Baby boomers and their senior discounts

The wealthiest generation is the baby boomers, and considering that the latest baby boomer was born in 1964, it signifies that pretty much all baby boomers are considered to be senior citizens, in which it’s common for age 55 to be considered a senior citizen, with other ages of 60, 62, and finally 65 to be the highest end of what is defined as a senior citizen.

 The thing about being a senior citizen is that there are private enterprises that will extend discounts for those who are of that age at department stores, restaurants, movies, theatres, museums, dentists, and pretty much any business that is trying to incentivize those who are senior citizens to spend some of their wealth at their particular establishment.  Additionally, the government has programs such as Medicare and Social Security that phase in those who are 65 or even a bit younger to take advantage of those important programs.  Finally, some States offer a property tax discount for senior citizens if they choose to opt out of paying school taxes, under the impression that senior citizens have no schoolchildren who would be attending primary or secondary education.

 Look, it has to be admitted that just about everyone appreciates a discount, whether or not they are actually in need of one, and therefore, where there are discounts available, those in the know are pretty much going to take advantage of them.  The thing is though that people such as the baby boomers range from the super wealthy to those that are truly struggling, and the way that these discounts are structured, they don’t take into account income or wealth, but simply age, which signifies that while there are those seniors that could certainly use every single discount that comes their way, there are also those seniors that have more than enough already.

 So too, it has to be admitted by governmental as well as private businesses, that senior citizen discounts and things of that ilk are, by definition, discriminatory.  That is to say, only senior citizens can take advantage of these discounts, which would seem to imply that money that is being saved through those discounts by those senior citizens has got to be made up by other people instead, which, when we consider that the baby boomers are incredibly wealthy to begin with, seems rather unfair.  Of course, it is argued, that private enterprise should be permitted to structure their business in whatever manner that increases their revenue and respective profit,  which certainly seems reasonable, but it does come at a cost to those that aren’t senior citizens, whether admitted to or not.

 In sum, it would seem that the general purpose of senior discounts and programs of all types earmarked for seniors was in acknowledgment that those who have retired and are on a fixed income might need a helping hand and also as a way for this country to show appreciation and respect for seniors, but in consideration, that seniors in actuality, in aggregate, have all the money, already, would reflect that there probably needs to be a reevaluation of such.

Satan as adversary

A significant portion of people define Satan as simply being evil, or the agent of evil, and thus to be avoided at all costs. While it’s okay to see Satan as being evil, a better definition really comes from studying the Hebrew word satan, which translates to adversary, or it could also be read as accuser or opponent.   So then, those that see Satan as being their adversary, have a better concept of what Satan really is, which isn’t evil in and of itself, but rather it is more appropriate to see Satan as one’s opponent which makes a lot more sense, because this world is structured in a way in which we will be challenged and we will be tested, of which, some agent needs to instigate those challenges against us, best known as Satan.

 Indeed, there are far too many people who really don’t want to test themselves in any sort of battlefield, perhaps because they are already satisfied with the way that their life already is, or perhaps because they fear they will lose or come up short, or aren’t prepared.  Yet, the only true way to determine as to whether or not we have learned our lessons well is to see them applied in all sorts of conditions, which necessitates that we need to have some sort of adversary, because there are far too many people that profess that they are this or that in regards to how good and generous they are, but when push comes to shove, they crumble, because they don’t have the proper constitution and lack the resolution to make a stand where a stand needs to be made.

 This means that we all ought to welcome the challenges that come to us in life, as our fair opportunity to prove our mettle in battle, and those who are prepared and thus meet what needs to be met are the very same that are going to be victorious in that which will truly define who and what they really are. Further to the point, all of us need to meet our challenges, and should not and cannot expect that the battles that are meant for us to face should be faced by someone else on our behalf.  While it’s fair to lean upon another, there comes that time when each of us must stand upon our own two feet, or else the test cannot conceivably be passed, but will remain incomplete and unfinished.

 All of the above doesn’t mean that we should look for trouble, but rather signifies that we ought to be prepared for trouble that comes in all sizes, shapes, and forms, of which, we owe it to our Creator to prove that we have taken out talents and put them to good use, and the way that we demonstrate that is not just in our good deeds, and selfless actions, but also in the courage to fight those that are our adversaries and to defeat them, thus proving that we have been tested, and thus are worthy of that which beckons us back to our eternal home.

“We will find you… And we will kill you”

The above creed was spoken by the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, in 2025, regarding foreign South American drug cartels in speedboats, allegedly on the way to the United States who are supposedly known to be carrying illicit drugs of such a quantity that every boat permanently interdicted by the United States was targeted for the killing of those aboard because in doing so “25,000 Americans …lives are saved,”  through the deliberate killing of these designated foreign terrorist organizations.

 To believe that 25,000 lives are saved from the killing of each targeted speedboat that is alleged to be filled with illicit drugs is the height of stupidity, for if this were true, then the amount of drug overdoses and other associated things regarding the drug trade in America would have seen a reduction of the deaths from such, approaching zero, which isn’t the case at all.  Additionally, Hegseth proclaims that those who are on the speedboats heading toward America are exactly identified and known, including what they are carrying, which begs the question that if this were really true, then that information should be provided to the appropriate international judicial organization as well as to the legislature branch of America to actually verify the veracity of such, so that legitimate action that is in conformance with international laws and norms could be applied, especially in consideration that because the Secretary of War has declared that all those that are on these illicit drug speedboat are known, and seeing that speedboats will eventually reach their destination unless interdicted beforehand, signifies that this can be verified when that destination is reached.

