Employment, unemployment, and self-worth

Everybody has the innate need to have something to do or work upon in their lives that provides them with some sort of satisfaction in the accomplishing of those given things.  For many of us, we work, not just because it is a means to procure income, but because we get the satisfaction of accomplishing something of real merit, each and every day that we work.  For others, that may not have or desire a paying job, there is satisfaction, for example, in taking care of household tasks and the bringing up and mentoring of children, or in volunteer work, or in various hobbies and activities, that fulfill us.  In all of this, the general commonality is that our self-worth is caught up in the positive activities that we engage in day-by-day.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people, that are unemployed, or apparently unemployable because they lack the right skill set or have mental or physical limitations, or job opportunities are not readily available in their area, or the pay is too paltry, or the conditions of the work are denigrating or dangerous, so that the end result is that they have little hope of gainful employment and thus remain unemployed.  So too, there are people, though being employed, are employed in dead end jobs that they get little or no satisfaction from in the work so being done, which is often coupled with remunerative pay which is insultingly low and thereby not enough to make a sustainable living from.

In those cases, of people who are unemployed, or are frustrated within their employment or the conditions of that employment; that disappointment, as well as often having extra time on their hands, without much of value to accomplish, often lends itself to ill advised or destructive behavior, typically directed against one's own self with things such as substance abuse or pernicious addictions, while also having a strong tendency to strike out against society, at large, in some way.  Those that have nothing, and do not believe that they will ever have anything, are prone to antisocial behavior of all sorts, because their perception of who and what they are, is very low, and without a belief that they are of any real worth, will often deal with such by striking back against that which they perceive has taken their self-worth from them.

So then, there is a strong correlation between crime and unemployment, as well as crime so caused by perceived unfairness.  After all, those that have nothing much to do, and nothing of intrinsic value in their possession, and do not have the ready means to change such are going to have a strong tendency to take what they can take, not only because they have a need for such, but because their anger overrules any innate sensibility that they might have.

One of the things about employment is that those employed devote a meaningful amount of time each day in the accomplishment of their work duties; of which, on the other hand, those that are not employed and are not going to school, and have little home responsibility, do not.  This signifies that idle hands, and idle minds, need to fill the vacuum that the lack of employment leaves them, and those that believe that they have little or no value to society because they are not contributing to that society, are going to, more times than not, engage in behavior that is destructive to themselves as well as to that society.

Charging convicts for the cost of their conviction

The United States makes it their point, to lock up a high percentage of those that have been convicted inside their incarceration facilities, and has the audacity to further believe that they have the Constitutional right to charge convicts money for all sorts of things, such as, incredibly under certain circumstances, for the cost of their daily incarceration accrued over their time imprisoned, as well as for as reported by brennancenter.org, for "…case filing, felony surcharges, electronic monitoring, drug testing, and sex offender registration," amongst other various things.  To believe, that this is fair to the person so incarcerated, is clearly misguided, since the person serving the time does not have the option of opting-out from these unjust fees.

When the justice arm of the government, rightly or wrongly, takes away the freedom of a given individual, then it should not have the indecency to then charge them for costs or alleged costs of their incarceration or parts of their incarceration.  If, on the other hand, the justice choice of a particular case, allows the option for those convicted of certain crimes, to decide as to whether their preference would be to do the time and not be charged additional incarceration fees, or to sign up to pay these fees in order to remain free, that would be an acceptable form of justice, but that is seldom the case.

The fact that that it costs real money to incarcerate individuals is something that everybody is already quite aware of.  If, that society does not wish to expend unwarranted monies on the incarceration industrial complex, it should not have to.  To, on the other hand, take those that are typically without money, without their freedom, and without good resources and then expect them to somehow be able to successfully fight the system that has effectively used the people's resources to oppress them, and thereby somehow to overcome these repressing fees, as well, is never going to happen.

The easiest people in the world to deal with in a controlling, overbearing and cruel manner are those that have had their freedom curtailed, who are often ill educated, and are fundamentally poor in virtually every aspect of life.  To somehow believe that burdening these people with monetary fines, over and above everything else that they have to deal with, is wrong.  Again, it must be said, incarceration for anyone is punishment enough, and anything in addition to that, is unacceptable.

The rub of the situation really comes down to the salient fact, that the costs of incarcerating all the people that America so incarcerates, is prohibitively expensive and legislators are often therefore reluctant to implement additional taxes upon the people to pay for all that incarceration.  So then, instead we have the current state of affairs, which puts an unfair burden of incarceration upon those that have little or no means to pay for such. 

What America really needs to address, is to understand that in order to correct systemic problems, such as the high amount of people incarcerated and the cost thereof, necessitates fundamental changes that thereupon will provide real opportunity and fairness to those that have been forever denied such.  The wrong answer is to lock up more and more people, seeing them in essence as a collective lost cause, when in fact, what has really occurred, is the non-recognition that a significant amount of these people, have never been given a fair chance to begin with.

European immigration to America, wars and conscription

While the rules, laws, and regulations that are currently in place in regards to immigration to America, makes it a real process for a lot of people to legally immigrate to America, including refugees that would like to reside here, that has not always been the historical case.  In fact, for the most part, immigration of Europeans to America, especially during the 19th and early 20th century, was typically as straightforward as having the means to pay for that transportation to the United States, and upon arrival to America, answering the questions so being asked by immigration authorities which were typically perfunctory and thereby an easy hurdle to overcome, along with the briefest of medical exams.

America, was fortunate that so many believed that America was that land of opportunity, for America has an awful lot of land, that necessitated a motivated and dedicated effort to be accomplished by a whole lot of immigrants, in order to turn the potential of the richness that America has in its soil and environment into something of real merit and worth, which thereupon proved beyond a doubt, that immigrants, given a fair chance, truly do know how to get it done.

