All deliberate speed

The seminal Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, was ruled upon unanimously in 1954, in which it was decided that racial segregation of school children was unconstitutional because separate educational facilities for minority students was clearly not equal in quality to that of the favored majority race.  The court instructed that such was to be ameliorated "…on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed…"  It is now been sixty-six long years since this judgment was put into effect, of which, "all deliberate speed" has come and gone, with seemingly a very minimal effect; of which a very strong argument can be made that our public school system still suffers from essentially the same systemic segregation that this decision was supposed to rectify, and without a doubt, that the purposeful segregation of our public school education is still unequal and unfair, of which the favored race, still has and continues to maintain a separate and superior public school system, far more times than naught over racial minorities, and of which, it must be said, that there are few public school systems that are actually integrated.

While there are myriad reasons why the foregoing is so, of which some are unintended, and others are quite clearly intended by those parties of interest; none of this serves to resolve the problem as it exists; of which, it is the children that are the ones that suffer for having to go to public schools which are inadequate, segregated, and substandard, as well as it being this country that suffers for deliberately permitting so many of its children, to be ill educated and without opportunity or hope.

The only possible solution to today's continuing problem of the systemic segregation of our public school system, as well as the inferiority of those public schools that are prevalent in minority communities is for the federal government to get involved, and to get involved via the only means that will produce a clear and meaningful result in a relatively short period of time so as to ameliorate the second-rate quality of that education so suffered from our minority brethren.   This thus signifies that the only avenue to correct such, is by the nature of the purse, that the federal government controls, of which, no single entity controls more money than the federal government, and what that federal government so provides, is the very same thing, it can also take away.  So that, this federal government needs to make it the national standard that every State of this union will be evaluated in regards to their public school system, and every State so found to be in violation of segregation as well as the inferiority of public schools for those that are the minority, will be subject to having all federal funding revoked from said State, forthwith;  unless such a State provides both a plan of action, with a specific substantive timetable, and adheres to such, so as to correct their public school system to eliminate said segregation and inferiority, from that public school system.

The whole point of the decision so rendered in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was to see to it that each school child of this great nation, no matter their income or their race, would be provided a proper education.  This has not been done, and needs to be done, and not with all deliberate speed, but right here, and right now.

By all economic means possible

There are many that profess that we need more "law and order" because there is too much crime, and by virtue of all of that additional "law and order", crime will be reduced because the "bad" guys will be incarcerated, leaving the world to consist of solely good guys and thereby good law abiding citizens.  Yet, this belief in the efficiency of "law and order" is belied by the very fact that in 21st century, never have so many been incarcerated; yet, crime rates, while trending down recently, are still substantially above the baseline that existed in America back in 1960, indicating that the mere incarceration of individuals does not, in and of itself, resolve crime issues in America.

One of the things that many commentators do not wish to discuss, or choose not to discuss, about crime rates in America, is the fact that the more unequal a country is in regards to its wealth and income distribution, the more crime that is thereby produced.  Intuitively, this makes sense, for if we were to postulate that everybody had the exact same wealth, of which that wealth was enough to have a pretty decent life -- there would thereby be far less crime, because crimes that are committed primarily because of lack would be reduced to a bare minimum.  On the other hand, when we picture countries in which the lion's share of the wealth is held in the hands of the privileged 1%, and of which the middle class, once robust, is now fraying, and the lower class, is ill educated, and without opportunity or hope, then one would expect that crime would be prevalent, which is the case within America.

America is a capitalistic society, of which, within that capitalism as practiced at the highest levels, there is a definite construct that bends, cheats, and manipulates the system to such a large extent, that the end result is that we have a very small amount of favored winners, that thereby take in a gargantuan amount of the corresponding profits, wealth, and assets; leaving the balance thereof to be fought for by all those that are not part of that privileged position or class.  So too, with systemic racism, with prejudicial law enforcement, with an often misguided and unjust criminal justice system; combined with distinct pockets of utter abject poverty, decaying public schools, poor healthcare, dysfunctional families, and hopelessness, this creates and perpetuates a lower class that has no firm foundation to build upon, but rather must hustle to scratch their way into some semblance of a decent life.  We should not then be surprised, that those that have been forsaken are going to have a strong inclination to do what they need to do, in their own competitive way, to make something of their lives, so as to achieve some sort of success, by any and all economic means so possible.

This signifies what should already be obvious, which is that a meaningful percentage of what has been defined as crime by the state, is that which is being committed by people who are left without any other means but to commit crime in order to have a fighting chance to get some portion of that great, big, fat, rich pie that America represents, in whole.  Remember this well, those that have nothing, are fairly entitled to have something, and when the state does not do its part to ameliorate such, those that lack the accouterments of a fair and sustainable life will do what they have to do.

Toleration, liberals, and free speech

One of the fundamental tenets of American freedom, is written into our Constitution via our First Amendment, that "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech."  Because, Congress cannot make a law abridging the freedom of speech, this so indicates, that the citizens of this nation, have the right to freedom of speech.  As it has been adjudicated, that freedom of speech only meets its match when such freedom of speech as Justice Holmes stated, "….create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

So then, fundamentally freedom of speech permits people to express unpopular views, prejudicial views, and uncomfortable views, of which citizens clearly have the option not to opt-in to listen to such; but should maintain the respect to tolerate the right of that person or persons to express themselves in such a manner.  After all, it must be acknowledged, that most of us, have changed our opinion or mindset upon things of meaningful substance, at least once in our lives, of which, if we therefore were mistaken in that previous opinion, we now should be more open-minded in accepting views that differ even diametrically from our own, so as to provide space and the common courtesy for others, to express what they so desire to express.