 So too, what seems to have been dismissed with this disgusting creed, about finding and killing, is that this country is bound by a Constitution as well as it must adhere to international laws that it is a signatory to, and thereby cannot be above the law.  Further to the point, this country has proclaimed itself as the beacon of liberty, freedom, and equal justice for all, but the deliberate and premeditated killing of those who have been designated, without any real proof, as foreign terrorist organizations falls seriously outside those constraints and thereby those that perpetuate this type of violent belief are themselves the most unpatriotic of citizens, and should themselves be held to account at the highest level of governance for their behavior which is unbecoming of what this country stands for.

 This country should stand on the very principles of its founding, and when it does not, it does so to the disgrace of all those who sacrificed their blood, sweat, and tears to help create and to uphold this country’s values.  Those who are fixated on finding bad actors have their place and their purpose, but within that finding, they need to adhere to international law, and to forswear from the unnecessary taking of lives of those who may or may not be guilty of anything, and thereby deserve to be accorded the respect of the law, fairly applied.

The need to get beyond the binary good and bad

It’s very disappointing that even at the highest levels of governance or of religion, we find that there are those proselytizers who desire to break the world down and the people that make up that world, as either good or bad, with no nuance or anything in between.  This then makes for the true tragedy of the day, of those that believe that they are good and further to the point, believe that they have an inherent duty to rid the world of those that are bad, as if life and the rules of life can be broken down into an incredibly simplistic structure that thereby justifies whatever the side which was labeled itself as good, believes is legitimate to do so as to rid the world of bad.

 Look, the bottom line is that as much as some people want to believe or insist that you believe with them that they are good, the reality is that there are way too many people who believe that they are good and doing good, but really aren’t doing good in a lot of cases, and in the most critical of cases are often doing wrong.  So too, those that we label as bad, are seldom bad all the time, and to the point, there are probably reasons why some people do things which are considered to be bad which should be properly examined so as to see if there is a reasonable way that this can be corrected, as opposed to a desire to eradicate all those who are considered to be bad, without taking into consideration, that people are subject to change, and in a lot of cases, should be provided with the room and option to change.

 For a certainty, there are many issues with the labeling of someone or something as being bad, which we find that the very first one is that it seems that those that are labeled bad, thereby permits those that are considered to be good to wreak all sorts of havoc upon the bad people, as if by this punishment this somehow resolves the issue, but it never really does, because the root of the problem or issue is never dealt with.  A far better mindset when it comes to those that are behaving badly is to find out what it is that semes to be the proximate cause of that behavior and by doing so, there may be constructive things that can be done to alleviate the troubles that are occurring while also setting the stage so that the foundation they rest upon is improved, thereby helping the situation as compared to simply desiring to eliminate the problem without bothering to understand what created it to begin with.

 Indeed, every one of us has legitimate needs, which signifies that the better that we are in creating the construct which does a better job of fulfilling those needs for as many as possible, will make for a society that is more cohesive and wholesome as compared to a simple desire to stamp out bad that we see, which is often done through punitive measures, without taking into proper consideration, that for the grace of God, that could be us.  All of us need to do a better job of comprehending that we are all equally created by God, and thereby equally entitled to our unalienable rights, which will thus help us to better understand that aiding and helping those who are hurting and needful will make for a better society.

The owners own the sportswriters of legacy media

When it comes to players in major professional sports leagues versus the owners of those franchises, we clearly have a division between those who labor as compared to those who are the capitalistic owners of these teams.  One might think that when it comes to sports writing in major media, as well as sports commentary that we watch on television, there would be an interest in those who are sportswriters to write and speak of all those things that would pique the ears and eyes of viewers.  What we find, though, is that while there are plenty of articles that discuss athletes' misbehavior, their salaries, and other foibles that they might have, it seems like the same sort of inquiry is seldom directed against the owners and their foibles, in addition to asking questions such as how they got their wealth, where they spend their money, taxes, and so on.  In other words, for every article telling us how much a player makes, there is nary an article telling us how much an owner makes from his ownership or is worth, as if the gloves are off when it comes to most athletes, but kid gloves are on for owners, which isn’t fair, it isn’t good reporting, and clearly shows that the hand of sportswriters is prejudiced in favor of the owners, and not of the players.

 This is not to say that there aren’t favorable articles about players, because there are, but rather there seems to be an unseemly amount of focus on the money that athletes make and their personal lives, without the same sort of concern being directed against the owners, of which, since the owners have lived much longer lives, one would think that there would be a whole lot of information that could be divulged about owners, but seldom is divulged, such as in their sweetheart deals for stadiums, their lucrative tax breaks and benefits, and the value of their sports franchise.

 Indeed, it has to be taken into consideration that sportswriters for legacy media work for corporate interests that, at the highest management level, have a lot more in common with the owners of sports franchises than they ever would have with players.  In fact, owners and the owners of legacy media may know each other and even congregate in the same places, so there is often an unwritten rule that those who are like-minded elites aren’t going to expose one another, but rather prefer to concentrate on the players, who are ever-changing and interchangeable, anyway.  This thus signifies that sportswriters have an agenda that they must honor, which seems to be that all is fair when it comes to players and their salaries, along with any legal matters pending for them, but for the owners, to pretty much be hands off, and about the only time that an owner gets into public trouble, is when some other non-legacy organization finds out something about the owner that is derogatory, and then legacy media from a strategic standpoint has to write something in response to this, not so much to inform the public, but rather to control the narrative.

