Annex Baja California

California is our most populous state and directly south of California, across the border in Mexico is Baja California which is subdivided into Baja California and Baja California Sur.   It should be a desire of the United States to annex Baja California, but first a little historical background.  Two hundred years ago, Mexico was a country that was twice as large as it is today.  Our states of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, and Texas (our second most populous state) were all once completely within the confines of Mexico.  Additionally, the states of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming have territory within them that were also once part of Mexico.  The United States of America would not be the country it is today without these states and the territories that we captured or won via war whether foul or fair.

America has a contiguous border on the north with Canada and on the south with Mexico.    In regards to Canada, their per capita income and their per capita wealth is comparable to the United States; unfortunately, the situation in Mexico is pathetic, with per capita income at very low levels and the distribution of this income skewered to an elite and consequently the vast majority of Mexicans are quite poor, and this despite the fact that the wealthiest country in aggregate in the world shares a 2,000 mile long border with them.

The idea of annexing Baja California is something that was attempted previously through conquest by William Walker with a small group of adventurous men in 1853.  Walker's efforts, however, were not backed by the United States, and in fact Walker would be tried for violation of our Neutrality laws, and additionally his mission of conquest of Baja California ultimately ended in failure and defeat.  Fast forward to the present time and Baja California looks like a land that under the right aegis could become a future paradise.  Baja California is an 800 mile peninsula with the Pacific Ocean to its west, and the Sea of Cortes to its east; it's perfect for tourism, agriculture, shipping, and manufacturing.

Of course, Baja California is already populated by a few million peoples and they are of mainly Mexican descent.  The annexation of Baja California would not forcefully remove historic residents from Baja California although as part of eminent domain within the annexation there would be a movement of some of those peoples.  Also, the annexation of Baja California would provide better income opportunities, education, and a pathway for those residents to apply for United States citizenship. 

To effect this annexation, eminent domain would be necessitated and would include all of Baja California with the exception of the major cities of Tijuana, Mexicali, and Ensenada which would be separately dealt with.  The annexation of Baja California would be accomplished with probably the largest bond offering in the history of America, and therefore the world.   This process of change would take time, logistics, and no doubt leave some trail of tears.  However, one need only look at the material difference between our two countries to understand that this leap of faith, would be of massive mutual beneficence and I do believe that Mexico would be amendable to the right overtures and the right deal.

The Water Scam

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed in 1974, in order to protect the public from contaminants in our public water and to promote the safety and protection of these waters.  Overall, in aggregate, our tap water is quite safe and is regularly tested for pollutants to protect the public.  Since safe water is essential and fundamental for our good health it is imperative that our tap water continue to remain safe now and into the foreseeable future. 

Many people do not like to drink tap water unfiltered and the filtering of tap water by the consumer is relatively low-cost and worthwhile.  One must recognize, however, that the filtering of tap water will not purify the water, but it will help considerably in removing chemicals, such as chlorine, and sediment from the tap water.  However, in order to purify tap water, one must purchase a water distiller purification system, in which the water is first heated to the boiling point, which then creates steam which is collected by the water purification system and ultimately that steam is converted back into liquid form, but without the contaminates. You can also purify tap water given the property tools through de-ionization or reverse osmosis.

The above would indicate that there are plenty of tools at our disposal to assure ourselves that our drinking water is clean, especially if the tap water is essentially safe to begin with.  In cases in which the tap water within your community is contaminated, the usage of such water for drinking purposes without taking the necessary steps to purify it, would most definitely put your health in danger.  Fortunately, in those communities in which the water has tested poorly, we have ready access to plenty of good, safe, bottled water which is a blessing.

What is puzzling; however, are those that deliberately purchase bottle water in which their tap water gives every indication of being safe.  Not only that, depending upon what type of water that you purchase, you may be purchasing tap water itself in which the sole difference is the area of the country that the tap water originates from.  While there is water that you can purchase that is labeled as carbonated, underground, glacial, artesian, or as spring water, you will pay dearly for the privilege of drinking it.

For instance, for 2012, Americans spent a staggering $11.8 billion dollars on bottled water, in which for most of us, free tap water is readily available.  I mean I know people that instead of providing tap water for their pets to drink provide them instead with bottled water.  Why? I believe that Americans buy so much bottle water because they treat water as if it is a special beverage, worthy of its own packaging, its own cachet, and its own place.  For instance, when you have company over, and you offer them something to drink, you can't possibly consider giving them a chilled glass of tap water, or tap water on ice, or tap water poured from a pitcher; no, you must provide them with their own bottle water, hopefully from the right company with the right prestige. 