Far too many people, desire to silence others, for having beliefs that are not in conformance with their own, and believe that society would be better off for that silencing, since apparently some of those people, believe that they, alone, and not those others or any others, know best.  In reality, just as the burning of books, never serves society well; so too, the burning of other's opinions and viewpoints, at the point of a sword or through punishment or intimidation or through the long arm of the law does little to make society more harmonious.  In point of fact, it isn't healthy for the mind to not want to consider, how it is that other people have come up with their opinions and viewpoints, and that a better understanding of others, and where they come from and what they are trying to achieve, makes for a better understanding of people, one to another.

It is especially disappointing that when it comes to the necessity of freedom of speech, or the toleration thereof, that surprisingly liberals, are often just as narrow-minded and bigoted in their own way, as conservatives are.  That is to say, many conservatives don't want to hear or take to heart what the other side has to say, because they believe that they are right, and that which is wrong, therefore has no place in their viewpoint within the marketplace of legitimate ideas.  Whereas, many liberals don't want to hear or take to heart what the other side has to say, because they believe that the other side does not have the fundamental right to spew their hateful  or inconvenient opinion, and that therefore these liberals will not tolerate such speech, and thereby will not permit it to be heard.

This world can be a very uncomfortable place because it consists of vastly different ideas as well as vastly different opinions, even ones of extreme vitriol, but it is ever needful that people in societies are permitted to express openly what they feel the need to express; and if one's go-to response is going to typically be violence, or intimidation, or intolerance, that serves to say, in effect, that the only thing that will be tolerated is "my way"; and such a belief as that is not only childish but also the very opposite of freedom.

Good food is that which nourishes the body

Our physical bodies need food that nourishes the body in order to properly sustain itself.  While, there are all sorts of food items that people can eat, those food items, are not all equal; of which the biggest change in nutritional habits in modern times is how many calories are now being consumed by people that are highly processed and stripped thereof of necessary minerals and vitamins, often with an abundance of unpronounceable chemical additives, and typically with sugar or sugar substitutes that make up a meaningful percentage of that food item constitution.  It must be stated unequivocally, that all things being equal, that those that consistently eat a diet of good nutritional food in comparison to those others that consistently eat a diet embodying the consuming of an abundance of processed junk food, that the person so eating that junk food, will find, sooner or later, that their physical body will duly suffer for having made that fateful decision.  Again, it must be stated, that physical bodies need physical food, and that not all physical food is equal, so that those that are conscientious about what they consume and make it their point to eat foods that are nutritional, as compared to those that do not follow prudent nutritional guidelines, we will thus find as the result of this difference in eating habits, extended over a long enough time period, that what we so consume, materially matters.

Unfortunately, in countries in which the god of that country, is money, or the pursuit of money, above all else -- then those that are in the food making business, of marketing and selling such products, are going to have a very strong tendency to want to create food items that are cheap in cost, while deliberately be designed to have a desirable taste, while taking on the guise of being wholesome,  so as to lure in the unsuspecting to consume their product, far more than what is prudent.  After all, because each of us needs food in order to sustain our bodies, the price point of food items so being sold, and perceived desirability of them, is a strong determinate of what people do or don't buy.  Fortunately, for people, governments are created by the consent of the people for the expressed benefit of those people, of which a strong government takes responsibility to see that the people are sustained and protected from that which is deceptive and not good for them.  This so signifies, that activist governments make it their point to tax appropriately as well as to subsidy appropriately that which is junk food in comparison to that which is nutritional food.

So then, to the degree that governments do not differentiate between junk food and nutritional food by appropriately identifying such and by thereby adding an appropriate governmental tax for that which is junk, while providing an appropriate subsidy benefit for that which is nutritional, signifies that this government does not care about the bodies of their citizens.  Yet, our freely provided public educational system  has been created for the express benefit of those citizens, so as to develop good, literate, and self-reliant citizens that are needed for the sustainably and advancement of that nation.  So, it then follows that a well developed mind has the continual need of a good, healthy body, as well; and that the government thereby has a responsibility to do its part in promoting such.

Rules and laws are ever expanding

While there most definitely is a place for rules and laws, it must be understood that when it comes to those rules and laws, often times, more does not make for a better society, but almost certainly makes for a more repressive and unfair society.  The very first problem with so many rules and laws is that more times than not, what is not needed is more of the same, but rather society would be better served instead with the fair, consistent, and equal application of those laws being applied to all of mankind, in kind.  What we find though is what happens again and again, is that those that have money, or connections, or both, need not overly concern themselves about rules, for they are, in essence, invulnerable to them; so that, in effect, the rules and laws are mainly put into place primarily so as to keep the masses in their place, which thereby aids in the favored minority being able to not only maintain control over the masses, but makes it easier for them to continue to exploit them by the arbitrary or prejudicial usage of those rules and laws.

While a lot of people believe that rules and laws are a necessary precondition in order to have a good civilization, this is countermanded by the fact that so many of these rules and laws are specifically created so as to be a source of trouble and of manipulation for those that are not part of the favored group -- who themselves are the arbiters of these laws.   After all, no matter the intent of a given law or rule, how good that law or rule is, has an awful lot to do with how it is applied to the general population along with the rightful sensibility of such; and to the degree that this is done in a fair, impartial and consistent manner, then that typically makes for a good rule or law.  On the other hand, laws and rules, that are ever changing, depending upon the times, or the interpreters of such, are typically bad laws and rules, for they lack consistency as well as often, sensibility.

So too, rules and laws can be liken to an alternative form of taxation, in which those that disobey such, are subject to fines or incarceration, which because these take away the source of income for people, is effective in extracting money or precluding the earning of money from those that are found guilty, and thereby weakens those people that are held in violation of those rules and laws.  Additionally, to try to overcome infractions of those rules and laws, often necessitates the expenditure of assets to obtain good counsel, which again, is another form of extracting money from the public, so as to be redirected to those chosen few.

It so seems that just about any rule or law, no matter how clearly written such is, can be interpreted in a manner in which those that have influence and money are thereby able to obtain relief from such; whereas all those that lack those very things, do not.  Therefore the continual expansion of these rules and laws are clearly meant as a means to get all those that are not part of the governing or protected class, to pay proper homage to those that are, or else suffer the ill effects of their recalcitrance.

