Rich Man's War and a Poor Man's Fight

If you ever really wonder whether this is a land of equality without the peerage of England, you need only study the civil war to get a perspective.  While there were many men who volunteered on both sides of the conflict to fight in the civil war, because of the length of the war, each side was unable to get enough men to volunteer to fight and was therefore forced into conscripting men into the armed forces.  As you might imagined, there were propertied people who had little or no interest in volunteering to fight out of sheer survival instinct, cowardice, greed, inconvenience, selfishness, religious concerns, or other various excuses.  Both sides accommodated these people, probably because of their power within their respective communities.  In the South, there was no class of people more dependent on slavery than the rich property owners themselves with large slave plantations.  These specific people, in of themselves, were the primary impetus for secession and war in the first place, so it is a disgusting hypocrisy to find out that propertied owners having at least twenty slaves on their plantation were exempt from the confederate draft.  Consequently, many of the soldiers fighting on behalf of the confederacy were not slave holders or involved in any aspect of the slave trade, yet they were fighting  and shedding their blood to uphold slavery and their Southern traditions.

The North was far more populous, far richer, much more educated, and when conscription came to the North, there was given to certain privileged peoples andthoseof class and power, the opportunity to forgo the draft by substitution or commutating money for a deferment.   While in principle this substation or commutation was given to all peoples of conscription age in the North, in practicality, it only applied to those that had ready money or ready power.  So in both cases, of the North and of the South, privileges were extended to those who were already privileged to begin with.

None of this is particularly unusual, it is the history of the world after all that those in power, of influence, of the right family, have privileges that the commoners do not have.  However, in a country as young as the United States, in which our Declaration of Independence proudly proclaims, that "all men are created equal" it is quite disappointing to see this discrimination.  Additionally, it's disappointing that a man of the people, such as Lincoln, would allow such a thing to be offered, but the fact of the matter is that substitution is a historic practice, which has been utilized time and time again in wars of all ages.  This does not, however, negate the unfairness of such a condition, nor does it make it right as a matter of principle.  In fact, the point is this, if the rich, the elite, the American aristocracy, the propertied class, know that their brood will not be hurt or harmed during a war, but instead can profit from it, or by it, than it is all that much easier to support war for their purposes.

The civil war was justified, but it was still very much a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.

Insider Trading

The market capitalization of all United States stocks is about $18.6 trillion dollars with nearly 50 percent of all Americans owning stock or equity of some sort whether in their own accounts, their IRAs, or their pensions.  The stock market is news Monday through Friday when the markets are open and there are at least three television programs that dedicate their operations to it (Bloomberg, CNBC, and Fox Business).  Additionally, there are plenty of media that essentially cover the equity, bond, and investment markets such as Barrons, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and Fortune.   Finally, the richest of the rich in America are almost certainly invested in equities and their return on investment on these equities is of material concern to them.

Not too surprisingly, the nature of the game is to make money on money and for those skilled brokerage firms, mutual funds, and hedge funds that are able to maneuver successfully and to create market-beating returns they are richly rewarded for doing so.  It is common knowledge then, that the powers to be will do whatever it takes to get every competitive advantage, to work every angle, to nurture and create networks and connections that will give them an edge over the other players, recognizing that the more successful you are the better the compensation and perks.

Having said that the Securities and Exchange Commission rule § 240.10b5-1 states that you are engaged in Insider Trading when you: "… purchase or sale of a security of any issuer, on the basis of material nonpublic information about that security or issuer, in breach of a duty of trust or confidence…"   That rule seems to put a damper on the party but in fact, it hardly slows it down, as anytime that you are dealing with human greed, money, power, and billions upon billions of dollars, where there is a will there will be a way. 

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that in order to get ahead of the competition you need some sort of edge on them and while there are plenty of avenues to pursue, there doesn't seem to be any better road to take than the one that will enable you to receive or solicit pertinent news that is of material use and is known ahead of others in which they too would desire to obtain that same sort of news.  This then becomes the opportunity to work from facts rather than suppositions or rumors and doing so will give you that material advantage over your competitors and will often make you money.

Of course, the above reflects a violation of the securities trading law and is considered to be "Insider trading", but like it or not, Wall Street is always about trading on knowledge that is not available to the general public.  After all, for the movers and shakers on Wall Street your job has always been to act upon actionable information.  Your contacts, your moves, your conversations, your connections, are all about a symbiotic relationship in which one hand helps the other hand and those that are able to access material information on either side of the aisle are highly desired.

The SEC would have you to believe that a few rogue traders are acting on illegal insider information, but in reality it is pervasive, common, and part and parcel of the equity industry.  Insiders of Wall Street have privileged information, connections, and access to power that you will never achieve and that's just the way it is.   In fact, truth of the matter is, our life revolves around giving and receiving insider information in our personal relationships, at work, or in the public.  Insider trading is more of the case of those not in the know, not so much seeking justice, but suffering from the pangs of envy.

Democratic nominee is new President for foreseeable future

In the last six Presidential elections, each President has gone on to win a second term.  The last time his happened was at the beginning of our republic with Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, each serving two terms for his country.  In all elections, incumbents have huge advantages and this recent trend of two-term Presidents in America should continue.  Of our last three Presidents, two have been Democrats, and one has been Republican.  Offhand, that doesn't sound like any real dominance by the Democrats but those results are deceptive.  In 2000, Republican Bush barely won in a disputed election and his follow-up in 2004, was also very close.  In fact, if in either of those elections, Bush had lost Florida he would have lost the election.  The most important trend is that the Democrats have so many electoral votes that are solidly in the democratic camp that their chances are losing any upcoming Presidential elections are slim.  The following eighteen states and DC have voted democratic in each of the last six elections and they are in alphabetical order:

                California             55 electoral votes

                Connecticut        7

                D.C.                        3

                Delaware             3

                Hawaii                   4

                Illinois                   20

                Maine                   4

                Maryland             10

                Massachusetts11

                Michigan              16

                Minnesota          10

                New Jersey        14

                New York            29

                Oregon                 7

                Pennsylvania     20

                Rhode Island      4

                Vermont              3

                Washington        12

                Wisconsin            10

                Total:                     242 electoral votes

Additionally, the following eight states in alphabetical order have voted Democratic in the last two elections:

                Colorado              9 electoral votes

                Florida                  29

                Iowa                      6

                Nevada                                6

                New Hampshire 4

                New Mexico      5

                Ohio                      18

                Virginia                 13

                Total:                     90 electoral votes

The President needs but 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency, so it is a long shot to believe that the Democratic nominee could not continue to win enough of the electoral votes of the democratic leaning states to win the election.  In fact, the probability of the Democrats not winning at least 28 electoral votes is very slim.