The Last Great Hope for the Republicans -- Win California

I've previously discussed that the Democrats have a stranglehold on the Presidency and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.  The reason that I say this is the mathematics of the present era in which over the last six Presidential elections, or twenty-four years, there have been eighteen states and the District of Columbia that have voted Democratic in each of those years.  The total electoral votes for those eighteen states and DC, which includes California, is 240 electoral votes in which the President need only 270 to be elected.  The Republicans on the other hand, however, have just thirteen states for a total of 102 electoral votes that have voted for the Republican candidate in each of the last six elections.  The difference between these two numbers are so great, that it is essentially a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will win the Presidency unless the biggest State of the Union was to flip to the other side, by backing a favored son.  California was not always a reliable Democratic ticket, as seen by the fact that first Nixon and then Reagan were able to carry the state.  However, since that time, the demographics of Republican registration has slipped considerably, so that today registered Republicans make up a mere 30% of the registered voters in California.

But all is not lost, because first in 2003 through a recall election, and then in 2006 when re-elected, an Austrian born body builder and actor, Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected the Governor of California.  If a man such as Schwarzenegger can do it, it would be considered reasonable to believe that the right candidate could do it on a Presidential scale in the near future.

California is the key to any hope for the Republicans in future elections, as a successful carrying of California would subtract 55 electoral votes from the Democrats and add 55 electoral votes to the Republicans, narrowing considerably the Democratic certain numerical advantage from 240-102, to 185-157, which makes it a real horse race.

But whom would the Republicans run?  They could only consider running someone with a highly favorable public perception that is either from the entertainment world, the sports world, or possibly the corporate world.  This particular person need not currently be a registered Republican, in fact in all probability that person would probably not be a registered Republican, and so the flipping of that particular registration would probably be done behind the scenes, and would remain unknown until such time as it became appropriate for a coming out party for said candidate.

For those who are appalled that someone that is not a professional or experienced politician could have the audacity to run for President, the answer to that would be the public approval rating of politicians in general which is abysmally low so to be perceived as an outsider, would be considered by a significant portion of the people to be a breath of fresh air. 

Although there are many reasons why people vote for the people that they vote for, often times, it does come down to people voting for people that they like, and it's as simple as that.

The Money-changers and Jesus

Each of the four gospels has the story of Jesus and the money-changers, John's story is earlier in Jesus' ministry, and the other three synoptic gospels place the money-changer story at Jesus' final Passover.  The story itself seems out-of-place, Christ the Redeemer, losing his temper, losing his cool; Impossible!  But that perspective isn't correct and first a little background on this passage.

In Jesus time, the Passover was one of the festivals in which Jews from all over the land, made the pilgrimage to the Holy Temple of Jerusalem.   As part of the process of the pilgrims showing their humility and thankfulness to God, sacrifices and/or temple donations were mandated to the temple religious authorities.  In Jesus' time, there was no common currency between distant communities; additionally it was considered a sacrilege to donate coinage with graven images (i.e. Roman coinage) as opposed to appropriate Jewish coinage so monies therefore had to be converted to conform to Temple policies.    All of this seems both practical and reasonable.  However, we read: "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,   and said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."  (Matthew 21:12-13)

This seems like an extreme overreaction by Jesus.  For instance, nowhere within the gospel do we read that the money-changers were cheating their clientele; it seemed on the surface that the money-changers were merely providing a well needed orderly market and service for the pilgrims.  What then is the problem?  The problem fundamentally is that the material world has polluted into the spiritual temple of our hearts and our minds.  The purpose of Passover is to show devotion to our Lord, everything else that takes us away from this purpose is at odds to it, what should matter to use is our right relationship with our Lord, especially on the very days and times that we have specifically set aside to worship Him.

Therefore Jesus' overturning of the tables and the casting out of the money-changers is to dramatically show us that our behaviors and our minds are not right thinking and that consequently we need a "wake-up" call to re-orient ourselves to our primary purpose which is devotion to God and nothing else.  Jesus cast out the money-changers to shake us out of our lethargy and to admonish us that our primary purpose is to love our Lord our God with all of our heart, with our entire mind, and with our entire being.  Jesus had no choice but to treat us as recalcitrant children in which a mere gentle admonition would not be enough to garner our attention and to protect us from our own errors and thereby place us back onto the straight and narrow path.

