Freedom of choice for women

While, in modern times, it has to be noted that in western nations, as well as in other progressive countries, that women have pretty much gained the same rights as men; yet, the pathway for women to achieve such, has had an awful lot of obstacles to overcome, and still, as of this day, women still don’t really have all of the rights of what men take for granted as their birthright.  One of those rights, that women, rightfully desire to have control of is not just their reproductive rights, but importantly along with that, to have control as to what to so do or not to do, when they so conceive,

Those that truly believe that life begins at conception, are certainly entitled to that belief, and to degree that they so desire to live that belief in their familial relationship they then have the full right to do so.  However, those that don’t believe that life begins at conception, should not be held in the thrall, of all those righteous busybodies, certain religious institutions, as well as other entities, including some governmental agencies and laws, that believe that these women should and must therefore be held to personal account for such; thereby signifying that these women are precluded from having a fair choice that should be theirs solely to make – superseded thereby by all those that believe that because life begins at conception, means therefore that the fetus within that women’s body, has rights, that all women must thereby respect.

When it comes to a woman’s body, it is ultimately the government that has to play fair with those that are women.  After all, no man can become impregnated, so what the law does or does not say in regards to abortion rights and wrongs, does not ever personally affect that man’s body; whereas, it most certainly does affect so, for a woman.  This would presuppose that any discussion about conception, a fetus, and a women’s right to choose, should in due respect to the fact that only women can conceive, signifies that this should be something that remains in the sole domain of women, and none else.  That is to say, judges have to properly recuse themselves in all sorts of instances, and of which, because males are not capable of getting pregnant, it therefore follows that a man, no matter how intelligent or enlightened, is not in a good place to appropriately judge the merits or demerits of conception rights for a woman.

Therefore, what the law should or should not be in regards to conception and one’s fetus, is something that should be legislated by, and decided by, those that are exclusively women.  That decision, no matter what was so decided, would reflect a determination made by those that have a real vested interest in such a decision, and more than likely, would be well reasoned, sensible, and fair.  For far too long, governments were run exclusively by men; so too, the justice so being rendered was also exclusively done so by men, of which, the end result of men dominated societies has been the history of this world, which consists of an awful lot of violence, injustice, deceit, and unfairness.  Here then, lies a chance to right a very serious wrong.

The rise of corporate dynasties

The first thing to acknowledge, is that corporations, are artificial creations of the state and thereby they should always be beholden ultimately to that which created its existence, in the first place.  However, even the most cursory investigation, demonstrates that corporations and thereby corporate power has never been stronger than it so is, today, and of which that corporate power reaches into every meaningful sphere of governance within America.  In fact, the argument could be made, that rather than seeing this country as being a nation of, for, and by the people; it is more times than not, the governance of, for, and by corporate power.

There are two very valuable things that corporations have, that human beings either lack, or will ultimately lose personal control of.  The first is that unlike human life, corporations as adjudicated at the present time, are perpetual in their existence.  That is to say, while there is a know creation date, for a given corporation, there is no set time or conditions thereof, in which a corporation will ever cease to exist.  In other words, the most successful corporations, do not follow in kind with the seven stages of mankind, as so written by the brilliant bard; but rather, the best corporations as they age, are able to not only adjust to the times, but rather than getting feeble, they often instead, get even stronger.  Additionally, when a given wealthy person dies, what they so had as material assets, are going to be subject to all sorts of applicable taxes, including estate taxes; whereas, because a corporation never dies, this thus signifies that this artificial creation of the state, is never going to be subject to estate taxes, and therefore the most successful and powerful of those corporations, will continue to grow their assets, and their footprint, year after year, only being subject to the vagaries of their particular business and the overall economy. 

All of this basically means that while we can rightly decry family dynasties, of which, that money, power, and assets are passed on from one generation to the next -- that somewhere along the line we seemed not to have recognized that as much wealth as a given family dynasty so has; it absolutely pales in comparison to companies such as Apple, which has a market capitalization worth of over $2 trillion, as well as having over $200 billion in ready cash and investments.  This so indicates for these superrich corporate behemoths that what they so want they are going to get, for the only entity that can conceivably hold a candle next to them, is their own government, which seems rather to be their enabler, more than anything.

Those that believe in good governance, democracy, representation, and the like, should be rightly concerned about the ever-growing amount of corporate power and influence.  Those then, that believe that what is good for a given dynastic corporation must be good for the country, are either delusional or fooling themselves, for many of those same corporations are only interested in one thing, above all, which is the making and the extracting of more and more money from those that they see as functionally their subjects and nothing much more.

Good governance and the rise of the black middle class

One of the things that the United States is very good at is putting together well-meaning laws as well as having well-meaning sentiments such as, for instance, that we are all created equally.  Of course, great sentiments as well as laws of good purpose aren’t all that valuable when these things are circumvented, ignored, misinterpreted, or unenforced. 

When it comes to fair play, we can usually count on private enterprise consistently only doing those things that are perceived as being beneficial to their company bottom line, and thereby the stonewalling of all else that might interfere in profit making, above all.  In other words, despite laws so made in regards to discrimination, fairness, and the like, private enterprise has a strong tendency to pretty much ignore such, unless they are under the microscope of some governmental agency or have previously had sanctions placed upon it.  Of course, this doesn’t mean that all private enterprise behaves this way, but in reality, those of private enterprise, consciously or subconsciously, consistently favors those that come from their same general milieu, as compared to all those that do not represent such.

As for our government, whether that be Federal, State, or local, we do so find, that in many cases, though, not all, that there is a great deal more of fair play being in effect.  The primary reason why government often seems to be a better fit for those that are not of the favored race, has a lot to do with the fact that those that are its governmental leaders, have a solemn duty to actually try to follow not only what the law so says, but the very intent of that law; as well as also believing that by leading by example, and thereby providing fair opportunity, where previously there was a lack of such, is beneficial for the whole of the nation.  So too, governments are not typically driven by any sort of profit motive, but rather are driven by getting necessary things done, on behalf of the people.

