non-people and therefore looked upon as objects to be mined, exploited, used, and ultimately discarded to the degree that these perceived non-humans are able to provide value to those that extract what resources that they are able to extract from them, until ultimately their life force has been completely drained from their body, for they have been fully consumed by those that have made what use they could make of them, as product.

The cannibalism in America, is mankind's inhumanity to mankind, exacerbated by the lust and desire of so many that are in power, or have the thirst for that power, to do whatever that it takes to get what they want, in which, often the path so taken involves the deliberate taking from others, of their birthright, so as to benefit the selfish interlopers of such.  When the success of a given country, or a given individual, is built upon the unjustified taking of that which is not fairly theirs, under false pretences of any sort, then the foundation so built is built upon having fed upon the bodies of those that are treated as de facto beasts of burden.

Those that are cannibals are all those that take from others, what is not rightfully theirs to take, and having depleted such from other people; have, in effect, nourished and gnawed upon those others, in order to fill their own greedy hunger, and to weaken and to consume, unto death, those others

National murder clearance rate is tragically low

When it comes to murder, the term "clearance rate" refers to those murder cases that have had a murder charge filed against a given individual, as compared to the total number of murders recorded in that jurisdiction in a given year.  What muddies the water about clearance rates though, is that some jurisdictions, manipulate their clearance rate, by counting in the current year, people that are arrested for a murder that occurred in some previous year, as well as by "exceptional clearances" in which the prime suspect for the murder is no longer alive, or when necessary witnesses for successful prosecution of murder, aren't apparently available; then these are considered by those jurisdictions using such, as exceptional clearances, and hence count as murders that have been cleared.  In any event, the national murder clearance rate as reported by the FBI in 1965, was just over 90%, whereas in 2015, that national rate as reported by the FBI had plummeted to just 61.5%.  Further to the point, just because a given individual has been charged with the crime of murder, does not necessarily mean that they will ever be convicted of that murder, let alone tried for murder, so that, clearance rates are not the same thing as conviction rates, therefore signifying that the national clearance rate of 61.5% for murder, indicates that in all probability, perhaps 50% of those crimes classified as murder, have somebody actually convicted, ever, of that murder.

While there are all sorts of crimes that are odious, disturbing, and upsetting, it must be stated, that murder is probably the most heinous of all crimes, because a life has been wrongly taken from another person, without justification or lawful excuse.  This would signify, that police departments, specifically have homicide departments for the salient reason that murder is a crime so abhorrent, that for the public safety and for its protection, that the policing arm of the state, must do all that they can do, to see that the perpetrator of any murder is caught, tried, and duly convicted.  Further, every day that a given murderer is at large, is in and of itself, a menace to society, and a disgrace to justice.

One might think that with all the modern tools of this age, in regards to DNA, forensics, and the wealth of databases that can be drawn upon, that all of this would be of great aid, in increasing the murder clearance rate over time; but, in fact, the United States has regressed tremendously from the 1960s.  Why is this?  While there are probably a multitude of answers of various relevancy as to why this is so, the primary reason why Americas' murder clearance rate has declined precipitously, is a reflection that there are numerous enclaves within cities and communities, in which the police do not have any credibility within that area of the community, whatsoever; in which the police simply do not have either effective boots on the ground, or reliable intelligence, that allows the police to have a basic understanding of the ins and outs of that community.  This reflects, in part, that the police, are seen in those communities more as agents of oppression and injustice; in addition to the rather sad fact, that police aren't terribly motivated in due diligence for murders that involve people that they don't really respect, relate to, or care about.

The colonists' reaction to the Tea Act and why such is still relevant

Before the success of the American Revolution, the colonists were under the domain of Great Britain.  Not too surprisingly, in an era in which communication between the two countries could take months, and in view of the distance between Great Britain and America, decisions that were made in Great Britain would not necessarily be well and thoroughly considered, especially since the colonists had no representation, in regards to being able to express in Parliament what was most appropriate for those colonists.  Further to the point, decisions that might make sense, financially or on paper, could find that their implementation of, would ensure unexpected consequences.

