Smoking fines in non-smoking hotels

Nowadays there are plenty of hotels with strict non-smoking policies.  These policies are so strict that if the hotel suspects you of smoking via physical evidence of cigarette smoking within your hotel room, or possibly through just the smell of the air, that you can be subjected to fines of $150 to up to $500 depending upon the property.   A friend of mine recently suffered such a fine, she actually did smoke in the room, and the circumstantial evidence gathered against her was a couple of photographs of cigarettes butts in a "pseudo-ashtray".    The fine was $200 and she did not dispute it, despite the rather large charge which far exceeded the price of the room per night.

Because hotels are in the hospitality business they do have a conscious responsibility to provide each guest satisfaction and it would seem that a high monetary fine for smoking, in which evidence will at best be circumstantial, and sometimes subjective (it smelled like smoke), seems counter to their business model., especially when someone is erroneously accused of smoking, when they did not in fact smoke in the room.  While one can understand that the removal of a smoke smell within a room will necessitate further cleaning and special treatment, hotels have significant pricing power and consequently there isn't any doubt that their sophistication and effectiveness in correcting smoking issues in an efficient and cost-effective way would be part and parcel of their repertoire.   Consequently, the fines that are charged to the guests should realistically reflect the actual invoice work and possible loss of business involved, and nothing more than that.

Guests have a right to be upset when receiving such a fine, since no hotel that I have ever checked into, makes it a matter of policy, to carefully and slowly go over all their legal issues about things that you can't or cannot do in their rooms, and the fines and punishment that go along with disobeying said rules.  For instance, automobile and health insurance companies, make you check a box that you are a non-smoker, when issuing you your insurance card, in which, by checking the box, you have specifically stated that this is who you are.  Hotel companies that subject their guests to smoking fines, should follow the same policy, in which smokers are given instruction as to where they can legally smoke while staying at the property and have explained to them that they will be subject to a fine if this is violated.  Additionally, it's somewhat disturbing that the person that busts you for smoking, is often the housekeeper who is given a monetary bonus for catching smoking violations, which to me, seems rather perverse in its structure.

As you might suspect, government has gotten involved into the smoking and hospitality controversy, in which lawsuits have been successful against certain hotel chains for false advertising when advertising their property as non-smoking, when they are found to have smoke residue within their premises from guests that have broken these policies.  

This era is known as the ascent of the non-smoker, in which their rights trump all others.  Smoking is considered to be dirty, vile, dangerous, obscene, inconsiderate, and cigarette smoke is considered to exacerbate asthma, emphysema and bronchitis.  Despite this entire outcry about smoking, its smell, and its residue, in actuality the whole thing about smoking really come down to modifying societal behavior and hotels are just one more area in which the non-smokers have triumphed.

Public Executions

I abhor the death penalty and consider it on its merits alone to be in violation of our Eighth Amendment which protects us from "cruel and unusual punishments".   Yet, the death penalty is part of our legal law in 32 of our 50 states.  Additionally, the United States holds the dubious distinction of ranking #5 on the the number of executions performed over the years 2007-2012, following in the footsteps of such enlightened and liberal countries such as China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.   

The last public execution in the United States was held in Kentucky in 1936, in which a raucous crowd estimated to be as large as 20,000 people witnessed the condemned being hanged at 5:32AM. Headlines read from Chicago -- "Death Makes a Holiday: 20,000 Revel Over Hanging." From Evansville, Ind. -- "Ghostly Carnival Precedes Hanging." From Louisville -- "'Did You Ever See a Hanging?' 'I Did''.

Apparently, this was the last public execution in America, but it certainly was not the last execution in America.  Despite our 6th Amendment which states that we have a right to a "public trial", evidently we, the public, don't have a right to see capital sentences carried out.  This doesn't make any logical sense.  If the death penalty is suppose to be a deterrent, if the death penalty is a legally mandated State method to exact vengeance (or justice) on a recalcitrant, diabolical, and hideous criminal who has been duly convicted by his peers, why is it held in private?

To make matters worse and to show the complete contradiction and stupidity of continuing to execute criminals as a form of punishment, at the present time in America, all executions are performed using some form of lethal injection.  Ostensibly, lethal injections are used to kill criminals sentenced to death, because it is considered to be a more humane, painless, and civilized way to kill the person.  This makes the very poor case that if you kill people in a pleasant way, as if they are just going to sleep, you somehow, are perceived to be more caring.  

Instead, you have simply made it more palatable to kill someone.  The real feeling that should be conveyed when you kill someone in a deliberate, premeditated manner should be one of pure horror, disgust, or regret.  If it is so right to execute duly convicted criminals by State statue, it should be done in public, in a meaningful manner, and it should be broadcast live on either the internet or via television. 

If this sounds barbaric to you, it should be, but it is also necessary.  The execution of our Savior was done in public, and He was executed as a common criminal, between two other criminals.  To all those States that have and utilize the death penalty, it is time to drop the pretenses, tear down the curtain, and open up your nasty business to the public.  If this is what America wants, give it to them.  If the law has adjudged that the correctly convicted criminal is no longer worthy of life, kill him right in front of our eyes, and maybe then we can see for the very first time.

Most of the USA is Unpopulated

The largest nation in the world by far is Russia, which is then followed by Canada, the United States, and China, in which Canada, the United States, and China all are very close to being the same size in land mass.  Depending upon the economist, the USA took over as having the largest GDP in the world from Great Britain perhaps as soon as 1880, and certainly no later than the commencement of WW I.  No country, even today, is close to the USA's GDP but because of China's high growth rate and its greater population (the most in the world), in contrast to the USA's much lower growth rate and much smaller population, projections show that China should surpass the USA as the largest country in the world by GDP in 2019 or thereabouts.  While there may be doubt as to what year this will occur, there is little doubt that it is inevitable that it will occur.  