 In short, mainstream sportswriters aren’t interested in investigating owners because it isn’t permitted, but all’s fair when it comes to players, and especially their income and bad behavior.

Government: What should it be good for?

For those who bother to read the preamble to our Constitution, it clearly states that the government, under the consent of the governed, has a duty to “promote the general Welfare” of the people.  This is something that our politicians, legislators, and the Commander in Chief of these United States need to keep first and foremost in their minds, because how society judges its government should have just about everything to do with how that government has helped and aided the people in making the society that they are integral members of, better and more fruitful.  This signifies that, to the extent the government does not competently perform its duties to the people, it ought to be held accountable by those people for failing to fulfill its main function.

 So then, quite obviously, what government should be good for is making the lives of the people to be better than it would be without such government and whenever that government consistently fails to do what it ought to do, then the people do have the right to replace or amend such, because the bottom line is that the main function of any good government, is to be beneficial to the people, especially in consideration that the people are taxed as their obligation to that government, which means that their monies so extracted should be prudently utilized for the greater good of the people.

 Indeed, any legitimate government needs to answer to the people by being forthcoming regarding the issues of the day, which signifies that the government needs to be far more transparent and open to the people, and far less obtuse and secretive.  That is to say, the less the people know about what is really going on behind closed doors of the government, the less that the people have a say or input in what their government is actually doing on their alleged behalf, and further to the point, it’s hard to hold accountable that which the general public is not even cognizant of.

 There isn’t any doubt that we need governance in order to have a well-functioning society, but not all governance is good governance, because there are plenty of governments that essentially run over the people, by the injustices so displayed in their court of laws, as well as the policing arm of the state demanding obedience from the people, and thus silencing dissent.  So too, our representatives need to actually represent the people as opposed to being beholden to those with money, position, and status who have essentially bought what they want, at the expense of the people.

 In fairness to the people, there should be a periodic true reckoning of whether or not the people are in actuality, receiving fair beneficence from the government that has an inherent responsibility to them, or whether the government has essentially been captured by private actors for the expressed benefit of those elites, and therefore the people aren’t receiving the good that they are entitled to and have faithfully paid for.

Incarceration needs to be totally reevaluated

The fact that America locks up so many of its own, and in comparison to Western European nations, thereby represents a true outlier as to what to do constructively about crime, should be seen, therefore, not only as an embarrassment, but also a reflection that America is not nearly as freedom and liberty-loving as it claims to be.

 While it could be argued, that violent crimes of all colors should necessitate the locking up of the perpetrator, it could also be argued that even in these sorts of cases, there might be viable diversion programs that would be sensible in getting to the root of the problem, but even if violence, mandates incarceration, we find that a significant amount of those so locked up, are locked up for “victimless crimes” such as substance abuse, prostitution, vagrancy, and the like. Further, there are those “white collar criminals” who are locked up and could probably be dealt with in a way and manner in which their communications are restricted and monitored, with an obligation to pay back those they have ripped off.

 Basically, it has to be said, that incarceration should not be the default of how we deal with people that have committed crimes, not only because incarceration as currently structured in so many ways, does a poor job of rehabilitating or fixing what needs to be fixed, but also because of the ongoing expense that is incurred.  This signifies that we ought to look at solutions that utilize the monies so devoted to the carceral state in a way that is not only more innovative but also cheaper in the funding, so needed, while also providing a better chance that the criminal will mend their ways by addressing that which will help to resolve or mitigate their situation.

 Look, if this country believes the best way to deal with crime is punishment and nothing else, then it truly doesn’t need to change a thing.  On the other hand, if this nation believes that it ought to at least investigate what could be done as an alternative to incarceration, then it needs to take up programs to do that very thing.  Further to the point, this nation should admit that a significant amount of crime is committed by those who have come from dysfunctional families, are ill-educated, and have a dearth of opportunity to consider.  This thus reflects that the structure of the society that we are all members of, should not only be studied, but that we ought to do something constructive to help those that are the most vulnerable, because those that see no future, and realistically have no future, because their skillset is suspect or completely lacking are the very same that are going to make trouble for society, and the best way to alleviate trouble is to figure out what causes it, and then do something productive about it, as opposed to locking people up, under the mistaken belief that this resolves the problem, rather than admitting that all this does is put it out of sight.

The United States and the chance of lasting peace that got away

The so-called “cold war” between the United States and the Soviet Union, lasted nearly 45 years, of which when those fifteen countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, became independent from the Soviet Union in the period of 1990 to 1991, this presented to America a terrific opportunity for America and Russia to bury the hatchet and to thereby not only ease the tension of a possible nuclear war, but also to ally themselves with one another, as was done, during the darkest days of World War II.  Instead, this opportunity was missed, and must be to the lasting regret of both nations. However, it has to be admitted, this construct is the clear preference of the military-industrial-technology complex that this nation devotes hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars to, yearly, thus enervating the social safety net for millions of Americans, all because this nation at its highest level was somehow unable to come to a lasting peace or even to embrace a friendly alliance with Russia.

 To believe, somehow, that because Russia’s governance is different from ours, or that the way that their economy is operated is not fully in line with capitalism, thereby signifies that we can’t be at peace with them, is contradicted by the very fact that America has solid relationship with plenty of nations that are autocratic, repressive, and no respecter of the civil rights of their own citizens.  In other words, the opportunity to turn swords into plowshares with Russia was clearly missed, and this should be seen as a betrayal of the citizens of these nations, if not also of the world at large.