While, no doubt, the Republicans are quite aware of these numbers and perhaps believe a strategy of running a Republican from a Democratic stronghold state such as New Jersey might succeed, the fact of the matter is that Romney was unable to carry Massachusetts and therefore it is quite conceivable or even probable that someone like Christie would be unable to carry New Jersey.

The bottom line is that the Republicans don’t stand a realistic chance against any Democratic candidate that doesn't carry a great deal of negative baggage, therefore any Presidential election is the Democrats to lose and they are a prohibitive favorite over any candidate from the Republican party.  In fact, there isn't any real reason to expect the Republicans to win the Presidency over the next twenty years at a minimum.  The Republicans are left to fight for governorships, senate seats, and house seats; the executive position is simply a bridge too far.

In regards to the highest position in our land, the United States has become much like one-party states of repressive countries, the result is foreknown, and inevitable.

Day trading

Never underestimate man's greed, especially when it comes to a country that celebrates and idolizes people with money as much as the United States.  The trading platform for equities changed when the fixed commission structure that brokerage firms charged was terminated in 1975.  As you might suspect, the higher the cost of a commission to buy a stock the more serious and long-term oriented an investor would be.  It took a while for brokerage firms to recognize that lower commissions could equate to higher commissions in aggregate if the investors would simply trade more, and trading volumes have risen exponentially since 1975.  Additionally, the door for individual investors became wide open with the advent of the internet and the additional competition that online brokerage firms brought to the forefront.  Now, unfortunately (depending on your point of view) individuals have the power to exercise their own trades at their own discretion without using a full-service broker.  Not too long afterwards, some "genius" came to the conclusion that trading in and out of stocks rapidly was the path to untold riches with their attitude being why wait all year to get a paltry 15% annual return, when by making the right moves you might get 15% in one month, month after month!

The advertisements for day trading classes hit their peak over a decade ago but those classes and advertising still exist today but not with the same in-your-face prominence.  The lure, the line, the song and dance, are still beckoning however, because who wouldn't want to sit in front of their computer screen and with a few clicks of their mouse, make thousands of dollars each and every day.  Now that really is the good life!  The problem with this fantasy is that reality helps to clarify everything.

The structure of day trading is setup in such a way that the opportunity for you to lose a lot of money in a very short period of time is hiding in plain sight.  First off, to make the real money you need a margined account which essentially means that you can leverage up your cash deposit with your brokerage firm.  For instance, if you deposit $50,000 (and day traders that margin investments must have a deposit of $25,000 or greater in order to margin) you are allowed to make trades of up to 4x your investment amount (i.e. $200,000) as long as your close out your positions at no more than 2x (i.e. $100,000) before the end of the trading day.  Because of that leverage, moves up and down, are much more pronounced when compared to the actual money deposited with your firm.

Also, keep in mind, that while day trading you have costs that will accrue against your account each and every day.  The commission cost of the trade, the margin cost of the money you are borrowing, and the tax costs for all of your trading.  Still each and every trading decision is yours to make.  You have the flexibility to invest using a real-time ticker into highly leveraged ETS, common equities, options, and you can short those investments too, thereby making it possible for you to play either side of the table to your perceived advantage.

The problem with day trading, however, is that you are an amateur with no insider information, trying to beat professionals and insiders at their game in which they have all the tools and connections.   That, I submit, is a very hard nut to crack.  It's the lure of that easy money and the belief in your own infallibility that gets you into the game, and once in it's hard to get out, not without an almost complete beat-down.

Compromised credit cards

Credit cards are a great convenience and I use my credit cards to purchase just about everything that I do purchase as I hardly ever use cash or my debit card and I don't carry any checks with me.  Fortunately, I have quite a few credit cards, probably too much in fact, but it is important to have credit card backup for those times when your card is declined for some reason.  Typical reasons that your credit card would be declined are that you have exceeded your credit limit, the usage of your card looks suspicious, or your card has been compromised and any subsequent purchases will not be allowed.  These types of annoyances can be quite troubling for a consumer if you don't have an alternate form of payment available. 

When I have an issue with my credit card in which I have been declined, experienced has shown me that phone calls to the credit card provider are best made from home or from my office.  I've done the phone call from the vendor's phone before in which I've attempted to unfreeze my account but that has often not gone well and it's rather embarrassing when you are unable to succeed in unfreezing your account, so I'd rather save that potential embarrassment for absolute emergencies.

The compromising of your credit card is inconvenient for the consumer as one has to call and talk to the "fraud prevention line" and go over your most recent charges; also you're no longer able to log onto your credit card account which can be a real disservice because often looking at those charges online will refresh your memory over the most recent charges made.  Additionally, you will have to upon receipt of your replacement credit card activate your card which sometimes is automated and sometimes not, for some re-issued cards this will also mean a new user ID name, and finally you will need to re-enter your credit card number for any sites that have previously memorized your card for automatic payments or the like. 

The most amazing part of what I have written above, is in all my recent cases of my credit card being compromised, I have not had my credit card stolen from my wallet, therefore that probably means my credit card number has been taken either through some online site in which almost all of those sites nowadays claim that they have sophisticated encryption techniques that are utilized, or it has been stolen by a human being at a restaurant or possibly through a verbal phone credit card transaction.   The compromising of my credit cards is so frequent, that I cannot remember a year in which I didn't have at least one credit card compromised.  In fact, I recently had a credit card compromised, got it replaced, and then within 10 weeks, got the replacement card compromised.