In point of fact, the Tea Act, by Great Britain, would on the surface, appear to be beneficial to the consumers of tea in America, for the British East India Company Tea would now, with the new law and being the sole authorized provider of, have their imported tea priced below the market price of such tea currently being distributed in America.  However, the error so made by British governance was that by deliberately and unexpectedly undercutting colonial merchants of tea, who themselves had acquired a great deal of their tea through illegal shipments and through non-authorized means -- this would effectively negate the value of their inventory, and therefore harm their businesses, irreparably.

So then, in knowledge that the sheer amount of tea at the Boston harbor, would materially damage domestic vendors and merchants, should such be unloaded onto the docks of Boston, the concerned and well placed influential denizens of Boston, made a conscious decision to preclude such unloading of tea, and further, under the disguise of being American Indians, forcefully took such tea and dumped it into the ocean, in order to destroy it.

So that, in effect, the colonists united to protect their domestic businesses at the expense of the country that was its governing hand.  In other words, the colonists would not countenance their domestic industries being materially damaged, so that their mother country, could thereby benefit at the expense of those colonists, for they recognized that if the colonists were seen as something for Great Britain to tax and to milk for the benefit of Great Britain, directly -- while the colonists suffered to be exploited by them, then the colonists did not have effective liberty, but instead were subservient to a country, on an  entirely different continent.

When we subsequently fast forward to today's America, recognize that when products that are imported to America with cheap labor, often with suspect environment and working conditions within those foreign nations, of which, these products have no tariffs or other restrictions placed upon them, so that these foreign companies are able to successfully compete  and quite often dominate against domestically manufactured American products, then domestic manufacturers are not going to be able to hold a candle to those imported goods.  This, in effect, enriches those foreign nations and the international companies that aid or are conjoined with them, at the expense of the domestic working citizens of this nation, who are now unemployed, or employed at a lower paying job, of which, today's America, gladly unloads and thereby sells this new Boston Tea.

You are the product in for-profit hospitals

Any hospital that is run for a profit is a hospital that has a dilemma, and most probably a moral dilemma, between profits and patients.  That is to say, a for-profit hospital is ostensibly in the business of providing good health care to human beings, of which, those human beings are the product that is being utilized in order to make that profit.  In other words, without patients, for-profit hospitals would be bankrupt, so patients are, most definitely, the product.  Further to the point, when the given treatment and expense so made on a patient, is in any way, influenced by the expenses so involved from a profit or financial reimbursement perspective, that hospital is compromised, and the patient's right thereby to good healthcare has been damaged.

While, no doubt, there are all sorts of rules, regulations, and oversights when it comes to procedures, billing, and patients within for-profit hospitals -- the fact of the matter is that almost no amount of investigation and examination is going to be able to fully come to a fair accounting of all that has occurred, and whether such is right, wrong, or somewhere in-between.  So that, it is fair to state, that for-profit hospitals, by their very existence and within their structure, are always going to be at odds with weighing the most appropriate healthcare that should be provided to patients under their care, because of their conflicting drive to make a profit; whether that is fully in the control of the medical staff, or with its management, or some sort of combination of both, thereof.

Additionally, the admission of those to for-profit hospitals, in which those hospitals are not required by law to admit all patients, is essentially the relevant door that often separates the poor, indigent, and those of chronic bad health, from those that have the right insurance and ready means to pay their bills, in which these for-profit hospitals therefore accept into their facility, those that are profitable for them, and reject all those that would hurt their bottom line.

So too, medical doctors often have a multitude of choices that they can make in regards to both healthcare treatment and healthcare medicine that they believe are the most effective for their patients, of which, as long as those decisions are structured within a reasonable range of what other medical doctors have done or would have recommended, this affords those medical doctors or their superiors above them, to select those medications and procedures that are most conducive to profit making, all other things being equal.

Also, it must be said that in the scheme of things, most people are typically readily compliant with authority; and to a very large extent have an incredible amount of respect for medical doctors and their recommendations, especially within a hospital setting, of which this is obviously quite heightened when they are sick, and therefore are in real need of medical care.  So that, patients in for-profit hospitals, to a very large extent, are primarily there to receive good healthcare, and are under the impression that is what they are going to receive; but in reality, though they might receive good healthcare, the motives of the for-profit hospital is, reflect, that they are at the end of the day, about making money and profits upon their patients, come what may.