Jesus never lost his temper in this instance, he instead inserted his Divine Presence to rebuke those who mean well but are fogging the Divinity of God to our ultimate disservice.  Our enemies are not always those that are our fiercest rivals but those that think they know right but are wrong.

The Great Migration

The Emancipation Proclamation was implemented on January 1, 1863, legally freeing all slaves in any State that was still in rebellion against the Union.  The South was officially vanquished on April 9, 1865 with Lee's surrender at Appomattox.  Soon thereafter, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were ratified to our Constitution.  These Amendments eliminated slavery, made citizens of all native born peoples, and gave the vote to all men.  These Amendments in principle thereby gave all Constitutional rights to those that had previously been enslaved and treated as property.  Unfortunately, despite some initial progress for blacks after the Civil War, the South would rise again and essentially subjugate the blacks within their borders to conditions that were alike to slavery but not called slavery.  These became known as "Jim Crow" laws in which blacks were subjected to unequal treatment, arbitrary law, denied their civil liberties, and segregated from whites in employment, education, and social interaction.

It was during World War I that the beginning of the great migration was first enacted.  The industrialized north had relied upon immigration from Europe to fuel its needs but when the War began, that immigration from Europe came to a halt and with America officially entering the war in 1917 and having to build up its military forces and armaments for its own use and its allies, there was an acute labor shortage in the North.  This labor was fulfilled by recruiting blacks from the south and this recruitment became an exodus of over 400,000 blacks between the years of 1916 to 1918 that migrated from the South to the North, at a time in which the black population in the country as a whole was only about 8 million blacks.

It was these migrating blacks, the Northern newspapers such as "The Chicago Defender", and the trains that ran south to north, east to west, which became the foundations that would enable blacks to escape from the oppression of the South to the possibilities of the North.  Was the North that "promised land" that so many blacks had hoped for?  It was and it wasn't.  But at least in the North, there were no segregated trains, no segregated movie theaters, no segregated schools, and no lynching,   Additionally, in the North there were opportunities for employment, for home ownership, for voting, which simply didn't exist in the racist South.

In the North as well as the West, a diligent black man, reliable and with good work habits, was desired, employable, and could make a living wage despite the fact that he was limited to only certain jobs, often denied promotion, and was paid less than a white man for similar work.  Also in the North, a black man could own property in certain areas of the city, have a family that he could provide for and protect, and begin to become part of the American dream.  In the South, a black man could never truly be a man, because the South feared the black man and thereby oppressed, emasculated, and abused the black man because he was perceived as a threat to the Southern way.

It is a blessing though, that in America, people can vote with their feet.  Before the great migration around 87.5% of blacks lived in the South.  After the great migration ended, around 1970, it was about 50:50.  To leave your place of birth, to leave the only thing that you have ever known, to face the unknown and the uncertain, takes great courage and can put your very life in peril.  These men, women, and children that were part of this great migration are the true trailblazers and the forefathers of the civil rights that were achieved many years later.  We owe them a great debt of gratitude because their sacrifices came with much blood, sweat, and tears.

Golden Parachute

Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) have never been compensated any better than they are today, in which their corporate salaries, perks, and bonuses routinely crush the average pay of other employees at their conglomerate.  To make matters worse, somehow it has become standard for CEOs and other high executive officers to get a golden parachute payment for retirement, replacement, or even for dismissal.  That's a crying shame, a sham to the stockholders, and a disgrace to those who are in charge of corporate governance.

The so-called reason for CEOs to receive a golden parachute is in case of a merger or acquisition in which the CEO might be terminated upon the consummation of the deal.  Give me a break!  CEOs and other highly compensated executives make enough money in one year than most people make in their lifetimes!  These executives are highly placed and most will have no problem with finding some sort of suitable employment at a high salary with some other corporation or end up working as a highly-paid consultant.  In any event, for a real CEO, a golden parachute shouldn't be necessary.  Either he is as good as he claims to be in which case he is already richly compensated or he is some sort of failure and throwing good money after bad is a very bad business practice.

Golden parachutes help to give CEOs a Messiah complex, that is to say, that these particular executives are so important, of such value, that it is the corporation's duty, its obligation, to pay them onto perpetuity.  What rot!  The CEOs primary duty is to the shareholders and not to himself.   Therefore, every dollar, every perk, every benefit given to the CEO is taken from the stockholders as a whole.  It is up to the Board of Directors to quit rubberstamping corporate pay, corporate perks, and corporate golden parachutes and make decisions that are in the best interests of the corporation and its stockholders.  Every man likes to think of himself as irreplaceable, but the fact of the matter is that graveyards are full of people who thought the same thing, and the world still goes on. 

