GPS

I had a subscription to OnStar on my vehicle and while using it I enjoyed it and realized its practicality.  The main benefits of OnStar for your car are:

            Turn-by-turn directions          

            Automatic Crash response     

            Stolen vehicle assistance

You can also make hands free phone calls, and if you lose the location of your vehicle in a huge parking lot, for instance, OnStar will help you find it by beeping your horn and/or flashing your lights.    I used OnStar in lieu of a GPS and appreciated being able to have a human being providing me with directions so that I could get from place-to-place.  However, eventually the cost of the subscription just didn't seem to be cost efficient for me and since I was unable to get them to lower their price to keep me interested I went ahead and got my own GPS.

Now I realize that while I had OnStar that in all likelihood they could track me down to my exact location to the accuracy of their device which I suspect is around 30-40 feet of your true location and further that they could probably extrapolate my speed and basically reconstruct everyplace that I went with that vehicle.  For a criminal, this would be a big problem, for me it really wasn't a big deal, but it was something that I wanted to be cognizant of.  Not too surprisingly, they later came out with a "family link" in which OnStar is so kind as to provide you, the subscriber, with the exact location through your computer of any vehicle signed up with the plan.  That is a definite game changer.

The difference between me signing up for a service is if I am at all diligent, I know the good and the bad, of what the service can or can't do for me.  If the bad outweighs the good, I can simply walk away and be done with it.  Now when another driver, like perhaps your spouse, your significant other, or your child, gets into the car and drives, they may be completely clueless about the score and therein lays a serious problem.  Yes, sure, it's probably meant for good, but in this case there are massive unintended consequences.

Specifically, if you know where someone is at and they don't know that you know, you are in a godlike position and that gives you an incredible power over them.  It puts you in a 'sting-like' situation in which you can just gather information over a period of time before deciding how best to use it or if you feel an urgency you can react to this information in virtual real-time.  Quite frankly, although the system is ostensibly setup to make sure that your loved ones, for instance, arrive at their destination safely; I believe that the family link is really setup for you to find out whether your loved ones are going to a destination that isn't on the approved list.

It's the nanny state, except run by yourself with no supervision, other than your own conscience, and I suppose your own justice system.

Fatalities and Wounded

In Afghanistan, through 2011, about 1,780 U.S.  servicemen and women (according to CNN) have died during this conflict, and according to the Pentagon over 14,000 U.S. troops have been wounded.  Through modern medical practices and logistical operations more soldiers are able to stay alive from wounds and traumatic events that would have invariably killed them in previous military affairs.  Being wounded is something that can easily have lifetime consequences, for instance, amputation and brain trauma are wounds that most definitely will affect your quality and the duration of your lifespan.  Yet we often only hear or read about just fatalities as opposed to the much greater percentage of wounded soldiers which is a great disservice to all Americans.

I do believe that if our headlines combined both fatalities and the wounded in their totals, that the impact and gravity of these foreign wars in the eyes of your average American would be much more appreciated and therefore would be assimilated at a more telling level.  Dying at a young age for your country is a tragedy and a great lost for our communities and our families. Yet those that are wounded, who are still among the living, are in fact living lives of what appears to be a lesser world, in which their sacrifice is underappreciated and the seriousness of their condition(s) apparently unfathomable by the public at large.  For these young men and women, the impact of the war will be with them until the day that they depart from this world.

Therefore it behooves us to take the necessary steps to not only reduce fatalities for our soldiers but to also greatly reduce the amount of wounded soldiers.  The easiest way to reduce those numbers is, quite obviously, to avoid the conflict of war in the first place.  Secondly, while we can applaud noble efforts in the defense of our country, in the appropriate defense of other countries, and of supporting what is right, a war of aggression is seldom justified.  Our wars should be for legitimate self-defense, limited in scope, and efficient to the primary purpose at hand.

Additionally, each war has at least two sides.  The USA is the strongest and most powerful military force in the world, for every one soldier that is wounded or killed on our side, the impact of the other side is exponentially higher.  Costofwar.org estimates that through 2011 as many as 19,013 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan.  How many more have been wounded, displaced, disenfranchised, unemployed, or suffered mental health problems is not known, but the numbers must be staggering.  The cost in human suffering for those that are so unfortunate to have been born in Afghanistan is massive and an unnecessary human tragedy.

Wars have consequences which are long reaching and the subsequent ramifications of these wars are seldom pondered or addressed.  We owe each soldier a valid reason as to our actions, we owe it also to our country, our Founders, our God, and our conscience.  The dead, the dying, and the wounded are the results of our actions, whether those actions truly be in the right or the wrong.

English-Our language

Although English isn't the national language of the USA, it is the de facto language of our country and has been so since our settlement by English speaking peoples in the early 17th century.  Although the French and Spanish once owned and occupied large portions of our country, the most densely populated parts of America have historically been English speaking and subsequent events over history have made English the dominant language throughout this country.  The controversy over what language should be spoken in America has been with us since our inception.  In fact, in 1753, Benjamin Franklin stated in reference to German immigration:

"Few of their children in the Country learn English; they import many Books from Germany…. Advertisements intended to be general are now printed in Dutch and English; the Signs in our Streets have inscriptions in both languages….  they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious."

Benjamin Franklin's point was well taken and is applicable today.  While I don't have any issues with private enterprise putting up signage and conducting business in non-English languages, I don't believe that it is wise for government agencies, be it federal, state, or local, to conduct business in any other language than English.

One should look upon language as a form of taxation.  If you wish to be a part of this country, it would behoove you to learn to speak and write English.  If one makes this a firm foundation of what it means to be an American, than peoples that are non-English speaking will either assimilate to our nation or remain somewhat separate and apart.  That is an individual choice.  The more that our government encourages or inadvertently helps residents to maintain their own language in lieu of speaking English, the greater overall disservice we provide them.

It's tough learning a new language, especially if you are an adult, but technology has never been better and the logistics to help people learn in this country are quite strong.  Providing people the option of listening to directions in languages other than English, taking tests in languages other than English, and so forth, only encourages them to remain set in their ways while residing in America which is an English-speaking nation. 

