Is Sunday the first day of the week, or is it part of the weekend?

There are those types of things that are conflicting, and the way that we typically view Sunday is one of those conflicting things, because the calendars that we have, whether printed, online, or on our phone, consistently show that Sunday is the first day of the week.  Yet, somewhat puzzling, everyone agrees that the weekend consists of Saturday and Sunday.  So there appears to be a real conflict between what Sunday actually represents -- for it does not appear possible that it can simultaneously be the first day of the week as well as representing the last day of the week, which is thereby best answered by looking at history.

 When it comes to the Judeo-Christian religion, we find that those of the Christian faith believe that Sunday is the first day of the week, because Sunday was the day that Christ arose, and therefore Sunday represents the resurrection of Christ, and thus the new beginning of humankind.  In regard to Judaism, their sabbath begins at sundown on Friday and ends about an hour after sunset on Saturday, which thus means that Sunday represents the first day of the week for those of the Jewish faith.

 When it comes to those that labor for a living it is important to recognize that the traditional forty hour workweek, which typically is from Monday to Friday, has only been the norm for a relatively brief period of time, of about one hundred years, in which, previously the standard workweek including working on Saturday, so that Sunday was thereby seen as a day of rest, recovery and worship, which basically signified that the week effectively ended upon the end of the workweek, and thus the new week began on Sunday.

 Nowadays, since the forty hour workweek of five days is the standard in America, of which the business world partakes of a Monday through Friday schedule, this signifies that Saturday is no longer a workday, and because Sunday never was a workday, this would seem to suggest that the combination of Saturday and Sunday as non-workdays thus represents the weekend, which logically makes sense, but nevertheless the calendar still shows Sunday as the first day of the week, which probably is an accommodation to the importance of religion and the tradition of religious faith in our lives, and also as a reminder to us, that life shouldn’t necessarily be in conformance to what the workweek represents, but rather should be in conformance to that which is beyond work.

 So then, we find that in all probability the way that our calendar is presented is not going to change anytime soon, and further to the point, most people probably don’t pay any real attention to the fact that the week appears to begin on Sunday, because it isn’t something that changes the fact that for most people the weekend is represented by Saturday and Sunday, and what tradition dictates about the beginning day of the week they pay no real mind to.

OPEC and the price of oil

We read at AI Overview that the price of oil before the embargo by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) of 1973-1974 was stable -- of which a barrel of oil was priced in the range of $2.50 to $3.00. So then, if we were to take the inflation rate from 1973 to 2026, that would put the pre-embargo midpoint rate of a barrel of oil in the range of $20 to $21. Yet we find that a barrel of oil is currently priced around $66 to $70, which is way above the inflation rate of that period.  This would seem to suggest that the price of oil is still affected by OPEC, but we need to take into fair account the fact that OPEC isn’t what it once was, because the biggest producer of oil is currently the United States of America, and the current leader by a good distance for OPEC, is Saudi Arabia, which is a country that is basically in conformance with United States wishes, and at a minimum is a country that is in tune with America on a quid pro quo basis.  In other words, while OPEC still exists and has a degree of power, it is not in the position though to dictate the price of oil, or even the availability of such, but rather the price of oil would seem to be in conformance of those that are in the oil business in which an argument could be made, that the price of oil in relationship to the costs to extract oil is significantly higher than what it should be.

 The thing about oil is that it is an exceedingly important product because oil is what is utilized for transportation, petrochemicals, and electricity.  So too, in the United States, the biggest producers of oil are not subject to governmental sanction but are major private-enterprise companies with an abiding interest in making a profit above all.  This would seem to suggest that having a bogeyman, such as OPEC, to sell the illusion that it is OPEC that essentially creates or controls or heavily influences the oil pricing market, through the availability of oil, is actually beneficial for domestic oil companies as well as oil companies throughout the world, governmentally or privately owned, because it gives the excuse for the higher market price for that barrel of oil. 

 When it comes to the price of oil, the losers in this game are the consumers of that oil, in which it could be said that the price of oil to those consumers is a form of regression taxation, since those that can least afford a higher price of gasoline have little or no choice but to pay what the going rate is, or else their lives will be worse off.  This would seem to indicate that the oil market as currently structured most definitely does not have two prices to a barrel of oil, in which the non-OPEC price is lower than the OPEC price, but rather there is just one basic price, which is in its form, quite beneficial and lucrative for the oil producers and it could be argued and should be argued, an overall price that is unfair to those that are dependent upon oil because that price does not accurately reflect the actual costs to extract the product, in which, it has to be said, that the ability to extract oil today is far superior and more efficient to what it was back in 1973, and therefore the profits so being made seem to reflect a global oil cartel.

Millions of Americans do not submit their taxes

The way that the United States tax system is set up, it is the responsibility of the individual to file their taxes, and surprisingly, a significant portion of Americans, estimated to be 10 to 12 million individuals, as reported by AI overview, do not submit their taxes each calendar year, even though they are required by law to submit such.  Additionally, plenty of people don’t submit their taxes, even though they would be entitled to a refund, probably because they don’t know how to do their taxes or just never get around to it.  That said, obviously, from a governmental perspective, it is of much higher importance to see that those who deliberately do not turn in their taxes because they owe tax money to the government are identified and thereby compelled to pay their appropriate taxes.