Proprietary information

Proprietary information, in regards to corporations, is basically any information that the company wishes to control the dissemination of; in addition to the fact that the company often has duties and obligations to their management and their shareholders to protect, defend, and to secure that propriety information, which is considered to be the property of that company, and often has specific penalties attached for all those that divulge proprietary information without proper permission.

So, basically proprietary information is essentially information that is secretive in nature, and often involves the restriction of a specific need to know, for those that have a desire to know.  Additionally, those that have been intimately involved in the creation of, or the process of that proprietary information, even in those situations in which they as an individual basically are the ones that thought of, conceived of, and created that information, they do not own that information as individuals, whatsoever; and when there comes that time when they resign or have been excused from the company, that proprietary information remains with the corporation, and not with the original author of it.

For corporations, who are of course, the biggest defenders of proprietary information, all of the former seems to make eminent sense -- but proprietary information, while having a logical purpose behind it, is in many instances, misused.  That is to say, the more information, that is secretive or proprietary in nature, but does not really need to be classified as such, and therefore fails to be publically disseminated, thus means the more information, that other companies are going to have to create on their own, and thereby often entails the duplication of efforts and expense of such, as opposed to being able to take advantage of such by working off of what has already been created, and building upon that.  Further, employees that have worked with and created proprietary information, that have thereby parted ways with that company, are because of legal considerations, somewhat handcuffed in being able to take such knowledge elsewhere and therefore have to divert themselves from the pathway that they were once on.

So too, because this is a country that believes in the power of intimidation, through litigation as well as by other means, this means that information that really need not and should not be proprietary in form, are often protected as such for longer periods of time, which isn't beneficial to the public at large, though it probably is quite beneficial for that company, by precluding such.  In short, as knowledge is a form of power, then quite obviously creating knowledge, and then simultaneously controlling who and what gets access to that knowledge as well as creating business models which allows corporations to exclusively benefit from that proprietary knowledge, skews things in such a manner, that often the few benefit from that knowledge, at the expense of the many.

The greatest good of mankind is never going to be served, by the creation of more and more proprietary information, in which a meaningful portion of that information has been wrongly classified as proprietary, but rather more of that information needs to be in the hands of mankind; for the concentration of more and more proprietary information into the hands of corporations, that are artificial creations, and thereby are never subject to physical death, signifies that mankind is ceding more of its knowledge to that which is not human in its structure.

Learn the value of listening well

In a person-to-person world, the way that we communicate is through talking, but for everyone that talks, there must be at least one person that listens to what has been spoken, or we are essentially just talking to our own self.  Not too surprisingly, most people that speak believe that what they are saying has some sort of merit or worth, or else they probably wouldn't be speaking, though there are exceptions to this rule, in which some people like to talk and talk, mainly because they can't seem to handle silence or solitude, but in any event, those that speak to others, are expecting and anticipating that those others that are hearing their words are actually listening, though not all that is spoken is ever actually listened to.

The fundamental problem with a person talking, is the preconceived notion that they often have, that they other person is prepared and desires to hear what they are saying, in which this is not always the case.  In fact, many people that seem to appear to be listening are really only listening for their opportunity to have their own say, perhaps which ensues, during a pregnant pause or similar.  Further to the point, some people listen only in the generic sense of showing a basic sort of courtesy, but aren't really taking in the words, except to acknowledge a general affirmation or consent, that they have heard the words so spoken, but really haven't taken in the words.   Additionally, those that are ostensibly listening, might actually have a desire to really listen, but are at the present time overwhelmed with their own troubles and problems and therefore their mind is not properly prepared to listen to what is being said.  All these, are examples of people that aren't really listening, of which, the speaker of the words, may or may not, be aware of their lack of attention.

While there are many reasons why people do not listen well, of which some of those reasons, have justification; there are those other reasons which really aren't justified at all.  For instance, some people do not listen well, because they dismiss what the other person is saying because they have no respect for that person, or don't care for that person, or don't value that person, or simply because they don't believe that anyone could ever possibly tell them anything of importance or value.  Anytime, that we marginalize another person, especially when that is done, under the perception that we are more important than they are; then any possibility of good communication from one person to another is not possible.  Further, a lot of what appears to be communication isn't communication at all, but basically each party, taking their respective turn, to talk past the other person, and hence no common ground is ever achieved.