There is nothing wrong with knowing two languages or more, in fact, I encourage it, but those that fail to learn English have too often the means of using crutches that we provide to them and will not let them go, which fails both ourselves and them. 

Not only is English important because it is the language of the USA, it is also the de facto business language of the world, making it even more valuable as the language of choice.  While it may be your prerogative to learn or not to learn English, not learning English puts yourself in a vulnerable and undesirable position.  Speaking English is an invaluable way to communicate your ideas, desires, and viewpoints and readily gives you the opportunity to receive the same.

This is a country united, and in order to remain so, we should, at a minimum, be speaking the same language.

Drug Wars and Our Choices

President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in June of 1971 which continues until this present day and although the semantics of this "war" may have changed, the policies certainly have not.  Why is it that this declared war has been such an abject failure?   There are a myriad of reasons but the primary reason has to do with money and I don't mean the lack of monies spent trying to intercept and interdict drug smuggling--I mean instead the power of money to corrupt.  There isn't any doubt that our police, our paramilitary troops, our justice system, our government agents, out cities, counties, and states have all implicitly or deliberately aided and abetted drug trafficking into our sovereign nation.

The illegal drug trade is in aggregate a massive criminal enterprise which could not continue to be successful without the appropriate acquiescence or support of the same peoples that are paid to put it out of business.  This corruption breeds not only contempt of the law but also rewards the very behaviors that the war on drugs is suppose to eliminate.  This prohibition of the drug trade has met with the same lack of success as prohibition of alcohol beverages did upon its passage.

America's bully-beating to put down the illegal drug trade and trafficking is an exercise in futility.  Additionally, it is the height of stupidity to spend time and resources to incarcerate small-time drug users in lieu of going after the peoples, networks, and organizations that provide the very drugs themselves.  Incarcerating a drug user serves little or no benefit to the community at large.  How is it the government's business what chemicals we put into our bodies.  If our body is not our own sovereign instrument than whose is it?

Drug wars are a further waste because it allows the government to arbitrarily determine what or what isn't legal or illegal to ingest or inject or to smoke.  This is a prime example of the government creating crime where a previous behavior was accepted through historical precedent or community standards.  Therefore, instead of providing real human aid, our government often runs havoc over those that are less fortunate and powerless to protect themselves from this misapplied force.  In addition to these misguided efforts, the Federal Government takes it upon themselves to run roughshod over State rights in regards to drug laws in which the Feds have no real or compelling reason that they must do so except that they can.

Times and people do change.  For some, the usage of illegal drugs is a rite of passage, that is there for a period of time and then gone. For others, it is a social thing, or a weekend activity, that brings some sort of relief or enjoyment no matter how fleeting.  Then there are those in which illegal drug usage becomes a chronic problem but that problem is best dealt with and by organizations that take a whole-person viewpoint in which they can also provide group support and logistics to address the problems at large.    

Life goes on, let us live it.

Cameras and the law

Video cameras and pictures have changed history.  There is little doubt that when the civil rights activists were being fire hosed down, attacked/intimidated by police dogs, beaten by police batons, treated roughly; and all of this with contempt and disrespect by law enforcement, that in the end Middle America changed their viewpoint on civil rights from perhaps a general non-interest to a belief that this sort of lawless behavior by the law should not be tolerated in America.

When Rodney King suffered his beat-down, had it not be captured on video, he wouldn't even be a footnote to history.  Video and pictures help to even the score with those that are called to "serve and protect" us and that's a very fundamental point.  The fact of the matter is that there are so many laws, arbitrarily and capriciously enforced that any of us are subject to arrest at any time for virtually any reason.  Additionally, cops have all the weapons to enforce "their" law on the street and we seldom have the right to protect ourselves from this unwise enforcement of the law by police officers.

To help even up a very unfair playing field and with technology never having been better, why not make it a prerequisite that all officers of the law wear video cameras as a matter of policy.  Although some police officers and their superiors may initially object, I do believe that it is common sense that people behave better when they know they are being recorded and/or watched.  Police work is difficult, sometimes dangerous, and a video camera will help to show a complete perspective of their encounters.

If, in fact, police officers are upholding the law, and serving and protecting their community, wouldn't they be even more appreciated if videos were released attesting to that very behavior.  Over and over again, we hear that, we the public, shouldn't be afraid or leery of our privacy being violated, being watched, monitored, and tracked.  If that type of 'big brother' activity is OK for the government to engage in under the pretense of protecting its citizenry, then we as citizens should be able to monitor and watch police activity in our community.

Interaction with police ranges from total benevolence to something approaching a real horror show.  The more that we know about the real world in regards to police work and its consequences the more that we can appreciate the nuances and complexities of police activities. 

A safe public is an engaged and involved public.  The measure of a man is their decisions that are made under  trying circumstances, and those types of decisions have a great deal of impact in the community at large.  Police are our agents to help bring order, fairness, protection, service, and safety to our communities.  A good police officer is someone that can perform at a level that ensures the public that their best interests are in mind.  Video cameras are an important and critical crosscheck to help verify that we the people remain the cornerstone of our democratic society.

Billboards

I really don't think about billboards all that much, I just sort of accept them as part of the experience of driving.  Whereas there are some people that think of billboards as an eyesore or a blight, I seldom look upon them that way.  Most billboards don't garner much attention from me but occasionally there is a billboard that is displaying something of interest or catches my eye for some strange reason.  Honestly, what I like about billboards the most is their light at night; I consider it a windfall for the city to get private companies to pay for a billboard in the first place and then as an extra benefittheir billboard is visible at night because it is well lit, making the roads a little easier to see.

The biggest change in billboards nowadays is that some of them are digital.  While I suspect that digital billboards are regulated by city ordinances these are the best billboards of our age because they are extremely bright and can display over a 24-hour period more than one ad and more than one message.  I like them a lot because the ad changes and I appreciate their added illumination.