If my case is typical for Americans, the amount of credit cards that are compromised each year in America must be a truly massive number.   You would think that the credit card issuers would want to alleviate this problem by providing credit cards that entail utilizing PIN # and/or having a chip embedded in the credit card itself.  It’s puzzling to me why this hasn't occurred in America, whereas it's pretty much standard in Europe and Asia.  You would think with all the technology that we have available today, that fraudulent credit card transactions would be on the decline, but this doesn't appear to be the case at all.

Comcast as Big Brother

In order to get onto the internet, you have to utilize an Internet Service Provider (ISP).  The biggest players in the field are Comcast, AT&T, Cablevision, Time-Warner, and Verizon.  This article deals specifically with Comcast only because they are my ISP provider, but I suspect that the other major ISPs behave in similar ways.  Each time that we utilize the internet our computer, or our network, is identified by an Internet Protocol (IP) Address which is unique to our computer network.  This IP Address is assigned by our ISP provider and although our IP Address doesn't have our actual name and address directly on it, that information is certainly known and can be provided by our ISP provider without our consent or knowledge. 

Clearly, our privacy is under assault and as always it starts with so-called "good intentions" in which the major media companies which have suffered under the loss of revenue from illegally pirated copies of movies, television programs, music and the like have joined forces with the major ISP providers to setup the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) and "through a progressive series of alerts called the Copyright Alert System (CAS), ISPs will make consumers aware of possible illegal activity that has occurred over peer-to-peer networks using their Internet accounts."  If that sounds innocent to you, it certainly isn't in any form or content whatsoever.  Essentially, the biggest media companies in the world want to turn the ISP that you utilize to access the internet against you and thereby to incriminate you by associating your IP address with you as a person.

There are two basic types of warnings that Comcast will issue.  The first warning type which I believe can pretty much be ignored, is the "Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement", in which you are admonished to not infringed upon copyrighted works.  Therefore the first warning type is really just a shot across the bow, however, the second warning type is the dreaded:  "Alert #1: Potentially Improper Use of Copyrighted Material" which is the real deal when it comes to alleged copyright infringement and the alert number which is part of that heading certainly counts against you.  To date, I have received two alerts against me, and you are allowed a total of six alerts under this Copyright Alert System (CAS) before you are subject to some sort of punishment in which the most likely sanction is that your connection speed will slow down to a crawl for some period of time to be determined by your ISP, but the penaltyt meted out to you could be far more significant including fines and termination of your account without notice.

For those law and enforcement types, they may see this all as some sort of well-deserved punishment and necessary enforcement for cheating malcontents, and perhaps it is.  However, the big picture is far, far worse.  Everyone wants to believe that back in the day when letters were actually sent through the USPS that our communications were not tampered with and were treated confidentially except when a federal warrant was issued specifically to open a certain piece of mail.  Fast forward to the present day and virtually everyone in America expects that their activities on the internet, their e-mails, their web views are private but if ISPs are so willing to accommodate and join up with media companies to arrest our activities, how much easier is it for them to justify doing the same thing for patriotic or more sinister reasons for the Government.

What Ever happened to Small Family Farms

Farming today is almost a pejorative term, as if farmers are considered to be so backward, so rural, and so country, that they are by definition completely out of touch with time and modernity.   If that is so, so much the shame for Americans, because this great country was once a nation of farmers and it still is a great nation of farmers.  At the time of our revolution, nearly 90% of Americans were employed in the farming industry.  Most farming back then was subsistence farming, simply providing enough for one's own family to live and survive on, with any extra harvest being stored, bartered with, or perhaps sold.

There are a lot of advantages to small family farms, because it gives those that work the land a sense of purpose, of responsibility, of worthiness, and of self-sufficiency.  That in of itself provides most of the object lessons that you need in order to negotiate life.  While small farms will not have the economies of scale that large farms bring to the forefront, the small farms of today bring tradition, history, sustainability, and are the bedrock and foundation of local economies.  The United States owes a lot to its farmers, and placing an undue burden on them, is not one of the legacies that should ever be permitted.

Laws are ostensibly setup to make things fair, but the FDA consistently makes laws that benefit the big conglomerate farmers as opposed to the small farms.  The fact of the matter is, it is only the big conglomerates that have the money, the legal staff, and the lobbyists that can stay in step with the FDA, so that when laws are passed, they are structured in such a way that the conglomerates will benefit at the expense of the little guy. 

The FDA claims that its rules are put in place to protect the public at large, but these rules are often an unfair regulatory burden on the small farms and a specific unfair burden upon them.  Certainly, health and food safety should be a concern for all Americans, but that concern needs to be addressed almost solely with the big conglomerates and not with the smaller farms. 

The FDAs' belief that one size fits all is something that is not realistic and it's not right.  Large conglomerate farms differ significantly than smaller farms in the following ways:

1.       Chemical fertilizer usage

2.       Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)

3.       Groundwater contamination

4.        Antibiotics

5.       Mandated contract agreements

While there is a lot of be said for the benefits of large farms in the sense that their products provided are often quite cost competitive, there are plenty of negatives that go along with that territory, and that is why it is to our credit that we still have locally owned small farms that provide choice, local employment, variety, and sustainability to society at large. 

Small farmers care about the land, the food that they grow, the livestock that they feed, because they have a direct vested interest in doing so.  Their self-interest benefits us in many ways and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, especially if the government gives them a fair deal and doesn't over- regulate them.

Surrender

One of the key words in the Christian religion is surrender.  It’s a word that people often don’t want to hear, especially in a country in which freedom is held in such high respect and is so prominent, but God doesn’t demand that you surrender to Him.  God only suggests to you that you surrender to Him; this will bring you the peace, the satisfaction, and the love that you seek.