The USA prides itself on being #1, and there is a very straightforward way for the USA to maintain its status as #1 and that is through a concerted program of sustained population growth.   To get an idea of how under populated and how empty the United States is, just simply get in your automobile and drive around the country and you will notice acres and acres, miles upon miles, of empty land, underutilized and under occupied.   To get a further perspective, businessinsider.com estimates that half of our population resides in just 146 counties out of a total county list in the USA of over 3000.  Additionally, worldatlas.com states that South Korea has a population density of 1273.5 persons per square mile, as compared to our meager79.55/sq mile. 

The United States is gifted with its great capacity for food production in which we are the largest exporter of food in the world.  The USA also has an abundance of energy sources, from coal, to hydroelectric, to natural gas, to oil (in all of its forms), to renewable, and also nuclear energy to not only sustain its growth but to expand it.  The USA is a mature country in which the infrastructure that we need to communicate, trade, travel, and educate ourselves is firmly in place. 

What America lacks at this point is population growth which currently is less than 0.75% per year, hasn't been above 1% since 2000, and hasn't been above 2% since 1950.  Our population growth isn't close to being what is needed for the USA to sustain being the most powerful country in the world in the sense of GDP and power.  Even with China taking over as the #1 nation in the world in regards to GDP, that will not equate to their becoming the most powerful or the most influential nation in the world, however, it will inexorably change the mindset of the other major nations in the world and at such time as the world transfers and acknowledges that there is a new king, it will dim the light of the USA and its influence.

If you believe that what China brings to the world, are exactly what the world needs and desires, than we have little or nothing to worry about.  On the other hand, if you believe that the USA represents the last best hope of mankind, it is high time; in fact, well beyond high time, that we make an immediate and massive increase in our population, by incentives, by immigration, by all means necessary.   Remember, the best way to destroy your enemy is to make him your friend, and that can be readily done by residing, participating, and living the American way in America.

Legal Marijuana

Medical marijuana is legal in nineteen states and in Washington DC, while recreational marijuana usage is legal in Colorado and Washington (Summer 2014).  The strange and mysterious thing about the legal status of marijuana in these states is the fact that marijuana usage and its sale is still illegal under federal law, and as Robert Weiner, former spokesman of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, states "…let's not forget that federal law continues to trump state law."   Consequently, there would seem to be a Damocles sword hanging over the entire marijuana business, yet, for those purveyors of the cannabis plant, this seems not to worry them too much.

Perhaps those in the marijuana business feel that they are relatively safe from the federal government preempting their state law, which may be the case with the current presidential administration, but certainly without clear federal guidelines going forward is not necessarily going to be the case with future administrations.  In regards to state and federal power and the law, the federal government has been in ascendancy since the civil war, and certainly the federal government has triumphed over state law in regards to civil rights, birth control, and school desegregation to name just a few.  Additionally, the federal government has another more subtle move that they can utilize against recalcitrant states, which could be similar to how the feds were able to convince the states to raise their drinking age from 18 to 21, in which in that case the states not in compliance with the new desired drinking age stood to lose about 10% of their federal funding for highway transportation.   At the end of the day, all fifty states signed up for the new drinking age of 21, as the money involved simply was too large to walk away from and those in the subject age group of 18-20 didn't have any political muscle to fight against it successfully.  Unfortunately, for the federal government the only age group in which a majority of people prefer marijuana remaining illegal is in the age group of 65+, still, where there is a will there is a way.

Another possible strategy for the states that have legalized marijuana is to test federal law and consequently to get a ruling which will help to clarify clearly and unequivocally what the feds will or will not do with legal marijuana.   This test should attempt to determine: distribution age limits and ID requirements, bank and credit card transaction rules, marijuana usage on federal property within the subject state, and equity investment guidelines from out-of-state businesses or people.  If this court case test does take place it will allow all parties involved to gauge how the wind is blowing with the federal government, and will help to subsequently create a firmer foundation for the businesses that are investing in capital equipment, employees, training, product, sales, security, and advertising, going forward.

The will of the people seems clearly set in the direction of either medical marijuana, or recreational marijuana being normalized within our society, and consequently as this industry matures, marijuana should be regulated much like a product such as cigarettes or alcohol, with appropriate sin taxes applied.  Our federal government has an obligation to set a course and stick to it and/or to acknowledge that they will stand down.

Food Waste at Restaurants

The United States Department of Labor estimates that in 2010, the average consumer spent $2,505 on eating food away from home, but what of the leftovers and food spoilage that is generated from said restaurants.  While some of us take our leftovers home, many of us don't, and every restaurant has quantities of food that at the end of the day must be disposed of because that food is spoiled, bruised, unpalatable for sales, or for various other reasons.

The simplest thing to do with food waste is to dispose of it through our garbage disposals, through our trash, and through our incinerators and landfills.  Yet, it is important to remember that the essential purpose of food is that it is fuel for the body, consequently we would be far wiser to recognize that throwing away fuel is not an efficient way of dealing with this product.  While there is a lot to be said about having the ability to properly cook, process, and create palatable food plates, there is a responsibility to also knowingly create processes that will deal with the inevitable food waste.

Food waste should be divided between those food items which are still edible by humans but have not passed a restaurant's strict standards for being visibly appealing, or considered to be as fresh or as pleasing to the patron as the restaurant desires.  These food items should then be consciously set aside for food banks and the like for distribution to local neighborhoods as a healthy fresh alternative with standards in place to assure that the food is and remains safe for human consumption.

As for food waste, that is no longer considered to be palatable, safe, or pleasing for human consumption, these food items should be set aside and put into bins in which the intention is to provide this particular food waste for swine or other acceptable livestock.   The food waste should be properly treated so as to not inadvertently create any food related diseases for pigs, and the hog farms utilizing food waste for their animals should be periodically evaluated and certified to verify that the swine are safe and healthy.

All other food waste that isn't practical for either food or swine consumption, should be put into specific food composting bins.  Allowing food waste to go to landfills does not rectify the problem of food waste it only exacerbates it, because of inevitable methane gas that is created from bacteria working through our food waste in which methane is a greenhouse gas which has a global warming potential (GWP) of 21 as compared to carbon dioxide's rating which is only 1.