What we so find then, that it is governmental jobs and therefore governmental employment, above all, that has been the biggest initiator of helping to create a vibrant and successful black middle class.  While it is true, that typically working for the government will not get any particular person rich, it does on the other hand, provide a decent salary, job security, a clear pathway for advancement, good healthcare, and more often than not, a strong and vibrant pension plan.  Each of those attributes of public service, are extremely beneficial for those so being employed in those public sector jobs, because they can thereby count on having not only job security, but also a decent wage, healthcare, and a pension, to rely upon.

Those then, that threaten the need or the justification for governmental jobs and the corresponding incumbent expenditures that have done so much in helping to secure middle class status for blacks, as well as for lots of other folks, should recognize that until such a time as private enterprise does its necessary part to do the same, that the best enabler of continued black middle-class success, is going to remain that government, of, for, and by the people.

Discretionary power and justice

The American jurisprudence system, should be a system, in which all are treated equally under the law, and of which therefore, wealth, power, position, or lack thereof, should be non-factors in such justice so rendered.  In fact, of course, in America, there is the justice system as applied to the weakest and least powerful amongst us, and there is the justice system as applied against those of power, position and wealth; of which, the difference between these two justice systems, is immense, unfair, and unjust.

Then there are the laws so written, of which, there isn’t a single person, institution, or entity, that actually can comprehend or ever effect each of these laws, without error, without contradiction, or with absolute consistency.  In fact, the more laws so written, the more confusion that there so occurs, as well as the more opportunity for those that are clever, or have money, or connections, to circumvent the good intention and purpose of well-intentioned laws.

All of the above serves to indicate that as much as we might desire for our justice system, to exercise no discretionary or arbitrary power, whatsoever, that because the law and the interpretation of that law, is not always so cut and dry, then that just isn’t going to ever happen.  Additionally, judges and the justice system actually want to have their individual impact upon what is so being adjudicated, as opposed to the mere opening up of a very thick book, finding the relevant law that so applies, and then simply applying it, without any further ado.

This thus indicates that judges within the justice system, not only need to have some degree of discretionary power, but such discretionary power has its good purpose in existing.  After all, as much as some people want to believe that a certain crime, should always have a specific sentence, the fact of the matter is, that each situation, no matter how similar it may well be to something previously adjudicated upon, that it always has its own peculiarities, which should be taken into consideration, in ordered to render fair justice. 

While there are all sorts of people, including lawyers, that decry the inconsistencies so demonstrated between one sentence to another in regards to what appears to be the same basic crime, and of which, the thinking is that such discretionary treatment in sentencing should therefore be eradicated or reduced considerably, they don’t seem to properly comprehend that to take such discretion away from the judge, which would thereby simplify such justice, in order to make such justice seemingly consistent, wouldn’t in summary, make necessarily for fair justice.  That is to say, the same sentence for everyone in regards to similar crimes, without taking into due consideration, the full circumstances of that crime, and the people involved in it and impacted by it, isn’t just.

It would be well to remember that in every single step of those so accused of a given crime, there is always discretion so being rendered, to wit, by the police officer who has made the initial arrest, to the bail so set, to the charges so determined by the prosecutor, to the plea bargain so being offered, and/or the trial so set, and then the sentence so being rendered.  In each of these steps, discretion has been used time and time again; so then, to ignore all that, and simply then, to make it so that the judge must strictly follow the sentencing guidelines as dictated for that crime, is an injustice.

Russia is not now a communist state and never has been

There are plenty of people that believe and further that propagandize that Russia is a communist nation; but in fact, Russia, under any of its former names, has never been communist in principle.  The thing is, that communism is supposed to be a classless society in which all property is own in common, and each member, so of, gets what they so get, according to their respective needs.  There isn’t anything within Russia, that has ever resembled a classless society and clearly the general public, in reality, owns only a small portion of the wealth of Russia, and for the most part, that general public has effectively little or no say in regards to any meaningful public policy and therefore the governance of that nation.  In short, Russia is pretty much a totalitarian state, of which, the privileged few reap all the benefits, and of which, the policing arm of the state keeps the general population of that nation, in its thrall.

For those that love Karl Marx, and his philosophy, it must be stated, that Marx would not recognize Russia as being communistic at any point in its history, and by virtue of the fact that Russia had decades to effect communism, but never accomplished such, or even ever put into place any of the necessary steps to do so, reflects that Russia was not ever communistic. 

The greatest disappointment that Russia so represents in today’s world, is that, despite the fact that Russia arguably has the greatest amount of wealth so contained within its natural resources in the world, and of the fact that historically it has had great artists, great literature, great scientists, and great inventions; that what we so find is that despite all of that historical greatness as well as all of its vast natural resources, that Russia in total, has to be looked upon as having accomplished surprisingly little of merit over the last 100 years.  For instance, Canada, represents, in a lot of respects, a nation that has similar demographics to Russia in the sense of its large land mass, as well as also having an abundance of very valuable natural resources; yet Canada’s per capita Purchasing Power Parity GDP is nearly four times as great as that of Russia.  The fact that Russia fails so poorly against Canada, reflects a nation that is mismanaged, along with that nation seemingly being incapable of providing the necessary infrastructure and wherewithal to improve the opportunity as well as the lot for the whole of its people.

In reality, what we so find in Russia, is that despite their revolution successfully deposing and thereby replacing the Tsars that once ruled the roost, that the upshot is that in its structure and in its governance, that Russia, in modern times, is essentially by its actions and in its authority basically more in accordance and in harmony with what it was back when it was under the domain of those same Tsars.  In other words, by any objective reasoning, Russia today has far more in common with the Tsars, then it has with what communism is supposed to actually represent; signifying indeed, that to label Russia as communistic, now or in the past, is both misguided and wrong.