Corporations should not be protected from criminal law

The United States has all sorts of laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, reckless endangerment and the like, of which plenty of people are found guilty of these very crimes, each and every year.  Yet, surprisingly, corporations, which are no more than an artificial creation by the state so that a group of people can join together to act thereof as a single united entity, and thereby solicit business via that entity, seem almost immune from suffering the ill effects of behavior which, if done by a given individual or group of individuals, would definitely be criminal.  For instance, in regards to the gross and deliberate damaging and catastrophic pollution of waterways by a given corporation -- of which such water is thereby utilized unawares by those residents as drinking water to their individual harm; this should properly be seen as a criminal offense, with corresponding criminal penalties.  So too, labor by personnel at a facility in which the safety standards have deliberately been relaxed so as to forego necessary maintenance expenses or the like, in which thereby these employees are subsequently harmed or die by those substandard conditions, should properly be seen as a criminal offense, with corresponding criminal penalties.  Again and again, corporations that behave in a manner, underhanded or not, explicitly or not, that lead to the death or harming of innocent parties, whether those of their employment, or those advertently exposed to their bad behavior should and must be held accountable to those bad actions.

As things currently stand, the best way to get away with murder, manslaughter, or reckless endangerment really comes down to setting up a corporate entity, in the foreknowledge that by doing so, corporations have the opportunity to thereby make bucket loads of money, while simultaneously being personally protected from having to suffer the personal penalty for what would be considered to be crimes, if done by a person, so that they are thereby permitted as a corporate entity to play dice with those residents that live within the vicinity of their operation, as well as those employees that work for them in those unnecessarily dangerous and exposed conditions that leaves them susceptible to harm.

If this country truly desires to see corporations behave in a mature and responsible fashion that takes into full account their wrongful actions so contemplated, then it needs to start holding those bad people within those corporate enterprises, individually responsible for their actions that harm others.  After all, if the tradeoff for these corporate entities essentially comes down to a construct in which if they are caught, they are corporately fined, and nothing much more -- in contrast to all the profits, bonuses, and stock options so awarded to those in the executive offices, then one can expect corporations to continue to perform in a manner in which their personal desire for the rewards of being greedy and irresponsible, will continue to outweigh their responsibility to be a good and principled corporate citizen.

The bottom line is that the whole point of having laws, rules and regulations, is that a civilized society needs structure that is fairly applied and with corresponding penalties so imposed for egregious actions that harm that society.  To provide, more or less, a free "get out of jail card" to persons within corporations, is a grave mistake, for corporations are made up of people, and those people that do wrong and harm within those corporations to others, need to duly suffer for it.

Matthew 12:48

We read in Holy Scripture: But he answered him who spoke to him, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” (Matthew 12: 48)  One might think that the answer would be fairly obvious in the sense that our true brothers and sisters must be those that live in accordance and in obedience to that law, which is immutable and ever just--which is God's law.  Yet, many people as well as civilizations have not taken this practical wisdom to heart, and thereby live their lives in a manner which reflects that their brother and sister is really no more than their own self, and deliberately work in cliques with others of the same mindset to benefit their selves, at the expense of others, in whole.

There are plenty of ways to define human beings, of which, many people believe, for instance that those that are native born within the United States, are thereby Americans.  Yet, if being an American was a simple as simply being born here, or of becoming a naturalized citizen, then America would be a country of peace, harmony, and good will for all; but even the most cursory of looks indicates that America isn't that way whatsoever, and that in reality what is necessary to be considered to be an American represents diametrically different things to different people.  The reason that this is the case is that so many people that are citizens of America are nearly clueless as in their understanding of what it truly means to be an American; though, such has been written clearly for us in our Declaration of Independence, and thereafter formalized within our Constitution.  So that, a person that is truly an American, would believe wholeheartedly that everyone, without exception in this country, is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that further that this is an egalitarian society, of which each of us stands on our own merits, with laws equally applied and enforced for all, and that all are thereby entitled to be fairly judged by those that are their peers.

So too, while each of us has our familial blood relatives, that deserve our respect, love, and concern; to believe that just those that are our relatives, no matter their merits or demerits, are the only ones deserving of that love is a false construct, for the forgiveness and compassion that we so readily provide for family members, is only fair and sensible, if we also provide a fair amount of the same to those that are not our blood relatives, for to treat one group of people in a more favorable manner, solely because of their blood relationship to us, is not inclusive, but exclusive.  Rather, our true responsibility, above all else, is to fully comprehend that we are all children of the very same God, of which, because each one of us has the same Father that it so follows that all of us, are truly brothers and sisters to one another; and that those that are on the pathway of knowing and thereby adhering to God's law, have a formal duty to recognize that we are all in this very same thing, together, in which we have a sacred responsibility to help those that are the least amongst us, for these are ever our fellow brothers and sisters, that though they be lost, they need be found. 

Crime and punishment and social class

In a truly egalitarian society of which laws are created that are fair and equally applied, along with those laws being structured so as to demonstrate in principle that these laws are no respecter of persons, than such a society as that is clearly a just society.  Unfortunately, while many societies profess that their Constitution or their government abides by those very things, or declaim that it does, or that their justice system behaves in that manner; the fact of the matter is, that one's social class and criminal justice as applicable to such are absolutely relevant to the crime and punishment so rendered, and that those of the upper class are clearly differentiated in how they are treated, by laws so instituted amongst men, then any  other social class.