If these suggested food waste policies become an integrated part of the restaurant business, this will also translate into our own activity at home in which we too will be more cognizant of our own food waste and just like recycling plastic, cardboard, paper, and other products, we will come up with community programs that will help us to be more efficient in the disposal and treatment of our own food byproducts.

Confession and the National Security Agency (NSA)

In the Catholic Church, confession is formally known as the Sacrament of Penance.  The purpose of confession is to reconcile our self to God by confessing our sins, repenting of those same sins, paying penance for one's sins, and then to petition God for forgiveness of one's sins.  Within this Sacrament, the priest is considered to represent Christ and thereby the confession itself is absolutely confidential, its contents not to be disclosed for any reason unless the penitent consents or assents to this for some particular cause.  The Sacrament of Penance and the confession therein is ultimately between the penitent and God, with the priest representing the conduit for this confidential and its inviolable conversation of penitence and God's good grace.

Our National Security Agency (NSA) is neither God, nor a place of penitence, although the NSA has, in its own way, God-like powers of being able to listen into, or read, our most intimate, private, and confidential conversations both written , text, and spoken.   Far from these private communications being held in the strictest confidence, the NSA uses this information for its own purposes and answers to the Department of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence.   The NSA is not a rogue agency; its purposes and its data are authorized by Executive Order, in an obvious and unfortunate runaround of our Constitutional protections which have been violated.

The NSA intercepts Americans' phone calls, text messages, internet communications, web browsing activities, and then correlates and analyses this massive database.  In order to perform these functions thoroughly and completely the NSA works hand-in-hand with phone service providers and internet service providers, who are only too happy to provide this data to the Government for a rich price, as long as they also have documentation that purports to show how their arms were twisted and thereby how they were compelled by law to store and provide said information to the NSA. 

As always, our Government wants to assure us that this unprecedented government snooping and invasion of our privacy is for our own protection from enemies foreign and domestic.   Some people actually believe this, others believe that they have nothing to hide, therefore they don't really care, and still others are always willing to sacrifice personal liberty for personal safety.  There are a few, however, that recognize that when the Government has the power to compromise, expose, or to silence those that are inconvenient for its policies, while rewarding those that support or enhance their machinations, that our Government has morphed from one that once was a bastion of freedom into instead one of oppression.

Our Government would have us to believe that we should be in constant fear of our life, of our limb, of our family, of everything.  The business of fear is a very good business for the Government, but this is merely a cover so that the Government can do its dirty business against us.  My communications are for me and for my intended recipients, none other of this earth, other than God Himself.  It's dirty business to invade another's person's privacy, their intimacies, their thoughts, their actions, and their dreams without invitation.

God will never violate your desire of free will and free thought, our government, however, makes it their policy and goal to do so. 

AMBER Alert

I recently got a new cell phone and while out at a public event, I received an AMBER (America’s Missing: Broadcasting Emergency Response) alert.  The text sent to my phone provided a little information about some child kidnapping and the make, model, and license plate number of the alleged kidnapper.  Honestly, I only glanced at the message and then deleted it, since there wasn’t a darn thing I could do about it, but I was amazed at the technology that would even allow the text to go to a cell phone in which I was at a significant distance from my actual home.  This could only mean that these AMBER alerts are actually location specific and that therefore other people must have been receiving this same alert on or about the same time.

While on one hand, I can applaud the effort and the efficiency of providing real-time information to the general public in order to help locate and to find the kidnapper, I also must question as to whether we the public are not also being subverted and duped into becoming part of a new-world citizen patrol.   The general public is not law enforcement people, they don't understand the nuances of law enforcement, nor do they understand the parameters of law enforcement.  These issues are best left in the hands of law enforcement personnel and should not be second-sourced to amateur citizens, except under the most dire of situations.

While the intentions of the AMBER alert may be all well and good, it does not take too much of a government stretch to take something that is specifically setup for real emergenciesand kidnappings, and morph it into something in which pliable citizens are used for nefarious purposes against other citizens.  It is a very dangerous thing to turn the mindset of everyday citizens into a mob-like mentality in which the information that is provided to these citizens is acted on without ever clearly thinking through the ramifications of it.

There can never be fairness or justice in this country, if those that are accused of crimes are not given their full constitutional rights.  What is amazing to me is that although we have the technology to send out AMBER alerts, they aren't really necessary, since police and law enforcement agencies already have sufficient sophisticated tools that would seldom require citizen interaction. 

However, there are psychological reasons why law enforcement in conjunction with certain government agencies would like to treat their private citizens as molded agents of the state.  In times of civil crisis, the government would have the inside track on real-time communications with its population and could easily use that advantage to bend the people's will to the government desires.  This is the clear and present danger that citizens should worry about.  The State is not always right, does not always have your best interest in mind, and the State exists primarily to propagate itself.

AMBER alerts, although well-intentioned, should also be seen as the proverbial Trojan horse.

Too big to Fail

Bank of America, sounds like it really is the 'Bank of America', but alas it is not the federal bank of the United States, but instead a large multi-national banking conglomerate and once a proud member of Dow Jones Industrial Average.   Bank of America was once simply a Los Angeles-based bank, in which the Bank of Italy merged with the Bank of America, while retaining the name of Bank of America (B of A).  Initially, banking laws limited the Bank of America to conducting its business in just the state of California, but when these laws were modified the era of interstate banking commenced and B of A ultimately became a true multi-national bank holding company.

The decisions that allowed companies such as Bank of America to diversify into non-banking industries, such as insurance and brokerage activities, and to be nationwide in reach has had far reaching implications in the United States.   On the beneficial side, it was Bank of America which created the precursor of Visa credit card with their BankAmericard which help to revolutionize the personal credit business throughout the country.  Additionally, having interstate banking allows companies such as B of A to take advantage of economies of scale.  Also, banking conglomerates that can offer to their constituents insurance and brokerage services, allows these bank-holding companies to be all things to all people, by becoming that one-stop shopping place for all of your financial needs.