 One would think that finding and discovering those who owe taxes would not be a daunting task, because everyone who is employed is going to have a W-2 issued to them, in addition to those who are self-employed having a 1099 issued to them.  As for those with brokerage accounts, those accounts are subject to various 1099 forms, which the IRS is copied on.  In consideration therefore that all citizens are issued a unique Social Security number, which is utilized for employment, self-employment, and for brokerage accounts, it thereby means that the government has records of these transactions, and when the numbers are high, yet no tax return can be found, it would behoove that government of, for, and by the people to see that those who appear to owe money to the government, file their taxes.

 In this age in which certain governmental agencies are being reduced in staff, such as the IRS, one way to still go after tax scofflaws is to set up a system in which the governmental employee, on their own time, receives a commission from finding and thereby addressing those individuals who apparently are tax delinquent.  This would be a win-win for the government, because those who owe would be compelled by law to pay what they owe, and providing a commission to the IRS agent for accomplishing this would be fair.  In the absence of that occurring, the budget to specifically go after delinquent taxpayers should be increased so that, in fairness to all those who play by the rules and thus pay their appropriate taxes, the government would thereby make it its priority to see that those trying to escape paying what they owe would no longer be able to get away with it.

 When it comes to governmental revenue, the individual income tax brings in approximately $2.5 trillion, yearly, so quite obviously this should be a very high priority of the government, which should consider all avenues when it comes to the filing and collection of such, including even setting up a system in which the government determines a given taxpayer’s obligation or refund and in absence of that taxpayer disputing such, this is what they owe or will receive a refund of.  In sum, if there really are 10 to 12 million people who do not file their tax return each year, this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed in a more comprehensive and thorough manner, as this government’s inherent obligation to those who properly file each year.

The not-so-free counsel

It’s bad enough to be impoverished and indigent, especially while also facing criminal charges. Still, it becomes even worse when the belief that those that cannot afford an attorney find out that even the most overworked defense attorney, somehow isn’t going to be free, but rather at the end of the day, no matter how they slice it, the accused will have to pay a bill for having that attorney assigned to them, through charges designated as an application fee or similar.  This signifies that for some defendants, because the assigned attorney will not be free of charge, they will waive their Constitutional right to an attorney, as they don’t want to be stuck paying a bill that they cannot afford, which would, if they accepted such, just essentially add insult to injury.

 Look, the way the court system works in America is that those who have a wealth of money and/or connections are going to get the best counsel that money can buy, and the result for these people is often going to be quite satisfactory.  Unfortunately, a significant percentage of those facing criminal charges are the very same who have little or no assets, and therefore not a whole heck of a lot of maneuverability to properly deal with the charges against them, unless aided by a competent attorney.

 Additionally, there is the salient fact that the defendant’s knowledge of criminal codes and how the justice system works is typically minimal or flawed.  This thus fairly signifies that these are the very type of people that are most in need of competent defense counsel, and yet the majority of the States of this nation have determined that the way that the 6th Amendment should be interpreted is simply that indigent defendants have the right to an attorney to be assigned to them, but not that the attorney need be free of charge.

 Indeed, there is no point in having the right to an attorney if that said attorney isn’t free, for those who have no money and no assets are therefore not going to be able to afford one because they don’t have the money to pay.  Further, to the point, from their perspective, they have the feeling that if they were to get an attorney, that, because of that attorney’s heavy workload, they wouldn’t be able to do all that much for them, anyway.  Hence, the apparent better choice when an attorney bill is mandated is to skip that representation and just suffer whatever the court dictates should be their punishment in what is probably going to be a plea bargain, anyway.

 In sum, to believe that the richest nation in the world, believes it is fair to make the pursuit of justice, simply to come down to a money game, is fundamentally wrong, and should be seen for what it is, more of the same, in which the justice system of this nation is most definitely a respecter of persons, and those that have nothing, get nothing.  This is a disgrace, because it isn’t justice, whatsoever, but rather it represents a system in which apparently those so arrested shouldn’t have free counsel, because the object of the game is a conviction, and justice be damned.

Corporate America

Most people just can’t get their heads around how much business that American corporations do in a given year, for in actuality, in fiscal year 2025, Amazon, as well as Walmart, had yearly revenue of approximately $700 billion, which is a sum so great it’s hard to fathom.  Perhaps that is a very good thing, but when it comes down to the fact that this country is supposed to be of, for, and by the people and in which we recognize that corporations are artificial constructs of the state, the fact that corporations do so much business and have market caps that are now over $1 trillion, in addition to profits that are in the billions, it feels that providing corporations with unlimited access to democratic elections and legislation through their donations, both seen and unseen, is not going to be good or healthy for a democracy.

 Justice Stevens stated that “Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office.”  Yet, because money makes an incredible difference into what does or does not get passed into legislation, and who does and who does not get elected, in addition to the fact that corporate interests basically control the media, it becomes more or less a foregone conclusion that corporations have the ability which they utilize to, in essence, put their thumb upon our democratic scales, so that the result of elections and legislative acts are often in conformance to their desires, which is unfortunate, not only because corporations are not people and therefore not entitled to the vote, but also because those that are in the upper echelons of corporations may or may not have the best interests of America, in mind, but rather they are often driven by their lust for lucre or profit, above all.

 To believe, somehow, that what is good for Amazon or Walmart is always going to be good for America is to read the tea leaves wrong, because corporations primarily answer only to their Board of Directors and to the stockholders who as a class are basically only interested in seeing ever increasing revenue and profit, and often care not how it is accomplished, as long as it is accomplished.  On the other hand, those who are citizens of this nation may have priorities and interests that are in opposition to what a given corporation wants, and when the citizens are essentially outgunned, then the result is not going to be democratic or fair, and is, in the end, not beneficial for this nation.