Billboards are most effective for me as an advertising device when I am driving in an unfamiliar area.  I definitely do keep my eyes open for things like restaurants, hotels, and gas stations because all of those items can be quite applicable to my situation.  While I realize that my GPS can help me with those tasks too, it's not advisable to be accessing your GPS while cruising down the highway at a high rate of speed and it can't really replace the sheer convenience of a billboard.

Anyway, what really got me thinking about billboards was I was pumping gas yesterday and I heard these incredible bird calls that were really loud and persistent.  It didn't make any real sense to me and when I looked up to the sky I didn't see any birds whatsoever but I did see a nice billboard nearby and although I couldn't actually see the speaker on the billboard, I put two and two together and figured that the billboard definitely had a speaker that was sending out those birdcalls to keep those birds away and it appeared to be pretty darn effective, although louder than what I thought it should be.

In looking at previous billboards I remember seeing seated propellers in constant motion to prevent birds from roosting and also spikes to do the same sort of thing.  Birds are wonderful creatures to look at, but roosting birds, nesting birds, and birds that are relieving themselves can be a significant nuisance, even a health hazard, and absolutely no fun at all.

I like signage, billboards, advertising and all that sort of stuff on our roads because they provide information which we can pay attention to at our discretion while also providing revenue, lighting, and employment.    Far from being considered a nuisance, to me, a town or city without billboards or advertising is either a place that is superrich and elite in a very negative way or a place of utter and complete desolation.  Billboards are a convenient way of keeping track.

Stop and frisk

Not all law is good law and not all law coincides with true moral law.  This is a country of laws and our 4th Amendment rights are directly challenged when we give in to dubious 'laws' such as 'stop & frisk'. Our 4th Amendment states that: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…but upon probable cause…"  Stop and frisk as currently practiced is a direct violation of this statue.

Taking NYC as our template, their implementation of essentially a police state, all in the name, of reducing crime or protecting citizens, is a false flag to harass, embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, and abuse those that either have no power(s) within themselves, or are easily made to be scapegoats.  NYC tactics are deliberately setup to ostracize and marginalize peoples that don't meet a certain legally suspect criteria within the NYC power structure.

The proponents of stop and frisk, believe that they got their foundation for their validation of this application of 'law' from the Supreme Court Decision of Terry v. Ohio (1968), if this be the case, they are grossly mistaken, because the Terry v. Ohio (1968), does not and never will be the validation of stop and frisk laws. In fact, Terry v. Ohio (1968) invalidates stop and frisk and it always has.

First, let us get a better understanding of Terry v. Ohio (1968).  Chief Justice Warren stated in his opinion that: "we have no occasion to canvass in detail the constitutional limitations upon the scope of a policeman's power when he confronts a citizen without probable cause to arrest him."  Clearly, this says that in Terry v. Ohio (1968), there was probable cause to arrest Mr. Terry.  Therefore, had there not been probable cause, the Supreme Court decision in all likelihood would have ruled in favor of Terry.  In NYC, in 2011, 685,000 stops were made in which only 770 guns were recovered.  In Terry V. Ohio, each of the two suspects searched, Terry and Chilton had a firearm.  This demonstrates that NYC stop and frisk policies are virtually never about probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion (a clause nowhere found in our Constitution) but about harassment and extralegal tactics.

Further to that point, what exactly is a stop and frisk?  If I am stopped, by a police officer, without probable cause of some crime, I have for all intents and purposes been "seized" by said officer.  If I am then frisked, I have also been "searched" by the same officer.   At a minimum, according to any reasonable interpretation of our 4th Amendment, the officer needs to bring directly to my attention what action(s) that I committed that gave him "probable cause" to search and seize my person.  If that is not done, or if there are no penalties asserted against this action, we are essentially living under a police state in which at any hour, at any time, for any reason, while you are in a public area, you can be accosted by the police an unlimited amount of times with no probable cause to do so.

Smile

I love a great smile and while I suppose it isn't mandatory that your teeth be straight and white, it certainly does help bring if you have it all together with your pearly-white smile.  People that smile, seem happier, and bring more happiness to others.  Although, like a lot of things, smiles can be faked, they can also be quite spontaneous and very natural.  When you see someone with a genuine smile it makes you feel good.  Smiles are just a more effective way of making others believe that you like or care about them.

Although a good smile isn't a requirement for employment and social settings it is certainly a wonderful benefit for both.  People that "light up the room" with their smile are the type of people that captivate you and make you feel good about them and yourself.   A smile can ease the tension around a personal or group session and can bring people out of their funk or shell in a very positive and emotive way.

Smiles are excellent in making people feel acceptance and it further helps to relax them.  A sunny disposition and a smile seem to go together and that is why we equate smiles with people that are either happy or in a good mood or both.  A smile is a wonderful way to greet somebody because it allows the other person to smile back in turn, sort of creating that "I'm OK, you're OK" vibe.

A wonderful smile is a great first impression, it's a way of saying, "I like you, I'm interested, I value you," all rolled into one.  Having a great smile is much more important than a great handshake because the smile comes first and at a further distance.  Also, for those with great smiles and teeth it is a subtle way of saying that you're healthy, have good hygiene and all the rest that is implied with it. 

If you don't have a great smile, is it worth doing so?  Of course, it is.  I am grateful that I received braces at a young age to correct my protruding teeth.  Although as a very young teenager I wasn't particularly sensitive about my teeth, as that was well before my dating years, I was also savvy enough to know that I certainly desired to have them corrected.  Had my teeth remained the same as they were with my two noticeably front teeth protruding it would have absolutely affected me in a very negative way.  I have no doubt that I would have dated less, been less confident about myself, less popular, less desirable, less successful, and much more introverted.   A good smile is worth every penny of the expense and the trivial inconvenience and pain.

While there may be plenty of things you can do or accomplish to make yourself a better person a smile is certainly one of those things who's worth is far beyond superficiality and will bring you and others a lifetime of satisfaction and pleasure. 