The Christ story is an amazing story because it doesn’t fit in well with our perception of what a King should be all about.  A king who dies crucified?  Like a common criminal?  Christ was no rebel, was certainly no threat to the Roman Empire, nor was he a particular threat to the Jewish religious hierarchy.  There really wasn’t anything about Christ that couldn’t have been worked out.  Christ sought no earthly power; He came to save His people, to bring salvation to the world, and to show that path and that way to the people.  Christ spoke in parables, not to confuse the population, but to give them the opportunity to quietly contemplate and to savor upon his words and their inner meaning, in which their full enlightenment is revealed by God’s grace.  The truths that Christ taught are the timeless and eternal truths that are the foundation of life itself and the cornerstone of understanding God and His wisdom.

Christ’s crucifixion was not only to fulfill scripture, but to show the truth that God, God above all, knows the meaning behind the Passion play.  If Christ merely died a physical death, his life would have been a tragedy and a prime example of man’s inhumanity to man; but as Christ struggled down the path to Golgotha, having been scourged and beaten, and ultimately to meet his physical death by crucifixion, He also was to bring salvation to man.  Christ demonstrated that His sacrifice, should also be your sacrifice, that His surrender should also be your surrender, that in order to be one with God, you must dissolve your will into God’s will.  The body, after all, just encloses the soul; the body by nature cannot escape the ravishing of either time nor of death, nor can it overcome the laws of the physical form.  The soul, however, can either grow towards God or shrink away from God, or even to seek banishment from God.

However, the story doesn’t end with the crucifixion of Christ, as that merely set the stage for the re-emergence of the victorious Christ.  AChrist that could not be vanquished, could never be vanquished, could never be destroyed, could never be silenced, could never be defeated by man’s law.  Christ rose again in three days to fulfill the prophecy and to demonstrate to the world and to all mankind, that complete surrender to God, binds you entirely with God, makes you one with God, makes your soul and spirit entwined with God, so that there is no differentiation, there is only the truth and the love of God.  Only in surrendering to God, can we become truly in one body with God and fulfill our true destiny to be one with God.

Sobriety Checkpoints

I was recently driving when I had to come to a stop because there was about five or six police cars congregated in the same area on the surface street that I was driving on.  I really didn't think anything of it except to believe that there must have been a bad car accident and therefore the police were out in force to direct traffic and to take care of keeping the public safe.  I was therefore quite surprised when an officer approached my window and asked for my driver's license.  Normally, I make it a policy to have my driver's license out of my wallet as a matter of course when dealing with the police as my attitude has always been, I'm not looking to have a long conversation, or to give an officer more time to gaze inside my car, I'm going to hand over to the officer exactly what he is requesting before he needs to request it.  In fact, previously, when pulled over on a summer night, I simply rolled my window down and place my arm out the window with my driver's license in my hand.  It's not like you have a lot of options when you are pulled over.  Anyway, getting back to the story at hand, when I began to reach into my back pocket to retrieve my wallet, the office said: "why don't I check your license plate and verify your registration is up to date."  It wasn't just the words that he said that disturbed me but also the tone of voice, the matter-of-factness and the principle behind it.  If this was in fact, a sobriety checkpoint, which I believe that it was, than the checkpoint shouldn't be an excuse to check all manner of things about me and my vehicle.  As it was, my registration was up-to-date so it was a moot point and I was soon on my way, but this unnecessary stop wasted my time, inconvenienced me, and was nothing short of dealing with a police state mentality in action.

Sobriety checkpoints are a violation of our 4th Amendment rights to be secure in our persons.  If you aren't in violation of any traffic offence and there isn't a probable cause to pull your vehicle over in the first place, you should simply be left alone by the police.  Subjecting citizens to mandatory and arbitrary sobriety checkpoints are an unfair and inappropriate burden upon American citizens and a disgrace to the principles that Americans shed their blood for.  No society will do well that lives in any sort of police state, because once a police state has been formulated, that police state will always find reasons to arrest, harass, or compromised citizens for any reason or non-reason whatsoever.  Police are an instrument of force often used by those that are in power to assert control and dominance over the population, whereas the true purpose of police work is to serve and to protect the general public.  There is no service in treating all drivers as potential criminals for simply driving their vehicle on a public road, and there is no protection for the common good when resources are wasted for such purposes.  A man with a badge who was been given the responsibility to serve and protect the people must honor that principle at all times, even to putting themselves in harm's way, or dishonor their position by violating it.

Multi-national Power

Corporations are in business to make money.  The largest corporations in America are huge and mighty international conglomerates in which they are operating and making money twenty-four hours a day, every day, in countries located all throughout the world.  Corporations typically aren't really interested in what a given sovereign country provides or doesn't provide for its citizens or the nature of their internal politics, except when it comes to their particular business at hand.  Corporations care about themselves, that is their business, and as long as they can continue with business as usual, they are typically satisfied.

But what if a given sovereign nation has issues with a multi-national corporation?  The response by the multi-national corporation depends upon the issues at hand.  Whereas, virtually no corporation has much respect for countries that wish to unilaterally renegotiate contracts that have already been set in stone with a previous administration or whatever, these corporations are typically willing to be accommodative if the public hue and cry is loud enough, or public sentiment is vastly negative towards them, or if they fear that failure will seriously threaten their long-term profits.  

The problem with these "negotiations" between a country that is negotiating for the benefit of its constituents against a multi-national corporation is that the multi-national is vastly more experienced in all aspects of negotiating, including the art of dirty tricks.  Unfortunately, for smaller countries, they often don't have the infrastructure, the sophistication, good democratic principles or the like, to possibly match their wits against the multi-nationals.  Therefore, the result is often a given and well within the cost of doing business, but what if a country sticks to its principles and stands firm against a multi-national?

Perhaps nothing will happen but that is a very long shot.  Nobody likes to be jilted, and when dealing with entities that are the largest, the most powerful, the smartest, the most determined, and the richest corporations that the world has ever known, you typically will not see them go down quietly.  So a few elite people and media within a given country don't want to play ball with a particular corporation, well, that really is no big deal, because if you dig a little deeper there are bound to be other players within the same country that are eager to move up and to make the necessary accommodations to become the new power brokers.