It all starts with the social conditioning of the classes, of which, social mores that are still in usage today, indicates that those that are from the upper class are often people not to be trifled with as well as people that need to be respected, for these are the very people of which the judicial system as well as the legislative representatives, have a significantly higher percentage of.  In other words, the very people that write the laws and then render justice upon those laws are the people that make up the favored class, for those of that upper class, would not ever live or permit to have, a construct in which their voice was diminished by those that are not of the same class as they are.  This signifies that the type of crimes that the upper class would have a tendency to participate in, such as financial fraud of all stripes, corporate malfeasance, tax evasion, and exploitation, are considered to be "white collar crimes" which are more typically dealt with in a manner in which incarceration to such is absolutely minimized, and financial penalties are utilized instead for punishment.  Whereas, those of the "blue collar crime" type, are the typical crimes of the rabble, such as robbery, theft, rape, murder, and all those victimless crimes, which are typically treated rather harshly, with stiff sentencing of the miscreant being the routine result of having committing these crimes.

After all, those of the upper class don't rob anyone, at least not directly face-to-face; nor do they steal anything, at least not by the direct taking of an object from another; nor do they rape anyone, for they can buy whatsoever sex that they so want, deviant or not; nor do they murder anyone, for exploitation of another is far more satisfying; and finally they aren't ever accused of any victimless crimes, for all their illicit activities are done behind closed doors.  On the other hand, the lower class, seldom has the opportunity to commit "white collar crimes" because they are not often in the position to do so; and even when they somehow evolve to be in that position, the justice system thereby finds a way to merge their particular "white collar crime" into something more suitable for one of lesser class, so that they duly suffer for their failure of adhering to their place, by becoming incarcerated with those others that have the audacity to take on the aura of that which they are not.

Who you are most definitely matters and the justice system and the legislative laws so enacted, reflect that those that make and adjudge those laws, do so in a manner that favors their own class, at the expressed expense of all those that are not of that class.

The threat of deterrence is not effective

Far too many nation-stations, that really should know better, have bought into the theory that the threat of deterrence, be it nuclear, economic, or some other military means will consistently get other nation-states to come to heel.  That at least is the theory, but that theory is wanting, as essentially the threat of deterrence especially when it comes from the sole super-power in this world, basically translates to the words that all those that we threaten with deterrence need to obey the United States, or else.  Is that sort of attitude and mindset, that builds resentment, breeds discontent, and ultimately will fail, because fundamentally the most appropriate way to have other nation-states behave in a mature, just, and compassionate manner is to have those very qualities displayed in one's own nation-state.

Nobody likes a bully, and when the United States acts as a bully to the rest of the world, or certain subject nation-states of this world, that is seldom going to resolve issues that need to be addressed in a responsible and mature fashion.  Rather, when a country as powerful as the United States, cannot successfully address recalcitrant nation-states in a manner in which those nation-states might consider listening to that voice, in which the response by the United States is far too often, basically advocating force in so many words, then the United States is not helping to build bridges, but rather is acting as a non-listening domineering dad, that wants to always have its way, without going through the trouble of utilizing common sense reasoning, or a true meeting of minds, to accomplish such or to create a meaningful dialog.

Those countries that are incapable of coming to reasoned decisions at meetings that address these very things, in which there is a give and take by all parties involved, of which, we have instead, one party that irrevocably insists that it must be their way or the highway, then there probably wasn't any point to the conference to begin with.  All those countries, big or small, superpower or not, that reach for the gun, when they cannot come to an agreement with their own people, or their neighbors, or their fellow countries, have sold their legitimacy to the barrel of that gun.  All those that insist upon using the threat of deterrence to resolve differences, have aggrandized onto themselves, the type of power, that is abusive, and thereby serves to negate democracies, and to consider irrelevant the voice of the people, to serve only that one voice, which says that its authority will not bow to any other.

One would expect better discernment from the United States, then how our government and its representatives act on the international scale on so many levels at the present time.  First, the United States insists upon meddling in all sorts of affairs that really are not relevant to its Constitutional authority, and secondly it does not desire to find common ground with others, all that often, but rather reaches for that power supremacy card, and utilizes it as a cudgel against all those that annoy them, again and again.  For whatever reason, the United States believes it lives in some fantastical world, in which they forever fear that some other nation-state is going to tread on them.  The reality is that isn't happening, but those that keep bullying others around, and shaking other nation-states down, are surely going to reap what they have sowed.

The importance of "skin in the game"

The idiom, skin in the game, can basically be defined as a particular person or institution having some sort of personal or meaningful complicity in the decisions so being made by that person or institution so enacted, in which the consequences thereof, impacts them as well as the parties that they are intended to impact.  That is to say, when advice is given to anybody, of whom the consequence of the person giving such advice has no material impact upon them, then, in fairness, that person does not have skin in the game, because they are not risking anything for providing that advice.  On the other hand, when someone requests that his constituents, take up their arms against some sort of oppressive enemy, and that person or institution does their part in taking up their own arms, then, they for a certainty, have skin in the game, for they are involved in it.

There are always going to be those instances, of which in the advice so given, that the person providing that advice, may indeed have the best of intentions, but they are not in a position in which they really could have skin in the game, such as, for example, when a person provides an entrepreneur with business advice, of which that person giving that advice, does not own a business or is even a manager of such.  That does not mean the advice has no relevancy or has no value, but, it does indicate that the person receiving that advice should take into account, that the advice so given is essentially by a person that is not risking anything.

The main issue with those people and institutions that do not have skin in the game, is the fact, that the further removed that a person or institution are from having skin in the game, the more that the decisions and advice that they make, while having consequences for those receiving such, good or bad, does not noticeably affect that person or institution that has made those decisions or given that advice.  The problem thereby becomes that when those that are making or implementing the rules, regulations, and laws for others but have no skin in the game, not even on a tangential level, the less inclined they are to take to heart, the real consequences of those rules, regulations, and laws upon those that these are applicable to.  This is why, for instance, when those that judge or enforce the law, are placed into a situation where the worm has turned, that they become for the first time, truly knowledgeable about how that law is actually applied in the real world, and this often becomes an insightful revelation for them.