 Indeed, governments come and go, as do empires and unions of nations, which thereby signifies that when the world changes, those that are paying attention need to see this as a true opportunity to help make this world a better and a safer place, because countries such as the United States and Russia have historically spent an inordinate amount of monies on military affairs, which doesn’t benefit humanity, while also making the world less safe, as well.

 We ought to think that since America believes it is so great, because it is a beacon of freedom and opportunity for all, that we, of all countries, would make it to be our point to do everything reasonable within our power to help make this world to be safer, by the recognition that warfare should be an absolute last resort, and thereby replaced by sensibility and diplomacy as contrasted to insisting that Russia is somehow a true viable threat to world peace, when in actuality, Russia doesn’t have the power to hold a candle to the United States, and further to the point, has absolutely no interest in doing so.

 In sum, the American public has been bamboozled into believing that its way of life is under constant assault, from all sorts of bad actors that simply won’t stand to accept our prosperity and freedom, when in actuality this isn’t the case at all, never has been the case, and never will be the case, and until America changes its tune and learns to be far less bellicose, the world will continue to be in danger of a worldwide conflagration, due mainly to America’s intransigence.

Where have all our heroes gone?

Although we are a quarter of the way through the 21st century, there just doesn’t seem to be any real heroes developing in the United States; whereas back in the 20th century, there was a multitude of heroes, such as:

               Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr: A great civil rights leader

              Helen Keller: An inspiring advocate for those with disabilities

              Dr. Jonas Salk: An innovator and developer of the polio vaccine

              Bishop Fulton Sheen: Renowned religious author and Emmy Award winner

              Eleanor Roosevelt: A powerful advocate of civil rights and women’s rights

              Daniel Ellsberg: Courageous whistleblower of the illuminating Pentagon Papers

 The list above could go on and on, because the 20th century had a significant number of people who were pioneers in civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, transparency in government, fairness and equality for all, justice, governmental safety net, social security, and enforced protections for minorities.

 When we look at the 21st century, we find that the attention of so many Americans seems to have devolved into just their personal cares, such as we see for those who spend an inordinate amount of time tethered to social media, as compared to engaging themselves in the real world and doing something of substance, instead.  So too, far too many Americans not only don’t know their history, but, when it comes to those they admire, are somehow fixated on just great athletes or actors or super-successful CEOs, as if these alone are our best and brightest.

 Indeed, we seem to live in a modern-day construct in which communities aren’t as healthy as they could be, because there aren’t enough people who are intimately involved in their community, and typically don’t feel any obligation to volunteer or to engage in community affairs of the day, which weakens communities because people don’t seem to understand that in organized numbers there is power, and in order to effect change, people need to join together, or else the powers that be, will simply continue to rule the roost, which might be okay, if all was well, but it is not.

 The reason why we need heroes is that not only do we need someone or something that will encourage us to get involved, but also because our heroes represent people that we can try to emulate, by conforming and adhering to what they are doing and saying, while also doing our fair part to bring meaningful change, because in the absence of the people, relating with the heroes of the day, nothing of worth actually gets accomplished.

 Perhaps it could be said that it isn’t so much that we need recognized heroes, but rather what we need is more of us to get engaged in activities which are going to be beneficial to the society that we are a part of, thereby making those that perform such on behalf of the people, to be people that we admire as our unsung heroes, because in the end, being a hero has a lot to do with basically accomplishing what ought to be done, by sacrificing something of our personal time to work for the greater good of society, as our valued and necessary contribution to it.

None of us is mistake-free

It’s good to want to achieve a perfect score, but a lot of times those perfect scores are achieved within a construct in which it’s fairly reasonable for a student who studies and applies themselves to get a perfect score.   In the real world, perfect scores are well-nigh impossible to achieve, even under the best of circumstances, not only because there are too many things occurring that are out of our control, but because the nuances of what is being accomplished don’t lend themselves to perfection, though they will lend themselves to achieving what needs to be achieved at a competent and sustainable level.

 Those that don’t ever want to make a mistake or pride themselves of the belief that they never make mistakes, are the same that pretty much aren’t going to do much of anything, other than just sit on their rearends and just exist, for those that don’t venture much of anything at all, are the same that aren’t going to make many mistakes, because they aren’t doing anything that risks them making a mistake.  On the other hand, those who diligently apply themselves to the task at hand, in their personal and professional lives, will make mistakes, of which the object of the exercise is to learn from those mistakes so that they can become better and more knowledgeable at what they are trying to achieve.  After all, whenever we push ourselves into unknown territory, or areas that we are not proficient in, mistakes are going to be an inevitable part of the learning process, but through the lessons learnt from those mistakes, we will progress to the point that those previous mistakes don’t really matter, because we have overcome them.

 Indeed, to progress in life, we need to grow into the skillset that we must learn to master, and doing so, will result along the way, of making mistakes, of wrong turns, and even setbacks, but those that persist and have a reasonable plan of action, are determined, and are relentless in the achieving of their goals, will work through their mistakes to get to where they need to be.

 So too, it is frustrating when we fail, but the lesson to learn from failing is not to give up, but rather to dust ourselves off and to do what we need to do to either overcome such, or when faced with a daunting task in which we simply aren’t qualified, to find something else that is a better fit for us, for there is never any shame in the trying, though there is shame in those that simply quit without investigating whether there is something else that could be achieved, even if it represents what appears to be a lesser goal, for one of the things that we need to remember is that the most important part of life is the journey, and that as part of that journey, mistakes will be made, adjustments will be made, knowledge will be gain, and obstacles will be overcome, all with the general understanding that everything that we are challenged with, is there for our ultimate benefit, because it will help us to become a better and a more self-satisfied person.