As Louis Armstrong (he, of the prodigious talent and great smile) sang: "When you're smiling, keep on smiling, the whole world smiles with you."

Rich cities, poor cities

Why is there such a huge disparity of wealth from city to city in America?  Additionally, what makes one city rich and another city relatively poor, or what makes one city more desirable than another.  While it's difficult to come up with a completely satisfactory list of all items that differentiate between a rich city and a poor city, the following items would seem to be of prime importance overall:

1.       Crime rate per capita

2.       Arts and cultural events

3.       Physicians/hospitals per capita

4.       Climate

5.       Natural resources and beauty

6.       Water

7.       Higher Education

8.       Government subsidies

9.       Transportation

10.   History

While traveling around virtually any major city you will typically see areas of modernity, high-worth, impressive architecture and on the opposite tack you will come upon dilapidated buildings, impoverishment, and lack.  That's just within one city.  However, when traveling from city to city and from state to state, you can't help but notice that some cities are much richer than others.  The poor regions often have prominent tell-tale signs such as roads in need of repair, abandoned buildings, infrastructure shortfalls, weather-beaten housing and the like. 

Is it possible that some cities have more income/monies coming in and therefore are able to upgrade and advance, whereas other cities have not enough income to maintain services and their population and consequently are in a downward spiral?  I do believe so.

First off, taxes are not evenly distribution throughout cities, counties, states, and through our federal government.  That is to say, taxes are taken away from certain communities and not replaced at a 1:1 level, so that in certain cities, millions upon millions of dollars leave those communities every year and something considerably less than that finds its way back.  That obviously makes certain cities poorer and other cities richer.

Another factor that influences the makeup of a city is the employment of its residents.  In general, the fewer people employed, the less income; although the makeup of the jobs and their consummate salaries plays a very significant part in overall size of the income pie in a particular city.  But a city in which there is high unemployment without residual income from retirement or pension accounts is a city in decline.  Additionally, there is a direct correlation that those with Bachelor's Degree or higher make considerably more money than those that do not have Advanced Educational Degrees.    In fact, that is an important reason why some cities have gone from rich to poor, because the middle-class jobs that employed their predominantly blue-collar cities has declined precipitously over the last twenty years. 

Finally, people vote with their feet.  When the opportunities are few and far between for employment in your particular community, you will seriously consider looking for work and employment opportunities elsewhere.   The most motivated people will leave first, leaving behind those that are less able, older, and those set in their ways. 

While cities in decline can turn it around, to do so, takes vision, determination, and carefully planned long-term decision making.

9/10 of one cent

There is one common item that most of us purchase that is priced out to the one-thousand cent and that is gasoline.  When we purchase gasoline the price should always be rounded up by $.01 because the gallon price of let's say $3.57 is in reality $3.579 which translates into $3.58 per gallon and what appears to be $3.57, is essentially a penny more or more precisely $.009 more which is exactly 9/10th of a penny more.  This extra $.009 which may seem trivial does add up. For instance, the average consumer who uses 500 gallons of gas a year would spend an additional $4.50 (500 x .009) on gasoline because of this 9/10th of one centWhile that might not sound like much, it's enough to get yourself a decent meal at a fast food place. 

Of course, from the oil business perspective the view is a little bit different, because they deal with really large numbers.  According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) in 2011 the United States consumed about 134 billion gallons.  Assuming that all those gallons had an extra $.009 tacked onto them that would mean an additional   $1,206,000,000 (134,000,000,000 x .009) was spent on gasoline just from that modest and almost immaterial increase per gallon of $.009.  That's right, folks, that's 1.2 billion dollars more spent on gasoline for that innocuous $.009 that is tacked on and hardly noticed.

Having stated the above, I often wonder why more retailers don't add on this $.009 charge, especially given that everything is computerized and consequently adjusting your cash register to handle and round up a given number would seem to be a relatively trivial matter.  While I'd be the first to admit that while selling something for a high price, let's say $20 and above, it might not be worth the exercise there are plenty of stores that sell goods for consistently low prices or have consistently low margins.  In particular, I think of grocery stores and those bargain stores such as Dollar Tree, Dollar General, and the like.

In fact, one of those stores did make the change and took their price all the way out to the one-ten-thousand of a cent.  That store is the 99 Cents Only Store which implemented a new pricing policy of 99.99 cents or $.9999 in 2008 and got hit with a class action lawsuit in 2010 for their troubles.  The suit probably says more about our litigatious society rather than the merits of the suit because I believe their price increase was absolutely brilliant and probably necessary.  To put this in perspective, Family Dollar, which despite their name does sell goods for more than $1, claims that their average transaction in 2010 was $9.91.  Using this number for the 99 Cents Only Store this extra $.0099 would cost the consumer about $.10 per trip which is trivial.  For the 99 Cents Only Store this $.0099 price increase was probably a necessary step in order to maintain or improve their gross margin and it essentially gave them another penny to absorb any additional costs involved in purchasing the products that they sell--meaning that they can hold the line on a larger variety of products for a greater length of time.

It is this extra penny that businesses with low margins and/or low pricing need to make a play at.  The consumer is pretty much is acquiescent to it and/or easily accommodative to it.  A penny here and a penny there do indeed add up. 

Grocery Stores

You'd be an unusual adult if you didn't frequent some type of grocery store, but I wonder how many of us take grocery stores for granted.  To me, every time that I go into a grocery store I am amazed at the amount of products on display, their freshness, their organization, their convenience, their quality, their good customer service, and their very reasonable pricing,  All of this is available to me, for just a short drive and the competition is fierce in this industry.

The logistics of getting fresh produce to your grocery store in plentiful supply is impressive.  This takes an extraordinary effort of coordination, transportation, refrigeration, packing, unpacking, distribution and knowledge.  Supermarkets are one of those things that we just assume is a given, and don't pay any mind to, unless something goes terribly wrong. 