Golden parachutes are simply not necessary for executives that are highly compensated and rewarded well enough to begin with.  However, I am not completely opposed to a golden parachute for a merger as long as the condition would read that all employees that are terminated, replaced, or retired, because of the merger or takeover are compensated with the same percentage compensation package as the CEO.  After all, it's only fair that what the goose receives, the goslings should receive in kind too.

In absence of that sort of democratic and fairness in regards to a corporate golden parachute, then golden parachutes should be retired to the dustbin of history.  At a date and time in which so many employees are employed "at will" and therefore can be terminated at any time for virtually any reason, those that are far higher up the food chain, should also be employedunder those same trying conditions. 

The golden parachute for CEOs is nothing more than "gaming" the system, and the system is gamed far enough already.  Game over.

Fractional Reserve Banking

Fractional reserve banking is a fraud upon the American people and other countries in which their central or controlling banks practice the same thing.  The very definition of fractional reserve banking should send shivers up and down one's spine.  Basically, a deposit is made at a bank, and by law the banks need only hold a portion or a fraction of the demand deposits place into the bank and can thereby loan out the remainder of the money to the public at large.  To translate it another way, you make a deposit into your bank in good faith in which you can demand your money back at any time for any reason from the bank.  Instead of safekeeping your money and possibly even charging you a fee for doing so, the bank instead, loans your money out and hopes that you won't come a knocking on the door and demand your money back.  It's quite clearly a formula for disaster and is deliberately duplicitous in its nature.  The apparent purpose of fractional reserve banking is to keep the money flowing and in circulation to the public at large, noble goals for what they are worth, but fractional reserve banking is not the ideal way to do this.

In actuality, fractional reserve banking benefits the banks most of all through the power of leverage.  They banks are protected by law and afforded the opportunity to lend out monies that they no longer have on demand and thereby make profits from doing so.   This is a beautiful system for the banks as long as the public doesn't make a rush to retrieve their monies all at once. If, however, there is a run on a particular bank or banks, and people who made these deposits in good faith, demand their deposits back now, the whole house of cards is in a position of imminent collapse.  This is the fundamental problem and error of allowing fractional reserve banking for demand deposits. 

Far better it would be to have our banking system return to full reserve banking.  Within full reserve banking, a depositor would be given the opportunity to either make his deposit, a demand deposit, and thereby the bank acts in a fiduciary capacity to protect his deposit and in all likelihood would charge a fee for doing so, or the depositor could take all or portion of the monies deposited and be issued a certificate of deposit, or a time deposit,  in which a particular term length amount and interest fee would be assigned to the depositor for the term completion of said loan.  All of this would be on the up and up, in which no money is being created out of thin air, no leverage is being utilized by the bank, and money itself maintains its utility and its usefulness.  This would bring back sound money to our country and would substantially stabilize its value.  In fact, with full reserve banking, our government could still issue fiat money and not have to revert back to the gold or silver standard, so that there would be no return to the brow of labor being crucified on a cross of gold.

Fort Knox

“Goldfinger” is one of my favorite movies, the plot is a little bit difficult to swallow, but suffice to say that the villain, Auric Goldfinger, really does believe that Fort Knox is the biggest repository of gold in the entire world and his sinister operations center around compromising that gold, and thereby making Goldfinger’s gold much more valuable and he, much more powerful.  Now fifty years later, questions have continued to be asked as to whether Fort Knox has as much gold as it purports to have.

Fort Knox is estimated to have 147.3 million troy ounces of gold, in which with gold priced at about $1250/ounce this is worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $184.1 billion.  Incredibly, the reserves at Fort Knox have not been audited since 1953, and it is questionable what that audit even accomplished.  What should be done at Fort Knox is a complete and thorough audit of the gold, to determine not only its quantity, its weight, but also its purity, as urged by Ron Paul and so many others.

The audit of Fort Knox is a no-brainer.  Yearly physical audits are a requirement for most companies and not to have an audit for over sixty years of a task as straightforward as determining how much physical gold Fort Knox contains is inexcusable.  The lack of transparency and the absence of an up-to-date audit is prima facie evidence that all is not sound at Fort Knox and the estimates of the gold that is contained there is thereby highly suspect.