Before there was Hiroshima or Nagasaki, there was the firebombing of Tokyo

While most Americans are quite familiar with the fact that the United States of America dropped two devastating atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945, they are far less familiar with the firebombing of Tokyo, accomplished five months previously, in March of 1945, of which it is estimated that there were 100,00 deaths, upon this major city filled not with military officers or armaments, but with civilians.

 To believe, somehow that the deliberate and premeditated killing of civilians at an industrial scale is somehow acceptable and therefore not a clearcut war crime is not to understand that warfare necessitates some degree of rules that are abided by all parties, and the wanton killing of unarmed civilians for no greater purpose other than to put the “fear of the wrath of God” into them is a chilling type of inhumane mindset.  Remember this well, military officers have a definite chain of command which necessitates that several of the highest officers in this land, in addition to the Commander in Chief, somehow saw fit to permit this air bombing with incendiary cluster bombs, with the sure knowledge that this would create an incredible conflagration, which it duly did, and subsequently killed 100,000 people, along with a significant amount of property damage.

 So too, it’s easier to commit this type of action, when the propaganda so being disseminated at that time, made it seem as if Japanese were subhuman, and by virtue of designating the Japanese as being lesser than, it thus made it far easier to kill that which wasn’t considered to be fully human, though, of course, Japanese are just as human as any other race within this world.

 The one thing that can be said about bombing, precision or not, is that the destructive power of bombs is often quite impressive. To the degree that bombing is a necessary act to destroy enemy military infrastructure and/or military troops has its place, but it should not be used on civilians, or in areas in which civilians are prominent, because, quite frankly, war is supposed to be about military forces engaging one another, and not about unnecessary and unwarranted taking of lives of civilians, especially when we consider that the firepower of modern day’s armaments has never been exceeded in the history of humankind, which signifies that there is an inherent responsibility to demonstrate restraint, for those that do not, winners or losers, should be held to account for wrong and unnecessary acts, for the sake of the good and future of humanity.

 Instead, what we so find is that it is the victors that do all the judging after a war, in which their crimes aren’t even typically recognized as crimes, but rather, the losing side is the one to suffer the general opprobrium and penalties which are duly imposed upon them, seemingly saying to the general public, that it’s okay to commit war crimes as long as you win, because the only thing that really matters is winning, no matter the ethical and moral cost that will have to be paid at some future date, somehow and somewhere.

The need for a new Kefauver Committee

We find that way back in 1950-1951 Congress held televised hearings investigating organized crime, and while there have been subsequent committees and in fact today we have the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations which deals with many things, including organized crime, it has to be admitted that when the general public is questioned about organized crime and the naming of any individuals that come to mind, they typically can’t come up with a single American name of such in the 21st century, but rely on names such as Al Capone and John Gotti from yesteryear.  Look, we live in an age of the information superhighway, along with a high level of domestic monitoring of our communications of all sorts, which thus would seem to signify that never has so much actionable information been available to be acted upon, but there doesn’t seem to be much that is being robustly done that addresses the scourge of organize crime, which begs the question as to whether this nation believes that organized crime is simply a non-entity because it seems as if the powers that be, treats it that way.

 The fact of the matter is that there is so much illicit activity happening within America’s borders, such as with illicit drug manufacturing, its transportation, and its distribution, that it doesn’t seem possible that this nation doesn’t know who some of the biggest players involved in this trade are within America, and never seems to make it to be its point to do something constructive about it, through the usage of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, or through the usage of the IRS for all the money being illicitly made but undeclared and hence a form of serious tax evasion.

 So too, the point of having hearings addressing organized crime is not to simply embarrass particular players within such a milieu, but to see that justice is done, because not doing so, sends the wrong message to Americans, and especially impressionable Americans, that apparently it’s okay to break the law, and to undercut the good values of America, because it seems as if those that have the power to do something constructive about it are unwilling to do that very thing.

 The one thing that can be said about organized crime in all of its many facets, is that those that are involved directly or indirectly in it do not desire to be exposed, because not only is publicity bad for their business and their image, but it puts a face upon the crimes that are being committed and the next sensible step thereby to implement would be to indict as many as possible at the highest levels of organized crime by bringing appropriate charges against them, whether it be criminal, perjury, or taxation related.

 There does come that point, where those in governance have a responsibility to the people of this nation, of which one of those responsibilities is to see to it that illicit activities that are well- organized and well-funded, face the music of what they have done and continue to do, because that’s the right thing to do and is also necessary for the continual safety and happiness of the people.

Sensible tariffs

There is no doubt that tariffs, properly considered and thought about, have their place. Still, it has to be recognized that this is one of those things in which tariffs imposed on a certain country and its specific goods may prompt a countermove by that same country on our domestically produced goods intended for export, and so on.  In other words, tariffs are always a two-way street, unless one country can just impose its will upon another, which may well result in some future form of blowback. In reality, the best tariffs are going to start with the foundation that a conversation needs to occur between the respective countries and businesses so that something sensible can be agreed upon, which makes for the best structure of tariffs.

 Also, when it comes to tariffs it needs to be recognized that there are going to be winners and there are going to be losers, from an export/import business perspective, so then a conscious decision needs to be made as what a given country’s priorities are when it comes to tariffs, of which, a reasonable viewpoint would be to see that tariffs are minimized for the basics and essentials of life, which thus benefits those that have the least amount of flexibility when it comes to where they expend their money, and thus this signifies that high tariffs are best imposed upon items which are seen as luxury or non-essentials in which those that have the capital can continue to buy these goods, but will do so at a higher price.  In other words, it’s a mistake to hurt the pocketbook of those who are most vulnerable, but rather it is best to impact the pocketbook of those who have that discretionary income to purchase those high-value items, should that still be their desire.