To be able to get fresh food, or readily packaged food, is a real godsend, and something that in the great eons of time has seldom been available.  At my grocery store, pretty much everything that you want in order to have a balanced and nutritional diet is available with no questions asked or unnecessary fuss.  This is really astonishing and makes our lives much better.

The ability to transport foods and keep them preserved or fresh is the reason why we have such an abundance of these foods in our grocery stores.  Being able to stock up on foods that we need or crave is a time-saving and money-saving convenience.  Most Americans do not grow or have the inclination to grow or hunt for their own food and would be befuddled should it ever come down to that.

Yet, despite our taking grocery stores for granted, it takes a complicated series of maneuvers that are carefully orchestrated together to make everything look so effortless and complete. In order for a grocery chain to be efficiently stocked with products that fill its consumer needs, a sophisticated inventory system is setup which takes into account: distribution cycles, pricing, reliability, turnover, historical norms, and safety stock.   Through this sophisticated analysis and with the benefit of a database that can run through more than one scenario, decisions will be made that have worldwide implications for food distribution since food and food products have become completely globalized.

These foods will often make their way from their original distribution point to massive and centralized distribution centers of 350,000 sq ft or more for storage, organization, and ultimately to the efficient distribution of their products to us.

All of this handiwork takes the utilization of energy.  Without the necessary fossil fuels or reliable and refrigerated transportation, the whole process would come to a grinding halt.  Energy, more than any other factor, is the Achilles heel of the supermarket business.  Should energy shortages ever become the norm in America, or should energy costs rise in cost or become unstable in some fashion, the ramifications for us as consumers would be felt very quickly in the price, availability, and reliability of our day-to-day grocery shopping habits.

DUI

Driving under the Influence (DUIs') aren't really about making the roads safer for me and you; they are a lot more about the symbiotic relationship between 'opposing' attorneys, extra and unmerited revenue for government agencies, and in some jurisdictions: free and undeserved mandatory labor.  While I would agree that people that actually do have  their driving abilities impaired should be subject to a reasonable penalty for using our public roads, I do not agree with our current DUI laws which are arbitrary, capricious, and morally suspect.

For instance, how is it that the needle for a DUI is constantly moving ever downward so that the blood alcohol level to be considered DUI is becoming lower and lower.  That isn't good science, that isn't science at all, which makes for arbitrary and very bad law.  For instance, in Georgia, in 1954, you were considered to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor at 0.15 percent.  Since that time, Georgia has reduced its' definition of "under the influence of intoxicating liquor" to 0.12 percent, then to 0.10 percent, and now to 0.08 percent.   Then,  in May of 2013 the NTSB put out their recommendation that a DUI should be further reduced from its current 0.08 percent (in all 50 states) to 0.05 percent.   Since the Federal Government likes to wield its big stick and withhold highway construction monies from states that do not adhere to its dictates, the chances of this becoming the new standard for a DUI are quite high.

What a DUI should be about is actual driving impairment and nothing else.  Therefore DUIs should be based on sound science with proven and reliable studies as compared to the arbitrary levels to which we are subjected to daily.  It is these studies that should solely determine the amount of alcohol level permitted to define whether a driver is or is not "under the influence of intoxicating liquor".    The inability of government agencies to follow this reasonable and sane process is demonstrative proof that DUIs are in fact not about good law but instead a source of revenue, harassment, and oppressive police/government actions.

DUI proponents love to recite statistics that demonstrate how many lives have been saved from having strict DUI laws in regards to blood alcohol content.  Their premise is that if you continue to lower DUI levels, our roads will become safer and less deadly.  If this was indeed the case, why allow any public consumption of alcohol whatsoever!   In fact, why waste your time lowering the DUI levels, as opposed to simply eliminating alcohol as a legal beverage in this country.   Isn't this the ultimate objective?

While driving is a privilege and not a right, it's biased and unfair to arrest, incarcerate, compel to enforced labor, and monetarily fine drivers who have committed no crime other than to have an arbitrary amount of blood alcohol in their body.  This serves no good purpose and many bad ones.  Bad laws and bad justice do not make good citizens and builds contempt for the law. 

Credit Cards Con

Credit cards can be a real boon for the consumer but it can also be a real bane.  It's definitely a dual-edge sword and should you get on the wrong side, having bad credit will definitely negatively impact your life and livelihood.  That can be most unfortunate, as at age 18, you can qualify to get your own credit card, yet, at that age, you may not have developed the maturity to handle it well.

The first question you might ask is why would any credit card company take a chance on someone so young or on anyone in particular.  The short answer is that they are in business to make money and their top consumers are people that don't have the discipline, or the funds, or the inclination, or the desire, to pay their credit card bills in full.  They want and they encourage this via "come-ons" and higher than necessary credit limits, hoping to tap into that common consumer desire to have it "now". 

While your original intention may have been to use your credit card responsibility, you may be tempted, had an unexpected expense, or just have had too many expenses at once, and have to utilize your credit card more than you originally desired.  Fortunately, as long as you are able to make your minimum payment, your credit card will remain valid, and consumers that are unable to pay in full are the type of customers that credit card companies' desire.  They want you to visualize your credit card statement as something that doesn't need to be paid in full, just something that you need to pay a portion on, and they have no problem with your credit debt continuing to rise as long as you can keep your payments current.  The interest that the credit card issuers charge the consumer in comparison to their internal cost of those monies is such a huge differential that their profit potential is massive and that is where the banks make good and steady money off of your borrowing habits.

With so many people living and struggling paycheck by paycheck it only takes one unexpected event to put you upside down with your debt obligations and once that happens the credit card pyramid begins to break down rather quickly.   In fact, credit cards are really a one-way street.  That is to say, should a credit card company no longer feel that you are a worthy credit risk they can unilaterally reduce your credit limit without notice or even cancel your account and demand payment in full.  Should this happen to you, you have no legal recourse other than to plead your case and hope for some consideration.