 The bottom line is that unlimited contributions from corporations into our elections and legislative bills basically signify that votes will have been bought, and that the result thereof is going to often favor those who have made those large contributions, and that therefore the vote, as tabulated, does not reflect a true reading of what the people would actually desire if the playing field were level.  This is not good for any democracy, because in actuality, the people have no say, they have no agency, and they have been manipulated not for the greater good or benefit of this nation, but rather to further feather the nest of big corporate interests.

Home ownership is important

The thing about ownership, whether it is a home, a car, or some other material object, is that how we treat it, really comes down to whether we value it or not, and that which we have a stronger tendency to value is that which we believe is wholly ours.  So then, in consideration that all of us need to live in a place that provides us with shelter, heat, electricity, and all the other basic accouterments that we pretty much take for granted, it isn’t too surprising that those that live in a home that they own are going to be not only more stable by virtue of having that ownership, but are the same that are going to take better care and to value that home at a higher level, then somebody that has no ownership, as in a renter.  This is therefore a very important reason why home ownership is significant: because it provides those with that ownership a stake in their community, for most people who own their homes are the same people who are determined to see that their neighborhood is safe, sound, and comfortable to live in.

 The thing about those that rent isn’t necessarily that they are irresponsible, though some are, but really comes down to the fact that they know that they don’t own that home, and therefore these are the same people who are going to have a strong tendency, in things both small and big, to not pay any real mind to that which needs some proper care, maintenance, or repair, because at the end of the day, it isn’t theirs.  So too, those who are renters are going to tend to be rougher on things within a home than they would if they own it, because it isn’t theirs, so they don’t have the same type of concern that they would have if it were theirs.

 Additionally, in absence of some sort of stringent rent control or its equivalency, renters are subject to monthly or yearly lease agreements with an increase in rent being a quite common occurrence, which permits them though to exercise their right to move out, and oftentimes they do that very thing, when their personal situation changes for the better or for the worse, and also because they have found an alternative that they believe suits them better or is their preference.  Indeed, just the knowledge that renters have that they have only signed up for a finite amount of time, changes the mindset of how they look upon things, and makes them to be far more hesitant to do anything constructive about the conditions of the home or the neighborhood when they already know that they aren’t going to stick around.

 It's human nature to care more for that which we have ownership of as compared to that which isn’t ours.  So, when it comes to home ownership, neighborhoods that have a high percentage of owner occupied homes are typically going to be neighborhoods that not only look better than those that are made up of a higher percentage of renters, but also the people that live there are going to be more engaged, because not only do homes cost a lot of money, but also because people treat that which they own better and care more for it, because it is, in a lot of respects, a reflection of who they are.

The only showtime that really matters

There are plenty of people who just go about their lives in a way and manner in which there isn’t any real master plan that takes into fair consideration who and what they really are.  Indeed, some people believe that all that they are is represented in the physical and the mind that they have, and nothing more.  Then there are others who recognize that they do have a soul, but can’t seem to figure out what they should or should not prioritize in their life.  So too, there are those who know better, but their behavior doesn’t demonstrate that in action.  Nevertheless, wherever a given individual is, it doesn’t change what is going to happen to all of us, which is there will come that time in which each of us will stand before God, and those that thereby do not tremble at that thought, are either those that are clueless, or are the very few, that are well prepared for such and therefore welcome it.

 In truth, as much as we can fool some or even most of the people here on earth, there is no fooling of that which will fairly judge us.  Further to the point, as much as we might excuse our misbehavior or blame our mistakes on this or that, in the judgment to come, all mitigating factors will have already been taken into account.  Additionally, as much discomfort as there might well be in having our bad deeds replayed to us, they will be played, of which, perhaps for the first time, we will know how our misdeeds hurt the other, for this is part and parcel of our judgment, which truly is the only way therefore for us to know that we ought to have done better, because in many respects we always did know better, but failed to do the right thing, again and again, when called upon to do so.

 To apologize has its place, but it isn’t going to be enough to just apologize, because an apology without corresponding action that helps to mitigate or to correct what has been done wrong isn’t an apology that is of any meaningful value.  In life, our conscience will be pinged when we are on the wrong path, of which some people consciously avoid giving space to these thoughts; whereas others have deadened their good conscience through drugs and drink, so that they can ignore that still, quiet voice which has their best interests in mind.

 In life, we have been gifted with free will and those that understand the responsibility that comes with that free will, along with comprehending that what we do with such, really does matter, are the same that are better able to make good decisions, because at the end of the day, we are the combination of that which we have thought and done, which signifies that those that are currently on the wrong track, need to take agency of their own being, and to do therefore their fair share to demonstrate that they will do their good part to make this world a better place for their valued participation in it, which will make for a future improved showtime, with far less lasting regrets.

Who you gonna call?

People’s attitudes toward law enforcement have a lot to do with how the community they live in feels about the police.  For instance, those that see the police as something akin to serve and protect are going to be inclined to call upon the police whenever they perceive a real need to do so; whereas, those that see the police as something akin to an occupying force they are therefore not going to be inclined to call the police, even when there is a real need for their assistance.  The difference between these attitudes has a real effect in communities because whenever a community does not believe that the police will be fair, impartial, considerate, or of aid to that community then this is going to create a vacuum, and because of the real lack of an effective law enforcement agency within that community this thus lends itself to alternatives, such as gangs, which typically aren’t going to be all that good or healthy for that community.