On the other hand while there are valid reasons why interstate banking should be allowed, there are huge dangers involved that have nationwide implications.  First off, banks that do not have a local footprint in your community have no compulsion to lend money within that community.  Furthermore, the bigger and more powerful an institution is, the more damaging to the country at large, should it fail. 

During the financial crisis of 2008, B of A and Merrill Lynch (a subsidiary of B of A) received $45 billion dollars from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.  This infusion of money into B of A by our government sends a most inappropriate signal to all Americans.  This message is unequivocal and clear, that recklessness in the operation of your business will not be borne by the company at hand, but instead will be borne by the stockholders or the citizens at large.  Consequently, this means that in the good times in which a particular bank-holding conglomerate takes massive risks and succeeds, it will benefit from those times, and when said company makes foolish and imprudent decisions, those mistakes will be backed by the tax-paying citizens of our country in which they will reap no reward, little benefit, and never have the opportunity for the same consideration to be extended to themselves.

Ultimately, what we heard is that companies such as B of A had to be saved by our government, because the consequences of their failure would have been catastrophic to the economy.  Perhaps this is so, perhaps this is not.  What we do know is that any conglomerate which is thereby deemed to be "too big to fail" must divest itself of its subsidiaries and businesses that make the organization too big to begin with.  This has been successfully done before with Standard Oil of New Jersey and with Bell System to name a notable few. 

If we will not compel this divestiture now, after this disastrous financial crisis brought upon us primarily by greed, when will we have the moral courage and fortitude to do so?

Third World Exploitation

Loans to third world nations are often initiated through the World Bank or the International

Monetary Fund (IMF).  While both of these institutions are global in nature, and ostensibly owned by the world at large, the biggest player in both of these funds is the United States, in which the USA has the highest percentage of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) which is essentially a claim on currency held by the IMF, and the United States also has the highest percentage of total votes at 16.75% in which the 2nd highest voting percentage is Japan at 6.23%.  For all intents and purposes, the World Bank and IMF are controlled by the richest countries in the world and they know it.

Although the IMF and the World Bank will not state it, their real purpose in providing loans to third world countries is for those countries to then develop a lot of debt in the creation of their infrastructure and in the process of scaling up in order to increase their exports, in which that debt created must be serviced by the IMF or the World Bank and failure by those countries to adhere to repayment terms of their debt will effectively cede control of their economies to the IMF and to the World Bank.

Clearly, the money that is lent to the third world countries has strings attached.  Not too surprisingly, since the money and capital is controlled by interests outside of the country, the particular impoverished third world country will agree to what they have to agree to in order to bring the possibility of prosperity and fair employment to their citizens.  Often these agreements, work out quite favorably for the money interests but not too well for the country that is receiving the financial aid.

There are two fundamental problems that third world countries have with loans.  The first is the corruption which is endemic in so many of these countries which is aided, abetted, and encouraged by outside interests as it is far easier and more cost efficient to take care of a few well-placed individuals and organizations within a third world country rather than trying to help establish a well-balanced and stable democracy.   The second issue is fundamental to interest payments in general, which is, that it is difficult, well-nigh impossible sometimes, to properly service a large loan over a period of time without either defaulting outright on the loan or simply not being able to meet its stringent and strict time demands.

The IMF and the World Bank are not charities and they don't treat their loans as charity.  They are, in fact, the tribute that third world countries must pay homage to, and for too many of these poor, impoverished nations, they will recognize over time that for all intents and purposes, their poor people remain poor, and they are effectively plundered with the rich nations reaping the benefits of the third world's sweat labor and the carrot on a stick usury game.

Stock market returns, inflation and GDP

During our current bull market, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) appears to set a new record almost every day, but numbers can be quite deceptive, especially when those numbers are not constant in value, which is the case w. the DJIA and the stock market, because these markets are denominated in dollars, which change in worth every day.  Because of inflation, even moderate inflation, the DJIA should go up over time and historically it has gone up over time as any stock market chart will clearly show you, but if inflation is 2% and your investments only go up 2%, you haven’t done any better than treading water, or in actuality you have probably lost a little money because capital “gains” are taxable.  In all likelihood, however, during this current bull market, you have done much better than 2% on an annual basis and therefore your assets have gone up in tandem.

It is quite misleading though to take a number that has doubled, for instance, and to assume that means that your investment has doubled in real monetary value.  While there isn’t any doubt that mathematically your investment has doubled, because of inflation your investment return depending upon the length of time you have owned it is far less robust that you might imagine.  That is why it is specious to state that historic stock returns are 6.73% (for example) without taking into account the inflation that has occurred over that same period.  To fairly judge how good or how bad stock market returns have historically been, inflation has to be taken into account.

Once inflation is taken into account the DJIA return is far less impressive with http://home.earthlink.net/~intelligentbear/com-dj-infl.htm arguing that the real return of the DJIA since 1910 is 1.9%.  To make matters even worse, none of this takes into account human proclivities to buy equities when then should be selling them and to sell equities when they should be buying them.   More to the point, the DJIA has its market cycles in which the ups and downs can be quite significant and break the investing resolve of even the staunchest investors, even over relatively short periods of time.

So thereby we are left with a relatively miserly real return of somewhere around 2% and not the eye-popping true double digits we hear so much about. Further thought demands and implies that when it comes to stock market returns that there should be a very close correlation between real GDP growth and real stock market returns, in which from the years 1947 through 2013 the real GDP growth in America as reported by tradingeconomics.com was 3.24%.  For that same period of time, the DJIA inflation-adjusted return was approximately 3.36% so that this correlation is indeed very close.

Therefore it would appear that the stock market reflects over time, the inflation-adjusted gross domestic product of the United States.  This makes sense, because the DJIA should mirror back to us the combination of stock earnings both past and projected, and the goods and services produced by this country on a yearly basis.  Consequently, real GDP growth and its trend line will be the ultimate determining factor of the stock market.