 Additionally, the imposing of tariffs should necessitate that the legislative arm of the state has its fair say, so that both sides of the political aisle can weigh in on where and how much tariffs ought to be while also taking into account that a serious conversation should be made with foreign nations in consideration of those tariffs which are being contemplated upon; in addition to the important point, that tariffs ideally should not be imposed without warning, but should have plenty of warning, so that all involved parties have time to adjust to how the rules of the road are changing.  So too, tariffs that are imposed willy-nilly, that are here today, then gone tomorrow, and then back the next day, and change from one percentage to another percentage on a daily basis, or simply on a whim, should never be permitted, because it isn’t fair to any party and businesses need to know where they stand or else they won’t be able to properly prioritize what they should or should not be working upon. 

 To the degree that tariffs help to protect domestic industries definitely has its place, and thereby imposing tariffs on certain foreign goods has its purpose, but all of this needs to be carefully thought through, which necessitates communication with all pertinent parties, which is not only sensible but also represents the right thing to do.

What are we fighting for?

Each time that America insists upon going to war, declared or undeclared, it needs to not only ask the question as to what America is fighting for, but after it is all said and done, it needs to answer the question as to whether or not America achieved what it set out to achieve.  This question and corresponding answer are absolutely paramount, especially with a nation that has the audacity to determine that its required budget for military affairs should be $1.5 trillion, which quite obviously means that those who are its citizens are going to get a whole lot less when it comes to any sort of safety net, education, infrastructure, healthcare, and so on. 

 The reality of America and its wars is pretty darn clear, of which it could be said that since the end of World War II, there has not been a single war in which whatever objective America professed to have in mind was actually achieved, and in many a case, was not only not close to being achieved, but actually made the situation worse.

 To believe somehow that America is fighting for freedom and democracy throughout the world is an absolute lie that has no foundation behind it whatsoever.  There isn’t a single country since the aftermath of World War II that America has helped to secure freedom and democracy, which clearly makes the point that America isn’t fighting for freedom or democracy at all.  Rather, America seems to be fighting for the glory of its empire, but doesn’t have the integrity to admit to this, perhaps because the American public would not be all that supportive of such a huge amount of money being devoted to that empire, which benefits the few and well placed, while hurting the common people of this nation, thereby contributing to our present day, civil unrest.

 Those who will not examine what did or did not occur from a fight, which cost this country blood, sweat, tears, and money, are the same who have their heads in the sand.  So too, those that keep insisting that the only way to resolve conflict is with the sword are the same who will continue to support this same sort of mindset when it comes to their own population, whenever they are not behaving in the manner that it so desires, which definitely undercuts freedom, democracy, and just about all the good that this nation was founded upon.

 Indeed, today’s warrior mindset, in which America believes that diplomacy has no place, because that necessitates conversation, compromise, and concern for the other, signifies that America’s only true belief is might is right, and thereby America will fight first and ask questions later, of which, in the end, it doesn’t even care about the answers, as long as the other side, submits, or if things aren’t going well, America gives up, because the cost is too high, and then makes it to be its point to find someone else to fight with, ad nauseam.

The infrastructure of the illicit drug trade in America

We read from the RAND corporation report that “Spending on cannabis, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine by Americans reached nearly $150 billion in 2016,” which surely means that this number has increased even more to account for illicit opiates as well as fentanyl.  The sheer size of this number should be deeply disturbing to all Americans, but even more so, it signifies that for all this illicit drug business to be occurring within America, this necessitates a robust infrastructure for these illicit businesses, which isn’t discussed or thought about nearly enough.

 When we look at an orthodox American business, we recognize that for that business to reach sales of just 1 billion dollars, it will require real estate, security, computers, personnel, transportation, logistics, data storage, accountants, lawyers, salespeople, management, inventory, and banking.  All of these very things are also necessary for the illicit drug trade and even more so, because illicit drugs operate outside the law, but nevertheless still require things that all companies of a certain size need in order to operate, be efficient, and grow.  This thus signifies the rather obvious point, that whether transactions are done with cash, or cash like instruments that banking is going to be required to be involved with all the money that is coming in and going out, wittingly or unwittingly, but still involved in the drug trade, which means that whatever controls that are currently in place to monitor such are doing an incredibly poor job of catching much of anything.  So too, while the United States has plenty of law enforcement personnel, it just seems rather obvious that certain of those law officers have been compromised in one way or another, or else there would be a much more serious interdiction of drugs coming to America and being distributed throughout America.  The bottom line is that whatever is being done at present sure isn’t that effective, because just about any illicit drug is easily obtainable within just about any city in America, without exception.

 The one thing that we know for a certainty is that sums of $150 billion just can’t be hidden and what this nation really needs to do a far better job of accomplishing, is to follow the money, because all those transactions are going somewhere to something, again and again, of which, there doesn’t seem to be the type of serious interdiction that should be accomplished, actually occurring.  Additionally, America has some very high-budgeted secret agencies, such as the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA, which one would think would have their finger on the pulse of the drug trade, but rather, it seems like these agencies, regrettably, either aren’t doing their job well and competently, are quite possibly, are compromised and even aiders and abettors of the illicit drug trade, for their own ulterior motives, typically justified under the mistaken belief that if it is only the underclass of America, suffering from this drug scourge, it’s no big deal.