 In actuality, policing has its place, but when that place isn’t tenable, because the community does not feel that calling upon the police would not, in and of itself, serve to do anything constructive about the real issue at hand, but rather would often serve to create even more havoc, because of the potential of a needless arrest, harassment, or the interference into that which should not concern the police, means that the community will have to resolve what needs to be resolved not through an agency which is meant to be of service to them, but rather reverts to being dealt with by those that have agency within that community and who are themselves not untypically the type that aren’t actually good overall or beneficial for the community.

 The fact that we find that a significant portion of the members of certain communities do not call the police when circumstances would seem to dictate that they should, and therefore do not welcome the police into their neighborhood is a sad reflection that not all is right, because when the police aren’t able to engage a given community in a way and manner in which each party can see the benefit in doing so, then it just makes for a bad construct, which means that problems and troubles that should be addressed aren’t going to be addressed, and for a certainty they also aren’t going to go away, either.

 The bottom line is that there needs to be more of a community outreach between the residents of a given community and the authorized police force assigned to that community, which needs to have a platform in which the citizens and the police can sit down and ultimately break bread together so that they can come to some sort of agreement which makes sense for all parties involved, because communities do need the police to address things that should be addressed as well as being given the space to conduct police business, and the community needs to feel that the police presence serves them fairly, which when done right will make for a better community outcome.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

While it is true that there was a previous Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, it has to be recognized that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a much more stringent beast, which really did make for significant penalties for those involved in aiding and abetting those slaves who escaped their enslavement to the free Northern States.

 The legislation so passed was part of the general compromise of 1850, in which those in the political field had to do what they felt needed to be done to keep the sectional conflicts between the North and the South from getting worse, and therefore needed to reach a compromise that would effectively keep the dogs at bay.  Regrettably, this meant that those who were enslaved found their situation to be even more intolerable than it was before, because the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 mandated that citizens were compelled to assist in the recovery of slaves who had escaped to the North, in addition to the fact that jury trials were now eradicated, as well as harsh penalties were now imposed on those taking part in aiding the escape of slaves, and finally the Federal judges assigned to cases of escape slaves were paid twice as much when they ruled in favor of the slaveholder.

 All of this pretty much meant that the North was no longer the true refuge of those escaping from slavery, because the impact of this legislation was the hand of this law extended into all the States of the Union, of which, the penalties for those that felt it to be their ethical obligation to do their fair part to dismantle slavery, were subject to that law being turned against them.

 That said, as much as the South was well pleased with the passage of this Act, the bottom line is that in all practicality, it served to make the division between those of the North as contrasted to those of the South, even more stark, which exacerbated the whole slavery issue, because it made the slavery issue to be of even more concern to those of the North, because slavery was not only inimical to what the Declaration of Independence contended, but also it clearly indicated that slavery as an issue was not going to go away, which stuck in the craw of those liberal and fair minded people that saw the enslavement of a fellow man as unacceptable and anathema to a liberty loving people.

 So too, the North had eradicated slavery in all of its States by 1850, which signified that they did not countenance slavery, and the fact that they would no longer be considered to be a sanctuary for those desiring freedom from the oppressive state that they were in, was not something that they wished to see imposed upon them, which meant that slavery could not simply be out of sight and thus out of mind, because the South made it to be its point, that it would always be in the whole nation’s sight, and because of that, the cold winds of the Civil War had been sowed, and the reaping of the fierce whirlwind of that war would soon come.

Meditation, drugs, and altered states of consciousness

It is recognized that those who meditate can enter into an altered state of consciousness through that practice, which thereby allows them to shift their attention away from the mundane, thus putting to the side their everyday troubles and events, to experience bliss, peace, contentment, and enlightenment.  That is to say, the very point of meditation is to take our focus away from ourselves, along with distancing ourselves from our thinking mind, and to thus put ourselves into the awareness that we are part of a greater whole, which serves to bring us closer to peacefulness and serenity.

 So too, we live in a modern age, in which we are inundated with ads for pharmaceutical drugs of all sorts that will supposedly help to benefit our body, or our mind, or this or that, so that we are thus able to better live a satisfactory life.  Additionally, there are a multitude of street drugs that people ingest, for the supposed purpose of altering their minds, because they like the “high” or the overall effect, and also, in many cases, seem to help these people, so indulging to cope with the way that life is.

 It would seem when it comes to drugs as well as to meditation, that for the most part, each party to such, is seeking to alter their mind, but the clear difference between the two is that meditation doesn’t involve the ingesting of any outside chemical substances and therefore will not harm the body, as compared to drugs licit and illicit, which not only may harm the body and also the mind, but additionally can be addicting, and damaging with long term use, and abuse.

 This would presuppose for those who are looking to improve their mental outlook, as well as to do right by their physical body, that this nation should encourage its citizenry, that rather than looking at pharmaceutical drugs or illicit drugs to bring them some sort of relief or an artificial state of consciousness they would be far better served if they were able to be trained to meditate.  At a minimum, the attempt to do so, with perhaps feedback machines structured to help quiet the active mind, would be beneficial to try and in consideration that this nation spends billions upon billions upon those that have substance abuse problems and the like, a reasonable plan to implement.