The reason that listening well is so important, is that the very point of communication is to impart information, and while some of that information may be of marginal value, some of it also may be of immense value, and therefore, those that believe that experience is always the best teacher, seemed not to have understood that learning well, encompasses listening well, so that those that go furthest in life, aren't necessarily the smartest or the brightest, but rather are those that are able to focus their attention upon those words spoken, and by their attentive listening as well as their astute discernment to do right with them.

Rights and privileges

It is important for people to know the fundamental different between natural rights, which by definition, are unalienable; that is to say, that each one of us is created with these specific attributes of natural rights, that cannot legitimately be taken away; as opposed to privileges which are alienable, and can both be given as well as taken away.   So then, as per our Declaration of Independence, our Creator has granted to us the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, amongst additional other natural rights, though these other rights are not specifically enumerated within that Declaration.

 This thus means that the highest form of any legitimate government, without exception, is to form a body politic, in order to protect, defend, and to augment the unalienable rights of the people, so formed.  Further, this so indicates that all other laws, rules, regulations, and so on and so forth, are legitimately structured only in a manner in which first and foremost, those unalienable rights of the people remain inviolable, and that all other subsequent laws, rules, and regulations are created only as a benefit for the people as a whole, as well as to judge correctly when our rights have been misapplied or misused, typically in a manner in which another person's rights has been violated.

The trouble that most governments get into is their assertion that they have the right to take away the unalienable rights of the people, without appropriate and fair application of due process of the law, properly applied, and to the extent, that this is done, the people do suffer.  In point of fact, legitimate governments are created by, for, and of the people, for the express benefit of the people and to protect the unalienable rights of those people.  Further, it must be stated, that governments are instituted amongst mankind, in order to effect the safety and the happiness of the people, of which, those people that misuse their unalienable rights in a manner which such is detrimental to their fellow mankind and their unalienable rights, are thereby subject to governmental laws that will fairly decide such matters by the application of the law, equally and properly applied, for the greater good of the people. 

So too, it is important that the structure of any body politic, takes into account that all governmental agencies as well as artificial creations, such as corporations, are servants to the people as a whole, and are granted their powers, only as privileges, but never as rights, by the people.  That is to say, only human beings created by God have unalienable rights, and that all entities subsequently created by those human beings, including all governments, are not only servants to those people, but act only at the legitimate behest of the people. 

So then, the highest good of any government, or any other institution, are those governments and institutions that specifically aid, defend, and augment the people and their unalienable rights in a manner that is consistent, fair, and equally applied to all peoples within their domain.  This thus means that the best government is ever the government that is the friend of the people, by virtue of its defense of the people's unalienable rights.

Freedom of speech in the private workspace

Most everyone in the United States is familiar that this country supports the right of the people to freedom of speech, but courts have ruled, that such freedom of speech, is situational dependent, so that those that are direct employees of the federal government, are afforded far more freedom of speech, since the First Amendment is interpreted to mean that the federal government is precluded from abridging one's freedom of speech; whereas, those corporations which are not public entities, are considered to have the right to limit their employee's freedom of speech, subject to other pertinent rules, laws, and regulations.

It is a rather sad state of affairs, when a person by virtue of seeking employment, and thereby gaining such employment, consequently, must have their freedom of speech subjected to being abridged, or face lawful termination for not being compliant with such, upon the entering into their place of employment.  That, on the face of it, seems un-American, and unless such speech is in violation of confidential information or trade secrets, then employees should rather have full freedom of speech, subject to the very same additional rules, laws, and regulations that apply to all Americans, that abridge freedom of speech for the greater good  of mankind and civil discourse, such as in laws that preclude discrimination in the workplace, and hence do not countenance overt racial or religious discrimination in speech or conduct.