Once you get on the wrong side of not paying your credit on time, you will receive an adverse mark on your credit report.  This impact is serious, and it takes seven long years to remove a detrimental record from your report which is a very lengthy period of time.  Although you can legitimately dispute a mark(s) against your credit, it's an uneven fight in which essentially the default is that you are guilty as charge, although it will be investigated. Also, Credit Report companies do allow you to comment on your written credit report that the consumer has disputed the charge.

The bad news for getting on the wrong side of the credit card companies is that everything escalates rather quickly.  For one miss payment, you will probably have to deal with the following:

1.      Late fee

2.      Higher interest rate

3.      Negative report to credit report agencies

However, if you do manage to make good on your late payment in a reasonable period of time, you can probably mitigate or eliminate all of the above.  If you don't, the consequences are severe and your credit score will go down.

The problem with a damaged or poor credit score is it not only affects your ability to get credit cards, it negatively affects your insurance rate, your ability to purchase/finance a car, your cell phone contract, your deposit with utility companies, your interest rate on any and all borrowing, and worst of them all, gainful employment. 

It may sound like a 'catch-22' but those that most need a job in order to pay bills and get back in good credit graces are denied employment because their credit is bad.  Having bad credit will put you on the outside looking in and make your cost of living much more prohibitive than someone else of equal background and skills. 

Credit Cards Pro

I remember with great joy when I received my first credit card back in the day.  Finally, incredibly, American Express was willing to take a chance with me.  As soon as I received the card, I just had to use it, even though there really wasn't anything that I absolutely needed.  I decided to purchase a book and thereby use my card, and, by Jove, the bookstore accepted my payment by credit card.  Sweet.

The original American Express card conditions stated that you had to pay off your balance in full with each statement, so that it behooved you to use a little trick to delay the inevitable.   Since my budget was tight, it was pretty easy to learn that in order to extend my payment out for another 20-30 days, the simplest way to do that was to recognize my billing cycle and make my expenditures right after that cycle ended.  So if the billing cycle ended on the 20th of the month, the stupidest thing to do was to buy something on the 19th or 20th of the month.  Doing that, you'd be stuck with the bill almost in real time.  No, I liked to float the money by making my purchases right after the 20th, which worked out real well for me and gave me a little cushion.  Of course, when I finally got the bill, sometimes I looked at the items and thought to myself, dang, I bought that weeks ago and it hardly seems fair to make me pay for it now.  I mean, really

Since that time I've received and utilized many credit cards.  The biggest difference is that over time the annual fees went away and instead I've gotten some lucrative points/bonuses just for having a certain branded credit card.  The only credit cards I carry now with an annual fee are ones that I have received a big incentive such as two roundtrip airfare tickets.  That will keep me in their good graces for a short while, but unless they have some additional come-ons to entice me, I usually end up canceling the card after getting my benefits and moving on.

Having said all that, the most amazing thing about credit cards is the monetary credit that is given to you.  I'm not saying that my family and friends are a bunch of tightwads and uncaring, but when you request a little money from them, as I have in earlier times, they look at you in a completely different way.  It's almost like you're some sort of degenerate, loser, cheater, and hustler all rolled up into one.  But with a credit card company they treat you with respect.

You know the old saying that there isn't anything free in life, so when you use credit cards without an annual fee and you do pay your balance in full each month, plus you get points as a bonus, you do wonder to yourself, how is it that they make a profit on me.   The short answer is they don't.  The only fee that they make directly on your account is their portion of the merchant fees when your card is used.

To demonstrate further how good I've got it, every once in a while I screw up on my payment, in which I accidently just pay the minimum, or don't click through enough windows so the payment doesn't even go through.  What I have found out is if you only make that mistake once in every twelve months a courteous phone call will often get the problem rectified.  So I screw up, I call them, apologize, and make the complete payment, whereupon they will forgive the interest, penalty, and late fees. 

So if they are doing all that for me, how is it that the credit card issuers are making money?  That's for Part II.

Container Ships

Do you ever take a look at your clothing label or pocketbook or toy and notice that there is a little label that says "Made in China". For most of us, we probably don't think any further than, "thought so", or perhaps a few of us are upset that it doesn't say "Made in USA", but I wonder how many people ever say to themselves, "isn't China far away?"  Yes, it is.  Shanghai, China to Los Angeles is approximately 6,500 miles so those goods have a very long way to travel to us.

Container ships came into existence in 1956 but they were slow to take root.  It wasn't until the Vietnam War that container cargo began their breakthrough.  A test was conducted in transporting ammunition in containers instead of break-bulk (e.g. boxes, crates, drums, barrels, or pallets) in 1970.  Upon arrival in Vietnam it was determined that (globalsecurity.org):

1.      Vessel turnaround was improved by 500%

2.      Manpower efficiency was improved by 600%

3.      Number of handlings was reduced from a possible eight to two.

4.      Ammunition was in better condition on delivery.

Soon thereafter a steering group was created in the Department of Defense to coordinate container development with commercial container systems.

China exports most of their goods via container ships.  Container ships consist of 20 foot container boxes with typical dimensions of 20 feet in length, 8 feet in width, and the most common height is 8 feet 6 inches.  Each one of these containers is considered a twenty-foot equivalent unit or TEU.  Modern state-of-the-art cargo ships can handle 11,000 TEUs which is a staggering number.  According to factsanddetails.com the average cost to transport a TEU from China to the USA is around $1,500.

Without these container ships the cost to ship the quantity of goods from China to the USA would be prohibitive because you need a great deal of capacity in order for the economies of skill to filter thru.  These container ships are incredibly efficient, relatively fast, and an effective means for China to sell its exports and consequently it becomes quite beneficial for both parties.  

I am amazed that these massive ships are able to navigate the ocean so well, because storms, tempests, and hurricanes are all part of our natural weather system.  Not too surprisingly, back at the home base there are expert meteorologists who study in real time any approaching storms or other disturbances and then advise the ship captain of avoidance routes or other options that are most pertinent.  Without this necessary feedback the captain's job and safety record would be significantly more problematic.