The gospel is meant to liberate the poor and the oppressed

There are all sorts of political parties and slogans, that preach to us about uplifting the poor and vulnerable, some sincere, and some not. There are also all sorts of organizations that have been established to lend a helping hand to the poor and vulnerable, some that do a commendable job, and some that do not.  Additionally, there is an awful lot of talk, often from good people at heart, about helping those that are the least amongst us, of which the results thereof, have sometimes been good, and sometimes not.

The thing is that the gospel as propagated by the Christ, is clearly meant to uplift those that have been marginalized by society, and the gospel, properly understood, is always the message that God cares about each and every one of us, no matter what; and because we are surrounded by so many that have been hurt, dismissed, disadvantaged, and cheated, it is vital that these unfortunate people, are provided with the necessary means to improve their lot.

The message of the Christ, is not that the traditional status quo will be turned upside down, so that, the rich and powerful will be vanquished, and thereby the poor will triumph, but rather it has all to do with the fact, that those that are enthralled to this material world, are often those that are the most lost; whereas, those that are powerless and weak, often see through the lies and deceptions of this world, for they know the way that this world is cannot be right, because there is so little justice or love within it. 

We see that those that are weak and defenseless are at the mercy of those that control the show, of which, it would seem that for these poor people, that there isn’t ever going to be an opportunity for these oppressed persons to ever have their day.  However, truth be told, humankind’s perception of what they so see, is blinded by their typical ignorance of their not comprehending what life is all about; for this world is a perpetual proving ground, and those that are the forsaken, the forgotten, the disenfranchised, and the abused, are in their essence made up of the exact same substance as all those that have all the advantages; therefore, signifying that those that are so blind so as to not comprehend that we are all created equally and therefore equally valued by God, are clearly on the wrong path.

It would seem that most everyone that takes on the mantle of Christianity, desires to do so, in a manner in which such conforms to their belief of what Christ so represents.  The thing is though, that Christ in everything that He so did and said, was the defender always of those that were perceived by the establishment as being the misbegotten of life.  Christ came not so much to save the unsaved, though, He did such; but mainly Christ incarnated to defend with dignity those that were left defenseless, powerless, and abandoned by human society.  So then, it is important to know Christ’s message for what it really is, which is that God is ever present to help uplift those that have no champion, and those that preach that not, are the actual ones that are lost.  

The higher retail prices in low-income neighborhoods

There are myriad problems with living in a low-income neighborhood, of which, one of the more salient of those problems is the fact that the choices to buy food and other household goods within that local neighborhood are often rather limited, and of which, despite the fact that the rent has to be a lot cheaper for those businesses in that neighborhood, the pricing and quality of goods so sold, is typically meaningfully higher than it would be in a comparable neighborhood of a higher socio-economic level. 

The first thing to understand from an economic level is that higher prices for goods so being sold in a particular local distressed area, does not necessarily equate to more profit and better gross margins for that company.  For instance, mom and pop stores, don’t have the pricing power that a Walmart or similar has, so that the cost of those goods being bought and transported to them is often going to be appreciably higher, and that higher cost, often logically translates into a higher selling price.  Further to the point, in a neighborhood marketplace in which frequently there is plenty of unused business space in low-income areas, the fact that other companies aren’t coming in to conduct business there, presupposes that even with, in theory, the higher sale prices being asked for goods, this doesn’t necessarily equate to higher profits, or else, those businesses would have already located there.

So then, while on the surface, it might seem pretty common place that there is a perception of price gouging being suffered by the residents of low-income neighborhoods, this typically really comes down to them ignoring the fact that the cost of doing business in those low-income neighborhoods, including security, “shrinkage,” safety, insurance, and so on and so forth, is appreciably higher, most of the time.  This would seem to more than imply, that residents of low-income neighborhoods would typically be far better served by having an anchor store, such as a Walmart, which would bring in not just more competitive prices and a more comprehensive amount of goods, but also would serve to bring in more retail stores, because of the traffic that having a Walmart or similar, generates.

Additionally, from a business perspective, perceptions matter, and when businesses don’t feel all that welcomed, or don’t feel all that comfortable in where they are doing business or proposing to do business, then the best and the brightest of them are going to hesitate to locate there, and instead it’s often going to be a lower echelon of business enterprises that will take a gamble, so to speak, in a low-income neighborhood.  All of this is pretty much saying that those that are residents of lower-income neighborhoods need by their own volition, to basically put forth a better effort to attract businesses to their neighborhood, which typically means doing their part to beautify and to improve their neighborhood, as well as seeking legislative help, tax set asides, obtaining money earmarked for local development and improvement, and so on and so forth.

It is a shame when good people that are seemingly stuck in a decaying and forsaken low-income neighborhood can’t seem to catch a break, not even with a retail store that serves them well; but in a capitalistic society, it’s almost always about the money, and the demographics of doing business in low-income neighborhoods makes for a rather sad tale, and those that have little or nothing, just end up paying what they have to pay, even when it costs them more.

Fair parole boards are a necessary part of justice

Most people that are convicted of a crime, are at some point during their incarceration, eligible for parole.  No doubt, those that are incarcerated, care deeply about how they fare at a parole hearing, as this involves directly their ability to secure some degree of freedom, even if such comes with the confining structure of parole conditions.  One would think then, as part of any individual being incarcerated that there would be at some point, after their conviction, so fully disclosed to them, more than once, what behavior does or what behavior does not help them in regards to having a better opportunity of being successfully paroled; for when an individual has an avenue to future freedom, it is invaluable for them to know the rules of that road; and of which, this is also beneficial to society, in the sense of having more of those previously incarcerated that are thereby better prepared to re-enter society as a good member of it.

Again, parole hearings are very important for not just the person so up for parole, but also for society, because when a given individual is incarcerated, the object of the exercise as prisons were original envisioned, is to try to rehabilitate the prisoner; rather than seeing a prisoner as someone that deserves some sort of perpetual and thorough punishment. This means, that prisoners should not only be provided with the opportunity to learn a given trade, or to attend some sort of educational classes, but that they also need the opportunity to reset their thoughts and thereby their actions so as to be in better conformance to what a responsible citizen so represents.