Our government has an obligation to be a good steward of our money and to be forthright and honest in regards to what or what isn’t contained at Fort Knox.  If there isn’t a story at Fort Knox, that all the gold that is supposed to be there, is there, than why not take the steps to document that information in such a manner as to prove that to the American people beyond a reasonable doubt.  

In fact, the government for its own purposes, even if not publicly disclosed, should desire to know how much gold is or isn’t at Fort Knox.  Quite frankly, I don’t believe that anyone alive actually knows how much gold is at Fort Knox and apparently those in power deliberately do not want anyone to know.  Smoke and mirrors can only work for so long and I am amazed, that Fort Knox, gold, and how much or how little gold there is, has survived this long without the ghost being given up.

Gold has been currency in many civilizations over long periods of time, because of its scarcity, its malleability, its lack of oxidization, and its desirability.  Any government can print reams and reams of paper money, can create fiat currency, but that currency will at some point become worthless or nearly so because governments come and governments go through conquest, abandonment, or decay. In fact, gold is the real deal and that is why alchemists tried so hard to change base metals into gold for so many years.  Is Fort Knox the real deal?  In absence of any verified proof, the answer is clearly no.

Federal Deficits

This is a country that lacks both the courage and the conviction to raise taxes on its population in order to balance its budget and thereby run a sound and fiscal federal government, nor does our country have the will to reduce expenses, expenditures, and budgets in order to help accomplish that goal.  While there are plenty of other nations that suffer from the same problem, none are of the size, the girth, and influence as the United States.  Additionally, there are numerous countries that don't run a fiscal deficit; in fact they currently have surpluses, in which of note we have South Korea, Norway, and Brazil.   America has not always been this profligate, and we need only go back to as recently as the years of 1998-2001 in which our federal government actually ran a surplus in each of those years to demonstrate that, but since that time American has become especially imprudent as in each of the years of 2009-2012, our deficits were the highest the country has ever experienced since its creation, even adjusting for inflation for the World War II deficit spending years.  That obviously bodes very poorly for our country's fiscal responsibility going forward.

These massive federal deficits are essentially an unfair and unauthorized taxation on our youngest generation and on generations of Americans to come.  America has borrowed again and again against its future to pay for guns and butter today.  To make matters worse, the United States simply won't own up to the fact that its spending and deficits are out of control and fiscally irresponsible.  To hear House Minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, recently state that: "the cupboard is bare, there's no more cuts to make," in regards to the federal budget is to know that America is morally bankrupt and on firm footing for complete fiscal bankruptcy. 

Business cycles of booms and busts are pretty much the historic norm, despite the belief that government can control or mitigate these cycles.  Consequently, in lean years, it is not surprising that our federal government will run a deficit that is to be expected, but within those lean years, there should be mandated a fiscal tightening on the government itself, but in fact that isn't happening at all.  While incomes for the majority of Americans have been stagnate for almost two generations, those that live and work in the surrounding areas around Washington DC have seen an explosion in their income gains.   The reason for this is as simple as the closer you are to the power source, the further up in the food chain you are especially to the contracts, contacts, and to the lobbyists, the bigger the slice of pie that you will reap and those that touch the money first always get the most benefit from it.  Those that are connected will reap the biggest benefits of a federal budget currently in the neighborhood of $3.5 trillion. 

America is playing a shell game with its taxpayers, it's rigged, it's wrong, and it can't go on forever.   No child likes to be told "no", no man likes to be denied, nobody really likes to lose, but the reality of the situation is that when anybody tries to be all things to everybody, in-discriminatory, undisciplined, unprincipled, unscrupulous, self-centered, and double dealing, it will end with everybody receiving a really raw deal.

Drugs

One of the biggest scourges in America is the abuse and over-prescription of drugs, be it legal or illegal.  What is this lure that gets reasonable men and women to keep making decisions that are poorly thought through, with detrimental effects, and devastating negative consequences?

While there are a lot of reasons why people voluntarily take drugs I will discuss some of the most prevalent.  For some people, there is somewhat of a misimpression that drugs will help them to cope better, to feel better about themselves, and/or to function better in society.  The error in this type of thinking is not to acknowledge that life itself will have its up and downs, its highs and lows, and its challenges.  Drugs don't necessarily solve the inner problem, but more often than not help to mask the problem, but the problem still remains.