In reality, when a multi-national corporation makes an offer to your country, it isn't going to be the type of offer that you are going to be able to readily refuse.  This isn't a negotiation between equals, and these small sovereign nations are almost compelled to go to bed with one or many of the multi-nationals that wish to exploit their country and their resources.   Whereas years ago, tribute was paid by occupied countries to their vanquishers, today only the names have changed as the concept is alive and well.  Pay tribute to the multi-nationals that control the worldwide economy, the access to money and wealth, or suffer the consequences of banishment and darkness.

Microsoft is Evil

There are a ton of different businesses that someone, anyone, could come up with and as in all business ideas, some will be good, some rather poor, but there are a few that will be real juggernauts.  Microsoft is one of those businesses that makes an incredible amount of money, has impressive jaw-dropping gross margins, and a market share to die for.   While Microsoft is involved in several businesses in which not all of them have been that successful, its core, its raison d'être, is software.  Software is the greatest business model of business models because it is something that is very easy to replicate for practically no cost, and the revenues that one receives from it, can continue indefinitely.

Microsoft is a master at receiving and utilizing patents.  According to Microsoft's own Patent Tracker, Microsoft has over 40,000 patents.  This intellectual property, the patents, and Microsoft's software is how Microsoft makes billions of dollars each and every year.  For instance, most people do not realize how profitable, Android is to Microsoft. Because Microsoft owns the patent to the File Allocation Table (FAT) which is used within the Android cell phone, Microsoft is allocated a payment for each Android phone sold.  These royalty payments to Microsoft, in which the gross margins must be in the high 90 percent, have been estimated to be as large as $3.6 billion dollars for 2013(George). 

The fact that software is patentable, for twentyyears or even longer, and the fact that software patents are fiercely protected, litigated, licensed, and used as a legal form of extortion is troubling.   Patents for software should be limited, severely restricted, and for very short periods of time.  A patent's place is to protect the cost and expenses made by a given entity, and to reward that entity with exclusivity for its investment of time, labor, and money.  In return for this exclusivity or privileges, society reaps the general benefits when innovation leads to breakthroughs or improvements in product development.

However, the continual payment, the continual royalty, and the restriction of access that patents create, are a grand disservice to society at large.  Software companies, software itself, do not, and should not receive lengthy patent protections.  These patents hurt innovation, raise the cost of products, and distort the benefits of capitalism. 

All companies, should have to prove themselves day by day, and should not be permitted to reap royalty payments as a form of tribute as kingdoms did in the past.  Quite frankly, there isn’t any valid reason why Microsoft must be paid time and time again, for code and for software in which they have made back all their monies invested thousands upon thousands of times over.  That certainly isn't fair, that isn't competitive, and that isn’t innovation.  Software patents have become a protection racket, in which the elite shake down the commoners.  It isn't right and it isn't American.  Benjamin Franklin said it best, over 200 years ago, "that as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously”.

Labor Unions

Wars are fought under the principle of divide and conquer.  There is always a lot more power in a group of people, or fellow countrymen, banding together as one in a revolution, in the workplace, or in the public square.  America has many jobs that pay minimum wage or slightly better in which that mass of employees are resigned to the merits of just having steady employment.

The fact of the matter though is that lower paid employees are ignorant as to what they should be making or how that it is even determined.  Consequently, most low paid employees are more of the mindset to accept the offer that is made as being what the market appears to be offering and to accept it with little thought or question.  That, of course, is what big management wants you to think.  They want you to believe that you are receiving in pay all that you are ever able to achieve in pay and that the deal is fair. 

Part of the struggles that unions have in recruiting members is the semantics of the labor battle in the 21st century, in which the opponents support the "right to work" law.  Offhand, right to work, sounds like something that is pro-labor, but in actuality it is a smokescreen and anti-labor union.  A "right to work" law is essentially a direct knife thrust into the belly of labor unions.  States that have "right to work" laws are allowing their unions to weaken under the erroneous contention that employees right to free association supersedes the compulsory payment of union dues and union membership in which collective bargaining has previously determined the rules of the road for employees.  Right to work laws undercut union authority, union monies, and union power. 

While I do have some sympathy for a worker's right to free association, right to work laws, are the wolf in sheep's clothing in which ultimately those that take union jobs but do not contribute to their union through their dues will find after a period of time, that their collective bargaining position to have been severely weakened and therefore exploitable by management.

With the rise and relevancy for social protests of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media outlets, and the fact that real-time organization has never been more cost effective or easier, there is a new opportunity for labor unions to become relevant.  Therefore it is up to the biggest labor unions in America to focus their attention on areas of businesses that are most in need of the power and bargaining strength of labor unions.   If I was to make a suggestion I would concentrate on Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, and McDonald's, our nation's largest fast food employer.   If these two companies were to fall into the union camp, the lesser competitors of these fine multi-national companies would also capitulate. 

Union organizers can ill afford to sit back and let nature take its course.  The labor numbers of the last fifty years have shown a steady and profound erosion of both union numbers and union strength.  If unions want to remain relevant in the 21st century their fight must begin now, it must be well planned, well executed, and absolutely relentless in its purpose.  Unions have been badly outplayed in recent history, yet, still, even today, the fat lady has not sung.

Homeland Security and 1984

There isn't a thing I respect about Homeland Security.  Certainly not the departmental name, nor its utility, nor what it represents.   Homeland security is a colossal waste of the taxpayer's money, it's a disgrace to America and its ideals, and it serves no purpose but to propagandize the American public that if not for Homeland Security we would be in some sort of dire straits.  What absolute bunk!

While the terrorist attack of 9/11 was certainly tragic and unfortunate, it was not an attack on American soil similar to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, in which Japan had a real air force, a real army, a real navy, munitions, monies, and desire to take war to the USA.   The terrorists of 9/11 were very successful in their mission but hardly a continuing threat to our sovereignty, our country, our principles, or our people and haven't been so since 9/11.

George Orwell's dystopian novel, 1984, was incredibly far-reaching, far-seeing, and prescient, and we owe an deep debt of gratitude to George Orwell for showing us the future that we should be actively opposing.  Unfortunately, though, Big Brother is here today, alive and well in our Department of Homeland Security and Big Brother isn't going away anytime soon.