Roundabouts

Most people when they are driving just prefer to keep on going, to keep on moving, and aren't particularly thrilled about stopping at traffic lights or even worse, stop signs.  Traffic lights typically aren't too bad, especially if there is a sensor in the road that recognizes your vehicle and if the traffic light is reasonable about turning green or staying green for your driving pleasure.  Stop signs, on the other hand, are almost always annoying because by law, you must stop, even if there isn't a car, a person, or a deer around for miles and miles.

The first time I came upon a roundabout I really didn't know what it was, or what was going on, but after a brief learning curve, I recognized the superiority and brilliance behind roundabouts.  For instance, roundabouts are fairly intuitive as you yield to the car in the roundabout, roundabouts are cost efficient, because they eliminate the need and expense of traffic lights, roundabouts are safer at intersections because they eliminate the need or urge to "run" a light, they are also safer because the speed that you travel through a roundabout is slower than your speed would be traveling through a normal intersection, and roundabouts improve fuel economy because there is less idling of your car engine and in conjunction with less idling cars emit less emissions.

Studies have shown significant reductions in collisions injuries and fatalities when roundabouts are put in place of traffic signals or stop signs.  For instance, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety states that: "roundabouts reduced injury crashes by 75 percent at intersections where stop signs or signals were previously used for traffic control." While roundabouts are not cheaper than simple stop signs, they are a more efficient way for traffic to move at a reasonable pace without having to stop, and roundabouts are clearly cheaper and safer over the long term than traffic signals, as has been proven in numerous studies.

Americans love their automobiles, so anything that can improve their driving experience, is also cost efficient, and improves vehicle and pedestrian safety is something that should be embraced.   Roundabouts serve that purpose quite well and should become an integral part of our driver's education and also a part of a driver's road test, as the prevalence of roundabouts should continue to increase yearly in the United States.  It isn't often that we come across an improvement that has so little down side and provides such important benefits as roundabouts do to the driving experience.

Consequently, cities and communities should take a careful look at their budgets, specific street safety issues, and their resources that they have at their disposal to ascertain as to whether they can improve, replace, or add a roundabout to intersections in their community.  New roadways that are developed should be analyzed with roundabouts being the default feature in absence of compelling reasons why it should not be.  We have learned about the usefulness of safety belts and the lives that they have saved, there should also be an equal and concerted effort to understand and to educate the public of the incredible value of roundabouts.  

Rockefeller Dynasty

Dynasties are not the American way, certainly not for a Country essentially founded by religious refugees, but yet dynasties are a fact of life in America.  Take, for instance, John D. Rockefeller, Senior, who died in 1937.  Forbes list of 2008 historical wealthiest individuals put the Rockefeller fortune at somewhere between $392 and $664 billion dollars in today’s dollar value.  Whether we want to argue as to the legitimacy of how Rockefeller acquired his wealth will be left for another day, what is not in question, however, is that this wealth was retained and that this wealth is still very much in effect today, primarily in the Rockefeller trust and the Rockefeller Financial Services.  To make a list of all the assets of the Rockefellers and their descendents would encompass such basic items as real estate, businesses, politics, and philanthropy. 

The main issue that comes to mind when dealing with the Rockefeller dynasty or any American dynasty, for that matter, is how they are able to pass through that wealth, essentially untaxed, from generation to generation, in which the apparent sole qualification for receiving this largess is simply to be a member of the Rockefeller or similar dynastic clan, and has little or nothing to do with meritocracy. 

We have estate tax laws on the books which seem to do a commendable job in being applied against families that have accumulated wealth, but not an insane amount of wealth, and thereby these individual estates pay up and are taxed appropriately.  Once you get beyond a certain estate value, however, it behooves a family to hire the best and the brightest to circumvent, mitigate, or to challenge estate tax laws in such a manner as to benefit the family directly or indirectly and to essentially to cheat the government, which is a government of the people, out of their proper heritage upon the demise of the particular ultra-wealthy individual.

People that have a lot of money are typically not in the mindset to simply give up the money, or if they must relinquish the money, they wish to relinquish it on their own terms and ultimately relinquish it to the particular benefit of those people, places, and things that most satisfy them.  None of that follows the definition of a democracy, and all of it is in fact kin to an autocracy or dynastic belief.  Money is most definitely a form of power, and the fewer hands that hold that money, the greater their power.  If ,even death, will not allow us to hit the 'reset' button on the wealth that has been created, accumulated, or saved, at what point will the playing field be level? 

Dynasties corrupt and distort American core values, at death you should relinquish a fair and equable amount of that capital to the Country that was gracious enough to nurture you, and let that money, the companies that you have created, your good wisdom and advice, be used as foundational tools for generations now and into the future.  While there is something to be said about inheritance, and our right to a fair share of our inheritance, dynasties have little to do with right or fairness, and much to do with greed and power, which are inimical to the true American way.

Public service and graft

Public service is supposed to be an altruistic act, a service that you willingly provide to your community on behalf of your constituents and for the benefit of your community as a whole.  This desire to be of public service is also the desire to see that your community is served in a manner that is consistent with American ideals and further that there is proper and appropriate utilization of tax dollars, grants, and other responsibilities so that you are considered to be a good steward of these assetsto your fellow citizens.  As a public servant, the general understanding is that you will not make all that you could make in the private sector in compensation, because you are sacrificing some monetary gains in return for the satisfaction of knowing and having accomplished a greater good for your people.   That is the ideal, some live up to it, and some have no intention of living up to any of it.

Depending upon your position in the pecking order, you as a public servant may have quite a say in how certain monies are allocated, and how certain information is disclosed.  Having access to either or both of these things, gives you power, and from power you will have the capability of seeing that you receive proper service for the things that you can do.  The dilemma is that some use this power to benefit themselves, and some use this power to benefit their constituents.  Of course, there are some that say that they are doing both, but this is disingenuous and a purposeful deceit that people tell themselves in order to justify their actions.