While many people rightly believe that some of the biggest factors appealing to immigrants in coming to America, were the economic opportunity and freedom that America represents, as well as the free exercise of religion, there was yet another very important factor, somewhat overlooked by history, which was that able body men in virtually every European country, were clearly susceptible when of age to military conscription by their government, of which, those with money, connections, and the right jobs did not need to overly worry about being troubled with such; whereas the poor, the landless, the luckless, and the common laborer, most certainly feared such conscription.

Not only did conscription, fundamentally mean that one's life was literally held in the state's hands, but it could essentially mean, that those subject to that conscription could easily not ever be heard from again.  So that, all those that were knowledgeable that a foreign land existed in which there was land available for settlers, and especially to those settlers that would work that land; as well as the perceived fair economic opportunity available for those willing to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, certainly took on the guise of being a country of sanctuary, and truly flowing with that proverbial milk and honey.

The problem with European wars, back then, as well as the problem of wars that occur in the present time, is that most common denizens of countries that suffer through endless wars, truly do suffer; especially when it is their progeny that does all of the fighting, all of the sacrificing, and all of the dying.  This thus signifies that common sense people are willing to take inordinate risks, necessitating the crossing of great oceans or great barriers, if they believe that by doing so, that they will be able to live in a country in which they control their own fate, and what they earn by the sweat of their brow will be fairly theirs.

This so indicates, that countries that are forever at war, as well as having some form of unfair and unequal conscription, are the type of countries that sensible people do not wish to live in; and rather, not too surprisingly strongly desire to emigrate from, so as to immigrate to where the conditions and circumstances are perceived to be far more favorable for them and their family.

Sanctioned killing and unsanctioned killing

Most civilized people, the world over, do not sanction the murder of another human being. However, as in many things, there are exceptions as to whether or not the taking of another human being's life is duly classified as murder, depending upon, for instance, whether it was accidental, premeditated, in the line of defense, and so on and so forth.  The very biggest dividing line, though, between that which is classified as murder and that which is not, often comes down to whether that taking of another human being's life has been officially sanctioned by the state, such as is done in wars or those engagements that are basically defined as war; as compared to an individual or a group of individuals, that take the life of another, just as deliberately, but have not done so under authorized state sanctioned circumstances.

That is to say, under the conditions of war, the taking of another human being's life can be something in which the killer of that person or persons is rewarded with a medal from the state, for performing their duty to that state.  Whereas, on the other hand, those that take the lives of another on a non-state sanctioned level, of which they have no expressed or even implied authorization to do so from those that are the authority figures of that state, are never rewarded with a medal, and are typically seen as a true menace to society and hence are prosecuted by the state with the objective to have them incarcerated for their inhuman actions.

Yet, as much as states wish to differentiate between those that kill as authorized by the state, as compared to those that kill, without such authorization, the difference in the mindset of those that are doing the killing, may not be appreciably different, because in order to take the life of another, or lots of others, there often is a commonality in which the person or persons, that is the enemy target, has been effectively dehumanized, beforehand.  In other words, to convince a soldier to kill the enemy, typically necessitates demonizing the enemy and dehumanizing the enemy by defining that enemy in derogatory terms that effectively takes away their semblance of humanity and replaces such with what makes them appear as something of no more importance than a despised animal or an insentient object.  So too, street thugs of all types, look upon the other, not as a human being, but simply as a target that has to eradicated, eliminated, and silenced, in order for that perpetrator to get their proper respect, or money, or its equivalency.

To kill another person is not a natural act, which is why many that do so, have to take substances to gather the "courage" to do so, or are inclined to use such substances after doing so, in order to quiet and to still their mind.   However, all this killing is always a lot easier, if the state, or the respect of the street, is able to effectively make it appear that certain particular human beings aren't really human, but are instead actually some sort of despised subspecies, that is a pestilence or an ever present danger that must be stopped at all costs. 

While the killing as sanctioned by the state is dealt with in a fundamentally different manner than killing that has not been sanctioned by the state, what most pundits do not readily realize, is that the psyche of those doing the killing is uncomfortably similar in both of these respective actions, in form and in substance.

"Show me who makes a profit from war, and I'll show you how to stop the war"

The above quote comes from one of America's greatest heroes, Henry Ford.  And Mr. Ford makes a very telling point, which is that since so many businesses are almost by definition, actuated by profits, that any business enterprise that makes a profit in a specific area, has a strong tendency to want to continue to make that profit, in perpetuity.  The problem therefore that comes when looking at enterprises that are directly or indirectly involved in the business of war, is that when those businesses are permitted to make a profit, and typically a very good profit, by a payer, that is always good to their word, is that those enterprises are often going to want to do as much business as they possibly can, because they want to continue to profit.

Whether any company should make a profit from war, is essentially an ethical question.  For instance, when sacrifices are being made by the people that populate a particular country, of which, some of that sacrifice involves citizens and institutions of that country being harmed, hurt, damaged, or even losing their life, it doesn't seem right for some other enterprise, to make a monetary profit upon such.  It is known that corporations, and especially publically owned corporations, have an obligation to their shareholders to grow their revenues and to thereby grow their profits, so that, since the business of America appears to be business, corporations that are making money through a given war effort, are going to more times than not, want to keep making that money, and in fact, probably want to make more of it, year-by-year.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people that would like to see a lot less war, and understand implicitly as did Mr. Ford, that if the profit incentive is removed from war and those corresponding war efforts, then it logically follows that there is going to be a lot less war, because business enterprises that have areas of their business in which there is no profit, no longer would concentrate their efforts on the growth of such.  So then, it is fair to say, since the current agenda, permits corporations to make a profit, and often a handsome profit from war and their relevant war efforts, in which, wars, declared or not, seem to be in abundance; that by thereby changing the dynamic in a way in which those profits are repatriated to the government on behalf of the people, as well as being subsequently legislated out of existence, would materially affect how much war there would be.