For our protection we are told that we need cameras so that we can always know what is going on around us, and Homeland Security is quick to point out to us anytime those cameras are successfully used to prosecute notorious criminal acts such as the Boston Marathon bombing.  This is done purposely to send a direct message to the general public that Homeland Security is here to protect us and that we should be grateful for this vital protection.

In America, we are always in a state of war whether domestic or foreign.  For instance, we have the ongoing war against drugs, allowing the United States to continually beef up on more military weapons and personnel in order to protect us and to eradicate this scourge which we have been fighting since 1971.  Our longest international war is against a foreign nation far from home, impoverished, under-populated and destitute, but America keeps fighting Afghanistan year after year since 2001.

Homeland Security delights in selling the story that if not for Homeland Security we would have been attacked again and again by terrorists on our soil with thousands of Americans either lying dead or injured.   Homeland Security would have you believe the lie that because of its monitoring of Americans that it has saved thousands of lives, of terrorist attacks thwarted or prevented.  The more that the public swallows lies such as this, the more lies we will surely get.  While it is conceivable through all of its meddling in private American business, that Homeland Security, may have done something to prevent an attack that in of itself hardly justifies its existence.  If America by its acts, by its laws, by its behavior, no longer is the country of true liberty and the pursuit of happiness, than America has already ceased to exist and is just a shell of its former glorious self.

Homeland Security is un-American, detrimental to Americans, and a disservice to the traditions and honor of America.  It isn't needed and it isn't wanted.  America is too powerful of a nation to collapse from without; our only fear lies within.

Does Mexican Trade Matter?

The United States is bound by two big countries, Mexico and Canada.  Even though Canada's square footage is approximately the same as the United States, its' population pales in comparison though, with Canada's total population of approximately 34 million peoples, is less than California at 37 million.  While Mexico is the 14th largest country in the world, it is far smaller than the United States in both land size and population.  Mexico has about 110 million residents as compared to the United States which has over 313 million residents.

The most meaningful difference between these three countries though is per capita income.  Whereas Canada's per capita income is slightly ahead of the United States, Mexico trails far behind both countries at a mere $10,059 per capita, as compared to the United States per capita income of $51,704.  It is this huge income disparity between our countries and also the fact that within Mexico there is a massive underclass that barely makes enough to live on that creates the desire for the better opportunities that the USA provides.

I do believe that it is fair to say that most Mexicans would prefer to remain within Mexico if they could find the opportunity to make adequate and consistent wages to support themselves and their families.    Mexico currently has a minimum day wage in which in the highest paid out of the three zones, that minimum is about 65 pesos a day which equates to a mere $5 per day.   These low wages and Mexico's proximity to the United States, makes Mexico the ideal place for American companies to utilize for manufacturing.

America should make it part of their national policy to trade with and to work in conjunction with Mexico as much as possible.  A stronger Mexico makes for a stronger America and with America being the largest nation by far in gross national product, we have an obligation to see that our closest neighbor is able to benefit from our size, our power, our money, and our example.

For instance, Mexico should be our #1 import choice for items that because of their size or other reasons are expensive and time-consuming to transport.  Mexico offers the advantages of proximity, cost, and time savings.  Additionally, while working with Mexico to produce finished-goods, because of our respective locations, Mexico will be more likely to use USA items in the creation of the finished products because of our proximity to Mexico which helps our overall trade imbalance.

The United States trades all throughout the world but it is Mexico that the United States should take a special interest in.  It is right next door to us with easily accessible roadways into America, a willing labor force that can be trained and utilized, a population that is underemployed, and desirous of employment.  If Americans are so concerned about keeping Mexicans out of the United States, we need only take the steps to give them opportunities within their own country that will mutually benefit both nations.  

Common Core

Common Core is rotten to the core.  This is government's massive conformity move to take away local school board authority along with parental authority, and replace it with national educational standards that are antithetical to American ideals and its dreams.  This is a nation of fifty states and of numerous communities and cities.  Part of what makes America great is its diversity, its heritage, and its individualism.  It is a wonderful thing for a group of concerned citizens, or concerned parents, or concerned people in general to get together for a common cause and for common needs.  That is part and parcel of what makes a society great, the voluntary getting together of people that aspire to make things better in their community, their schools, and their society. 

I have a lot of respect for local school boards that have not been corrupted by federal monies, or federal grants, or federal interference, but strive instead to do right by the student body that they have been given the awesome responsibility to nurture, to develop and to care for.  The federal government's deep desire in having all states follow the same educational standards is a corrupting power-play to indoctrinate the youth of America, the future of America, to the federal government's way and there is no other way but their way.  That is bad business and bad politics which, if successful will end up subverting the authority of the parents along with marginalizing local school boards. 

The education of one's children has historically been a parental responsibility.  In colonial times, it most definitely was, and home schooling was thereby the norm, in conjunction with schooling created by local government and its own townspeople.  Common Core ignores these historical precedents by believing the lie that one national educational system will work for all of America, all of the time.  If this indeed was true, that one size fits all, in every circumstance, and that therefore this would initiate a new revolution of a brave new world, it would have its merits.  But it's not true, it's a lie.

The federal government does few things right, and many things wrong, partially wrong, or wholly wrong.  Common Core is a mistaken idea, a pathetic reach, and a dangerous precedent, which should be slapped down.  The best education has always been one-on-one, that may be hard to find, and difficult to pay for, but there is no better way to educate a mind than a tutor to a pupil.  The next best educational system is one in which the players have a vested interest in the success of their pupils; which is any school in which there is an accounting that is done concurrent with the education provided. 

As an educational system, any educational system, gets more centralized, more bureaucratic, more about them and less about those that are being educated, the education experience itself disintegrates.  Federal controlled education is one step away from federal controlled groupthink. 

Nobody cares more about your child than you do as a parent.  As a parent, you will do things for your child that no self-serving bureaucrat would even consider doing.  The bureaucrat cares only for himself and the federal government only for what sort of utility that they can exploit from your child.  You, as a parent, care for the content of your child's character.  