Most of those that make up the prison population are not those that come from a privileged place, for those types of individuals are always the exception, and never the rule.  Rather, it is those that have been forsaken, abused, dismissed, and have typically suffered through having lived in an enclave of poverty which has offered them little or no positive role models, as well as a poor educational system that have pre-conditioned a significant number of those people to fail, in addition to having left them with characteristically not having the necessary accouterments that would enable them to achieve orthodox success.

The bottom line is that in America in regards to the percentage and the amount of its own citizens that are incarcerated, it leads the pack by a lengthy margin vis-à-vis other western nations in this dubious category, and of which, it is better late, then never, to help correct that which needs correcting.  The one thing that prison provides for those that are in it, is plenty of time, as well as an organized structure -- that would seem to represent then an appropriate time to help those that have taken a wrong turn, to right themselves.

When the parole boards that provide to those so incarcerated a fair process of what the pathway consists of so as to successfully be paroled and are consistent and just in their judgments, along with those institutions that do the incarcerating actually demonstrating some sort of vested interest in seeing that prisoners are given a fair chance to become rehabilitated, and, in addition the prisoners applying themselves in doing their own part to become something of positive worth to society -- then we so find that when these things are combined, that this in total, is what represents merciful justice.

The United States truly broke the mold for governance

In 1776, the colonists, declared their Declaration of Independence, from Great Britain.  Of course, that mere declaration, wasn’t in and of itself, going to do the job, as to achieve such would still necessitate several years of warring battle against the greatest power in the world at that time; but ultimately, those thirteen colonies were successful in overthrowing that which had precluded them from their legislative representation, fair taxation, and freedom.  Subsequently, the United States would ratify its Constitution, and become through that Constitution, thirteen States united into the United States of America.   The form of that government, so created, would not be a monarchy, nor would it be a dictatorship, but instead it would be a republic; thereupon making the United States the first modern republic of any appreciable size.

The fact that these thirteen States, were subsequently able to somehow come to the accommodations so needed to institute a union of those States, as compared to the European continent, which had separate countries, which were often at war one against the other, is to the lasting credit of the wisdom, and the compromises so made in order to accomplish this necessary step.  That said, it is true, that the United States, did so subsequently suffer a very bloody and tragic Civil war, but the ultimate outcome of that war, led to a stronger and more united country than it had been so before.  After all, it was many decades, after our Constitution, before people would self-identify as first being a United States citizen as contrasted to be a Virginian or similar.

The de facto motto of these United States is considered to be E pluribus Unum, which is, “out of many, one.” This motto is indeed what the United States so became, for to take so many diverse interests, as well as sectional differences,  and therefore the natural conflict of one State to another so as to overcome  each of these obstacles in a manner in which, these so became over a period of time not stumbling stones, but stepping stones, leading therefore to one national currency, along with there being no imposts or duties so imposed for goods being traded from one State to another, or closed borders between one State to another, made thus for a unified nation.

The two other main forms of governance that we see throughout the world, are monarchies and dictatorships, of which, the people within those nations are thereby subject to the whims and dictates of those that are its leaders, which signifies that these governments do not typically offer either the same type of individual liberty so valued by Americans, nor in a lot of cases the true enfranchisement of the democratic vote, or republican representation, so of.  In other words, in America, the people have a voice and the vote, along with each of these being protected by their government as their right, whereas in many other nations, these are hollow promises, and nothing much more. 

Each of us then, should be appreciative that our government as so created and envisioned, is one of, for, and by the people, which makes it ours to own, and thereby ours to do right by.

The importance of integrity and honesty

The true test of any philosophy is how a given person reacts when they are placed between a rock and a hard place.  After all, it’s easy to be honest when being honest has no possible penalty or downside to it.  So too, it’s easy to demonstrate integrity when doing so, involves no possible loss of face or any individual harm.  The true test for anyone, that claims that they are honest as well as being a good person, is that when compelled to exhibit such honesty, of which, this will surely, in this instance, cost them personally, or alternatively this will hurt someone that they deeply care about, is whether they then uphold that honesty or not.

We are instructed at a very young age to tell the whole truth, which makes it rather strange, that so many people when taught to tell the whole truth about something, hesitate, before they respond, as if they are considering their options, which, in many a case, they are.  Once anybody, decides that they want to spin the “truth” in a way in which they exaggerate or leave out or change information in which they believe that by doing so, they have done what they felt they needed to do, then their cause of upholding whole honesty has been absolutely lost.

So too, many people, in order to do what they believe will help their cause, want to purposely distort information in their favor, so that they then come across as the “white hat,” so to speak, and the other side is then invariably painted as the “black hat,” which is made often worse by also distorting what the other side represents, to thereupon make the contrast between the two, much starker, and therefore the decision to be rendered by a neutral party, unquestionably clear.  The thing is that there are few people or institutions that are completely right, all of the time; as well as there being few people or institutions that are completely wrong, all of the time.  The point of the importance of holding every individual accountable to the whole truth, is that in life, there really aren’t any shortcuts, and those that will not willingly own up to complete integrity, are doing so, primarily because they desire to deliberately take what appears to them to be the easy path, instead.

The reason that integrity and honesty are so important is that in essence, by being less than honest, we are being deceitful, and that deceit is often so done for our own benefit, and clearly that benefit comes at the cost of those that are not in on the deceit.  To fool others, is typically not all that difficult, and in many a case, isn’t all that risky, at all; for other people have their own priorities and concerns to deal with, and often don’t have the time or the inclination to check every action or every statement so made by someone else for its veracity.  Nevertheless, though, those that lie and are dishonest, have a strong tendency to perpetually be looking over their shoulder, whereas those that are on the straight and narrow, have not only no need to, but they also are able to keep their eyes focused upon that which is solely worth winning.  There are, all sorts of ways to run the race of life; those that do so with integrity will always get to their destination sooner, for that which is straight is the shortest distance; and that which is crooked as well as often doubling-back, is not.