Those that have never walked a mile in another person's shoes, do not truly know that person, and do not have skin in the game with that person, of which, because they lack that experience, it therefore means that they are less capable of having harmonic empathy for that person's situation.  So that, those that have never had to worry about where their next meal is coming from, or the security of their employment,  or the fair safety of their being from the long arm of the law, do not have a true appreciation for all those that have experienced or have been threatened with those very things.  All this signifies that those that do not have skin in the game, are going to find it problematic to do the right thing, even if they actually desire to do the right thing, because having personally risked nothing, they therefore will not suffer the consequences of what so occurs, and hence will not be able to properly value the ultimate repercussions of what they have advised, implemented, or done.

The non-variability of gas station prices

There are some street corners in big cities in which each one of those corners, actually has a gas station upon it.  One would think, that in a situation in which the competition is literally a stone's throw away, that at least one of those gas stations would have a meaningfully lower price than the others, so as to put pressure of those other gas stations to compete at that level, as well as to differentiate themselves from those other gas stations, so as to increase their volume of business over their competitors.  The fact of the matter though, is that the typical baseline price of gasoline within a particular county in a particular State, in which all of the respective gas stations are subject to the exact same governmental taxes, demonstrates more often than not, a small disparity in gasoline prices.  That is to say, the highest price in the neighborhood is typically less than 10% more than that baseline price, and the lowest price is no more than 10% less.  While, that is a difference in price to the consumer, that difference in consideration of the importance of that commodity and the expense, thereof, is relatively light.

What doesn't make a lot of sense, is that oil is produced by several gargantuan oil companies, such as ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and the like, of which the oil fields that they extract their oil from are going to have accompanying costs that are quite obviously going to vary from not only field to field, but from company to company.  In other words, the cost to extract oil for ExxonMobil as compared to Shell is going to be noticeably different, and certainly should never be about the same, because some oil fields are far more productive at a far lower cost than others, and that materially matters.  So that, logically those companies that extract oil at a lower internal cost should be able to sell their oil at a lower cost point, of which those retail gas stations, that buy that cheaper oil, should thereby be able to pass on some of those savings to the consumer, and by their consistently lower gas prices, take market share away from their competitors.

However, instead, we live within a construct in which barrels of oil, no matter the internal costs to extract the oil, actually are sold by the manufacturers of that oil by the barrel through commodity markets, so that the low-cost producers, as well as the higher-cost producers are basically selling their oil for the same price, and the retailers that thereby buy that refined gasoline through that market, are in essence, paying about the same price for that refined gasoline, which thereby necessitates, more or less, that the prices that the consumer thereby pays, is going to be about the same, subject to different country taxes in different States, as well as the fact that some States have higher gasoline taxes than others, in which the end result is that the consumer of that gasoline, in the area in which they live, basically pays about the same price for a gallon of gasoline no matter what gas station that they do their business at.

All of the above, basically signifies, that though gas stations do ostensibly compete against one another, they are in many ways and forms, similar enough in their pricing, that for all intents and purposes, they act as if they are nationalized, though they are not.

The domestic production of foreign cars in America

Next to one's own home, the most costly material item that people need to purchase is their vehicle for transportation.  That said, the lifespan of even the best of vehicles is limited, so that, unlike a home that through proper maintenance and whatnot, can easily stand for one hundred years the best of vehicles needs to be replaced, periodically.  While it is true that at one time, all the vehicles being sold in America, were American in their origin and labor of, that hasn't be true for several decades, and won't ever be true again, in a world that has become appreciably smaller.  The one thing that America did right in recent years, when it comes to the big expensive item that cars and SUVs represent, is that it forced the hand of many foreign manufacturers, to agree to a quid pro quo, so that these foreign manufacturers in order to have fair access to the American market would therefore in lieu of exorbitant tariffs or other restrictions, have decided to produce and to manufacture a certain percentage of their vehicles on American turf in order to maintain their access to this market.  Those foreign manufacturers thereby invested millions upon millions of dollars into infrastructure, the purchasing of parts so needed for their manufacture of vehicles in America, as well as the hiring of American personnel, to accomplish such.

So then, to a certain significant degree, when Americans purchase cars that ostensibly appear to be foreign manufactured, those cars may well have been assembled primarily through American labor, utilizing American tools and American parts, which thereby helps to keep that money so being spent on such an expensive item as a vehicle, circulating within America, which is beneficial for America.  Despite this success, though, America has in recent decades, continued to lose millions of manufacturing jobs to foreign based companies, as well as through the utilization of more automation and robotics.  Still, in lieu of the fact that America was able to get foreign manufacturers of vehicles to open up expensive facilities to produce and to manufacture vehicles upon American soil, one would think that in order to protect, defend, and to promote other manufacturing jobs within America, that America would desire to do the same sort of thing, for other industries, besides just the automotive one.

In point of fact, about the only thing that wakes up foreign companies that are selling a lot of their product into the United States, of which none of the product is being manufactured within the United States, is the implementation of necessary tariffs, so as to help protect domestic manufactures and to encourage those foreign operatives to invest in America, so that they can continue to have fair access to that market share.  After all, the domestic cost of labor, the domestic cost of land, the domestic cost of environmental laws, and the cost of litigation in America, is going to, more times than not, be significantly more expensive then the corresponding cost of such in a given foreign nation, of which, a tariff so implemented is a fair way to help even the score between two competing nations.

The bottom line is that the type of deal that was structured to help secure the continual domestic manufacturing of automobiles in America --necessitated that foreign manufacturers would have to compete on the same soil, as our domestic manufacturers so do.  This is fair, and should be implemented far more often for other industries that are currently being hollowed out by foreign manufacturers that do not employ Americans.

Wage growth and stock market returns are not in sync

As reported by ssa.gov, from the years 2001 to 2018, the Average Wage Index (AWI) for workers increased 2.59% annually; whereas, in comparison to the S&P 500, that stock market index return over the same period of time was 4.43%, annually; signifying that the stock market return was a cumulative 71% higher than the AWI over that period of eighteen years.   Since, it takes labor to produce products, goods, and services, one would think, all things being equal, that wage growth would be in sync with stock market returns, but clearly stock market returns have been appreciably higher than wage growth.  This so indicates that those that control the means of production, and are the people in charge of the wages so provided to American workers, have siphoned a higher percentage of those profits onto their own executive and upper management hands as well as onto the stockholders of record, as opposed to sharing that wealth, fairly, with those that are an integral part of the process of creating those goods and services.