When it comes to how the law is applied and interpreted, this does not mean that such laws and interpretations are correct, and when citizens are dealing with the consequences of something as fundamental as being able to voice their opinions and viewpoints within the workplace without fear of retaliation, then such needs to be looked at very carefully and thoroughly.   After all, in today's world, the vast majority of those that are employed, are not self-employed, but work for companies, of which, those companies often have control of the hours so worked, the tasks that must be worked upon, and the compensation that is provided for each of their employees.  To therefore give those companies, the control of the speech of their employees allowed, effectively makes the employer's task much easier in being able to stifle not only internal dissent and discussion, but to preclude the uniting of employees into a viable union, or to discuss the conditions of such employment in a manner that is beneficial for those employees.

The primary reason why private employers do not desire freedom of speech within their facilities, has nothing to do at all with their employees voicing opinions that are just weird and unorthodox but ultimately are of no relevance; but rather these free speech abridgments are primarily enforced in order to strike down those that are in consideration of talking about the big picture of employee compensation, health benefits, profit sharing, and all things that are favorable to those that labor; in which, employers are not interested in a vibrant democracy within their facility, but rather prefer to be, at best, a benign autocracy, and at worse, one that rules with an iron fist.  To the extent that courts support the abridging of freedom of speech within corporate facilities, this so indicates that those courts believe, that those that enter into the facilities of private employment, leave thereby their freedom outside those doors, and are thereby mandated by law to put on their chains when so entering.

Misunderstanding the Constitution

The founding document of this republic is its Declaration of Independence, for it is this Declaration that the people of that seminal time, rose up and thereby fought for their independence from Great Britain.  This thus means that when that independence was fairly won and thereby a treaty was signed by both parties, this truly signified that the people within that nation were thereby able to rightly claim their unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Those rights, are not governmental rights, but are endowed to each one of us, by our Creator.

The Constitution as written and ratified, which is the highest law of this land, was written for the express purpose to not only join the colonies together into one body politic, but also to affirm that our unalienable rights, would be not only protected by that Constitution, but to affirm that this authorized government would not ever take those rights away from the people.  To the extent that this country protects and upholds the preeminent rights of the people, such is in harmony with the Constitution, and to the extent that this country takes away the unalienable rights of the people, such is inimical to that Constitution and to the intent and purpose of that Constitution and our founding.

This thus means, that rather than the purpose of governance being to pass more and more laws, dubious or not, and to interpret and reinterpret law, necessary or not; that the real purpose of that governance is to be the defender, the protector, and the upholder of the unalienable rights of those that are its citizens, above all else.  Further to the point, the law as applied should always be equally applied to all, with no person, and no corporation, and no entity, and no governmental representative, ever to be above that law.

This Constitution is not now, nor has it ever been, the grantor of rights to those that live within this nation, but rather its prevailing purpose is to uphold the unalienable rights that each of its citizens of this nation, are born with, and can never properly have taken from them, without due process of the law,  properly applied.  That is to say, our Constitutional rights are not arbitrary, in the sense that what the government grants on one given day, can thereby subsequently be taken away or amended on some other given day, in which case, living within that construct would mean that the Constitution could thereby mean whatever that those that are the ruling or judicial party desires it to mean, but rather that this Constitution is first and foremost for the express purpose to recognize that this government can never take away the unalienable rights of its citizens, but rather it was created to defend and to protect those rights, for that is very reason why the people came together, into one body politic.

The highest law of this land, is now and always has been, created and ratified, for the people, by the people, and of the people -- in which any party, or any person, or any entity that believes that this Constitution is the great giver of our rights, misunderstands such, for rather the Constitution is structured to affirm, defend, and protect our unalienable rights, from being unjustly wrested away from us.

Social suffering

For many people in many societies, they suffer at their lack of good and stable employment, good and affordable healthcare, good and affordable education, good and safe environments, and so many other basic things, which are often taken for granted by those that have those very things.  In point of fact, the vast majority of mankind is either outright exploited and/or suffers the ill effects of living within a construct in which they have little real hope of being masters of their own fate, but instead, are dependent upon governmental largesse as well as other institutions to sustain their lives for themselves as well as for their family members, with little real hope of ever generating the escape velocity to become truly their own sovereign and independent people.