In the United States a national quarantine is not so easy

Even though, to a very large extent, the hue and cry of “States’ rights” have been soundly defeated by the national government, we find that when it comes to a potential national quarantine that the national government, does not apparently have the power to enforce their will and therefore to circumvent or to trump States’ rights in regards to such.  This doesn’t mean that the national government would not ultimately prevail, what it does mean though is that the national government, does not presently have the capability to simply assert its will in regards to a potential nationwide quarantine; though, of course, under exigent circumstances, or martial law, in all probability a national quarantine could indeed be enforced upon the whole population in short order.

To a very large extent, the fact that fifty different States and the localities within those States, have their own rules and regulations in regards to that which has been identified by the national government as a pandemic, is the sort of thing that is very messy, at best.  After all, the borders from one State to another, typically are completely open and certainly have not been set up to control traffic going to-and-fro; not to mention, that there are all those other means of transportation that can be utilized to travel from one State to another.  So then, in reality, to enforce a nationwide lockdown really would depend upon the general public buying into the emergency, or else in order to bring this into good effect, this would invariably mean a whole lot of conflict, in which undoubtedly some of that conflict would be violent.

Americans have a strong tendency to want to assert their independence and freedom, without seeming to understand that every freedom so claimed as one’s own, necessitates some supporting sort of duty, in turn.  Additionally, there are those contingencies that require a national response and a national consensus within a very short period of time, and when there are fifty different States coming from potentially fifty different directions, then coming to some sort of reasonable resolution within a very short period of time, isn’t necessarily going to happen.

A true national emergency, necessitates a true national response in both a timely and an effective manner.  As it currently stands, when it comes to a national quarantine, the United States is clearly not prepared, and further doesn’t have the infrastructure or the wherewithal, other than through martial law, to assert a national response.  The problem with martial law in a nation of individuals that believe religiously in personal freedom, is that people on both sides of such a dispute are going to get hurt and there will be deaths.

The better way for the United States to deal with a future national quarantine, is to sit down now, with the governor and legislature of each respective State, and then to come to a consensus of what defines the necessity of a national quarantine, and thereby what each State would do in turn to be responsible to that national quarantine.  Those then that will not responsibly prepare for that contingency, will therefore see the same sort of inconsistency and confusion so generated through the governmental response to COVID-19.  That is to say, there has to be some sort of consensus of what an appropriate national response should be, and in order for that nation to actually unite together, then each of fifty States has to be on the very same page, as their national government.

There has not always been inflation in America

We read at globalfinancialdata.com, that “From the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 until the start of World War II in 1914, there was no inflation in most countries.”  This is an American society, which has gotten use to the persistence and the existence of inflation and of which its expressed monetary policy so formulated believes that an inflation rate of 2% is just about right; thereby representing something that is neither too hot, nor too cold, but instead is lukewarm, of which, then, clearly this government somehow believes that the absolute stability of its currency is either an impossible objective to achieve, or that our modern-day monetary system cannot risk even the possibility of deflation or both.

Just because this country, amongst most countries in the world today, suffers from some degree of inflation, does not mean that this is the way that it should be, or even what should be desired by governmental monetary policy.  After all, if, for instance, the United States had no inflation, whatsoever, that would thereby indicate that everything that is measured by the dollar, would remain constant, and thereby knowing that a dollar today would be worth the same as a dollar tomorrow, business decisions, would be far more straightforward, with no real need for currency hedging.  That is to say, a known future, is going to be superior to an unknown and an unknowable future, of which, for instance, the inflation rate may be far higher or far more volatile than expected, which thereby makes it far more difficult for people and businesses to know which side to bet on or even what the best strategy is to protect their assets.

So too, inflation, is in its very nature, is going to have winners and losers.  Those that are always going to be on the losing side, is everyone and everything, that doesn’t properly comprehend that money that sits absolutely idle is going to invariably become worth ever less; which is a way of saying, that those that save money, but have difficulty finding somewhere safe to park that money, are going to see their worth in real terms, decline.  On the other hand, those that are in debt, in which the debt is pegged to a fix rate, of which that rate is lower than the effective inflation rate, are going to find it far easier to pay back that debt than previously, because they are doing so with dollars which are essentially costing them less and less against the debt that they so incurred.

This thus signifies, that governments that have deficits, often find that inflation benefits them in the ease of paying back that debt, and businesses may just find that inflation benefits them too, especially when they are able to increase their price point for products so being sold, without correspondingly increasing per the real inflation rate the labor compensation of their employees.  All of this basically signifies, that in any era of inflation, this typically means that the sophisticated and the connected are going to be in a better economic position as compared to all those that aren’t that sophisticated and are unconnected, because those that have a good read of inflation, are to a large degree, the masters of those that do not.

Should the government be permitted to issue tax-exempt investments?

Those that invest money into equities, bonds, mutual funds, and other investments, recognize that when they make that investment, that they are susceptible to having the profit, so of, subject to taxation, be it local, State, or Federal.  On the other hand, there are governmental entities that issue tax-exempt bonds, mutual funds, and other investments, in which as the name so amply describes, those that invest in these assets, aren’t subject to any tax whatsoever, per the specific exemption status of that investment.  The ostensible reason why these tax-exempt investments are available to the general public, are in theory, because the return so promised to those that invest in such, is lower than the equivalent taxable choices for them, and of which the borrowing cost of the issuance of those bonds to those government authorities, are appreciably less, thereof.  While that certainly makes sense, that’s only one part of the story, for the other part is that those with enough assets and capital, are thereby permitted to make additional passive income, with the foreknowledge that they will not be taxed, whatsoever, which seems on the surface, to be unfair to all those others that are subject to taxation, and thereby permits those with capital, to make additional money without restraint, on end.

Of course, the argument made is that tax-exempt securities almost always make less money than alternative choices; but then again, the risk of those securities are often considerably less than other investments, of which, there are plenty of those with a lot of capital that aren’t looking for risk, whatsoever, but rather desire to have that sure and steady return, which bonds, for instance, are very good at providing for them.  So too, most people with a considerable amount of money, aren’t fools, so that if they felt collectively that tax-exempt investments, were overall, a poor choice to make, then they wouldn’t do it, and because they actually do make that investment and continue to do so, then clearly being tax-exempt has its advantages for them, and that is why they make those particular investment choices.