Not too surprisingly, in an era in which labor unions are weak, and governmental taxation policies favor the rich and elite, this means that those that are mere wage earners and without good (or any) labor representation whatsoever, are going to end up with the short end of the stick, more often than not, of which that lack of wage growth commensurate to the stock market returns so generated, reflects that laborers are not receiving their fair day's wage for a fair day's work.  After all, wages that companies do not pay to their employees, are therefore monies kept for those that own the means of that production for their own benefit; so that, in essence, the rich, privileged, and most connected amongst us, get even more wealth, all at the expense of those that are falling further and further behind in wages earned.

So then we live within a construct, in which when times are bad, employees are fired or laid off or have their working hours reduced or are simply let go because they are often considered to be "at will" employees, and hence there is no monetary penalty so paid by the employer for these workers, whether they are laid off, terminated, have their hours reduced, or their wages stagnated.  On the other hand, when times are good, employee wages do not rise at the same level that the profits and the stock market returns are generating, mainly because those that do the employing, are not compelled by law, or pressured by labor unions, or by governmental forces, for that matter, to pay more in compensation, then they are wont to do.

All of this is indicative as to why the rich get richer, the middle class remains under pressure, and the impoverished remain stuck in their place.  This is also why there are those privileged few that continue to aggrandize more and more in assets, that thereby allows them to lord it over a significant portion of their fellow Americans, because their greed and unfairness knows no bounds; and this sheepish government does not thereby utilize its power to appropriately tax those privileged people or those corporations, and lacks the very courage to pass necessary robust labor legislature laws that would help to ameliorate this current wage situation, which steals from those that have not, to give more to those that have.

How to be happy

Most people, claim that they desire to be happy, and some of those people wishing for that, are actually quite happy; whereas, a significant amount of other people, somehow can't find the wherewithal to be happy, and thereby utilize excuses that seemingly preclude them from that happiness, such as a lack of opportunity, a lack of material assets, a lack of good friends, and a lack of their fair share of things of which all this serves to steal their happiness from them.

In point of fact, all of us are going to have to deal with situations that do not make us happy within that particular point of time, but some of those people are far better able to handle those situations so that they are not personally overwhelmed by them, whereas others, unfortunately, do not.  The bottom line is nobody is going to be perpetually happy, for circumstances necessitate that our attitude needs to adjust to a given situation, of which, some of those situations will not lend itself to simply maintaining an attitude of plain happiness.  Rather, it must be recognized that bad things do happen to people, of which, our appropriate response is to see what we can do constructively to relieve such, and to thereby bring some well founded perspective as well as good reason to the situation, so as to evaluate such in a way that we can bring forth improvement or amelioration of it.

This thus signifies, that our degree of happiness has a significant amount to do with our internal attitude, subject to what is occurring around us, and in those times when chaos and insensitivity reigns, we need to not allow the circumstances of that moment, to overwhelm our natural good sensibility, for all things that are wrong, bad, and evil, will so pass, sooner or later; because that which is right, good, and virtuous are its superior, thereby meaning that each sad note in life so played, will be overcome by the happy note that will be ever triumphant over it.

So too, unhappy people, often need to turn their attitude around, from one of self-centeredness, as in "what can you do to make me happy," to something that allows that individual to place themselves in a position of which they are more consistently kind to others, are more considerate of others, and more generous of their time and wisdom with others, which will invariably produce an internal being of happiness, for to be that helping hand to others, radiates goodness inside, which is happiness.

Additionally, when someone performs an act of goodness towards us, we should acknowledge such with an aura of gratitude, which thereby makes us feel happy inside, as well as making that other person, feel appreciation for our thankfulness.  It is, those little deeds of goodness that are performed day in and day out, that represent the true source of our continual happiness, for every time that we perform something of merit, our life as well as the lives of others, becomes better.  To be happy, really comes down to recognizing that we are all in this life, together; and that by valuing one another in a manner in which we get joy by helping one another, makes us happy, because life is meant to be a shared experience, in which, we willfully assist one another.

Shaming people seldom gets them to correct their behavior

We live within a world in which far too many people engage in behavior with others that doesn't take into full account that each person has value, and that therefore how we treat one another, has consequences, good as well as bad.  The problem with something such as shaming, or the belief that when a particular person engages in bad behavior that they should be ashamed of themselves, is that this doesn't often produce any real lasting change in that person's behavior, but rather more often serves to make that person more socially withdrawn, especially when that shame comes through an authority figure, such as a teacher, parent, or mentor, in which that person so shamed often loses some degree of their own self-belief and self-worth.  After all, when an authority figure tells someone, in so many words, that they are worthless in some aspect of their personality or behavior, many people not only believe it, implicitly; but also in absence of any constructive suggestions or help, believe that they will not readily overcome that which they are told to be ashamed of.

Further to the point, all shaming done in which a stranger attempts to shame someone else for behavior that they don't approve of, such as, for instance, not properly "social distancing" or whatever, isn't often going to produce any change in that subject's behavior, but typically will result in contempt for that other person, and for what they believe, because most people do not appreciate being essentially bullied by somebody else, and therefore won't readily be obedient to them.  In truth, social shaming, may perhaps work on some people, but only typically in the sense that they will modified their behavior to subsequently be more discreet or secretive about that which they are being shamed about.  In other words, if the purpose of shaming is to help people, to correct that which appears to be incorrect, shaming is not the appropriate way to do so, for it serves more often, to exacerbate situations, rather than to resolve anything of substance, meaningfully.

