Auto-Enrollment is Wrong

I receive monthly utility bills in which typically I don't even look at the bill, but just simply pay it automatically through my checking account.  To me, there aren't a lot of reasons to read your utility bill because it's a regulated utility company and what they charge is what you are going to have to pay.  However, I recently noticed that my bill was $58.00, a very round number, which raised suspicions within me, as the previous couple months were also round numbers, something that seemed highly unlikely when historically bills were for odd amounts that included pennies such as $56.31, $68.27 and so forth.  So I took a look at my bill and I discovered a new charge on my bill entitled "roundup", which "round-ups" your bill in which that extra small amount is apparently used with other customer's contributions to provide funds to community non-profit organizations.  On the surface, maybe that's a good idea, even a brilliant idea, because small numbers if they are multiplied by a large customer base can come up with a meaningful amount of dollars, in which the hit to the consumer pocketbook is marginal.  But there are a couple of issues that aren't clear to me,  such as: how efficient is the utility company with the donations; that is to say are they taking some sort of administration fee, where are the monies being allocated, and ultimately do I want any utility company to decide where I should donate my money.

Another thing that I found very annoying, even disturbing, was that I didn't opt-in to the enrollment with my utility company for round-up, as I certainly wasn't a new customer, so it was puzzling to me how this even occurred.  What they told me is that they sent out a notice in which I could have opted-out, but since I didn't respond, the default was for me to opt-in.   This is poor policy as it is wrong to change the terms and conditions of your relationship in which you as a consumer are being opted-in and consequently being billed more money, or losing your privacy, or the like.  The default for decisions in which you give up privacy or money should be for you, the consumer to consciously opt-in and never to be auto-enrolled.

When you purchase items over the web, the more responsible websites, allow you as a customer to determine whether you want your personal information distributed to other interested companies, such as advertisers, drug companies, or the like.  The more devious companies are ones that don't make it clear that they are allowing other companies to receive/buy personal information about you and/or to build a profile on you.   These said companies are further able to protect themselves from consumer lawsuits by then pointing out that it is part of their terms and conditions in which you by using their website,  or by not un-checking some particular box, have failed to recognize this fact.  Consequently, these companies have put the onus on you, that is your fault for not having done your diligence, and that they are merely asserting their rights per those conditions.

Auto-enrollment into areas that are of little benefit to the consumer but will definitely benefit the company that has established and/or changed this policy should not be permitted.  You as a consumer should have sovereignty over you, anything less, diminish us, and will increase the overreach of companies and websites that we interface with.

There Ought to be a Law

There are plenty of people, plenty of politicians, plenty of lawyers, and plenty of bureaucrats, that honestly believe that what this country needs is more laws and more regulations and then, or soon thereafter, everything will be alright.  It simply isn't so.  While laws and regulations are put into place for various reasons, certainly one of the most irritating and wrong reasons is to create a law or regulation simply because you believe that the behavior or action that is being performed is so noxious, so annoying, or so inconvenient, that a law or regulation must be enacted because this particular behavior isn't currently illegal.  Consequently, over time, more and more laws and regulations are created, but in return for these additional rules, instead of approaching or coming closer to nirvana, we are in actuality pushed further and further away from serenity because of the denseness and obtuseness of our laws.

The creation of additional laws and regulations merely criminalizes or subjects people to fines, often of everyday behavior that isn't anything that is out of the ordinary.  When virtually everything that you may say or do is subject to an interpretation that makes it a criminal or a civil offense, you have imprisoned your citizens inside a wall of oppression.  Statements such as "we should obey the law", doesn't make any logical sense, since in order to obey something we need first to understand it, it needs also to be uniformly applied, and the law itself should be both sensible and necessary.

Too often laws or regulations are created, because they can be created.  Someone encounters something that annoys or irritates them, and consequently they believe that a law will somehow end or significantly modify that behavior and make for a better world.  Really?  You would far better off teaching, believing, and enacting the golden rule of "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you," in which you, by definition, respect the other party and create a dialog, than to impose your will upon another. 

Too many rules and regulations are a prime example of government overreached, in which arbitrary and capricious laws criminalizes and alienates people that are guilty of nothing more than poor judgment or even less.  Too many laws allow the privileged people that regulate the law to control the people that do not.

Additionally, the interpretation of apparently even the most straightforward law is left to the courts to decide, in which far too often it is left to a single judge who with the stroke of a pen, can overturn previous case law, propositions passed by the people, or the judge can bend the law to come up with a new meaning of a particular law. 

If laws themselves are not stable, if laws themselves are not consistent, if laws themselves are not coherent, or sensible, or meaningful, or necessary, or equally applied, rather than being a nation of laws, that is under the law, we are instead a nation that has too many laws and rather than justice for all, it is a nation that has justice for none.