A good way to determine as to whether a particular public servant is self-dealing is to look at their salary and then look at their ways and means of everyday living.  When a public servant somehow improves their monetary worth quite substantially over a period of time when their only means of income is their job, this implies that they have benefited directly from their service, which translates into corruption.  None of this is particularly surprising, when you consider that there are many people on the outside that will gladly pay or compensate you for information that will benefit them.  To those people, it is simply seen as the cost of doing business, while to the recipient the benefit is seen as the tribute that they so richly deserve.

Plenty of public servants have been found with their proverbial hand in the cookie jar, and I don’t doubt that behind the few that are caught and punished, there are a multitude of others that have not been caught or prosecuted.   Those that have influence over how and where monies and other assets are spent and utilized are in high demand from those that have the need for the inside track, by any means necessary.  While there are a multitude of ways to cut down on public graft, one of the most effective, as well as being relatively easy and of virtually of no expense to implement is more and more public transparency on contracts, on employment, and on the decisions and going-on’ of our public servants in their service to their community.  True competition on government bidding and on employment opportunities, publically disclosed is a necessary step in fairness and openness. 

Secrets, underhand deals, corruption, all operate most effectively in the dark; the public deserves to be able to shine a bright light on all aspects of those that profess to serve us.

Potholes

Potholes are a significant hazard, which can damage your wheels, your vehicle, and even cause an accident or worse, depending upon the size of the pothole, its visibility, the angle of the impact, and your reaction or recovery time from hitting the pothole.  A pothole is a prime example of how a stitch in time, saves nine, but unfortunately in America, the policy on road maintenance seems to be always one of playing catch-up as opposed to being pro-active in maintaining our roads which would be far more cost efficient and far safer.

Our interstate system of highways was led by and passed into law by President Eisenhower in 1956 in which as the former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in WWII, he recognized the importance of an interstate highway that would help greatly in providing a ready means for trade and ease of transportation for interstate needs.  This vision was prescient but in order for us to update it for the 21st century we need to utilize our technology and knowhow in new and inventive ways.

A crack in the asphalt is usually the first step that is necessary for a pothole to form.  If that crack is discovered and properly repaired quickly, the pothole will not form, however, if the crack in the road is ignored, moisture will seep into the crack which will over time begin the process of breaking away the asphalt from the crack and thereby creating the pothole.  The process of creating a pothole is not something that takes a long time, and the more it is ignored or the more it is neglected, the quicker the pothole will be formed.

Most cities, counties, and states claim that they do not have enough funds to fix all of their potholes and that therefore they are constantly doing the best that they can, recognizing that it is impossible to fix up all of the road damage, so that they do what they can do.  But this policy which has been in place for decades is clearly not working and there isn't any real reason why it will ever work.  A far better step in the right direction is to determine what steps are needed to properly identify and to thereby properly fix roads so that potholes are either not formed as frequently in the first place or when formed are fixed in such a manner that the repair has a longer and more lasting application.

For instance there are different grades of asphalt, different applications for applying asphalt, different mixtures of asphalt, in which some types, mixtures, and grades of asphalts work better under certain weather conditions and others are cheaper, easier to apply, or more readily available.  It's important to know how effective, how long lasting the asphalt that is laid performs.  When it comes to road repair, specific GPS data detailing and date-stamping the work performed should be recorded and then analyzed with data processing tools.  Additionally, there is a high correlation between the weight of vehicles and road wear and tear, which is especially noteworthy for semi-trucks and the tremendous weight that they carry, the taxes that these semi-trucks pay for road travel probably does not properly reflect the expenses that they create and therefore should be raised.

Plea Bargains

Plea bargains are richly criticized from both the victim's perspective as well as the accused' perspective and rightly so.  Often victims of a particular crime are extremely disappointed when charges are reduced for the perpetrator in which the offender is instead convicted of a lesser crime and thereby receives a lesser sentence.  Not only has the punishment been reduced, but the victim does not have their proper day in court.  For some victims, it is an important part of closure and of justice, to see that the criminal be suitably tried, convicted, and sentenced, and consequently anything that short-circuits that process is in some degree a travesty of justice.  As for the accused, they too have massive problems with our plea bargaining system in which they are often essentially coerced into pleading guilty to a lesser crime in order to avoid a strict and highly punitive (and often) mandatory sentence.  According to the nytimes.com: "fewer than one in 40 felony cases now make it to trial, according to data from nine states that have published such records since the 1970s."

To make matters worse and more unjust, despite the fact that perpetrators are entitled to defense counsel, whether they are able to afford an attorney or not, in cases in which they are assigned a public defender, those public defenders, themselves, are simply overwhelmed when it comes to the resources and time that is available to them.  Consequently, even public defenders that strongly desire to go to trial for their clients, simply can't afford to do so, which in of itself, compromises the entire legal system.

Accused persons that are also incarcerated, because they are unable to afford their bail, are often under intense additional pressure to make a deal because they are already behind bars.  This clearly creates a division between those with money, assets, or family that can provide necessary and needed assistance to their defense and those that are without those resources.  Additionally, if the accused is relatively uneducated, unenlightened, gullible, and pliable, his ability to negotiate a valid plea deal is most definitely compromised.

For instance, I recently had a nephew behind bars, for a crime that he was accused of, in which the evidence against him was rather specious.  He was unable to afford bail, and was kept behind bars, despite the fact that before his arrest, he was gainfully employed with no prior criminal or even any arrests on his record.  He was assigned a public defender who could do no better than to bargain for a relatively short prison sentence, a felony conviction, and then parole, all for a man who was effectively innocent of the crimes against him.  Fortunately, I had the funds to eventually come to his aid, I was additionally fortunate to unearth an attorney that believed in him, that agreed that my nephew's situation was a travesty and further that knew the ins and outs of our court and legal system, and additionally was on board for what I desired as an outcome for my nephew. 