This signifies that profits and wars have a symbiotic relationship, and this has been true for quite a long time, and this needs to stop, in order to significantly reduce the amount of wars so being fought, and thereby the untold amount of harm done to society and the people that make up those societies.  Again, it is important to well remember that wars necessitate sacrifice by the people, of which some of those people are going to lose everything, and it doesn't seem right, that some gave all, whereas others have profited handsomely from that sacrifice.

IPOs and where fools rush in

The stock market in whole, should never be seen as some sort of circus show, in which stocks are hawked to unsuspecting patrons as if these stocks all pretty much represent the next great thing, when that often is not really so.  An Initial Public Offering (IPO) takes place when a company that previously has been privately held, makes it shares available for the general public to purchase at some preselected price point, with a predetermined amount of shares so being offered to the public .  While one might think that there are all sorts of sophisticated formulas that are utilized to select an appropriate IPO price point; rather, it must be said that the pricing of any IPO really is more of an art, as compared to being a distinct science.

The fact of the matter is when an IPO comes to the market, that those on the inside that are the holders of those shares, whether they be employees, executives, venture capitalists, or other institutions, are basically selling their shares for money to the general public.  So then, one question that would logically come to the mind, for anybody that is considering the purchasing of such, is that when the insiders of the company, of which quite obviously these people really know what is actually going on inside that company, are willing to cash out their shares, or at least a portion of them, then perhaps they might be getting the better part of the deal.

In point of fact, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, and as reported by the latimes.com, IPOs are trading 70% above their average IPO price over the past t0 years, whereas the S&P 500 has risen 190% over that same time period.  This thus signifies that IPOs on average have underperformed by a considerable margin, stocks that are already listed on the S&P 500.  The first reason why this is so, is that the IPO price of far too many of those so issued, is set higher than the intrinsic worth of that particular stock, and when "investors" pay a premium for a stock, they are going to have an awful of ground to make up.  The second reason why IPOs underperform is that those stocks that been trading for a number of years, and have therefore a track record of sales, profits, and other pertinent information, available for investors to take a good look at, makes for a more informed decision in the purchase of that stock.

The most important thing to understand for investors, is that the party that benefits the most from an IPO is almost never the buyer of the IPO when it is released to the public, but the individual or institution that is trading their heretofore private stock for money, because they are clearly in the position to know whether or not, such a trade is to their benefit, or they would not typically make that trade, but would simply hold onto to what they already have, or buy even more. 

So then, it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to buy what the insiders are selling, especially when many of those companies going public, have failed to prove their value or to provide a sound forecast for the future; and in recognition that there are plenty of other opportunities that are not only a better play, but a more prudent one.

The fight against firearms

America is a country in which its citizenry, good or bad, right or wrong, has ownership of an incredible amount of firearms.  Not too surprisingly, with so many guns available, in which those firearms are designed in a manner so that they do exceedingly well what firearms do; this country has a crisis in the amount of violence so actuated by those firearms.  Those that make insipid statements such as "guns don't kill people, people kill people," are missing the most salient point, that firearms make the killing of people a whole lot easier than it would be, if they did not exist; but they do exist, and they exist in abundance.

The good people that have fought hard in regards to the passage of laws that would stymie the amount of firearms so readily available in this country, have historically not fared very well, which doesn't mean that the battle has been futile, but indicates it is going to be a battle that necessitates looking seriously at all viable options.  For instance, tobacco and alcohol are subject to excise taxes, of which, firearms are also subject to excise taxes, but the percentage amount of that tax, should be and must be appreciably higher than the current 10-11%.  In other words, the price to purchase a particular firearm is going to be a meaningful factor as to how many or how often or how much a given person will pay for that firearm, and therefore the excise tax for firearms needs to be substantially increased.  Additionally, gun shows, need to be subject to a far more withering oversight and to stricter regulations, by appropriate governmental officials, at the place of that show, so that, the comfort level of those so selling firearms at those shows, will be affected in a manner in which the transactions so being made, will not so easily skirt laws that are structured in a manner to preclude firearms, for instance, being sold via a "straw purchase" and the like.

Further, in regards to just about any legal action, money matters.  Those that truly want to reduce gun sales and thereby gun violence need to concentrate on the institutions that have the money, and that is the gun and ammunition manufacturers, themselves.   No matter what the law has said and no matter what judicial rulings have been made to date, the gun and ammunition manufacturers are neither judgment proof, nor are they perpetually free from lawsuits that will meaningful impact their business profits and their responsibility. 

For instance, for years, the tobacco industry was able to win lawsuit after lawsuit, until such a time, that they did not; and eventually they settled for a Master Settlement Agreement to resolve their ongoing litigation issues.  So too, gun and ammunition manufacturers can most definitely have their feet held to the fire, and should have their feet held to the fire; for unlike tobacco, which harms the user of it, over an extended period of time; firearms to a very large degree, harms primarily not the buyer of the firearm, but specifically, other people, and can do so in less than one second.

The bottom line is that the Second Amendment is probably not going to be overturned or be re-interpreted in a manner that favors those that support gun control.  This signifies that those that want positive change in regards to firearms need to fight such in a relentless manner upon multiple fronts, and that unyielding pressure will ultimately produce a positive result

Civilian deaths due to wars and terrorism

In all candor and transparency, a civilian, is generally considered to be a non-combatant in a time of war or terrorism.  Typical examples of those that would be classified as a civilian would simply be children, mothers, and all other individuals who are basically conducting their lives in a manner in which they are not combatants in a war or participants in terrorist acts.  So then, for the most part, most human beings are by definition, civilians, and therefore the deliberate or wanton targeting of civilians in a time of war or in an act of terrorism, makes such, reprehensible.