The work shift

You are generally considered to have worked a full week if you have put in five days of eight hour shifts in a given week for a total of 40 hours.  The fight for the 40-hour week as being set as the norm for working in the United States, started in the 19th Century and ultimately became industry standard in 1937 with the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which set the maximum workweek at 40 hours with the payment of overtime for any hours worked above this amount, which is still applicable today.

However, there are many industries in which the normal working shift is significantly greater than the standard 8-hour shift which, such as the nursing profession in which 12-hour shifts are common, and the fireman profession, in which 24-hour shifts are common.  For nurses, their shifts are often set into three consecutive days of 12-hour shifts, with four consecutive days off, or even six consecutive days of 12-hour shifts, with eight consecutive days off.   For firemen, their shifts are setup as one 24-hour shift, followed by two days off, or even a 48-hour shift, with 96-hours off. 

When you first hear about a fireman working a 24-hour shift or the incredible 48-hour shift, you’re not quite sure that you are correctly processing this information as this doesn’t seem physically or mentally possible. However, what you learn is that during their downtime the fireman are allowed to rest and sleep, which makes logical sense, but begs the question as to what goes on when there is one of those days in which there is a significant or major emergency(s) involved.  That is the true acid test, how are these firefighters able to respond when they are fatigued, tired, and irritable, from lack of proper rest; as professional studies have demonstrated over and over again that fatigued people perform their tasks at a significantly less efficient rate.   With fire fighters having the responsibility of responding to fires which takes a combination of strength, strategic thinking, and teamwork, along with their first responder tasks with providing emergency medical services, the public has a right to expect their fireman to be at their best for these services.

The nursing profession is a challenging environment in which the nurse is responsible for working with a variety of patients all of whom may have significant differences in age, disease, and services required; in which the nurse is accountable for seeing that each of their patients are monitored correctly, have their appropriate medications, and are treated correctly.  Nursing is the type of job that entails doing multiple tasks well, having sound organization skills, and accomplishing most of this on the go and on your feet. 

Shortcuts are a trap that many people fall into.  While simple mathematics may dictate that working longer shifts will allow you more free time, less commute time, and also frees up time for family, friends, or other work commitments, the actual real total for taking these shortcuts has unseen ramifications that often are not properly accounted for, such as your own health (both physical and mental), your effectiveness, and your obligation to perform at a professional level.  

Are these extended working shifts fair to the employee or to the people that they serve, or are they a bridge too far?  For instance, airline pilots have a minimum amount of uninterrupted rest required and are also limited to the number of consecutive hours that they can fly.  Does knowing that this is true for airline pilots make you feel more comfortable about flying or would you prefer flying with a pilot at the end of a long and arduous 24-hour shift?

Socialism and Statists

Socialism on its surface is something that appears appealing and has a certain allure to certain people.  It certainly seems fair that in socialism since we are all in it together, that we should therefore equally share in the wealth of our nation, its productivity and its output, with no unnatural exploitation.  As for statists, their system of government is one that believes that the state should guide and monitor what should or shouldn't be accomplished within one's society, ostensibly for the benefit of that same society, all under the firm hand of the State.

While offhand, socialism and statists don't appear to be of the same design, they are to a remarkable extent, necessary for each other.  First off, picture yourself in a socialist society, in which in theory no one person is the owner and each of you collectively owns everything.  While initially that sounds like a really good deal, it isn't necessarily fair, because each of you collectively has the responsibility to create wealth and prosperity for society, in which some people are going to be much better at applying themselves and working more diligently to create better throughput and productivity. While in the natural course of events, harder, smarter, more efficient, and more effective workers should directly benefit from their efforts, ina socialist society, at the end of the day, everyone will share equally in this prosperity despite the fact that some have provided significantly more than others. 

Additionally, while this prosperity and wealth is being created in the socialist society in which all are benefiting equally, who is it that decides how the pie is actually going to be divvied up? Not only do you have that significant issue to deal with, you will also quickly determine that we don't all like the same things, or the same activities, or have the same priorities, or have the same families, or the same habits, or the same desires, or the same health, so there will be significant and meaningful differences between us.  We are in short, not the same people in make or model.

Still, in a socialist society in which all share from the same well, someone will have to be in charge.  While you might reason that nobody really wants that position, or that the position will rotate over given time periods, in actuality the position will gravitate to those that have the mindset to perform these duties.  In small and ancient societies, we called these people, our elders, our chiefs, our wise men, or our gods.  Today, in a modern society, we no longer use these terms, we instead owe our allegiance to our modern State.  The State will decide how our resources will be divvied up and by doing so they will create an ongoing and pernicious bureaucracy that will suck legitimate assets away from the people that produce these products in order to better the State, the agents of the State, and the people as the State sees fit.

When collectively you own everything, this means by definition that individually you own nothing.  When you own nothing you are at the mercy and the control of those who will decide your fate and your usefulness for society at large.  As a socialist, you are nothing, and consequently socialism is the perfect state for statists, in whom, if you are fortunate, they will apply their boot to your neck with a benign smile, and if you're not so fortunate, they will eviscerate you.

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.