The main thing about the act of shaming, is the fact that it doesn't require much aforethought to do; as opposed to actually taking the time to take in a given situation and then come up with something of merit to address what appears to be behavior that would behoove the person so exhibiting such, to improve upon.     After all, behavior which appears to be inappropriate or wrong, typically has some sort of root cause that is enabling such, and a considerate person, therefore, desires to see that the root cause is dealt with in a manner in which by doing so, that person improves their own outlook and their own life. 

The bottom line is that shaming is the go-to choice of all those that do not have the time, or do not care to take the time, to address what is actually happening with another person in a responsible and mature fashion, but prefer instead to strike out against that other person, because they themselves are typically impatient, uncaring, or self-centered.   Those behaviors that some people do that upset other people so much, are best addressed in a manner in which we should more often take into account, that sharp angry words stir up ill feelings; whereas, kind tolerant words command respect.

Knowing how to destroy the world is not progress

Knowledge is something that quite obviously can be utilized for the good of mankind, but also, regrettably, for bad purposes, as well.  Even the most cursory of looks around our world, today, indicates that on so many levels, knowledge is used far too often to oppress mankind, to hurt mankind, and to destroy mankind, typically for the expressed selfish benefit of a particular person or organization.  Still, there are plenty of people and organizations that use their knowledge for the betterment of mankind and to do what they can do to see that this world is a better place for their efforts, and further they prove their good stewardship of the resources that mankind has developed, and continue to develop, day-by-day.

Yet, we live within a construct in which the world has grown appreciably smaller, so that small-minded bigots of immense power, now have the capability with their devoted minions of destroying not just their own sovereign land, but are also well able in their capacity to destroy the world --through, for instance, a nuclear nightmare, or through other means, that accomplishes this same sort of principle of destruction, over some given period of time. 

This thus signifies that mankind, has the means within its grasp, to destroy this planet, of which, perhaps from some sort of perverse perspective this is seen as progress for having obtained this awesome destructive power into mankind's hands, thereby aggrandizing unto mankind the power of complete death and annihilation of this world.   Rather, though, the destroying of anything of merit, no matter the sophistication of that knowledge needed to do so, is something that should be perceived as being witless if so done, and a gross injustice to all those that live upon this earth, if so suffered.

Again, it is not to mankind's credit to destroy that which mankind did not even create in the first place; but if through mankind's free will and desire, it wishes to do so, and none are able to preclude such, it will be done.  On the other hand, the measure of any civilization is whether or not that civilization has made the world, the conditions of that world, and the life of those people that make up that world, a better place, than it was before that civilization was so created.  That is, in a nutshell, the very reason for our being, so that we, as one united mankind, are able to thereby create institutions and relationships that are based upon principles that are just, moral, fair, and right for the continuing benefit and necessary benefit of mankind, throughout this world and even beyond.

The powers that we have today, to create a better world or to destroy such, are in our hands, for the very purpose, of proving or disproving the worth of mankind as so exercised in this time and place.  The choice of destruction would be the choice of a collective selfish misguided egotist, and thereby the choice of annihilation; whereas, the choice of creation, and of being of true benefit to mankind, is the worthy choice of all those who desire, above all, to be co-creators with that which created us in the first place.

John 14: 2

We read in Holy Scripture "In my Father’s house are many homes. If it weren’t so, I would have told you. I am going to prepare a place for you." (John 14: 2) Although each one of us is created by the same One Source, the development of each of our souls, and our adventures or misadventures on this earthly plane are going to inevitably pull each one of us in different directions, and with different outcomes; so that the end result is that each one of us is going to be at a different place of consciousness of knowing, who and what we really are, with correspondingly different accomplishments so noted. 

This thus signifies that it doesn't make sense to believe that the spiritual plane that holds our souls and welcomes us into the eternal house of our Father, is going to be the same home for everyone, for such a construct as that, would invariably mean a cacophony of different vibrations so meeting which would correspondingly not sync well one with another.  So then, our Father who is not limited by anything, has for our consideration provided us with homes that correspond best with our spiritual development, so that within that environment, we are comforted in knowing that the home that we thereby are situated in, is indeed the right place at that time for each one of us.

Far too many people wrongly buy into the binary belief, that life consists of either a heaven or a hell as being our final destination; but if it really was this way, that would be a cosmic injustice to each one of us.   That is to say, none of us just simply goes to heaven, but step-by-step, home-by-home, we grow our way and thereby earn our way into the full sanctuary of our God in that heaven.  Everything that we do does matter, and all that matters is recorded, and that which is recorded, must be accounted for, and that which is accounted for, must be answered to and that of which the answers fall short of the true essence of God, must be made whole, sooner or later, one way or another.

God is never the great punisher, but that which separated itself from God, through its free will, must in the skeins of time, reconstruct its essence so as to become part and parcel of God, once again.  There are, after all, no mistakes in God, so it is therefore not possible for that which is wrong, to somehow magically to become right, without the necessary transformation that releases that darkness which taints that soul into Light. That is why there are so many homes in our Father's house, so that we have the necessary opportunity to properly reconstitute ourselves into the beings that we are supposed to be, so that when we go forth again and incarnate upon this planet or similar, we are better able to be a force of good for those that we interrelate with.

That which we prize the very most, necessitates trials and tribulations to obtain; and it is through those trials and tribulations, that we are afforded the opportunity to be that good and faithful servant,  and by accomplishing this, then all will be well within our soul, and we will thereby have rightly earned the key to that One golden door.

Government property and trespassing

The National government as well as State governments, own a lot of land, of which, because these lands are owned by those governmental entities, there are quite typically restrictions placed upon the public access to that land and to the facilities that are part of that land.  While it certainly makes sense that there should be appropriate rules and regulations for facilities so built, on behalf of the public, such as public schools, public libraries, public parks, and so forth; there are also plenty of military installations, military bases, or facilities that aren't even noted as to what their purpose is or even what their particular function is, of which these facilities are often quite restricted and therefore off-limits to the public, with strictly enforced no-trespassing signs, as well as security being in placed to protect such.