For most people, you don't need drugs to feel better about yourself or your situation.  You may think you need drugs but that judgment is often erroneous.  People who consider themselves to be in dead-end jobs, or a dead-end life, or dead-end dreams, often turn to drugs because their life is so humdrum, but the taking of the drugs doesn't improve the life or the situation, it only possibly helps to alleviate it temporarily but the underlining problems are still there, unaddressed and unanswered.

To take away the need for drugs, often you must find a purpose in life that is outside of yourself, a drive to better the world, or to improve your neighborhood, or to help someone in need.  When you have a determined purpose in life, when life has meaning to you, the need or the desire for drugs is dissipated.  Additionally, one must stand up and take responsibility for their decisions and their life in order to beat-down the lure of drugs and its culture.  A man with a purpose in life, a man with focused goals, will not allow himself to get sidetracked by the smokescreen and falseness of drug intoxication.

Man has a yearning desire to feel peace, to be blissful, and to be calm and centered.  He wrongly believes that through drugs he can achieve these goals but in fact drugs deadens the senses, deadens the mind, and turns off the very light that man needs most.   The lure of drugs is the delusion of shortcuts that man wrongly believes will bring lifelong bliss with little or no effort.  Every time that you take a shortcut, you have in fact, wandered away from the straight and narrow path and have instead taken a side path to nowhere and to darkness. 

While drugs rightly prescribed and taken under supervision have their place and their effectiveness, recreational drugs seldom do.  While taking these recreational drugs you feel fortunate if you achieve euphoria or even bliss, but this will dissipate to be replaced once again with emptiness and hollowness.  Therefore you will desire to repeat this cycle again and again, but like a rat in a cage that gets up on his exercise wheel and falsely believes that he is running to freedom or better days, you will instead be on the wheel of life that goes nowhere, takes you nowhere, and ends nowhere.

Annoying Do-Gooders

Doing good and being good is a wonderful thing.  Your life is made up of the decisions that you make each and every day.  If you consistently make good decisions, you will grow as a human being and will be a net benefit to society at large.  This doesn't mean that making good decisions and doing good deeds will always bring beneficence to you; you can most definitely do the right thing and die for it that is the unfortunate nature of this fallen world.  Still it is well worth your while to be true to yourself and to be a virtuous person of good heart, good deeds, and good faith.

What, however, is an annoying do-gooder?  An annoying do-gooder is someone that insists that they know what is best for you and to show their conviction of that attitude, they will do everything within their power to compel you to conform to what they perceive to be the right behavior for you.  While the intent may be to improve that person's character and to straighten out that person's ways, unfortunately that vision often comes from someone that has "a beam is in thine own eye." (Matthew 7:4).

To make matters worse, do-gooders have taken to changing the game from simply one-to-one consultation, whether desired or not, to utilizing the force of government to compel so-called right behavior from recalcitrant individuals.  For instance, while there may be valid reasons why people that smoke should not be allowed to do so inside buildings in which the ventilation is inadequate or the like, it makes no logical sense that people can't smoke outside in the open air.  The do-gooders will claim it's a health hazard but there appears little or no hard empirical evidence to support this accusation, and if you allowed this fallacy to be swallowed, than where do you draw the line as there are probably an infinite amount of activities that people engage in that are both annoying and possibly harmful.  

The do-gooders of today's world want you to conform to their particular brand of group think.  They want you to listen to their music of choice, dress like they do, talk like they do, visit and frequent the places that they do, weight the same weight as them, think like they do, and be just like them.  That's silliness of the highest order but to makes matters worse, the do-gooders will stop at virtually nothing to see that their thinking is the law of the land.  That is why each year we have more and more laws that circumvent our freedoms, our choices, our desires, and our free will.

People will make bad decisions that are obvious to us, and probably are just as obvious to the people making those decisions.  That is their choice, as a good neighbor we can help them to see other choices,  but ultimately sometimes you must first do the wrong thing before you can learn how to do and desire to do the right thing.  We call that behavior: free will; the do-gooders, however, are the opposite of free will, they are our regulators.

Server Minimum Wage

Most of us visit a restaurant at least occasionally in which as part of the final payment of the meal, a tip is typically left for the server.  The tip is left to the discrimination of the patron in most parts of the United States and as a consumer I do prefer having that discretion as to how much tip amount to leave for a given meal, depending on service and performance.  However, there is the other side of the tip equation and that is the server's side.  Many of our laws have exceptions, and in the case of waitresses the minimum wage has an exception in which instead of making at least the federal mandated minimum of $7.25/hour, their minimum wage is set at $2.13/hour as a "tipped minimum wage" and it has been set at $2.13/hour since 1991.  While the law states that your server must through tips and their hourly wage make at least the minimum wage per hour, in practicality any server making the "tipped minimum wage" is going to get $2.13/hour and the balance of their pay, no matter how little or how much, will come from tips, and that is pretty much the end of the story.