 It could also be said that one of the reasons why people indulge in drugs is the inner yearning to find something beyond their normal consciousness and because drugs provide that gateway without apparently much effort being needed by the individual, this appears to be a shortcut to achieving such; but in actuality, it would be more appropriate to see illicit drug usage as a detour that will ultimately not benefit people.  This is why it is important to impress upon our citizenry that, rather than reaching for a bottle or a needle, there is a better way, and the least that this nation owes to its own is to see that reasonable alternatives to an altered state of consciousness, such as meditation, are encouraged for the betterment of the people

Money makes money

In America, one could say that the hard part is getting to the point at which the assets of a given individual or family are enough that the passive income generated from such is pretty much good enough to live a good life without necessitating any additional labor, though any additional labor so accomplished would undoubtedly help to increase those assets to an even higher number.

 How much money a given individual or family needs to feel secure that all is well is going to be dependent upon that family and their circumstances. Still, if we were to take a number such as two million dollars, it should be recognized that the way that our tax system currently works is that passive income, such as that generated through capital gains, dividends, CDs, bonds, equities, and the like are typically taxed at a very favorable rate, so that someone who has two million dollars and has a return of 6% per annum is the same that will have income of $120,000 of which, that income may be taxed very lightly or not at all, depending upon what those investments are and if they have been sold.  In other words, in America, for a certainty, money makes money, and because money makes money, those who have it have placed themselves in the pole position to live a good and easy life, in the sure knowledge that they, in essence, don’t need to do a darn thing to continue with enjoying that good life.

 It has to be recognized that when we talk of passive income, it really is passive, in the sense that investing in a CD, a bond, or equities takes just a few minutes, and no further action is really required on the party that has made that investment.  This signifies that passive income in many a case, really necessities no significant labor on the part of the individual so making that investment, which is not the same thing, as someone that is required to work forty hours a week or even more, and also has their income subject to not just Social Security and Medicare taxes, but also are responsible for Federal and State taxes, as well.  In other words, in this nation, there are plenty of people that make money by simply putting that money to work, and there are literally millions of others, that have to work, in the hope of having enough to simply pay their bills, and with no real expectation that there will ever come that time when they will have so much money that they can make money from that and to labor no more.

 Perhaps all of this seems fair and that is the way that it should be, but in actuality, the fact that there is a significant subset of Americans that can just inherit money and thus not work a day in their lives, seems to be not in keeping with what America is all about, in which the answer to this issue is probably to see that passive income, is taxed at a higher rate, and has less avenues to shield that income from being taxed, and finally we really ought to have those that make money from passive income to see that they pay their appropriate dues to that nation which created the pathway to such success to begin with.

“Use of deadly force authorized”

The above sign is the type of sign that one will see at various United States governmental facilities that are considered to be of such high importance that those who are protecting these facilities and the land that surrounds them are, if we are to believe this sign, authorized to use deadly force.  While some people definitely believe that this is appropriate and even prudent, as in the belief that trespassers should be subject to being killed, it should be recognized that many people see this as an overreach on behalf of the government, which seems to be saying that the government, per its discretion, doesn’t believe that curiosity or interest by the American public should actually be encouraged, even though this is supposed to be a government, of, for, and by the people, and signage such as that, seems to serve the purpose of desiring to make the people to know that they need to know their place or else.

 The thing that more people need to understand is that there are already rules in place regarding the use of lethal force, whether or not signage is or is not in place.  In other words, one can say that a sign stipulating that deadly force is authorized, is stating the obvious, which is that basically when an individual or a group of individuals cross a specific red line, with clear guardrails attached to the line, such as in the protection of property or personnel under certain circumstances, then the usage of deadly force, regrettably, could be seen as an appropriate response.  Nevertheless, anytime the government takes it upon itself to control certain areas and institutions of this country, and that they will not countenance protests or interference in such, and believe that they are thus permitted to use deadly force, is a government that is devolving into becoming a police state and not a bastion of liberty.

 The bottom line is that signs that proclaim that deadly force is authorized, are pretty much not needed, and should be replaced with something far more subtle, mainly because lethal force should be only utilized when there are no other reasonable actions that could be taken, and further to the point, the over usage of signs such as this, is inappropriate in a democratic country, in which the people ought to have and should have the right to know what is going on behind closed doors, fences, and institutions, as opposed to that government intimidating their own into obedience.

 A government has an obligation to its people to be true defenders of those people and to serve the people, as opposed to setting itself up as a law onto its own self, which sells the story that its intentions are good, but whenever the general public is not fairly permitted to know what is going on, and has no fair way to know whether those good intentions are actually benefiting the people, this then needs to be amended, because the more secrets, and the more guard towers that a given government thus creates, the more the people should be worried about their freedom, especially when the avenue to question such, is met with the expressed authorization that deadly force is in play.

Greed is insatiable

The thing about greed is that the more that you get, the more that you still want.  In other words, all those people that declaim that if only they got this or got that, that they would be perpetually satisfied are often lying to themselves as well as to others, because when they actually are fortunate enough to obtain that very thing, that they believe would satisfy them completely, they find out to their dismay that it just doesn’t do that, for they still want more, and if they obtain that, still more, ad infinitum.

 There are way too many people that actually believe that if only if they had this or had that, that they wouldn’t ask for anything more because they would no longer have any more desires; but this just doesn’t fairly represent human nature for most of us, because as much as we might appreciate that brand-new toy, or that increase in pay or status, it doesn’t take all that much time to thus transpire, before what we have achieved truly becomes yesterday’s news and we thereby want more, once again.