America has a progressive tax system, of which, the purpose of such progression in tax rates is to capture a higher percentage of the income of those of whom make more in income.  So then, when that particular class of people that has plenty of wealth, are permitted to make investments in which they won’t have to pay nary a dime to the tax man, then this seems like a deal which on the surface is unfair to the general public and probably then shouldn’t be permitted.  After all, part of being wealthy is not just desiring to hold on to that wealth, but to augment such, and when therefore there is an avenue that will do both, with little risk, and no taxation attached to it, at all, then for a certainty, there are going to be wealthy people that are going to gravitate to it, and therefore the shortfall in taxation receipts, so of, will have to be made up by somebody else, somewhere else.

The necessary corporate estate tax

Those that are individuals have a finite amount of life on this earth, of which, the fewest of the few, make it to 100 years of age, and thereupon, if their wealth is great enough, are thereby subject to estate taxes by the Federal government, as well as to estate taxes in their State of residence, if so applicable.  The thing about corporations, is that corporations are artificial creations of the law, of which nowadays such corporations are perpetual in form, which presupposes that corporations are therefore logically never subjected to estate taxes, despite the fact that corporate wealth and profits, absolute dominate the richest of the richest individual estates.  Further to the point, because corporations are not subject to any wealth or estate tax, this so indicates, that without the imposition of an estate tax upon corporations, that their corporate power, will, if it doesn’t already represent so in the present day, supersede the impact of individuals in just about every meaningful piece of legislation or endeavor – which obviously does not harmonize well with a country that is supposed to be of, for, and by the people.

A reasonable solution for this government to enact on behalf of the people in order to get back a reasonable amount of wealth from those corporations that have treasure chests of wealth that consists of billions upon billions of dollars, is to make all corporations of a certain size and length of existence, subject to a periodic estate tax.  The first estate tax for corporations should be implemented against all corporations that have been in existence for fifty years or more, and specifically impacting those corporations that have assets beyond $500 million, in which they should then have a practical percentage of that wealth subject to an estate tax.  Additionally, thereafter, every twenty years, corporations should be subject to that same estate tax, as long as their assets are above that same dollar threshold.

When it comes to taxation, besides the incumbent fairness of making such a tax progressive as well as being in sync to the income and wealth, so generated, is the fact that governments are always going to collect more money into their hands when they appropriately tax those entities that have an abundance of money.  America’s corporations have an incredible amount of wealth and power, along with having the best attorneys, the best lobbyists, the best tax accountants, and so on and so forth.  There is no other entity that can possibly stifle the power of these mega-corporations, other than the national government, and if the national government won’t do what they need to do, in order to fairly collect estate taxes from that which is perpetual, then human beings have essentially been superseded in power and in worth by that which is an artificial creation of the state, thereby signifying that which is unnatural to be ruler over that which is natural, which not only doesn’t make any good sense, but clearly is inimical to any democratic society and further will serve to clearly be the means of the destruction of that good governance, replaced by corporations that will effectively rule the roost, in perpetuity.

The same words in a sentence, can often mean different things to different people

There are those times when we are talking with someone in which, they either don’t seem to be hearing what we are saying, because their reaction is diametrically different than what we have so expected, or by their response, it seems like they haven’t comprehended clearly what we have so said, even though our words were pretty darn clear to us   Those types of communication situations are frustrating and can easily become more than frustrating, when things escalate to a place which we never really wanted to go to.  But why is this even possible to have occurred in the first place?

The answer to that above question has a lot to do with the fact that each one of us, comes from different circumstances, with different backgrounds, and different thought patterns.  Especially so this is true, when people come from different social backgrounds, different creeds, and different colors, in which, perhaps, their interaction one with the other, has been minimal to date, of which, they then get together and try to communicate.  In those types of situations, it probably isn’t reasonable to expect that the same words are going to mean the same thing, to each one of them, because these people are often coming from different life experiences, and because of that, their interpretations have a tendency to be different, than what we so expected.

So then, in reality, the same words can easily be interpreted in different ways by different people, and further to the point, those words can also be interpreted differently by the very same person, depending upon how their day has gone, good or bad.  This signifies that when we communicate, we need to make a better effort to actually determine as to whether the words that we have so spoken have been interpreted in the way that we so expected them to be, and in order to know this, we probably need to ask more questions of the other person, to get their honest feedback of what has been communicated.  After all, relationships, even relationships of long standing, can suffer a lot of damage, even permanent damage, from the misconstruing and misinterpretations of what has so been communicated to them in good faith.

It's fantastic that we are able to communicate one to another, relatively easily, through words so spoken and written, but those words and sentences, aren’t necessarily going to be understood the same way by dissimilar people and there isn’t any reasonable expectation that this should actually be the case, because having not lived in another person’s shoes for even a small part of their life, makes it problematic that we really could conceivably comprehend how they are interpreting and processing what has so been said or written.  Especially, we so find, that this becomes much more difficult when people are emotionally upset or stressed, in which, they typically aren’t able to readily process what is being communicated, without their own prejudicial and self-serving spin upon it, thereby creating the construct in which things can go from sort of bad, to something far worse.

In short, we communicate through our words, of which what we are so communicating may indeed be clear and obvious to us, but in reality, if it isn’t perceived that way by the person so receiving that communication, then we need to recognize that we need to do more to make for a better and a more successful communication.

What are we fighting for?