That which is social suffering is the misuse of political and economic conditions in which one's position in that society, is often dependent more upon who that they know and what they are connected to, as opposed to their given capabilities, potential and opportunity.  That is to say, there are millions upon millions of people that are born within a structure in which, their fate has already been predetermined, and that fate is one that will never allow them to lift their head up, for they are born without power, without influence, and without self-determination.

While today's society, offers creature comforts, at a level that could only be imagined upon in years gone by; there is a fundamental error in believing that creature comforts in and of themselves, bring happiness and satisfaction to those that have it, for life has a lot more to do with the satisfaction that one gets from a purpose sought for and lived to, then that which at its core, is provided as a matter of course, to keep the masses somewhat pacified, and therefore non-revolutionary.

This world as a whole, has never had more material wealth, than it holds forth today, and never has the global knowledge been greater than it is currently; yet, despite all of this wealth and all of this knowledge, the greater amount of peoples are oppressed, dissatisfied, emasculated, and exploited, to the degree that indicates that mankind's inhumanity to mankind is something that no degree of wealth, and that no degree of knowledge, has been able to effectively change or to transform.

In any society, in which the very, very few in number, effectively control the great masses of its fellow members, so that these few, essentially rule in the manner and way that not only perpetuates their power but insists that the greater part of that population was created to serve them, then such a society as that is inherently unequal and inherently unjust.  This, in and of itself, creates social suffering, for when the masses are left with just table scraps, yet, are cognizant that they should be afforded far more, then the frustration of their lack, breeds discontent, incivility, and resentment.

All social suffering is the offshoot of societies that are unjust in their structure, unequal in their form, and illiberal in their policies, and that social suffering in those societies will continue until the end of time, until such is addressed in a fundamental way that rectifies it, by the governance that is specifically structured to do exactly that.

The slippery slope of euthanasia

In some States of this union, euthanasia is legal and is administered to patients, in order, to kill them.  Though, euthanasia proponents prefer to spin their viewpoint in a manner in which the deliberate and premeditated killing of specific and targeted patients is done only upon the behest of the patient and to relieve that patient of their pain and suffering, so that they will be able to die therefore on their own terms and with dignity, the bottom line is that euthanasia is the State-sanctioned administration of death.

The very first thing to really recognize about governmental euthanasia is that euthanasia is at best, a State-actuated assisted suicide.  Further to the point, suicide in itself is most appropriately defined as self-murder.  This thus signifies that any individual that kills their own self, without the aid of anybody else, has succeeded in murdering their own self, and hence the perpetrator and the victim are one and the same.  On the other hand, euthanasia involves often not just one party, but usually several parties that assist in the killing of the patient when so done under medical supervision, typically aided by the administration of drugs that will induce death, so that in the scheme of things, those involved in such, are a material part of the killing of that person, and without State laws authorizing euthanasia, would be clearly susceptible to being charged with some degree of murder, or accessory to murder, depending upon the actions taken by those individuals, involved.

So too, it must be noted, that those that are the most vulnerable are the very ill, and especially the terminally ill, who may legitimately feel that their lives and their living are a burden to other people, as well as to their loved ones, and even to society itself, therefore making them much more susceptible to being persuaded or even encouraged to look upon their life as it currently is, as a burden, and that therefore since their utility to society is perceived as being minimal or non-existent, can be induced to believing that their life is no longer worth living. 

All of the above, would signify, that the euthanasia of any patient, at any time, necessitates the taking of the time to fully evaluate the situation in a manner in which a conscientious decision as well as a consensus of such can be reasonably reached.  This would indicate that though a patient may be entitled to request euthanasia, in those States permitting such, that the agreement to do so, should be something that reflects and only reflects a unanimous consensus of not only a medical physician, but also a psychiatric doctor, as well as a doctor of theology, in addition to the agreement to such by the closest next of kin, in which the patient has clearly, unequivocally, and voluntarily requested, euthanasia.  Even then, there should be a "cooling off" period so that all parties can properly reflect upon such action, because the enactment of euthanasia once commenced is terminal.

Societies and communities may be judged on many levels, of which, one of the most pertinent, is how that society deals with those that are its most vulnerable, and are thereby least able to defend themselves; upon this, civilizations are rightly judged.