Brain Injuries

All of our cognitive thinking comes from our brain, which logically should mean that we should be quite concerned about any trauma or impact directly made to our head.  Our knowledge of head injuries, traumatic brain injuries is increasing and this increased knowledge will benefit mankind as we learn more about the treatment of and prevention of head injuries.

Traumatic brain injuries will impact your life.  For instance, I have a good friend, a family man, with four children, and a steady job, in which he got into a severe car accident and received a traumatic head injury.  Now this same man that I know so well is different, he can't hold a job, and not only that he's become a troubled man and a child molester.  This change in personality could only have come about by his traumatic brain injury as it was not in existence previous to his terrible car accident. 

Recently we have read of professional football players who having suffered from repeated blows to the head have committed violent acts against themselves, against others, suffered severe depression or dementia, and fundamentally their personality has changed over the years.  Autopsy of these players have shown many to have had chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

Howard Hughes was once one of the richest and most powerful people in the world, an entrepreneur, adventurer, aviator, film-maker, and ladies man, but for the last thirty years of his life he was a far different man who had become paranoid and eccentric to the absolute extreme.  What possibly could have taken a man like Hughes in the prime of his life and destroyed him from within?

The fact of the matter is that Hughes had many tragic accidents, for instance while filming "Hell's Angels" he crashed in a small plane resulting in a skull fracture.  Later, in 1936, while driving his car he hit and killed a pedestrian.  In 1943, Hughes crashed the amphibian aircraft Sikorsky S-43 resulting in the death of two men and a severe head injury for Hughes. In 1946, while testing the FX-11 fighter plane, Hughes crashed again with multiple severe injuries.

Each of these crashes, in and of themselves, could have cause the traumatic brain injury that Hughes later exhibited.  I am always surprised that so many people are amused by Hughes' eccentricities, but don't consider as to why his personality would have so dramatically changed.  Head trauma can and will change a person's personality so that they are no longer themselves, because they are no longer capable of thinking as a rational man.

Head injuries are trickier to diagnose because the brain is hidden from our eyes.  That is why it is so important to continue to develop the tests and medical equipment necessary to diagnose correctly potential traumatic brain injuries and then to do what is possible to correct this ailment over time.  Unfortunately, the person himself that suffers the traumatic brain injury may not have the necessary cognition to know that they have a significant head injury and it is therefore vitally important that trained medical personnel take the necessary steps to address this issue in a timely and considerate manner.

Why America is Still Great

Sometimes to answer a question you have to take a look first at the opposing side of the issue.  For many people, there is still an inbred belief or perhaps an indoctrination that America is the greatest country in the world and nothing that is shown or said will ever convince these people otherwise.  In that case, you can call these folks true believers, stubborn, obstinate, wrong-headed, or just plain fools.  If the facts say one thing, yet you don't believe them, than either the facts are wrong, or wrongly stated, or misapplied, or your understanding of the word "facts" needs some serious updating.

America is not great for having the highest income disparity in the world, in which a very select elite, have enormous sums of money, while millions of impoverish people own virtually nothing.   In addition, despite this being a democracy, the country is run like an oligopoly, in which a few corporations have a tremendous influence on government policies and corporate governance.   When certain banks are considered to be too big to fail, yet others are allowed to fail, to whom do we owe this discretionary judgment?  Those decisions certainly aren't made by the people, and government bailouts, which essentially take the taxpayers money and reallocate it to industries that politicians and their lobbyists wish to protect or to enhance, are a travesty in whole, and crony capitalism at their core.

America is not great for spending billions upon billions on Defense spending for no logical reason.  There is no country or countries that could conceivably or possibly confront the United States on the battlefield.  Defense spending should be on a precipitous decline but the military-industrial complex will not short-change or short-circuit itself and apparently there is no power or powers within our government that will challenge them.

America is not great for having the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.  Having so many people locked up is so unnecessary because the cost of incarcerating criminals is a high burden on the taxpayer, whereas for non-violent and victimless crimes, technology of today would allow appropriate government monitors to easily track the whereabouts of convicts in exchange for their being released early from their incarceration.

What made America great, why America is still great, are certain people within this country.  It is the people that made America great, not the government itself which seldom understands the very country and the principles for which it stands.  America is great, because of entrepreneurs that have great vision and desire to bring a new vision to the forefront.  America is great, because so many care about the less fortunate amongst us and donate time, money, and wisdom to so many charities and good causes.  America is great because of our freedom of thought, our freedom to pursue our dreams, our freedom to develop our ideas, our freedom to believe in God, and our freedom to not be held back by our class status or race or creed in our pursuit of the American dream.

America is still great because so many still have the courage, the vision, the work-ethic, and the desire to move forward despite or even because of the obstacles in their way.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?

On August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the primary target of the scheduled bombing.  On August 9, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki which was the secondary target of the scheduled bombing.  These atomic bombs killed either that day or in the ensuing weeks an estimated total of over 200,000 civilians.  While the bombs did also kill Japanese soldiers and took out some infrastructure, the deliberate and premeditated annihilation of civilians on this scale was unprecedented.

History has told us that if not for these atomic bombs, Japan would not have willingly surrendered and therefore the continuation of the war would have resulted in the death of many thousands more of American soldiers in order to bring about Japanese capitulation.  Logically, and without even a cursory review of historical documents, this doesn't make sense.  Italy had surrendered on September 3, 1943, and Germany surrendered on May 7, 1945.  Japan was challenged with a two-front war against the Russians by land and the Americans by sea, so the ending for Japan was already written in the cards.  General Eisenhower stated in 1963: "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Additionally, there are two more important arguments in regards to the atomic bombings.  First, there was only a three-day gap between the first atomic bomb and the second atomic bomb.  That gap should have been considerably longer, which would have allowed more time for diplomatic channels to ascertain the willingness of the Japanese to surrender with terms that were acceptable to the United States.  Because of the incredible and horrible destructive power of the atomic bomb, considerations to humanity alone should have necessitated a meaningful cooling off period before the second atomic bomb was dropped.  One atomic bomb, in of itself, accomplished more than enough, there should therefore have been no rush to drop a second.