 To want more isn’t necessarily wrong, especially when the objective of the exercise is to obtain or to achieve those things of merit or of meaning, and that are in some way, form, or manner of service to others, besides ourselves, because those that are fixated only upon what they have or what they can get, are the same that are way too self-centered and typically don’t understand that lasting satisfaction doesn’t come from selfishness but rather comes from doing the right thing, which helps us to benefit others, and inspires others to go out and to do good acts, themselves, as well.

 When it comes to greed, far too many people don’t seem to realize that ignoble goals will never be satiated. Further to the point, the best way to overcome any tendency to greed is to comprehend better what it really is that we are trying to achieve, because wealth, power, status, and so on, are the type of lures that take people away not only from the straight and narrow, but essentially often corrupts their ethics so that they are no longer able to properly reflect on who and what they represent, to themselves, as well as to others.

 What we should really care about is not just feathering our nest, but improving ourselves so that we can be of service to those who need our input and efforts, which thus helps to make society a better place for our good participation in it.  We should be driven not by greed, but rather we should strive to be the best that we can be, as part of our obligation to those who we learned from, as well as a tribute to our mentors and family members, so that at the end of the day, we have done our good part to be faithful to that which really matters, and to leave aside, that which in the skeins of time, matters not. 

The more governmental secrets, the less freedom

No doubt, when it comes to governments, there are those occasions when secrecy and discretion has its necessary place, but we do find that to a very large extent that the more salient secrets that a government keeps from the general public, the less that the government truly represents the people.  Indeed, governments should make it their point to be transparent, but in absence of such, at a minimum, the things done behind closed doors need to be in keeping with the principles of that government, but in actuality, far too often, the secrecy that the government enacts isn’t done for the protection and security of the population but rather is done typically for the wrong reasons. After all, whenever governments desire to do something that is underhanded, deceptive, and just plain incorrect, they find that secrecy is the avenue that best permits this to occur, because of that lack of oversight, which thereby lends itself to all sorts of deceptions.

 A government of, for, and by the people cannot truly exist whenever that which is occurring of high importance is kept secret from the people.  Further to the point, those things done by the government that do not permit an open debate, feedback, or a response from the people or even its representatives undercut what a representative government is supposed to be all about.  A legitimate government is only that which has the consent of the governed, and when what is going on at the highest levels of import is kept secret, never to be divulged, then the people have effectively had their voice silenced, and their consent never called upon.

 While there is something to be said about confidentiality and the need for secrets, this should not unduly override the fact and the inherent need that the government must fairly answer to the people and do so in a timely and forthright manner.  Additionally, when the government is professing one thing as its approved active policy but is actually doing the very opposite thing in secret, then that government has betrayed the people, because it is not demonstrating integrity in its dealings with the people, which is never an attribute of a good government.

 So too, it needs to be fairly understood that if our elected representatives aren’t actually representing us, because they have been captured via a “shadow government” or are completely out of the loop at what is really transpiring behind closed doors, because they are not privy to the secret goings on of that government, then the people are not under a democratic government, at all, but rather are subject to a secretive government, which answers only to those that are the players of such and not to the people.

 To be a free people, necessitates a government which upholds that very thing by being open and responsive to the people, which signifies that governmental business done in secret, needs to be absolutely minimized, because the people have a right to know what is being done in their name and when this is misguided, self-serving, or inimical to good governance, it should be and needs to be, fully exposed.

The difference between subjects and citizens

 Those who are denizens of the United States are the same who are or become citizens of the United States; whereas before the United States achieved its independence, they were subjects of the British Empire.  The primary difference between being a subject as compared to being a citizen is sovereignty.  Those who are subjects answer to and are at the mercy of their respective country’s crown; while, on the other hand, those who are citizens are sovereign and are, through their governance, a self-governing people, which means that America, as formulated, is of, for, and by the people.

 The reason why citizenship is so important presently, is the fact that America seems to be backtracking to becoming something akin to the people, in whole, becoming subjects, in which the control of what the people do is not in the hands of democratically elected representatives, but rather is in the hands of a Presidency which decides through executive orders and the like, what is and what isn’t permitted for those citizens, which thereby makes the Constitution pretty much to be an irrelevancy.  While it is true that there are plenty of people that prefer a strongman to be in charge, mainly because all of the give and take of politics is essentially eliminated and thus decisions are firmly made, it needs to be recognized that by countenancing such a construct, sovereignty is no longer in the hands of the people and that which has taken control of such, may or may not have the people’s best interests in mind.

 To be a subject to the government is to have little or no say in what subjects are permitted to do and thus to no longer have rights that protect them. This means that the rights that the people may appear to have are no longer inalienable, but rather are alienable, because they are thus controlled by the power source of that nation. So too, the more that the United States devolves into a government in which our elected representatives have no real authority and the judicial branch marches to the beat of those that are its paymasters, then the freedom and liberty that the American Revolution fought so bravely for no longer exists.

 Additionally, to be a citizen means that the citizen must do their fair part to exercise not only their voice but to contribute to their nation’s well-being, by conducting themselves in a manner that benefits not just themselves, but also the society that they are a good member of.  In other words, it is upon our shoulders to respect the laws of the land, and where those laws are misapplied, misjudged, or tainted, it is our right to protest against such, so as to effect change.

 Indeed, subjects and citizens are not the same thing, because citizens are part and parcel of their governance, which means that they are forever upon that watchtower, protecting and defending not only their inalienable rights, but also doing their part to make their stand where there needs to be a stand so made, in the sure recognition that when they do not do so, that which they thought they had, will be taken from them, perhaps never to return.