Unfortunately, in an age in which terrorists aim to create and make havoc by striking at targets that they are cognizant of as being primarily civilians, because they desire to sow fear into the general public, then it is those civilians that pay the price of such an action.   So too, in an age in which aerial bombing is done at unheard of scales and with incredible force and power, even when such bombing are conducted at known military establishments or institutions, there are often going to be peripheral damage to those that are located nearby, including displacement, disease, and death.

While those that live in America, rightly mourn the death of their own civilians that have died in a war, or through terrorist attacks; what seems to be occurring far too often, is that civilians are apparently classified into specific national categories, of which it then follows that American civilians that have died through war or terrorism, are definitely considered to be tragic; whereas the deaths of those that are not American, and in particular, living in countries that America is at war at,  are often times, systematically ignored, marginalized, unreported, or valued as a lesser type of civilian death, and thereby never to be placed on the same dedicated level as an American civilian death.

In point of fact, a civilian is a civilian is a civilian.  When any nation, does not wish to own up to their responsibility in the death of civilians caused directly by their actions taken in a time of war, then that country is shirking their humanitarian responsibilities.  Further to the point, when countries dismiss civilian deaths of all those countries that are not their own, or are not their allies, as basically being unfortunate, and nothing more; then the means to correct the sheer amount of civilians negatively impacted, hurt, injured, or killed is not accorded the proper amount of respect and necessary actions so needed that should be provided.

As it has been said, war is hell, but what makes it even more hellish, is all those that are not combatants to that war, that must unnecessarily suffer, for simply being born into a particular country or by just living in a particular country in which apparently these civilians are considered to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Those that are civilians should be treated by any foreign power in a manner, in which, their safety and their livelihood, is accorded the respect that they inherently deserve.   To not do so, basically stipulates that we are not born equally, and that we are not all accorded unalienable rights; but rather we are clearly unequal, of which only some are eligible for those unalienable rights, and only those few that have those unalienable rights, are those that we mourn for when their lives are lost through war or terror.

Profits, wars, and taxes

While wars typically necessitate some sort of sacrifice from the people, in regards to the cost of soldiers needed to fight such a war, or taxes raised to support such a war, or in absence of taxes being raised, national deficits so created in order to sustain such a war, infrastructure damaged or destroyed, and so on, all of that essentially addresses the monetary cost of war.  Besides that cost in money there is also the cost in the human harm, through injuries and hospitalizations, along with trauma and psychological scars, as well as deaths that war encompasses.  None of these things are good things, but if such is necessary in the defense of our republic or in the defense of our allies -- then many people basically buy into the justification for that war.

What many people do not seem to recognize is that wars, while being bad for certain businesses and quite harmful to certain people, can on the other hand, be very beneficial for certain businesses and quite beneficent to certain people.  Those people and businesses that are the beneficiaries of war are typically those that are employed peripherally or directly within the defense industry, and thereby through their wages, benefit; and those defense companies, through their additional revenues and profits, also benefit.

The question that needs to be raised within any war, and within any specific war effort, is whether or not, those institutions involved directly or indirectly in that war effort, should profit from it?  The only reasonable answer to that question is an unequivocal, no.  This signifies, that corporations that are part of the war effort, should be doing so, not for the profit that so ensues, but rather are committing their resources to such an effort, because it is the right thing to do on behalf of their country's needs.  Those that would argue, that without such a profit, corporations would therefore not perform their needful functions, make for a very interesting response, which is, if the salient reason why corporations do their part in the defense of their nation that actuates them, is profit -- and when called to be of service to their nation, they willingly refuse to do so, then such a corporation as that, is inimical to the values of that nation, and should be placed into the proper receivership of that nation.

Further to the point, all war profits, without exception, should never be permitted to reside in the private hands of corporations or other legal entities, but are by rights, profits that must be fairly returned as rightful compensation to the people of the nation, as a whole.  This signifies, that each year, all corporations that have conducted business with the defense department should be fully audited, and profits, so made directly or indirectly via war efforts of that defense department, must be forfeited in a timely manner to that government, of, by and for the people.

To, on the other hand, stipulate that corporations should be permitted to make money from the human misery of war, would signify that our soldiers don't fight and die for their country, but rather our soldiers fight and die so that some can profit upon the human sacrifice of others.

Homogenous and heterogeneous societies

Homogenous societies are defined as those societies in which the people making up such are united together amongst the lines of their common traits such as skin color, or creed, or language, or various other attributes that are typically based on relatively straightforward visual recognition and/or such members having touchstones or symbols that are commonly used by or acknowledged by those members of that homogenous society. 

While it is generally true that a homogenous society appears to get along well with one another, that isn't always the case, as there are always going to be those typical human foibles of trouble and disputes that stir up anger, wrath, and jealousy.  However, it should be noted, that homogenous societies, even those that are not functioning very well together, are often quite gifted at coming together when they are attacked by some outside force, for then, as the truism states, blood truly is thicker than water.

One might think, giving the advantage that homogenous societies have in often according respect and therefore helpfulness to their fellow members, that heterogeneous societies would be at a massive disadvantage, and not only that, but that heterogeneous societies would always be susceptible to being subdivided into cliques, that would run along such divisive lines as race, creed, income, status, location and so on and so forth.  In fact, to a large extent this is true, as far too many people have a tendency to align with others based on visual similarities or other surface traits that are easily discernible. 

There are, however, distinct advantages to being part of a heterogeneous society, of which the biggest advantage is that diversity, or new blood, if you will, makes for a society that will often go further, discover more, and be motivated to accomplish and achieve many things, that the complacency of a homogenous society might not be inclined to do.  After all, the friction that a heterogeneous society entails, can be the very means, to make change where there needs to be change, and additionally teaches the salient value, that diverse elements that are united together are far harder to break apart, than that which is made of the very same elements.