Of course, when wars are fought, all sorts of noble sentiments come to mind and are thereby provided to the people as the justification as well as the compelling reason for such a war, which typically goes along the lines of defending freedom, protecting one’s nation and its values, duty, and because it is the right thing to do.  Those that fight, make it their point, that the reasons for that fighting, which invariably results in the death of soldiers as well as the death of non-combatants, along also with the destruction and damage to infrastructure that comes with any war, is typically justified as not only being necessary, but also as part of the required process of what has to be done, in difficult times, for the greater good.  All of this, might indeed sound good on paper, but the fact is that most wars are seldom really fought for noble or worthwhile objectives, and the death, dying and destruction that war consists of, are typically horrific; and of which, it has to be said, that to actually believe that the only way to reasonably solve conflict is through war, is absolutely unreasonable, and clearly demonstrates in action that humanity has not really learned that it is not might that makes right, but in fact, the only thing that makes for right, is maintaining in principle everything that consists of the attributes of what is right, of which war is seldom in that equation.

To believe that when two countries, vociferously disagree about things, that to therefore to bring about a lasting peace, there has to be a destructive war, of killing, maiming, and destruction is a very sick viewpoint.  Peace does not come from war, and never will peace come from war.  Those that want peace, can only achieve peace, by being just, fair, forgiving, and considerate in all that they do and achieve, and therefore need not and should not have to give up any of those things in order to achieve a lasting peace, for to do so, will substitute real peace, with a false one.

That of which is worthy to make an honorable stand for, which in of itself does not necessarily mean war or fighting, is that which is fair, just, and right.  To stand for principle, and to defend that principle against those that would unjustifiably take such away, is noble.  Regrettably, in this world, those that are the best exemplars of justice and vision, are often targeted themselves to being killed and eliminated, for few that have obtained power are willing to sacrifice any of it, to that which threatens their domain, even when that threat is simply truth, itself.

So then, for all those that fight or are involved in the fight, including peripherally or indirectly, in order to confirm that they are indeed a worthy part of humanity, they ought and need to ask themselves the question as to why they are fighting and therefore what they are fighting for or against.  If in an honest answer to that question, it would seem that the answer is that they don’t really know, or simply because the enemy deserves to be fought because the enemy is wrong, and that they then are by default on the side of right, they need to take into serious consideration as to whether or not they are really right, for to gain something temporal, at the expense of that which is eternal, is a very bad bargain.

The whole truth

There is a very good reason of why we are admonished to testify to the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – because those that live to anything that is less than the whole truth, have therefore tarnished their character to their own lasting harm, of which each of us should of our own volition want to and each of us really needs to represent instead, the liberating power of the whole truth, which frees us from the delusion of untruth and error.

The reason that so many willingly walk away from the whole truth is because they not only do not wish to face such on an individual basis, but that they also do not desire to face others with the exposure of their individual whole truth, because they feel, in many a case, that by doing so, that they will lose face to other people, especially those that they wish to have their respect and approval of; therefore, for a time, such a position serves to avoid bringing inconvenient shame to their own self; yet, this also signifies that because they have no real integrity in owning up to their own errors, that they have replaced the importance of the whole truth with that which is a very poor and unsatisfactory substitute.

So too, all those that will not live to the whole truth, and that will not seek and search diligently for the whole truth, have placed themselves in the unenviable position of being imprisoned by that which is untruth, or not the full truth, which they then pay homage to, as if this is okay, when it surely is not.  Those that purposely know that their life or part of their life is a lie, and refused to correct such, have turned their face from that which enlightens them to that which darkens and besmirches their being.

Each of us needs to respect the whole truth, for ultimately it is truth, and truth unbounded, that is eternal; for that which is wrong, of error, is deceptive, or an untruth, will for a certainty, eventually be fully exposed, and further that which is of error, cannot long survive through the annals of time.  That is to say, God is, by definition, eternally inerrant, of which then, that which is of error, cannot be an eternal part of God; therefore, signifying that all those that are in error, are going to, at some point or another, have to drop the scales from their eyes to see that which must be seen, known, and thereby lived to.

Additionally, it is difficult for many a person to recognize always that which is untruth and deception, if this is not counter-balanced by the knowledge of that which is the truth, and nothing but the truth.  So then, our lack of clarity of what represents the whole truth, precludes us from ever being fully liberated from deception and untruth, which is the very thing that gets us into so much trouble.  This so signifies, then, that it is our sacred duty therefore to do all that we can to know and to recognize the whole truth, and then honor that whole truth, by living it, in all that we say, think, and do.

United States Senate Representation essentially creates minority control

The United States has a bicameral legislature, of which the House of Representatives, is reflective of the population of each State, in which, the more populated States, get more representatives, and of which, each State is entitled to at least one representative, no matter how paltry their resident count may be.  In regards to the other legislature branch, as part of all the compromises so having to be made in order to get a Constitution, passed and ratified, the Senate representation, was created so that each State, big, small, or medium-size would be entitled to two representatives each and therefore exactly two Senators per State.  In theory, this was so done, so that the smaller States would therefore be signatories to the Constitution, with the knowledge, that they would therefore have a meaningful voice in legislative law.

The problem with the way the Senate is currently constructed, is that the biggest States of the Union, which are, California, Texas, Florida and New York, have about 33% of the United States population in their respective States, but just eight Senators in total.  On the other hand, the 35 smallest States represent about 33% of the population, as well, but they have a total of seventy Senators, in total.  This basically signifies that the smallest States of the Union, have at a minimum, the power to stifle just about any legislation that they don’t “cotton to,” and therefore this means on a substantive level, that the smaller States have the power to get what they so desire or to stop such, pretty much at not just the expense of the larger States, but also at the expense of the population, in whole.  This in so many words, indicates that the Senate as currently reflected, demonstrates in action, that fair and equal democratic representation is not really part of its makeup.

The fact that we have exactly fifty States, does make for a nice symmetry and a fine design on our flag, but isn’t in itself a good or a meaningful reason to preclude the larger States from taking the proactive steps so needed in order to break themselves into smaller States, which not only would provide those States as they currently stand with more representation, but would do a greater service to their constituents; in addition to mitigating the advantages that the smaller States currently wield over the larger.  The fact that this has not happened in recent times, is rather surprising, since the thirteen colonies, and their borders, were for the most part, not stagnant, until they became States, of which, even so, Virginia, itself, broke off into a separate State, known as West Virginia, in 1863.