Despite the awesome size of these ships, the crew to handle them is surprisingly small.  In most cases for these container ships, the crew will not exceed 25 people in which their responsibilities will include not only the successful navigating of the ship, but any routine maintenance, staggered hours of duty,  paperwork, and often times numerous ports of call.  As a reference point, the Al Miqab, one of the 10 largest yachts in the world, has a crew of 60. 

The value of container ships may seem obvious to us now, but that wasn't always the case.

Closed captions

I absolutely love close captions, but I'm not necessarily the audience that close captioning is suppose to appeal to.  With the exception of sports and comedy (the former I don't need to read their commentary, and the latter I don't want to spoil the punch line) I prefer close captioning for all my other viewing experiences.   Closed captioning actually increases my attention to the show that I am watching. 

Although my hearing is fine, sometimes the enunciation on the program I am watching is something less than desired or it's muddled or it's easily misunderstood.  Closed captioning allows me to get the clarity of what is being said.  You could also say the reason that I like close captioning so much is that my favorite activity is reading.  I love reading the written word and while reading I can read at my own pace and thoughtfulness.  While watching a TV program since the words are spoken I am forced to listen to the pace of that speech, which I find somewhat annoying, especially when I have a pretty good idea what the next line is going to be.  Having the spoken words scrolled along the bottom of the screen actually keeps me more engaged, and ultimately because this is the written word it allows for greater comprehension, because when you mishear a word it can change the entire complexion of a given scene.

Although close captioning was ostensibly setup to help those that are hard of hearing, people whose reading comprehension is poor or needs improvement, and peoples that do not have English as their native tongue, it can encompass a much wider range of the population as it does in my particular case.  Another advantage of closed captioning is that when you are watching a program with someone that likes to talk or interrupt you, you still have the ability to pick up what was being said by reading it at the bottom of the screen, that way you aren't forced to re-run or pause a given scene which is even more annoying. 

Another benefit of closed captioning is it gives me the opportunity to know how to correctly pronounce a given word.  There are a few words that trip me up now and again, and by virtue of closed captioning I get the luxury of reading the word and hearing the correct pronunciation.

Of course, while this isn’t a benefit, another thing that I love to see, is when they write down the wrong word such as "illusion" when the appropriate word is "allusion" given the context of the show.  Also, you will see words that are pronounced the same but they will display perhaps "bear" when they really should have put down "bare".  I love noticing that stuff and chuckling to myself.  Usually, however, they get it right which is the most desirable thing.

While I'd be the first to admit unless you are going to a special showing at a movie theatre that most patrons would find close captioning to be distracting, it's the perfect accompaniment at home.  Also, I was delighted when the Metropolitan Opera added closed captioning to their performances in which you can watch the translated words scroll upon the horizontal LCD screen on the seatback in front of you.  Of course, this is completely voluntary, you don't have to do it, but most people do.

40 Acres and a Mule

African-Americans have been given a raw deal.  While African-Americans are hardly alone in getting the shaft from our government, no other group of peoples were forcefully kidnapped from their country of origin under oppressive and inhumane conditions, and then resettled here as slaves (non-persons, considered to be only property) other than blacks.  And while not every black came to America as a slave, or was a slave, or suffered the indignities of having once been a slave, or are a descendent of a slave, the ill legacy of slavery affects every black and this continues until the present day.

The richness of a country has a lot to do with its natural resources, its work-ethic, and its success in trading with other countries.  In order to benefit from one's country one needs the opportunity to do so.  Those that control the land, business, education, money, employment, and the law, control the economic fortunes and opportunities of the public at large.  Those avenues of power and advancement have historically been precluded from most blacks and therefore these actions have ramifications that continue presently.

Martin Luther King, Jr. stated in his seminal "I Have a Dream" speech of 1963 that: "When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir…. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked 'insufficient funds.'"

And therein lies the crux of the problem.  The United States has plenty of monetary funds and plenty of land, all it takes is the courage to live up to its vaulted promised heritage.  General Sherman issued Special Field Orders No. 15 on January 16, 1865, to whichapproximately 400,000 acres of land previously held in Confederate states was to be used for the settlement of blacks in that area.  Unfortunately, after Lincoln's assassination, President Andrew Johnson rescinded Special Field Orders No. 15 in the fall of 1865 and another promise made to the black man was negated.

Yet, today, the United States has the land and the funds to make good on compensating the black man for his unpaid labor, his missed opportunities, his injustice served, and the like.  To put this in perspective, the Federal Government currently owns nearly 650 million acres of land.  Additionally a precedent was set when President Lincoln signed the The District of Columbia Emancipation Act on April 16, 1862, which emancipated all slaves within the District of Columbia while at the same time providing compensation for the slave owner.  This compensation to the slave owner has never been matched by appropriate compensation to the slave.

Now is the time to do so with a combination of land grants and a general bond issued and back by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. Subsequently, blacks will truly be able to fully collect on the Declaration of Independence promise that "all men are created equal," and that blacks are endowed by the same Creator and therefore have, "…certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Value of Money

I love reading books, especially American historical books and inevitably within those books there will be a discussion of money.  The worst of these books will simply state that so-and-so was paid $10 for something and won't reference what that $10 was worth back in the day.  Then there are many books that will attempt to equate with minimal success what the equivalent of $10 was into today's dollars.  I find this to be the most irritating because I believe that this is the absolute wrong yardstick to use and the distortions thereof are huge.

It's difficult, really chimerical, to even attempt to compare a dollar from, let's say, 1870 to today's dollar.  Although their names may be the same their value and the way to value the dollar by using today's monetary amount, simply won't add up, for a lot of reasons; and certainly one of them is that it's hard to compare the life and value of someone in 1870 to someone and something of today.

A far more meaningful way to evaluate currency from previous epochs is to go back in time to that year and through research find out what the dollar really could buy.  You should then create a foreword with a list of various goods that we can relate to, such as a home, acreage, and material goods that serve as a touchstone with your best attempted effort on how much that probably cost back in that particular time period.