So then, the true test of a vibrant heterogeneous society is when it is threatened internally or externally, as to whether it will honor that which has brought them together, or whether it will devolve or revert to that which it once was and thereby become rife with sectional differences and discriminations, to its own destruction.  The answer to that question, really comes down to how people see themselves in relation to the society that they are an integral part of--in which, the very best heterogeneous societies see themselves not as a certain race, or creed, or define themselves by their country of origin, but rather have enlightened themselves to take into their heart, that they each are created equally, and that each of them are entitled to fair opportunity, equality under the law, as well as to freedom of conscience; and in recognition of those unalienable rights, they will voluntarily stand united against all forces that would take from them, what is their universal human right, in which all of mankind, without exception, is entitled to.

"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth"

The above quotation comes from the inestimable, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter he wrote to James Madison, considered to be the author of the Constitution, of which this letter was written to James Madison, before the Constitution was submitted and subsequently ratified by the necessary amount of States.  Clearly, as the Constitution does contain the Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson's viewpoint was not only considered, but implemented, which was and still is a great gift to the people of this republic.

The Constitution was written to specifically enumerate the delegated rights that are provided by the consent of the people to that government of, by, and for the people of the United States of America.  The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, is to enumerate specifically the rights of the people in regards to that government, as well as to stipulate clearly that rights not explicitly delegated by that Constitution to that government are reserved to the people of the United States of America.

So then, the purpose and importance of the Bill of Rights is so that the people, are not subsumed by a government that becomes a law and a force itself; for if and when that happens, than surely this is not a government operating any longer under the consent of the governed, but rather would appear to be a government that is operating outside the need of that consent, and therefore it is up to the people to see that such a government as that, be recognized as being in violation of that highest law of the land, its Constitution.

It is the Bill or Rights that makes it clear that the Constitution was not written to set up a government, apart from the people, or a government that would be above the people, but rather it was created so as to prevent that government from aggrandizing unto itself powers that would make it a law of its own, and effectively thereof, separate from the people, so that the people thereby would become inferior to and hence subservient to that government.  After all, the very purpose of a people banding together into one civil government, is for that government to be of service to that people, and to the degree that it is not, that government is not a legitimate government of, for, and by the people.

A government that is not accountable to the people, is not the government that the Constitution, with its incumbent Bill of Rights, was created to be.  The Bill of Rights is necessary to remind that government, that all of the people have been created with unalienable rights, and that these rights are not given by that Constitution, but rather by their Creator, of which these people are forever entitled to their free will, their free conscience, their freedom of movement, their freedom of assembly, their freedom of the press, their freedom to worship, and their liberty to be about their business, without having to give notice to that government, or to receive permission by that government to do so.

The Bill of Rights makes it clear that the legitimate function of our national government is to establish justice for all, and to promote the general welfare for the people, and by doing so, that government serves well its people.

Public income tax returns

In the scheme of things, most people are only able to view their own personal income tax returns and do not have the legal right to view another person's income tax return.  Perhaps that is a good thing, but in actuality, the more private and the more secretive, important things such as taxes are, the more such is susceptible to being abused or taken advantage of, in which, some are able to benefit greatly by convoluted tax laws, tax privileges, as well as tax set asides, whereas other people suffer through simply paying what they believe to be what their fair obligation requires of them in order for us to thereby have a civil society.

At an absolute minimum, all public corporations that have gross sales of $100 million or more should be required to, by law, to disclose publically their complete tax return, available online, for anyone, or any organization to look at and to study at their leisure.  This would in itself, be a great step forward in allowing Americans to truly begin to understand and to comprehend exactly how much real tax burden these behemoth corporations are actually taking upon their shoulders so as to thereby fairly bear their share of the tax burden on behalf of the society that actuates them, as compared to how much in taxes that they are able to circumvent through various machinations.

By making corporate income taxes public, this would be the first necessary step to take in order for the tax code to be modified in a manner in which certain loopholes and advantages that far too many corporations have had the audacity to deliberately take advantage of, be shutdown and eliminated.  That is to say, public corporations often talk a really good game, but far too many of these institutions, don't back up their talk with paying their fair share of taxes, but rather, through their sheer size, and with their top of the line legal and accounting teams, do everything within their power, to not pay their appropriate share of taxes.

As for individual tax returns,  those with income above $500,000, should be required by law to have their tax returns disclosed in an online form to the public, with their real name so identified, but with all identifying aspects of account numbers, social security numbers, and other pertinent information that could compromise their fair privacy, redacted.  It must be said, that It is absolutely vital that the actual names of the taxpayers be disclosed, and thereby how much or how little these high earning citizens are paying in taxes, so that fellow Americans could thereby determine as to whether or not, the tax code as implemented, is truly progressive, or merely takes on the guise of being so.

For an absolute certainty, the more that income tax returns become public knowledge, the more that the general public will know as to how fair and how well the current progressive income tax actually works.  So then, in recognition that the whole point of the progressive income tax is to provide for the necessary and good welfare of the nation, it is important for the public to really know as to whether those that profess that they are doing their part -- actually are.

President Samuel Tilden

School children are taught to learn the names of all the Presidents of the United States, of which, honestly, President Samuel Tilden is not one of them.  In fact, he did run for President, and somehow despite receiving the popular vote of nearly 51% of those Americans that voted in 1876, as well as receiving 184 electoral votes, in an election in which 185 electoral votes would be good enough to become President, somehow Tilden lost; as the four States that had disputed election returns, ended up having all of their electoral votes going to the eventual winner, Rutherford B. Hayes.  To believe, somehow that this result was a fair reflection of the votes so made during that Presidential election, would be false, for truly the victory that should been Tilden's was not.

This reflects, rather sadly, that quite frankly, national politics is a very dirty game and has been for a very long time.  The most probable reason why candidate Hayes, became President Hayes, unfairly over Tilden, is so that the Reconstruction would be terminated in the South and therefore the South would be run, essentially by the very same people, or type of people, that ran the south before the Civil War, that cost the lives of over 620,000 soldiers, and destroyed families, and businesses, all under the misguided notion that somehow it was right for certain privileged people to own other unfortunate people, as if they were their own personal property.