This attorney was good to his word and ultimately was able to get all charges dropped against my nephew, in which previously my nephew was under intense pressure to make a deal or find himself stuck in jail, awaiting for the slow wheels of justice to grind through.  I appreciated my attorney's competency, his candor, and his effectiveness; I also admired my nephew's courage to stand firm and not to break, despite being incarcerated, and ultimately his vindication.

But what did it cost?  It cost my nephew his job, his freedom, bad credit for failing to pay bills while incarcerated because he was without income, and 75 days of jail-time.   It cost me a little time and some money. It also cost the taxpayers' money for the incarceration of an innocent person.  As for justice, it's as simple as this, until my money and the attorney that I hired changed the game, there was to be no justice, only a plea bargain, unjust, unenlightened, and totally wrong.

Communication

Communication is far more than the simple verbal communication that we often believe is the be-all and end-all of our communications.  Communication between one human to another is far more complicated and nuanced than just hearing the words that are spoken, or speaking the words that are heard.  Not only is it that the same word, or the same sentence, can have different connotations depending on how the words are spoken, this is also true depending on the intimacy of the participants in a conversation, or the environment of said conversation.  That is why when we overhear a conversation between two people that we are strangers to, our interpretation of what they have just said can be widely inaccurate, even though we have clearly heard their words.

Additionally, in communication there are certain non-verbal or simple affirmations that are expected from the other party that is participating in the conversation and when these clues are absent or are not at the level that we are expecting, we believe, often correctly, that the other party is not listening to us or paying full attention to what we are communicating to them.  Within communication there is a quid pro quo that is expected and desired, and those that do not adhere to these common standards will over a relatively short period of time become marginalized, because everyone that communicates with you believes that what they have to say is at a minimum, important to them, if not to you.

Paying close attention to what your partner is saying, how they are saying it, and what they are trying to convey, and then responding in such a manner to them that confirms that you have indeed been attentive, will make you a very good friend.  To determine how good of a listener you are, you only basically have to ask yourself, how often have you have heard the words "you aren't listening to me", when, in fact, your belief is that you have listened, and listened quite well.

Communication is a very valued skill and not all communication is conveyed through the spoken word, as we learn through Luke 8:45: "and Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?" In which a woman eventually admits that she did touch the Master, a special touch, a healing touch, that joined the two together, with the result that immediately upon touching Christ that she was healed, in which Jesus perceived within Him that virtue had gone forth from Him, and that the woman's faith had made her whole.  This is communication at its most sublime level in which the seeker has found their desired sanctuary, because of their belief and their pureness in pursuing it.

Humans have an intense desire to communicate effectively, it is a way of gaining and trading information, knowledge, and intimacy with others, and brings clarity and better meaning to life.  It is also, a skill set, and like many things in life, you get out of it about what you put into it.

Alleged

Alleged is a word that is overused, misused, and annoying to hear when repeated over and over again in regards to specific crime stories.  For instance, it's irksome to read headlines such as this from the Chicago Tribune, "Death penalty sought for alleged Boston bomber Tsarnaev".  Really?  First off, how is it possible for a death penalty to be sought for an "alleged" bomber?  Shouldn't the death penalty be specifically setup for the actual bomber?  As for alleged, how many other people are being alleged to be the bomber in this case?  If there aren't any other suspects and the evidence is overwhelming against Tsarnaev, why not call a spade a spade?

The Oxford Dictionary defines allege as follows: "claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof that this is the case."  This would strongly imply that when someone is first arrested and the evidence is just being sorted out, that it might be okay, to call the accused perpetrator, alleged.  But even in this case, the use of the word allege is rather weak, unless you feel that the police typically arrest people without rhyme or reason, in which case using the modifier, allege, may have merit.

A far more effective way to report crime information, is to state the facts as presented by the police or the prosecutor's office.  If you have something to add to these facts, you should add them, but by reporting what has been stated by the police or the prosecutor you will come up with a sentence such as "the police stated today that they have arrested the Boston marathon bomber," as opposed to saying that Tsarnaev is the alleged bomber.

Further, as the trial winds its way down through our legal system, you can then report that the accused Boston bomber is in jail, and further that the accused Boston bomber has been charged with the specific charges that the prosecutor's office has filed against him.  Presenting the news in this manner is a more straightforward, honest, and meaningful way to convey the actual news of this case to your audience, as opposed to the misguided step of adding the modifier, alleged, over and over again, which essentially mitigates a crime and the criminal that should not be mitigated whatsoever.

The additional problem of using the word alleged, inappropriately, is that this word essentially changes the world from a world of facts and falsehoods, from reality and fantasy, into a world in which the press is incapable of simply reporting the news in a manner that is sensible.   If newspapers and news reporters are so unsure about factual events, that they constantly have to modify simple statements with a world such as alleged, how is it possible to report anything that is actually news?  Ultimately, you must make a stand, perhaps sometimes despite your prudent standards your stand is incorrect or inaccurate, the facts that you have reported in good faith to the public later are shown to be incorrect, you can correct this, modify this, and apologize for this, as opposed to the endless silly loop of alleging this or alleging that.

What are we here for?

Socrates rightly stated:  "… that the life which is unexamined is not worth living."  Yet, how many of us go about our business on any particular day without ever reflecting upon this thought.  Certainly, you can live life without ever examining it, without ever reflecting upon it, without ever asking the question, but if you don’t make a concerted and focused search for the meaning of life, you are hard-pressed to then discover that 'eureka' moment when everything here begins to make sense.

But it goes much further than that, if you don't examine your life and if you don't pursue the question as to why we are even here, the decisions that you make in life will in all probability be significantly different than if you did ask the question.  Living a life in ignorance of the meaning of life, imprisons you and makes you far more susceptible to demagogues, and makes you far more amendable to the dictates of the State. 

Everyone does have the opportunity to ask the question as to why we are here and in consequence to build that foundation that brings meaning and purpose to our life.  The question must always be asked, because if we don't know where we are going, or what our purpose is in living, how then is it conceivable that we should ever safely arrive there? 