21st-century corporate cities

There was a time not so long ago when there were small company towns primarily built around mineral extraction or similar that didn’t even bother to pay those that they employed with dollars, but rather provided them with company scrip, which was used for all their essentials, such as housing, food, clothing, and the like.  Obviously, a company town such as that pretty much had total control over its employees, and because of that control, the controlling interests of that company town were in a prime position to profit greatly from such exploitation.

 We now live in a day and age in which policies are being created to effectively have corporate cities, which are given the misleading name of “freedom cities”, when in actuality, doesn’t represent personal freedom and liberty, but rather signify freedom from our democratic institutions, from our Constitution, and from our legal rights.   In short, this would be a disaster for the common man, because while it could be said that our local democratic government and government in general seem to be, in a lot of respects, captured by the elites, at least the people still have some semblance of a voice; whereas in a corporate city, they would effectively have none.

 No doubt, plenty of businesses see a corporate city as their ideal, because the more that they can control the population, the easier it is for them to profit from such a structure.  So too, most corporations do not desire, appreciate, or want any sort of pushback from the government when it comes to taxation, laws, environmental concerns, wages, and so on.  What they want is to take care of business in a way that maximizes their profit, while also providing these corporations with the security that their trendline will not be interfered with by the government, which is why they want to replace the government so as to run these cities for the expressed purpose of benefiting the corporations.

 To believe, somehow, that corporations always have, or typically have, the best interests of the citizenry in mind is to believe in a myth, because many a corporation has only the desire to make a profit, and for that profit to be mainly in the hands of upper management and stockholders, and not therefore fairly spread amongst the employees of that company.  Further to the point, many a corporation doesn’t care a whit about paying a living or fair wage, but rather wants to pay as little as they can pay to get done what they desire to get done.  Additionally, corporations, if left to their own devices, want the type of employment in which they can fire or let go anyone for any reason or no reason, which signifies that where they see dead weight, it can be released immediately, and when business conditions turn down for whatever reason, they can lay off people immediately without having to compensate them.

 As bad and inefficient as our governance might seem to some people, to effectively leave our governance in the hands of those who are fixated upon hitting their revenue goals and making ever more profit is a grave error, because corporate greed is never satisfactorily satiated, which is why they want even more control, thereby to feather their own nest, above all.

Profit, above all

The thing about capitalism is that those companies that exist solely for the purpose of making profit and as much profit as they can make, need to have some guardrails imposed upon them because of their inherent obligation to be good corporate citizens to the governance that has permitted their existence.  Indeed, there needs to be robust government oversight that imposes itself upon these corporations so that they understand that their responsibility and obligation to society encompasses far more than profit.

 When it comes to money, the making of money and the lure of money, it has to be acknowledged that money is so important to so many people and organizations, that to obtain that money creates a dangerous temptation for many people and corporations in which the desire to get that money, clouds their vision to such an extent that they will do whatever that they have to do to obtain it, because the value of money and what money can do for them, is so important that it has a tendency to corrupt the minds of people as well as the ethics of business enterprises.

 When we take into account that most companies compete against other companies, we recognize that the cost of labor, the cost of conforming to environmental laws, the cost of paying appropriate taxes, and so on, makes a material difference in the profitability of that enterprise.  No doubt, that there is many a business that cares only that the expected profit numbers are reached or exceeded, and cares not so much how that is obtained, which means that ethics, laws, and fairness be damned, which is the reason why businesses need to be held accountable to laws structured to keep them in line, and when these are violated, stiff monetary fines must be considered, as well as jail time for those that have crossed the line into criminality.

 So too, when it is all about profit, those that are employed, are typically going to be in a rather poor negotiating position whenever they don’t have union representation, or its equivalency, because the threat of not being hired, or of being fired, serves to keep employees in their place, and thereby this is the main reason why labor is underpaid and exploited. At the same time, those in upper management often receive far too much in compensation, in which they get the lion’s share of profit, benefits, bonuses, accouterments, status, and more.

 When it comes to corporations, it is well to understand that corporations are artificial constructs of the state, which signifies that the state has a vested interest in seeing that corporations do their fair part to provide a living wage, stable employment, and to pay their fair share in taxation, as contrasted to deliberately trying to avert these very things.  Indeed, those corporations that don’t do right by the citizenry of this nation are the very same that should be seen for what they are: greedy, unethical, and an anathema to what this nation stands proudly for.

The Pujo Committee

One can make the argument that the more things change, the more that they remain the same, for when it comes to money trusts, collusion, monopolies, and things of that general ilk, this is absolutely true.  The Pujo Congressional Committee was created back in 1912, and was specifically structured to investigate the money trusts of that day, which included the very powerful J.P. Morgan banking interests as well as others, and thereby Congress was concerned about the undue influence that money held in the hands of the few was thus serving to exert an undue influence upon corporation business and other areas of import, for the expressed benefit of those money trusts, which subsequently led to the passage of the Clayton Anti-trust Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and ultimately to the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which implemented the federal income tax.  The bottom line is that well over one hundred years ago, the government of this nation recognized that having too much power in the hands of private banking enterprises would subvert our democratic principles and would make for a country in which the superrich and elite would effectively control it for their own benefit.

 When we fast forward to the present time, it has to be acknowledged that never have so few had so much as we see when it comes to wealth, and of which, it would appear that our present governance has effectively been captured by those same elites.  In fact, one could argue that government at the highest level is being run by those elites for the benefit of those elites, which is why we have a government that insists upon running massive deficits because it will not tax appropriately the superrich who are accumulating more and more wealth at the expense of everyday Americans, which will ultimately result in nationwide instability when that reckoning of fiscal irresponsibility so comes.