So that, who wins and who loses national elections, most definitely makes a real difference and when those that have the temerity and are traitorous enough to rise up against their own country, in order to protect their peculiar institution, at all costs, so as to make their profit off of the blood, sweat, and tears of those who owed them absolutely nothing, not even an honest day's work, is unequivocally wrong.

The upshot of President Hayes victory was essentially the final nail in the coffin of Reconstruction, and thereby the resurrection of the Southern white cause to run the south as if it was the personal domain of the white slave-owning ruling class, which is indeed what subsequently, happened.  This essentially meant that the side that caused the Civil War, and the same side that lost the Civil War, did not really lose the war, but merely lost the battle of a war that continues perhaps even until this very day; for they ended up back in the seat of southern power with all of the money, all of the property, and all of the justice, in their unjustified control.

Far too many good men gave their lives so that this nation would have a new birth of liberty, justice, and equality for all, based not upon the color of a given man's skin, nor based upon whether a person was born into privilege or not, but based solely upon the character of that man.  Whether that country exists in actuality in the here and now, is something that is in evidence by all that surrounds us, day-by day.

"For my friends, anything; for my enemies, the law!"

This above quotation is attributed to Oscar R. Benavides, President of Peru from 1933-1939.  While on the surface, this quote seems rather pithy and very much to the point, it also should be seen, for all those that believe in equality and in particular, equality under the law, as absolute anathema.  Unfortunately, this quote appears to represent the thinking of far too many repressive leaders around this world, in which, those that are well connected with that leader, receive not only favorable treatment from that ruler, but to a large extent, pretty much, anything that they so desire, as long as they do their part in being that good and loyal friend specifically to that leader. 

On the other hand, those that aren't tight with the leader of their nation, and to a large extent, make it their point to be a real constant thorn in their ruler's side, are going to be susceptible to a really rough ride; especially when the legal arm of the country, and the foot soldiers that support such, owe their allegiance not to their fellow citizens or to the people, in whole, but instead are beholden only to that which is the master of their domain.  Therefore, laws are propagated by these repressive nations, in which, these laws cover just about ever contingency, and area of human interaction, under the guise that these laws are for the protection and benefit of the people, but in actuality, these laws are created specifically so that anyone and any organization at any time, is vulnerable to being arrested, harassed, ostracized, or convicted.

So then, it is fair to say, that any country in which those that rule that nation, have the inherent power which seemingly cannot be balanced by any other comparable power through its legislature branch or judicial branch or even social protest, is a country in which the person or persons so leading that nation, has the type of power that is corruptible; so that, those that are friendly and useful to that regime get everything, and those that are not friendly, suffer dearly.  In other words, when there is anyone within a nation, or an organization within a nation, that is effectively above the law, or interprets the law in only the form that supports that most important person or organization, exclusively; so as to subsequently harm the public, at large, those citizens within that nation are not free.

A nation that is truly of, by, and for the people is defined as a nation in which the laws are equally applied to everyone, without exception to anyone.  This signifies that no nation, in which certain individuals or certain organizations are accorded special privileges, that take thereby from the people their unalienable rights cannot possibly be a nation that is of, by, and for the people, but is instead, that sort of nation, in which the very few are accorded the lion's share of benefits, whereas the masses are sold a real bogus bag of goods, while being constantly subjected to arbitrary laws, selectively enforced against them.

All those select few that have the formidable power to make or break people or organizations, in which further they are protected in their actions, by the law, are those that will never voluntarily do the right thing, because it is far too easy and tempting for them to do the wrong thing.

Don't call it a voluntary tax payment system

For some unfathomable reason there are various people that propagate the misinformation to others that our tax system is voluntary.  In fact, as one might imagine, it isn't voluntary, and the Internal Revenue Code, makes it explicitly clear that the paying of taxes is actually compulsory, for all those generating income at a level in which the payment of taxes is required.  Further to the point, if taxes were somehow voluntary, then those that are employed and being paid wages, would not have appropriate taxes withheld from each of their paychecks for various taxing categories, but rather would have a strong inclination to consider opting-out, per their volition.  Additionally, people that are self-employed, in which their compensation is based upon an agreed amount between those parties to the contract, are legally subject to having a 1099 form issued to them, stipulating the amount so paid during that year; of which, the recipient of that 1099, has the full responsibility of paying the appropriate amount of taxes on such, in which the IRS is cognizant of the issuance of that 1099.

In a lot of ways, in a society in which most everyone has a Social Security number or a Tax ID number, any labor that is done, that is considered to be income, is subject to taxation, and it is far easier to track that labor and work, because of that identification having been recorded.  However, in those jobs, in which cash passes from one hand to another, though it might well be labor, subject to taxation, the fact that the transaction was done in cash, truly does then make it "voluntary" as to whether such is properly recorded to the governmental tax authorities as  income or not.

So then, perhaps when people state that  we have a voluntary tax system, they mean that transactions that are accomplished, in the underground economy or similar, in which those transactions are done with cash or cash-like instruments,  ends up being essentially voluntary as to whether or not someone reports that income and hence pays their appropriate taxes on such.  This is most definitely true, and a very strong reason why governments all over the world are trying to reduce or eliminate cash transactions, for not only does the taxman want their fair share of the money, but this is also the means for the government to keep their finger upon the pulse of their population. 

While it is true to state that the government does not dictate to its population how much that a given citizen owes in taxes, it is that same government that thereby determines as to whether or not tax returns so filed are considered to be accurate or not.  So that, citizens voluntarily fill out their tax forms and therefore have control over what is thereby submitted to those authorities, in which, to a certain degree, those taxpayers determine the amount of monies to be paid to their government, but such is subject to the auditing power of that government, of which, that government is in essence, the ultimate authority as to whether such taxes have been fully and properly paid, as mandated by law.