While the smaller States, do deserve their proper representation, they have, at the present time, far more power than their numbers so warrant, and because their demographics in a lot of instances are significantly different from the United States as a whole, this essentially allows for the historic favored race and those that are its most conservative members of such to have an outsized influence upon national legislation.  What so happens locally within a given State, is the business of that State, but what so happens to America, is the business of all Americans, not just those that are playing the angles in order to benefit a favored subset of Americans, for that isn’t in keeping with the American spirit of fair play for all.

Debt peonage

There all types of debt so incurred by people, such as mortgage debt, student loan debt, credit card debt, vehicle debt, and personal loan debt.  Never has it been easier for people to get into debt -- and for a lot of those people, they actually get into debt, at a very young age, such as eighteen or nineteen, through credit cards, vehicle loans, or student loans.  The thing about debt is that a significant amount of Americans just aren’t competent at basic mathematics, and further to the point, they have difficulty truly understanding the perniciousness of high interest rates as well as comprehending their personal responsibility in regards to the personal cost so of, for failing to properly adhere to the terms of the debt so initiated to them.

While just about everyone likes to get something for nothing, the problem for many of those same people, is that debt so taken on in which it might well appear that a given individual is getting something for nearly nothing, really isn’t that case at all.  In fact, once someone has signed up for a debt, just about everything in regards to the terms and conditions of that loan, are pretty much out of their hands, and of which, this also typically heavily favors the lender and not the loanee.  Further to the point, a significant amount of people getting a loan, really have not taken the time to comprehend how nefarious such a loan might well be for them and their quality of life, especially when their income is relatively light and such has no reasonable means of being invigorated in the future.

All of the above, basically covers what are legal loans, and therefore, these pretty much are representative of the norm in the United States.  There is, though, even in these modern times, the type of loan, not authorized by the government, and therefore not in conformance with appropriate rules and regulations; yet, people in some degree of desperation will turn to these.  A case in point, would be any sort of cash loan, so provided by someone that operates outside the law, of which, these street loans, have their own interest rates, which can even be by the day, of incredibly high vigorish rates, and of which the enforcement of the payment of those loans are typically done through fear, intimidation, and violence, if so warranted. 

Then too, there are those non-citizens that see America as the proverbial land of opportunity, of which, because border security has become far tighter and far more proactive, than in previous decades, this has correspondingly raised the price for those so desiring to get trafficked into America.  Since many of these migrants have little ready cash, they often have to just accept the terms of the deal, of which those terms are typically not fully disclosed in any meaningful way.  Once these migrants reach America, they not only have to pay back the “coyote” they got them across to America, but they also have to deal with the fact that often for the work that they are doing in America, a significant amount of those so employing them, know that they are undocumented, which means that the cost of their room and board, if applicable, along with the wages to be paid, are going to favor heavily the employer, and of which, there often isn’t any good recourse for those so doing the work, if dissatisfied. The upshot of all this is that a lot of these migrants, are having to pay a whole lot of catch-up in regards to the debts that they so owe, of which, progress so being made, or the lack, thereof, keeps them in perpetual debt peonage.

Welfare for the rich

There are plenty of people, that have their criticisms when it comes to welfare for the poor and the disadvantaged, such as governmental expenditures for food stamps, housing vouchers, disability payments, earned income tax credit, and just about anything in which impoverished people, seemingly receive something without having to give up much of anything of corresponding value, in return.  Yet, despite the railings of those that claim that by such payments we are encouraging or validating or enabling those that are perceived as being lazy, slothful, wastrel, and the like, the bottom line is that the vast majority of those so receiving governmental assistance are by receiving that helping hand, typically not doing much more than just surviving, and certainly are not living “high on the hog.”

On the other hand, there is that other sort of individual and corporate welfare, which typically isn’t called out as such, but is really welfare all the same.  For instance, in regards to some of the biggest mega-corporations that the world has ever known, some of these behemoths, despite profits in the billions upon billions of dollars, do not pay any income taxes, whatsoever; or for those corporations that do pay such taxes, they have so many shell games that they play, in which monies are parked in low-taxed or untaxed foreign domiciles, that their overall tax rate is far below what would be anticipated that they would normally pay.  Additionally, mega-corporations are known for often driving a hard bargain with communities in regards to special favoritism in which property taxes are reduced considerably for some considerable period of time – so reasoned, because of the employment that will come into that community, along with often having favorably decisions also so being made in regards to the infrastructure that they so desire.  Then there are those mega-corporations that do an extensive amount of business with the government, in which, the structure of the contracts so being made, are for all practical purposes, essentially sole source, allowing that corporation to not only “win” the contract, but also to make a nice profit, especially so when it comes time for the invariable changes to that contract, spare parts, and the like.

In regards to superrich individuals, their pattern follows in conformance with the mega-corporations, in which, the goal, so of, is to reduce their taxable income as much as possible, and to correspondingly increase their passive income, which typically is not taxed, until a sale has been made, thereby postponing any necessary payment to the tax authorities, for considerable amounts of time.  So too, they are experts at setting up foundations, that allow them to funnel money that would be taxed at a much higher rate into a foundation, which pretty much is in harmony with the entity who created it. Additionally, estate taxes are at historic lows, thereby signifying that the government, even at the time of death, gets a minimal amount; hurt further, by some unfathomable reasoning, that the entity so inheriting, inherits at the “step-up” basis, effectively erasing any capital gains, that have accrued over a long period of time.

One of the pet peeves of many of those that have lots of money and influence, of which, perhaps they have worked hard to get to where they are at, is that welfare for the poor, not only subsidizes those that will not apply themselves, but encourages them in their indolence.  What they never seem to address, though, is that virtually all those that inherit money, and specifically those that inherit lots and lots of money, haven’t earned it, and therefore this easily encourages those rich heirs in their indolence, with the difference between the rich and the poor, being that the rich can easily afford to be indolent and still live a wonderful life, whereas, the poor, really can’t.