 The very point of the Pujo Committee was to make the necessary changes so as to reform that which was inimical to the principles of this government.  Regrettably, when it comes to money and power, those that have it, do not ever desire to relinquish such, and when they have been outplayed, they are going to do their level best, to get back what they were subject to losing by such robust legislation, so that those who are not eternally vigilant are the same that will find that though the legislation so passed was well meaning, that the overall effect has not serve the purpose as effectively as envisioned and proposed.

 Today, we need a new Pujo Committee that will have the courage to stand and to uphold the principles of this great nation on behalf of the people of this nation, but this seems to be something that is going to be hard to achieve, for the power of the press, and of the judicial, and of the mega corporations, and of the biggest banks, seems to be so consolidated that nothing can conceivably bring them down.  Yet, this is what needs to happen, or else this country will be divided into the very few and privileged who rule the roost and are above the law, thereby effectively eviscerating the common man and thereby nullifying this government, of, for, and by the people.

Embrace your challenges

There are plenty of people who don’t desire to have any real challenges in life and just prefer that life for them be nothing other than smooth sailing because they believe that makes for a more satisfying life.  While there is a lot to be said about having things go our preferred way, the bottom line is that all those who are without challenges have essentially placed themselves in a position in which they aren’t going to grow, because in order to grow, we actually need to be challenged, for in those challenges, we either forge ahead, or fall back.

 The interesting thing about challenges is that some of them are forced upon us, in the sense that things that are not in our control have created personal trouble or obstacles for us, and thus we have been placed into a position in which we either are going to sink or to swim, and those then that are able to overcome their challenges are the same that have made meaningful progress to becoming a better and a more complete person.  Then there are those other challenges which come from our own missteps, mistakes, paybacks, and things of that general ilk, in which, because we are the ones who have created the havoc and trouble, we are thus forced to overcome so as to extricate ourselves from that trouble, or else continue to suffer the consequences for having been wrong in the first place.

 Whatever the nature of the challenge, expected or unexpected, we find that when it is presented to us, we’re going to need to come up with some sort of strategy to deal with such, directly or indirectly, and in some of these cases we will need to put off and thereby postpone the challenge until we are better prepared to constructively deal with it because sometimes we are unprepared for what we have to handle, which thus necessitates for us to examine thoroughly the various ways to successfully deal with such.

 So too, recognize that in this world, we are going to be tested -- for how else would it be fair to adjudge our character as to who and what we really are, unless such is tested, time and time again.  This signifies that those who avoid that which needs to be faced aren’t doing themselves any favors, because that which has to be overcome, sooner or later, will have to be met. Therefore, it is going to be better to do so forthrightly, rather than to hope that it will just disappear and vanish.

 Indeed, those who make the most progress in life are the very same who intuitively recognize that life has a purpose, of which part of that purpose is to do our fair part to help make society a better place for our good participation in it, which necessitates, therefore, that we risk something of merit to gain something of merit.  This, then, is our great mission in life: to rise up and to meet the challenges that we need to face, and to thus overcome them for the betterment of our souls, and for the greater good of all those with whom we congregate.

The havoc of lost income, bad decisions, and bad events

While it is true that the United States does have a safety net to help out those that are impoverished, as well as those that have been laid off, the fact of the matter is that because there is such a significant percentage of Americans that literally live paycheck to paycheck, that far too many of them, are susceptible to their lives becoming unhinged when suddenly they lose their job, and/or are hit with a huge unexpected expense such as for their vehicle having a major repair, or for a medical emergency, which takes their situation which was basically stable, and plunges them instead into a whole lot of trouble.

 One of the things that capitalism does to people, is that it encourages people to buy things that not only they don’t really have to have, but also entices them to purchase things that are above their budget and their means, thereby placing them in a precarious position when they are unable to pay what they owe promptly, which thereby hurts their credit, along with having to suffer by paying a very high interest rate for that credit, and additionally they are subject to monetary penalties for being late on their payment. 

 Indeed, because so many Americans live paycheck to paycheck, it would especially behoove them to be disciplined enough to reduce their expenditures to what is necessary, rather than including in their expenditures that which is desired but not really needed.  Unfortunately, though, that goes against the capitalistic way, which seems to thrive upon selling as much as possible, to as many customers as possible per whatever credit conditions that are favorable to the lender, so that they can reap the benefits, pretty much at the expense of the party that is paying for it, all at a higher price to them, because of borrowing costs to do so.

 While it could be said that it’s good to be optimistic, and perhaps to anticipate that one’s salary will increase as time goes on, that isn’t necessarily how things are going to go. A valid argument could be made that for a whole lot of people, that isn’t the way that things are going to go, because job security isn’t really there. Also, a whole lot of companies don’t provide a viable pathway for their employees to move into job positions in which the compensation and benefits will be significantly better.

 All of the above signifies that while there are many people who are quite willing to work, they won’t necessarily find appropriate work, especially when they need that work desperately.  Further to the point, bad decisions about certain purchases don’t just lead to buyer’s regret, but oftentimes lead to more dire consequences.  Finally, those who expect nothing untoward will ever happen to them have failed to recognize that bad events happen in the course of most people’s lives, of which those who are well prepared are going to be in a lot better position to deal with such, as contrasted to those who have little or nothing to draw upon, and will often thereby suffer lasting consequences which will hurt them in a whole lot of bitter ways.