The second argument in regards to the atomic bombings is the targets of the strikes themselves.  The following cities were either primary or secondary targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, and Nagasaki.  Hiroshima had an estimated population of 300,000 civilians with an additional 43,000 soldiers.  Kokura had an estimated population of 130,000 and Nagasaki had an estimated population of 240,000.  While each of the cities had legitimate military reasons to be bombed, the nature of the bomb dropped was so in-discriminatory that the result could only be massive civilian casualties, and therefore none of these cities should have been designated as targets.  Instead, the military should have considered striking against an abandoned Japanese military base, or one of the many small uninhabited islands that surround Japan.

Chillingly though, within this, there is another reason, perhaps the real reason, why not one but two atomic bombs were dropped.  The first atomic bomb was a uranium fission bomb and the second atomic bomb was a plutonium fission bomb.  Japan became, therefore, the de facto real world test site for these different atomic bombs; the civilians killed were victims, and the warning shot was made quite clearly to our future red menace, the Soviet Union.

Warren Buffett

I always get suspicious when everyone loves the same guy, with accolades from virtually every political persuasion and mainstream media.  That just raises alarm bells with me and the only reasonable conclusion that one can come to is that someone like Warren Buffett must be extremely well connected.  And no doubt he is.

It does help that he has an avuncular look, and a sort of "aw, shucks" attitude.  Guys like that are dangerous though, because it's people that look non-threatening that can be the most lethal of all.  The fact of the matter is, while one can see investing and the business world as all sorts of things, I have a tendency to see it as a game in which there are winners and there are losers.  While I will admit there can be circumstances that allow for that win-win outcome, more often than not, one party out-wins the other and to be a consistent and proven winner in this game you're going to have to have a lot of wisdom, experience, savvy, gumption, thoroughness, desire, and probably connections.

Although the media likes to portray that you too can make the same investing decision and deals that Buffett makes this is pure nonsense.  Buffett gets deals done that you and I could never hope to obtain because Buffett has the capital to do the transactions and because Buffett is a superb negotiator. In 2008, Buffett purchases $5 billion of preferred shares from Goldman Sachs along with a 10% annual dividend.  In 2011, Buffett also purchased $5 billion of Bank of America's preferred shares along with warrants for their common shares.  Both of these deals made Berkshire Hathaway a lot of money and neither one of these deals were available to me or you.

The fact of the matter is that Buffett has the type of political connections that allows him to have the confidence to make the deals that he does.  Wouldn't you like to be able to pick up the phone and talk to the President of the United States, the Federal Reserve Chairman, or any of the top executives in the largest corporations in the world?  Buffett is going to get the assurances that he needs from the people that make policy so that he can make the best decision for his company.  Buffett is no country bumpkin, he is the insider of insiders and because his public persona is so low-key, he is the go-to guy to get deals done that quite frankly most other corporations and conglomerates just aren't going to have the flexibility or desire to accomplish.

Warren Buffett is one of the elite, one of the power brokers of the world.  Buffett makes the money, gets the deals, because he is part of the club, a member of the Bilderberg Group and who knows how many others.  Buffett is as establishment as they come, and because of his positive self-image, he can be used again and again to get things accomplished that the power brokers want to get done.  Buffett is the second richest man in the world, he's not one of us, and instead he's one of them that control us.

The REAL ID Act

In 2005, the REAL ID Act passed congress, a law that encompasses many things, but its primary purpose is to provide national standards for the issuance and the presentation of identity for state driver's licenses.  Although there has been an attempt to modify this act through another proposed law known as the PASS ID Act, this act has not been ratified by congress.

Many countries, perhaps a majority of countries have National ID acts.  The United States has two primary sources for ID:  its national social security card and our individual state ID.  The social security card does not have a picture attached to it, nor does it have an address attached to it, nor is it commonly used or is to practical to use for everyday purposes; whereas your state driver's license is commonly used as a form of identity in most everyday business transactions and it is most definitely the primary form of ID used in America.

The problem the federal government has with state issued driver's licenses is that formerly each state had its own peculiar way of issuing requirements needed for an individual to acquire a driver's license, the ID itself displayed on the driver's license varies by state by state, and each state has its ownalphanumeric system for tracking driver's licenses issued.  None of this is surprising given that this is a nation of fifty states, but for the monitoring of its citizens, this is a cumbersome burden for the federal government and therefore unacceptable to them.

The terrorist act of 9/11/2001 was the perfect storm for the government to step forward and insist that we needed national identity standards applicable to all fifty states in order to preclude and prevent future terrorists from being able to readily falsify driver's licenses or to receive them in the first place.  While there may be some truth in the above statement, there is probably more truth in stating, that 9/11 is simply used as the excuse for our national government to more closely monitor and track persons within our country.

This act, in and of itself, is basically a national ID act in which by standardizing state ID, your state-issued driver's license ID willnow be effectively nationalized, since all state databases will now share information across state lines.  As bad as the REAL ID Act is of itself, by compelling all citizens to be within a national database that correlates and combines their address, their social security number, their driver's license number, and their birth certificate, it gets significantly worse with the magnetic strip which is now mandated by the REAL ID act.

It is one thing for some flunky to take a look at your ID before allowing you to purchase alcohol, or to verify your ID before entering a club, or any other of the various mundane and myriad activities that a person does on any given day.  Most people can live with that, and don't have a real problem with providing their ID that proves that they are entitled to what they want to participate in.  Further, unless the person looking at your ID has a photographic memory or a secret camera they aren't going to be able to remember everything about you, so your identify remains semi-private.  However, with the magnetic strip on your ID and the swiping of that magnetic strip on a reader you have just given up your entire ID on your driver's license which has been recorded into a database that has been time-stamped and duly noted.

Perhaps in ten years, maybe less, it will be common to swipe your driver's license in order to enter a restaurant, a bar, a library, an office, and just about any public area.  If you like being watched, if you like being tracked, if you like being monitored like a criminal, you will embrace it. 

If you don't like it, you should rail or fight against it.