Too often, while reading, the uninitiated will get the misimpression that someone that was worth $100,000 back in 1908, was rich but wasn't all that rich.  That's plain wrong. According to thecostofliving.com the average house in 1908 would set you back $5,541.  Also, in 1908, Sears issued its first specialty catalog for houses, Book of Modern Homes and Building Plans, featuring 22 styles ranging in price from US $650–$2,500 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears_Catalog_Home#Sears_Modern_Homes_1908.E2.80.931940).  Information like this helps to give us a very good impression of the worth of a dollar back then and is invaluable.

Why is any of this important?  Because of inflation, in general, people will get the value of money from early historical periods wrong (they will underestimate its' true worth) and because their comparison is wrong, their conclusion will be wrong.  And well, that's wrong.

I mean, it's not life shattering, but I just love it when I see an old movie and the price of gasoline is under $.50/gallon or someone goes in to buy a soda and hands the man at the counter a nickel, or gets a newspaper for a dime.  Stuff like that brings a smile to my face, because you're watching it, but you do not really believe it. 

It was essentially after President Nixon took us off the gold standard that inflation reared its ugly head in America in 1971.  Since, that time the value of a dollar has really plummeted and consequently the ability to judge or ascertain the value of money compared to early historical periods has become much more problematic and troublesome.

Thanks Dick!

Time

There are 24 hours in a day, with each hour consisting of 60 minutes, and each minute consisting of 60 seconds.  Every school child knows this and this is simply taken for granted as if time has ever been measured at this particular pace, and alas, that has been the progression of time through the modern age.

That said, In America, we are use to a base-10/decimal system, and consequently, while looking at time from that angle it appears that time is out of sync with our decimal system and perhaps in need of a fresh look.  I'm not the first to question this; the French did this back in 1793, during their bloody Revolution in which their new time system created a 10-hour day, with 100 minutes per hour, and 100 seconds per minute.  Brilliant!  Well, probably not, as it only lasted 17 months and was a resounding failure.   While one can easily say that the French attempt at decimal time was "ahead-of-its-time", it doesn't appear that any new attempt will be made anytime soon, even though, with today's technology it would be relatively easy thing to accomplish.  Why is that?

Mainly because there is an awful lot of logic behind the way time is measured on earth.  The ancient Babylonians are given credit for our 24-hour day, which they created by studying the sky and its stars.  In many respects, because of modernity and our modern lights, we are unable to see the stars in the sky as the Babylonians did.  Additionally, of course, ancient cultures had far more interest in the night sky than our jaded interests of today.  So when the Babylonians studied the stars, they really studied the stars.

They noticed and noted the consistency of the sky, in particular, that the sun will rise and set each evening, as did the moon, and as so do certain major stars that are visible to our unaided eyes.  By studying those stars from a fixed location and over an extended period of time, the Babylonians were able to discover that the stars moved in an orderly and predictable pattern and that this pattern would repeat itself after approximately 12 lunar cycles. The Babylonians then took the nighttime and divided it too into 12 cycles and matched that with the daytime to create a grand total of 24 cycles which we eventually know today as hours.  Additionally, the Babylonians noticed that the sun itself moved a small fixed amount each day and that this cycle completed in 360 days which is also divisible by 12.

Although there were now 24 hours in a day, minutes had yet to be created.   Fortunately, the Babylonians used a sexagesimal (base-60) numeral system and the number 60 works out to be the perfect number.   It is the product of the 3-4-5 right triangle (considered to be the most perfect triangle), certainly known by the Babylonians, and 60 is also the smallest number with 12 different divisors, including, of course, the number 12.   Additionally, the circle which is made up of 360 degrees is also divisible by 60 into a whole number so it all really does make a lot of sense.

The Exception that Proves the Rule

There are certain axioms and proverbs that amuse and/or fascinate me.  The above is one of them.  It seems on the surface to be either nonsensical or paradoxical or perhaps both.  This then becomes a great reason to take this axiom and actually ponder and contemplate upon it.  What does this really mean?

Not too surprisingly we get a variety of interpretations.  But in all fairness, we want to hold onto the interpretation(s) that appears to be the most correct and most in keeping with this proverb.  For instance, you could break the saying down a little further to understand it to mean, that if something is postulated as being an exception, than, by definition, there must be a rule.  In other words, you can't have an exception, without a rule.  This doesn't yet prove the rule but it does demonstrate that the rule exists.

Additionally, let us take, for instance, the traffic example of "no right turns on a red light between the hours of 7AM-9AM and 5PM-7PM, Monday thru Friday."  This would be the exception.  The rule would be that right turns on a red light are therefore permitted at all other times.  So that this would be the exception that would indeed prove the rule and would make this proverb both sensible and correct.

Sometimes when a rule is made there are exceptions put into it as a matter of course.  For instance, in Major League Baseball, the pitcher has to take his turn at bat, but this was later replaced by the Designated Hitter in 1973 but only in the American League.  Then when interleague play began, the rule was further modified so that the DH is only used at American League stadiums in which it is utilized by both teams, whereas in National League stadiums the use of the DH is prohibited by both teams.  So once again these are exceptions that uphold the rule.

Do we need exceptions to prove the rule?  Of course not.  For instance, as Descartes stated: "I think therefore I am," cannot logically be refuted, because if you can think that thought you must exist.  To take this a little bit further, you will by definition never be able to say to yourself, that you are dead, you may be able to say that you are dying, but the fact that you can still think, that you can still contemplate, justifies that you exist on some plane or on some level, perhaps in a yet undiscovered country and that you are indeed alive.

Yet, despite this straightforward maxim, there have been serious doubters such as Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche.  Russell stated"…Here the word ‘I’ is really illegitimate; He ought to state his ultimate premises in the form ‘there are thoughts’", and Nietzsche stated:  ” …a thought comes when “it” wishes, not when “I” wish, so that it is a falsification of the facts of the case to say that the subject “I” is the condition of the predicate “thinks.”

It seems like spurious philosophy. But perhaps, this is yet again the exception that proves the rule, because I definitely exist.