Obviously, the lower minimum wage for employers is a great benefit as their labor costs go down, and they can afford to overstaff their restaurant because of it.  Also, since their servers are making such a paltry rate per hour, it is easy to make as a condition of employment, hours in which the server must be at the restaurant in order to help set up tables for the opening of business as well as closing tables at the close of business.  It seems to me that it is hypocrisy of the highest order when people that are making sub-minimum wages are put into a position in which they are working at the restaurant in a particular duty in which there is no possibility of making a tip (e.g. setting up tables before the restaurant is even open to the public).  That isn't fair and the personnel that are making less than minimum wage while doing these duties should be compensated at full minimum wage or better.  For instance, if on a normal day of an 8-hour shift, there are two hours in which the restaurant was either closed to patrons, or no longer were serving meals to patrons and you are working in various job duties for the restaurant during that time, it should be mandated that you receive the full minimum wage or better.  Making just this small change would be fairer for the servers in general, and it would also necessitate management to be more efficient in utilizing its labor resources because they would be more cognizant of the true costs involved.

Of course, there is another more straightforward argument which is whether servers should be paid less than minimum wage to begin with.  There are seven states in which that question has been answered: NO, and one of those states is the largest in the Union, which is California.  The last I checked, California has many, many restaurants and doesn't seem to suffer from not having too many, which implies that restaurants can do just fine by paying their servers a full minimum wage. 

I do not believe that it is step too far to update our minimum wage laws to reflect that tipped employees should make the full minimum wage.  While you could make the argument that this change should be done immediately, I would not be opposed to it being stepped in over a period of three or possibly four years to give those states and restaurants enough time to adjust to the new labor law.

Genetic Modified Organism (GMO)

Science most definitely can get ahead of the curve and in the case of genetically modifying organisms, they have.  I don't believe that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that GMOs in and of themselves are bad or necessarily dangerous but they are an artificial change to an organism and when it relates to humans and their consumption of food products, human beings have a right to know whether the food that they are consuming has been modified by a GMO, and further that the given GMO has been tested by an independent panel to determine its safety and appropriateness before being offered as a substitute or alternative for non-GMO products.

Quite frankly, there isn't any compelling reason why GMO foods need to be offered for human consumption as our current yield on crops is quite impressive without GMO products and creating GMOs merely for the convenience of large chemical conglomerates such as Monsanto and DuPont is arrogant and incorrect.  GMOs are a fascinating area of study, of interest, and of potential, but within this field, there is an absolute obligation to match man's brilliance and invention with concern and consideration for the safety to the public at large.

Another way of looking at GMOs is acknowledging that although man has developed the capability to genetically modify organisms, it therefore does not follow that all organisms should be modified.  It would be far better, to be far more selective in the modification of organisms, and to recognize the purpose of said modification.  Modifying crops so that they are more resistant to certain insecticides sounds like a great idea, but a better idea is to modify the insecticide so that it is less toxic to crops, the environment, and humans.

The food that we consume is the fuel that powers our bodies.  It is quite possible within the consumption of GMOs that the danger becomes not from the occasional digestion from GMO foods from time-to-time but from the accumulation over a lifetime of such consumption.  Why should humans be subjected to such a potential risk if there isn't any valid or real compelling reason to do so?  Additionally, it seems quite fair and reasonable that consumers be allowed the choice of whether to ingest GMO products by proper labeling being provided to them because without such labeling and transparency, humans may unintentionally be consuming products that they would not willingly and voluntarily be signing up for.

The creation and release of pharmaceutical medicine goes through an extensive vetting process within the FDA, but prescribed medicines are something that you take ultimately at your discretion and with a doctor's supervision.  When it comes to food, however, we have to eat in order to live, those decisions are made by individuals, and it is important that we are knowledgeable about the food products that we consume.  It therefore seems reasonable that GMO products must be labeled and also tested in such a way that they are known as being truly safe for human consumption.

Victimless Crimes

What are victimless crimes?  There are several ways to define this, with the best way, to simply state the obvious, a victimless crime has no victims and therefore the only reason that it is a crime is because the State has decided to make it a crime.   The most common victimless crimes would be: prostitution, illegal drug use, and gambling.  However, some people believe that euthanasia is a victimless crime, I don't agree and it is implicit that if someone assists you in committing suicide, that that is a crime, but even without assistance, euthanasia has a victim, which is the person himself committing suicide.