 All of the above would indicate one important belief: America hasn’t done nearly enough to eliminate or to rein in substantially this drug flow in America, which begs the question as to why, because the volume and monies are so large, it seems as if the powers that be aren’t even really trying, which is rather suspicious.

Learn to govern yourself

There wouldn’t be a need for government if people knew how to govern themselves and did so in a competent and reliable way.  After all, when we think of the purpose of government, it really comes down to providing the ways, means, and structure so that the people are able to best obtain satisfactory lives, based upon the foundation of fairness, equality, justice, and opportunity for all.   This signifies that the purpose of government is to help assure that these things occur, and the best governance is that governance which has the interests of its constituency first and foremost in mind and performs its duties on behalf of its citizens, for the betterment of the people.

 We find that the best family structure is not just a family that knows what is proper, but demonstrates through the head of the family, in their actions and deeds, that they live by the same code that they profess to believe in, so by example, this thereby underscores the words and good advice so given.  That is to say, for those in authority to know the right thing to do, but to do the very opposite will result in a family that is going to acknowledge that apparently rules and good advice are meant to be broken or disobeyed at one’s discretion or convenience, which is the type of object lesson that damages young minds.

 So too, the best government is that government in which those at the very top are full of integrity, fairness, wisdom, and the belief that all are created equally, and therefore is no respecter of persons, but rather makes it to be their point, that favoritism has no place in that governance, but rather it is the content of one’s character that matters, and thus that government is not beholden to those that have bucketloads of money, or are in positions of great corporate power, and so on.

 Additionally, it is important to remember that those who behave well when their parents are in the same room, or when their teacher is in the classroom, but when outside of such, they show their true colors, are those who have failed to develop correctly the governance of their own self.  Indeed, nobody can be watched 24/7, so there is plenty of opportunity for all sorts of bad events to occur when it seems as if nobody is watching, but that which is done in secret and is wrong will have negative repercussions, sooner or later.  Also, it has to be admitted, that it is not possible to be two opposing things, for in the end, we will be one or the other, so that those that occasionally lie or cheat because it appears to be beneficial for them, at that moment, need to admit to themselves, if nobody else, that by doing so, they have failed to govern themselves properly, for if it is good enough for the goose, then it is good enough for the gander, which is why we have so much trouble in this world, because bad deeds ultimately have bad consequences, known and unknown, all stemming from our failure to govern ourselves responsibly and ethically.

Governments and religion

When it comes to the loyalty of its citizens, most governments are cognizant that their citizens typically have an affiliation with some form of religious faith and that many of those take their faith quite seriously.  This signifies that governments in many a case, understand therefore that they should try to be in harmony with the prevailing religious faith, at a minimum, so that the population is more at ease with that governance, for whenever a governance is at odds with the faith of the majority of the people, then one side or the other will ultimately prevail, and even though governments have control of both the purse and the guns, religion has a way of prevailing, given a long enough span of time.

 So then, intelligent governments that are engaged with their citizenry, recognize that being on the right side of the faith of the people, is going to be a win-win, which is why we see that historically there has been set aside a particular day of the week, dedicated to the people’s faith, so that typically secular activities such as carousing, drinking, shopping, and the like have had restrictions imposed upon such, voluntarily or by law, so meant to be of benefit and aid to religion, because by limiting what is considered to be acceptable to perform on a set aside religious day, restricts what people can or cannot do, and therefore will possibly mean that people will amend their behavior in a way that comports with the tenets of that religious faith, at least, for that day.

 Additionally, governments understand that the right form of religion imposes an ethical code of conduct on its believers, which typically conforms to what the government would prefer to see from its constituents.  That is to say, governments understand the value of integrity, family, obedience, labor, and charity, which signifies that to the degree that religion can help these to be imprinted upon the population, then the better behaved that population will be, which makes for a more quiescent population, which is typically something that governments prefer, especially over civil unrest, and a consistent clarion call for change, change, change.

 While critics have said that “religion is the opium of the people,” it needs to be recognized that societies need not only social cohesion but also social direction, or else the result will be something less than ideal, and to the degree that religion in a positive way can help people to believe in something outside of their own personal domain, and to believe that how they interact with others and behave makes a difference, in this world, and on judgment day, it has to be admitted therefore that religion not only has its place but is vital for the governance of people, especially when the population is large and spread out along a vast amount of territory, because there needs to be commonality from north to south, and from east to west, and while a Constitution has its place and purpose, so does religious faith, especially when these two things, together, augment one another.

The collective pursuit of the removal of the unauthorized foreigner

What we find in any society is that there are those times in which that society progresses by doing the right thing of justice, fairness, and equality for all, as opposed to those times of doing the wrong thing, consisting of prejudices, intimidation, and injustice for those who are not part of the orthodox power structure and its beliefs.  Indeed, there are those societies in which those that are in privileged positions have no interest in seeing their position subject to being assailed, and therefore make it their point to find a “bogeyman” that needs to be controlled or contained, by selling the story that this “bogeyman” is the reason why that society is in danger of losing its overall status, wealth, and safety.

 It's hard to believe that in this enlightened age in which we have been correctly taught that we ought to judge others by the content of their character, that there is a nasty undercurrent that believes the very opposite in which characteristics such as the color of a given person’s skin, or their income, or their religious faith, or their heritage, are all things that need to be in conformance to those that believe that they alone have the marks of a certain righteousness and therefore all those that do not have those same symbols should be seen as the lesser and thereby should be pursued out of existence, or else that society will be harmed by them.