Food stamps should be allocated bi-weekly

Food stamps, which are officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are issued to those that qualify for such once a month on a specific day each month, in which the recipient of such thereby uses the debit card provided to them to purchase groceries at stores that accept food stamps as a form of payment for those groceries that qualify to be purchased under this program.   The food stamp program is of immense importance for all those receiving food stamps, because physical bodies obviously need physical food. 

Not too surprisingly, most of the people that qualify for food stamps in the first place, aren't necessarily known as the most discerning, or the least impulsive, or the best decision makers.  Rather, those that qualify for food stamps are people that typically aren't in a good financial position, and thereby when they find themselves in a position in which they now have plenty of what is the equivalency of money to get food, they oftentimes are going to get busy and utilize those food stamps at a rate in which, those food stamps will be spent so quickly that they will find that soon enough, those food stamps are fully depleted, and subsequently they are now without food in their refrigerator, before their thirty days are up.

So then, it would make eminent sense if the abiding purpose of food stamps was clearly recognized as having been created to be of specific benefit to the recipients of such.  This signifies, that it would probably be more beneficial for food stamp recipients that rather than being provided with all of their food stamp money upfront to them for an entire month, that they would be better off, if such was modified to provide benefits for them in two week increments.   

After all, many people have been told at some point when they have sat down for a big meal, and subsequently have failed to eat all of it, that "their eyes were bigger than their stomach," which is exactly the type of similar situation that occurs, when people that often don't have enough of what they really want in life, suddenly get all of their food stamp allocation for an entire month, all at once. Indeed, it would not be that difficult for the government to amend the current food stamp program, to make the payments bi-weekly, and the recipients of such, would clearly be the beneficiaries of this; because it is a lot easier to wait a week to get some groceries, if it comes to that, then having to wait two or even three weeks.

The amount of governmental funding for the food stamp program was reported by cbpp.org to be $68 billion in 2018, which indicates that the amount of governmental monies devoted to feeding our population is quite significant.  This so indicates that anything that would improve not only the efficiency of the program but would be of material benefit to the recipients of this program should be seriously considered.  This essentially means that something as vital as food, which is a daily necessity, should thereby take into account that those receiving food stamps, not be placed into the unenviable position of first having a veritable feast, followed unfortunately, by a subsequent famine.

"There is no religion higher than truth"

The above quote is the motto of the Theosophical Society, and it is indeed a very profound truth, of which all sensible people should take such, dearly to heart.  After all, think about it, anything that you do or read or learn, that is not the truth or coming forth from the basis of truth, is going to be of suspect benefit at best, and may well be the very substance or the pathway of all sorts of ills, wrongs, and evils. This thus signifies that the greatest search for mankind is ever the search for Truth, for in that search, you will find the ending of all previous sorrows, for that Truth will surely set you free from the delusions that have held you back from previously seeing that which is and has always been the Truth, of which that Truth never has been or ever will be false.

The very first principle in the learning of any good subject, is learning the truth of that subject, above all else.  Further to the point, if there is no objective truth in anything that we learn, study, and apply, in which, instead, everything is some sort of subjective truth, then the world as we know it, is always going to be a world of chaos and confusion for that which is built upon a foundation of ever shifting sands, and goes wherever the prevailing winds shall blow, will never rightly stand the test of time.  So that, it is a cardinal error of epic proportions, when any institution, even those institutions of long standing, and especially those held in the highest respect, are internally aware of their doctrinal error, but, in fact, do nothing to alleviate or to ameliorate such, but rather prefer to compound matters, by consciously and deliberately hiding the truth.

The time to tell the truth does not ever change, for that time is the ever present now.  So that, those that are aware of the truth but insist upon hiding behind a façade created to obfuscate the truth are doing a grand disservice to all that are affected by such.  So too, no religion, and no established practice should ever subsume truth to their own canonical preferences, out of a sense of convenience, or embarrassment, or monetary reasons, or out of fear of repercussions, as if somehow it makes more sense to embrace that which is false, over that which is true.

Now, while each of us has an inherent responsibility to search for truth, in all that we do and all that we propagate, that does not mean that such a search will not have its own twists, turns, and uncertainties, that necessitate not only an open mind, but an acknowledgement that as flawed human beings, we are not always going to get it right in our beliefs or subsequent actions, because we won't.  What this does indicate is that our search for truth, must not only be sincere, consistent, and determined, but that we must take into account, that Truth, itself, never does change, for it is immutable, and unalterable.  So then, that search for Truth, is also the only way that we can find complete liberty, for those that do not know that Truth, and live to that Truth, are by mainly their own volition, in chains of their own making.

Unemployment benefits and non full-time workers

In order to make a living wage, two factors are absolutely paramount; the first being that the wage so being paid per hour is high enough to actually be a living wage, and the second is the amount of hours so being worked has got to be the same as the basis of what is commonly considered to be a full-time work week, which is currently, forty hours.  That is to say, even when employees are making a living wage of, for instance, $15/hour, if they are not also achieving forty hours of work hours, on a consistent weekly basis, week in and week out, then they are essentially not making a living wage, though the wage itself, is high enough, were they to actually work a forty hour work week, they could indeed get by.

This thus signifies, that current unemployment benefits must be corrected to take into account, those individuals that through no fault of their own are unable to secure forty hours of work each week.  So that, for example, all laborers that are working at least twenty hours in a given week, should be eligible to receive a like amount of hours being paid to them through unemployment on a one-to-one basis, but not more than the equivalency of forty hours in a week.  In other words, if someone works thirty-two hours in a week, they should be eligible to receive their missing eight hours in unemployment compensation.  If, someone works twenty-hour hours in a week, they should be eligible to receive their missing sixteen hours in unemployment compensation.  If, someone works sixteen hours in a week, they should be eligible to receive a matching sixteen hours in unemployment compensation, and so on and so forth.