In regards to gambling, many people have an interest in playing cards or dice or sports betting in which they get pleasure out of the possibility of winning money and are willing to take the risk in doing so.  Most states now have some form of legalized gambling, with regulatory authorities and licensing.  Gambling that is on the up and up has no victims, because the choice to gamble is left in your hands.  However, in the case in which a gambler is being cheated, for instance the cards are marked, or the dice are loaded, or the sport event has been fixed, there most definitely is a victim, and therefore that would not be a victimless crime, but in absence of such cheating, the choice to spend your money gambling should be your choice alone.

I am somewhat amused by illegality of certain drugs in America.  The reason I say this, is that there is a misimpression in America that if a drug is legal that it is OK to safely take, and that if a drug is illegal that is unsafe to consume in any amount, but that isn't true at all, because some legal drugs are quite toxic and some illegal drugs are not. The State arbitrarily decides which drugs are legal and which are not and the decision should not be the States to make in the first place.   The choice should be made by the individual and most informed individuals would have a preference to take drugs that are manufactured with controls, clinical trials, and oversights as compared to "street drugs".  It is not for the Government to decide what you should or should not ingest into your body and certainly it is unfair and a waste of community resources to incarcerate people that use or take so-called illegal drugs.   As for those that sell drugs in which they have not been licensed to do so, that should be a crime and there should be appropriate penalties for doing so depending upon the danger and dosage of the drugs sold. 

As for prostitution, this is typically a transaction between two or more parties in which each performs their part as part of an agreed upon verbal contract.  As long as each party does their part, it isn't the business of the State to interfere in the transaction.  There isn't anything wrong with people or the State considering the act to be immoral, but I do take exception to it being treated as a crime though.

Crimes in which there is no victim should not be criminal acts.  Adults should be able to make decisions as adults, we may not approve of all of them, we may not agree with all of them, but those decisions should be left up to the individual for better or for worse.

The For-Profit College Scam

It's always about the money and it doesn't help that the government shoots itself in the foot time-and- time again.  Perhaps the government has noble goals by promoting higher education with Pell grants, Stafford loans, Perkins loans, or various other governmental loan programs out there that ostensibly were created to give opportunity for low-income students to attend college.  The problem with these loan and grant programs however, is that they are structured in such a way that the for-profit colleges utilize them again and again as their "go-to" formulato model their business educational program.  For instance, in Tom Harkin's investigation of for-profit colleges in 1992, the report concludes that for-profit colleges received about $32 billion in taxpayer payments thru Pell grants and Stafford loans for 2011.  In fact, the general consensus is that these grants and loans make up around 85-90 percent of for-profit college revenues so that their business model is purposely constructed around these taxpayer-backed monies.

For-profit colleges have minimal interest in actually educating their students, as their incentives are built around recruiting specifically students most likely to need funding by Pell grants and Stafford loans since this money supply is guaranteedor granted by their respective government agencies.  The budgets of for-profit colleges are built around marketing and recruiting, and their incentives are structured specifically around those incentives.  For-profit colleges spend considerably less than traditional colleges for teacher's salaries and the costs for students of attending for-profit colleges are significantly higher than traditional colleges.  The success of for-profit colleges comes down to an insider knowledge of working the system to their advantage and the utilization of massive amounts of monies spent specifically recruiting the student base that they are seeking, which are their primary goals to the virtual exclusion of all else.

If the government was serious about putting an end to the abuse of the for-profit college system which is detrimental to students for the inferiority of the education, the expense of the education, the lack of discretion of students qualifying for the education, and the unnecessary debt burden of students for this education, the government would amend their rules for Pell grants and Stafford loans immediately.  The fuel that feeds for-profit education is the grants and loans that the taxpayers of America are stuck making good on.  For-profit colleges would take a significant blow, they would have to re-invent themselves if these funds were severely restricted or removed from their business model.

The government has the power to give and the government has the power to take away, it need only exercise those powers to correct this injustice to students, to the taxpayers, and to the educational system in general.  If for-profit colleges want to exist or co-exist into the future, they will have to morph from their present state of marketing and recruiting scams with little real emphasis on valid education, to become true institutions of higher learning that help to create prepared minds that are of service not only to themselves but to society at large.

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.