The problem with any government facility which precludes the general public from ever stepping foot upon that land or into that facility, is that the public has an implicit right to know what that government, of, by, and for the people is actually doing on the public land, held for the benefit of those people.  That is to say, the more secretive any government is, and the more restrictive that government agency is in providing fair access to the general public to public lands and to the facilities so built upon such -- or even worse, to believe that the general public should just mind its own business, is inimical to the best interests of those people.  After all, the best government is never going to be that government that keeps an abundance of secrets, but rather is a government that to the degree that it is prudent to do so, is fully transparent and completely open with the people, for these are the very people that the government is setup to actually serve.

A very strong argument could be made and should be made, that every government facility should at a minimum, be available for the people's representatives to visit and to look about, with minimal restrictions, at least some of the time.  Further to the point, each facility so utilized, should have to periodically justify its restrictions on its visibility and use, or in absence of such justification, provide more open access to the general public, for it never feels right to see any governmental property, setup in a manner in which the public is treated as a pariah to that government, rather than being properly seen as having innate rights to see for their selves, what is actually going on through that government.

Governments should try to never put themselves into a construct in which the public sees that government not as their  legitimate champion for their cause, but rather as a separate entity from the people, and therefore answerable not to those people, but only to those that are the power brokers of that government; so that, in effect, those of the government, or connected to that government, are separate from the people, and hence separately dealt with, in a manner in which the lion's share of the public benefits goes to those that are integral to that government, and the scraps thereof goes to the general public.

Ethics and the law are not necessarily in sync

The law as mankind knows it, should be based on universal ethics that apply fairly to all people, and should be done in a manner which is consistent as well as being knowable for those people.  For instance, mankind insists that far too often that those that break mankind's laws are bad people, and typically are labeled thereby as criminals; yet, there are all sorts of laws passed into existence, that are arbitrary in nature, are unfair in their application, and are not consistent with good ethics.  So that, in accordance to those that write and implement such laws, those people that are disobedient to such, are punished; even though, laws are subject to change, even on the most fundamental of levels, and even though not ever law is actually a good or a fair law.

In point of fact, as mankind gets more modern, it has a strong tendency to add more rules and regulations to its legal code, and never to subtract from such.  The reason that this is so is myriad, but the primary reason is that those that are the legislators, or the entities that influence those legislators, often have a vested interest in seeing that certain laws are passed in order to protect their interests, which often serves to harm those that they fear would infringe on what they already have or want.  That is to say, laws passed such as the "right-to-work" law are even worded in a way, that seems to be something that everybody would be in favor of; but are in reality, a façade, in which that law has been written for the expressed purpose to make it far more difficult for a given employee to unionize, or to have a firm assurance that they will be secure in their employment.

Each of us has a duty not so much to obey the law, but rather to be in adherence to good ethics that may or may not be consistent with the law as practiced.  After all, laws are typically written and legislated by the ruling class, or the powers-to-be of a given government,  and therefore do not readily conform to the fair execution of laws on behalf of the people, in whole; and especially on behalf of those that lack monetary resources, political connections, and champions for their cause.  In virtually every case in which a law is unequally applied, it can be stated as a truism, that such a law as that is also unethical as practiced. 

Those governments that have a higher consistency between the laws so propagated upon the people, in relationship to good sound ethics, are the type of government that is most beneficial for the people; whereas, those governments that are most arbitrary in their law and the execution of that law are the most tyrannical and are a pox upon the people.   Unfortunately, the real reason why modern societies have passed so many additional laws that have little or nothing to do with sound ethics, of which no one person or entity has a true comprehension or knowledge of all of those laws, is to lay more traps to catch those that they should desire to catch in those traps, so that the government thereby has the power to control that population, never seeming to realize that injustice in all of its many forms, will not produce a harmonious or peaceful society, but rather a divisive and alienated one.

Wi-fi Antennas

Back in the day, before cable TV, before the internet, and before wi-fi existed in all of its many forms and iterations, people were able to enjoy watching television, through their antenna which was an integral part of the television set so own, as well as having an antenna on the roof of the house in order to bring in the signal so as to watch, television.  This thus meant that the cost to watch television came down to having a good outdoor antenna being positioned in the right place, an indoor antenna on the television suitably working, and an actual television to watch such.  Once all those things were in place, viewers were then able to watch for free, commercial television, as well as their local public broadcasting station.  Nowadays, all of this is still true, in the sense that antennas are still able to pull down television signals from the sky, and people therefore are able to view commercial television for free, should they be inclined to do so.

As important as television was, and still is, this has been surpassed for the vast majority of people with the need to be connected to the internet, of which, though a significant amount of America is urban, there are still many people that live in rural areas, or are in remote parts of the country, that do not have readily available to them, satellite or cable service, or simply don't have the budget to pay for such, but still desire to have a connection to the internet.  Additionally, in fairness to those rural people, who typically do not have an abundance of extra money to budget for extra things, the government has made and needs to continue to make a concerted effort to see that every American, to the degree that it is possible, has fair access to the internet, rather than being simply left behind.

Certainly, one way to provide internet access to those without such, is through long range wi-fi antennas, of which when properly positioned, and in addition to the use of a booster, as necessary, to amplify a given signal, has been found to be successful in gaining access to the internet.  This is important for those lacking internet access; and arguably is just as important as having good, clean water, electricity, and indoor plumbing, of which it seems that every American should have each of these as a basic right so as to be able to pursue their fair access to happiness.

To a very large extent, access to the internet, is primarily controlled by private enterprise, so that these gatekeepers are only too willing to provide fair access to their customer base, for a price.  But, not everyone has that price, and in an era in which it is common for students to be able to access the internet in order to competently do their work, as well as for employees to keep up-to-date and in contact with their employer through the internet, as well as for national emergencies being broadcast through the airwaves, and so on and so forth, our rural brethren, should be provided with a helping hand by that government, of, by, and for the people.