The point of this unemployment labor compensation is for the Federal government, in conjunction with some contribution from the relevant State government, to see that all eligible laborers are accorded, to the degree that such is possible, forty hours of work each week; so that, these gainfully employed citizens are thereby able to actually earn a living wage.  After all, the whole point of wages to begin with, and why the common man actually labors day-by-day, is to earn, at a minimum, the amount of money so necessary to live a decent life.  So then, it is the responsibility of governmental services to promote the general welfare and thereby to see that those that are part of the labor force, are provided with enough compensation; and when not, such will be augmented by governmental programs, when necessary, for this to be accomplished.

To the degree that governmental rules and regulations in regards to those that are being employed can be applied proactively against employers, to see that more employees are provided with a full forty hour work week, such has its place, because employers that knowingly short their employees' needed hours on a weekly basis, are basically asserting that they are not responsible to those employees in providing them with what is necessary for them to make a living wage.  In short, it cannot be emphasized enough, that all those that are diligent and responsible in their job duties, and are willing and able to work full-time, should be provided with those mandatory hours, through governmental assistance, if necessary, so that they are thereby able to fairly earn their keep.

"Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time"

It has been said: "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time," which on the surface, at best, appears sensible, but underneath the surface is one of those inane quotes and sentiments that demonstrates total hypocrisy, and is in its entirety, of no value to society, and certainly of no real value to those considering committing crimes.  The very first problem with this sentiment is the fact that, unless a given individual has a law degree and thereupon knows all of the law in their particular field, as well as somehow knows all of the law in all the other fields that are not germane to that individual's particular course of study, as well as also having the experience and knowhow to well understand how the law is actually applied in the real world, is the fact that in a significant amount of cases, many people do not know that they are actually committing a crime, even when there are statues on the books, dusty or not, that reflect this.

While it is true, that people intuitively know that it is wrong to steal, to hurt another person, as well as other commonplace crimes, most of those people committing such, really have little idea of what the real consequences of doing this particular crime actually involves, the charges that will be brought, or how the wheels of justice actually work, in addition to the most salient fact that in the heat of the moment, none of that has a lot of relevancy to them, as their lack of self-control or impulsiveness in general, was bound to get them in some sort of trouble, at some point, anyway.

If, anyone believes that the above mentioned quote is sensible in some way, then this government, needs to make it their point to teach specific courses in all of their public schools, that address the criminal and civil codes in as much detail and with as much comprehension as possible in order to provide to those students, the living maxim that those that are properly forewarned are properly forearmed.  In other words, if the reasonable knowledge of our criminal code somehow will reduce crime, because all sensible people that cannot do the time will thereupon commit no criminal acts, then go to it.  To not do so, would signify the truth of the matter, which is that the criminal code in America is selectively and unfairly enforced, and is in almost every aspect, never just, though such is conducted in a court of justice.

Rather, the reason that there is so much crime in America comes down to a lot of very visible reasons, of which inequality, injustice, ill-education, unfairness, discrimination, hypocrisy, and greed are the main contributors to such.  What is a real shame, though, is that the biggest criminals aren't really those that commit street crimes; but rather those that under the sanction and auspices of government approval, poison our environment, grossly cheat the system, and wantonly muscle their way into the affairs of sovereign foreign governments, and will harm, hurt, and kill all those that get in their way, without compunction, and do so, all under the flag of the red, white, and blue.

The cosmetic fragrance non-disclosure exception

One might think, and for a good reason, that when cosmetics are sold to consumers that the list of chemicals used in regards to those beauty products would be fully listed upon the container of that product; but in actuality that isn't the case, for manufacturers are permitted to utilize a loophole that allows them to group a bunch of chemicals under the general category of "fragrance" that are thereby not specifically listed as being used on the product.  It would be one thing, if this was simply done by manufacturers in order to hide proprietary information from competitors, and to a degree, no doubt that is true; but to a very large extent, manufacturers hide behind the benign title of fragrance in order to specifically not inform consumers of the chemicals, for some of these chemicals so used, are dangerous and can be cancerous to consumers.

In order to correct this situation, it would be convenient if the government had a robust federal mandated law that addressed this very issue in a comprehensive and complete manner, but in a society that is all about money and profit, those that utilize that money and profit in effective ways, have precluded such a federal mandated law being presently put into place.  While one avenue for consumers would be to rail against the unfairness and the harm of such to those that purchase these goods with chemicals that are hidden behind the veneer of "fragrance"; another avenue to consider is to address the issue in a proactive manner.  So that, organizations such as the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP) has made it a point to test products that do not willingly disclose their full fragrance ingredients, in order to determine the safety of, or danger to consumers.  Organizations such as BCPP, do matter, because cosmetic companies are in the business of making money and do not willingly desire to become pariahs to the very consumers that they are trying to sell their products to.

This indicates, that an independent chemical testing laboratory, should be developed in a manner in which cosmetic products that are fully and completed disclosed and have been thoroughly tested in a comprehensive way, thereby are provided with a seal of approval from that independent chemical testing laboratory, when they have been certified safe, which by virtue of that good rating, would provide a meaningful amount of assurance to consumers of such.  So that, cosmetic products with such a seal would thereby be seen as a product that has been tested and proven safe, and hence a more prudent buying decision over those other cosmetics that lack such an approval and/or have failed to provide a fully disclosed list of chemicals so utilized on the product.

After all, the very reason why there is any disclosure of the chemicals used on the cosmetics that are routinely used by human beings, is for the benefit and the protection of the consumer; so that, when consumers are hoodwinked into believing that a generic label such as fragrance, is nothing to be concerned about, but in reality is something that in many instances, is something consumers should be very concerned about, the consumer is placed into the position of being possibly harmed by their use of that cosmetic, when their intent would never have been for that to occur.