The first thing that you must realize is that you are your own person, with your own thoughts, your own movements, your own decisions, and your own life.  No one can live your life for you, except for you.  Circumstances that you face may have quite a heavy influence on how your life is lived and how your life is played, but the circumstances that you face are not you, these are merely the conditions that you must deal and live with.

Some of us are born rich, some of us are born poor, some of us are born in 'free' countries, and some of us are born in repressive regimes, some of us have more intelligence than others, better circumstances than others, and more of this or less of that than others.  Each of us is not the same person as we relate to the world, in fact, none of us are the same person throughout the stages of our life and the paths that we may take.  We are defined by the decisions made or thrust upon us and our reaction or implementation to same. 

All of the above implies that we recognize that our true self cannot be the physical body but rather must be our soul which is housed within our material self.  If, instead we believe that somehow the physical is all that we ever could be, than it is to the physical, to the material, that we will devote the entirety of our energies in a futile attempt to take something that is finite and extend it to infinity.  Once we comprehend that our soul is eternal, that our adventure here on earth is a cycle of birth, material death, and re-birth, we will recognize that we are here to give away or to pass onto posterity our wisdom, our clarity, our compassion, our goodness, our balance, our service, and our sharing to all those that will receive it.

Truth

We are admonished in a court of law to "…tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God."  A command such as this is very straightforward, yet so many of us end up breaking it, bending it, waiving it, or ignoring it, in which none of those things do justice to truth.    In the Bible we read in John 18:37-38, "…Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?"

Pilate asks the question that we should all ask, because truth is a very important concept; it is at heart the very foundation of law, along with being the very foundation of Christ's incarnation on earth.  Yet so many of us, see truth, as something that is pliable, changeable, subjective, and variable, in which none of these can possibly be valid reflections of truth.  Truth is immutable, it cannot change, it is non-variable, it is always the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  Anything less than this, is not truth, it may touch upon truth but that is not enough, and consequently it is not truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Anything less than the whole truth is a form of deceit, or ignorance, or lying, or manipulation.  But what of people that believe that when each of the six blind men who touched different parts of the elephant and therefore came to quite different conclusions about the beast were in their way, telling the truth.  This metaphor presses the point that in order to come to the correct viewpoint, you need not only vision and comprehension, but also a dose of humility that instructs you that although your viewpoint appears to be true, that it may not be actually true, certainly may not be the whole truth, and that strict adherence to your viewpoint, while denying others their say, is wrong-headed.

Truth is not an easy concept for most people to get their heads around, because truth demands absolute adherence to its law.  It is we, humans that must muster up the courage, and the discipline to recognize the supreme importance of truth or suffer the consequences of our failure.  Truth is a demanding master which harbors no deceit or shortcuts.  You cannot con truth, you cannot short-circuit truth, and you certainly cannot modify truth.  To do any of these things will tarnish your own image and dull your own mind.

When Christ tells us that He bears witness unto truth and that those that believe in truth hear His voice, He is speaking a literal truth to us.  The truth that Christ speaks of is not obvious to the uninitiated nor is it obvious to the unenlightened.  When none of Christ's hand-picked disciples were able to comprehend Christ's mission before Pentecost, then we take some solace in knowing that we are not alone in our shortcomings and errors.  To know truth is to know God, and that can only come through revelation, a process that for most takes guidance, desire, and surrender to that still, small voice within.

The Evolution of Voting

Voting has vastly changed since the inception of this great country, whereas voting was once restricted to strictly white property-owning males, voting is now readily available to all adults of age eighteen and above with little restrictions to your ability to vote.  Additionally, even though states have historically set their own standards and definitions as to how, where, and whom is eligible to vote, these variations have been for the most part standardized over recent years, so that voting in America truly has become democratized and by virtue of the fact that the ballot is now available to all, voting in elections does represent the people as a whole.

Initially in America, suffrage was limited to white male property owners, in which the thinking of that day and age was that voting should be limited to and also reflect those that were mature individuals, established, respectable, and that had a vested interest in their community.  However, over time, the property requirement was removed from most States, due in part to new States being added to the Union that did not require this particular restriction, the devastation of the Panic of 1819 in which overextended credit led to bank and property ownership failures, and the fact that the rural population had a higher proportion of eligible voters as compared to city dwellers that could not afford to buy or had a need to buy land in town.

The fact that the voting requirements had changed is the probable reason why Andrew Jackson was elected in 1928, in which he was considered to be the choice of the common man, as opposed to the previous Presidents that had been elected, all of whom were considered to be of a more refined class, east coast based, educated and/or wealthy. 

After the civil war, the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, which gave the vote to all males, regardless of race or color.  Unfortunately, all States, but in particular southern States were able to circumvent this new Amendment and new law over time, in which the Southern States also added poll taxes, so that in order to vote, you had to pay for that privilege, which implicitly eliminatedmany impoverished blacks from voting.  Additionally, saddled onto your capacity to vote, unless you had been grandfathered in, were so-called "literacy tests" which were in effect, tests that had little to do with literacy and a lot to do with purposeful failure for those that were targeted in which the questions were setup in such a way, that you were destined to get the answers wrong.

In 1920, the 19th Amendment to our Constitution was ratified, which gave the right to vote to women, in which slowly but inexorably over time, the percentage of eligible women voting increased so that at the present time, women outvote men.  In fact, in the 2008 Presidential election, 65.7% of eligible female votes voted vs. just 61.5% of men, in which the number of women that voted was 70.4 million vs. only 60.7 million men.  Because women do not vote in lockstep with men, but instead have their own issues and agendas that mean most to them, voting and its incumbent results have changed forever in America.

Finally, in 1965, the national Voting Rights Act was passed into law, which effectively rolled back the arbitrary and discriminatory rules made previously by most Southern States to preclude minorities from registering and voting, allowing the vote to become truly democratic for all citizens of the United States for the first time.  Therefore, today, each adult (non-felon) citizen of the United States has the same capacity and capability to cast their vote. 

The ballot box is effectively ours.