 Indeed, those in authority or who have the collective ear of the people are in the pole position to push for policies that insist that life can be broken down into a very simplistic formula, of which those who agree with them in principle are right, and those who do not adhere to that principle are wrong. This though isn’t enough, for the powers that be further stipulate that the people need to choose as to which side that they are on, and if failing to make that choice, will be considered to be on the wrong side, because the intent by those powers is to make it be the duty of all those “right thinking” people to concentrate therefore on the noble effort to eradicate, eliminate, or to restrict those that have been designated as an unauthorized foreigner as well as their sympathizers.

 In other words, foreigners and their supporters that do not conform to what the powers that be consider to be in adherence to what they desire, by virtue of, for example, their lack of income, their lack of being the right color, or their lack of being the right religion won’t be tolerated, and further to the point, it necessitates that all people that desire to be in keeping with this professed mandate must do their fair part to exclude these people from having any place in society, with the overall objective to eliminate these undesired people from having any foothold in society by denying them the very things that people need, such as income, shelter, and acceptance.

 It is this type of relentless mindset that basically insists that a side must be taken and those who take the wrong side are the same who will be held to be guilty of essentially aiding and abetting those who are undesirable and will be subject to the same type of opprobrium and punishment so doled out upon the unauthorized foreigners.

Monopolies are bad for continual progress

It seems a real shame that American governance has turned its back on trust-busting as well as on the vital need to break up monopolies that dominate particular markets, especially in this day and age, when never have so few mega-corporations been so profitable and powerful.  No doubt, size has its place, and can indeed most of the time demonstrate the efficiencies of that size, but the bottom line is that the lack of competition is going to make these companies not only complacent that they are deserving of their status, seemingly forever, but also when they are permitted by this government to buy out and merge with upstarts that might well become a competitive force, that simply ends up shutting down the innovation and creative destruction from coming into play, because it has been co-opted  After all, we need to recognize that corporations are mainly driven by both growth and profit, which means that for many a corporation that owns a particular market, that they aren’t interested in coming up with true innovations that may well cannibalize their existing product line, but instead are more concerned about doing what they can to continue to have their customer base be beholden to them, especially when the R&D to continue with their current product line, will remain quiescent, since they aren’t interested in wholesale change, but rather prefer small incremental change, instead.

 Look, corporations that own a market are going to, for the most part, desire to keep that money flow going for as long as they can, without desiring to risk anything of substance that may or may not even work for them.  That is to say, those in upper management aren’t typically looking for anything that will disrupt a good thing, even if they recognize that it may well be time to take that under serious advisement, because they enjoy the status and privilege of the status quo, and don’t desire to see what already works well enough be in danger of having that flow, interrupted, which is why they aren’t interested in anything that would truly be a game changer, because it might mean risking what they have, and they don’t want to do that.

 The hard part in any business, is becoming successful, and from that success, the next objective for many corporations is to increase and to enhance that success, which can be done through many avenues, including the merging with competitors, so that market share will rapidly rise, and the bigger that market share becomes, the more power and influence that company will have on every level, which is typically quite good for not only the bottom line, but for the longevity of that corporation, as well, and since corporations are subject to responding to their stockholders in addition to their Board of Directors, they aren’t going to want to take unnecessary risks, but rather they prefer to show projections in which the profits and growth will keep coming in at a healthy and steady pace, which lends itself to the protection of legacy products, and a reluctance to be innovative and certainly not to embrace creative destruction, because the risks don’t align well with the rewards.

Picking on the wrong target

Bullies come in all sizes and shapes, but the one thing we can say that is common for all bullies is that they pick on those that they perceive are the most vulnerable, for they make an easy target for them, along with the salient fact that they are going to be able to bully them without any real fear that they will ever lose the battle.  While this may well make a bully to feel good that they have intimidated and hurt the other, it doesn’t, though, do much of anything to correct or to alleviate what is really bothering the bully to begin with, which makes that person or institution a bully in the first place.

 In other words, those that bully typically have their own gripes that frustrate them endlessly and therefore they decide to strike out against those that are the least able to defend themselves successfully, but by doing so they have not resolved the crux of the problem, which is why they are going to keep up bullying again and again, without seeming to understand that those that they are bullying, are in actuality, not the problem, and clearly therefore are not the right target.

 The reason bullies repeatedly pick the wrong target is that they seek an easy solution to a problem they have not properly considered, and that is more complicated and nuanced than they think.  That is to say, the frustration that breeds bullying has a lot to do with a lack of self-respect and a concern that the foundation a bully stands upon is under some sort of assault, with the little that they have subject to being lost, and because they can’t seem to figure out where the problem lies, they seek out and hurt those who are easy targets to ease their frustration. 

 So too, the powers that be, don’t have any real issues with those others that do the bullying, because in many a case, it is those powers that are the problem, because they make it their point to desire to see some sort of constant class warfare, which signifies that those that should join together, because there is power in those numbers, are less susceptible to joining together, if they perceive the other as competing for the same small slice of the pie, as compared to wondering why it is that only the few and connected have what appears to be more than their fair share of that pie.

 Indeed, the anger directed by those who bully is almost always addressed against the wrong target, because the right target is typically corrupt and selfish people as well as institutions who are very well placed, connected, and have lots of power, or access to such, which signifies that a bully isn’t going to be successful should they try to outmuscle them, and essentially are going to fail, if they try.  In reality, bullies need to recognize that in order for meaningful change to occur, they are going to need to join up with those whom they previously bullied, because in numbers, there is strength.