Mary and Martha

When I first read the passage of Luke 19:38-42: " Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word. But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: but one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her," my sympathies were with Martha, as her request to me, seems quite reasonable, and I actually expected Jesus to gently rebuke Mary for not helping Martha, in which, perhaps later, they could both sit at the feet of Jesus.

Additionally, this passage of Luke contains an important clue which is Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus, in which previously in the reading of Luke 7:36-50, we are told the story of a sinful woman who brought in an alabaster jar of perfume, wetted Jesus' feet with her tears, then proceeded to wipe Jesus' feet with her hair, then kissed his feet and poured perfume on them, in which Jesus proceeds to then tell a parable and to forgive this woman of her sins.  We are not told in Luke 7, of the woman's name, but in a later passage in John 11:2, we read: "It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick."  Knowing this vital information, we now know that Mary was that sinner, forgiven by Jesus, who had wetted Jesus feet with her tears and later poured perfume on them, in which Jesus went to visit their home with her sister, Martha, and her brother, Lazarus, in whom He would later raise from the dead.

Now we have a better perspective because the story is more complete, Mary is at Jesus' feet, this time at their home, because she recognizes him as the Master, who previously forgave her of her sins.  Her devotion of love of the Christ is sincere, focused, attentive, and dedicated.  For Mary, it isn't so much that she doesn't realize that her sister Martha may need her assistance in the kitchen, it is instead the realization that Christ is that needful thing, that well in which the clear deep waters of forgiveness and love will never run dry and she wishes to drink deeply from it. 

As for Martha, it isn't so much that she doesn't recognize the Master with her eyes, but instead that she doesn't recognize the Master with her heart.  Martha is concerned about this material world, taking care of her friends and neighbors through the usual niceties that are appropriate in their place, but she fails to recognize that through all her troubles and cares she is in the presence of the One true path that is the true calling of our life.  The message for Martha is quite clear, that while we do need to be attentive to the letter of the law, it is far more important to be attentive to the Spirit of the law.  That for all of our running around, of all our responsibilities of home and hearth, that there is a meaning behind our existence and that meaning is our need for salvation, to find God, to be with Christ, to do the right thing.  We will never hear that still small voice within, if we do not shake loose from the shackles and blinders of a life both spent unexamined and a life also spent without examining or seeking for its eternal rewards.

Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Mandatory minimum sentences have fundamental flaws at a lot of levels, beginning with the federal government overreach.  For example, being charged with illegal drug usage or distribution in which no action crossed state lines should logically be handled by the state involved, but in fact, many drug charges are federal crimes because the perpetrator arrested was arrested by the Drug Enforcement Agency, or perhaps was arrested on federal property, such as a national park, or simply the fact that both federal and state governments have laws governing drug usage in which either entity can bring charges against the accused.

Mandatory minimum sentences especially for drug related crimes, are often far more draconian if the accused is charged under federal law, because of the "war on drugs" and federal government laws which are highly punitive and harsh, and seemingly do not take into account exigencies, practicalities, and sensibilities of each particular case.  The main reason that our federal and state governments have mandatory minimums in place for so many different crimes, is never to serve justice, never to be fair or to show true impartiality, but simply to take certain undesirables, certain oppressed peoples, and to crush them, to forget about them, and to remove them from open society.

While a significant portion of the population supports being harsh on crime, most people are completely ignorant of the mandatory minimum assigned to various crimes, and few understand or comprehend the costs to society, and to the individuals involved that are inflicted by our mandatory minimum sentences.  However, there are definite segments of our society that benefit from mandatory minimum sentences, which includes our court system, our police, and the prisons themselves, in which each of these components either receive more money by virtue of having more criminals or receive more services and infrastructure provided to them to support the incarceration of miscreants or all of these things.

There isn't any doubt that mandatory minimum sentences have very little to do with justice, or fairness, or in reforming of the criminals that are incarcerated for their crimes.  A policy in which we simply lock up people that don't conform to arbitrary rules and laws, or additionally are possibly an embarrassment or an inconvenience to society at large is a policy which is wholly misdirected. 

There are some criminals that are a menace to society, that are a danger to our citizens, and probably rightly should be incarcerated or restrained in their freedom of movement, such as murderers and rapists.  There are also a massive class of criminals that have committed no crime, because there isn't a real victim, such as drug users, or prostitution and small-time drug dealers that are essentially providing a product to a willing consumer. 

It has been said, that idle hands are the devil's tool, and this is a fact that has been played out in America time and time again, in which whole sections of certain communities have no viable income or opportunity, little education, and little hope.  People that turn to "crime" in these types of situations are often expressing their hopelessness in which their cry is for help, for comfort, and for good will.  Our response to these people is the true measure of our country, and of our justice, which is too often to lock them up and to lie to ourselves that they don't exist, that they are meaningless, that they are not us.

Labored In Vain

On any given day, we do a lot of different things, in which some days are spent doing things productively and others not so much.  It is, however, disappointing, when we're worked a hard day, and our boss comes over to our desk and instead of congratulating us on our efforts for that day, instead questions us in regards to whether we have accomplished a particular assignment that he was expecting from us.  It is always a difficult moment when we realize that we either misunderstood what we were supposed to be doing, or misinterpreted our assignment, or worse, in any event these are the times that we feel our face flushing and our embarrassment rising for having disappointed the boss.  Perhaps, you've also had a day in which you have worked hard outside gardening and done quite a bit of work weeding, hoeing, and planting, only to find our later from an expert and respected gardener that you're gone about it all wrong.  These are examples of where you have labored, labored hard, but you have labored in vain.

In Philippians 2:16, we read: "…that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain."   How many of us ask the real question; is what I'm working on right now, the thing that I should be doing?  Questioning yourself is a vital component in the quest of knowing yourself and your purpose in life.  While it is quite possible to blithely find ourselves on the correct path and to make correct decisions, knowing our purpose and knowing what we should be doing and accomplishing it is a far more secure and certain path.

Too many of us make the mistake of simply going with the flow, of doing things a certain way because that's the way it has always been done, but the people that are often the most accomplished, are the ones that "think outside the box", that swim against the tide, that ask and pursue the questions of how, why, and when.  Each of us needs to take the time to contemplate our lives, to take time for those necessary still, quiet, and calm moments, and to listen to our inner voice.  Activity has its place, work has its place, but there is also a time to withdraw from the hurly-burly of worldly activities.

It is imperative that we understand what we are doing, what we are attempting to accomplish, and where we are going.  You cannot find the destination that you seek if you do now know what it really is.  The temporal is not eternal, think of all the great men and women from the past, in which each of these outstanding people are physically dead.  Yet, Shakespeare lives today, because his plays and sonnets are still read, studied, and performed; as does Beethoven, as does Lincoln, because what they have created has eternal significance because the truth, beauty and profundity of their accomplishments still resonate and reverberate till the present day. It isn't fair nor reasonable to expect us to reach those heights, nor do we have to, but it is essential to remember that we what we leave here on this good earth for our family, our friends, our associates, is our example, our actions, our good deeds, our sound advice, and our labor.

Diploma Mills

The average unemployment rate follows a very straight line in correlation with the amount or lack of education that you have achieved.  That is to say, those without a high school diploma have the highest unemployment, followed by high school graduates, than those with some college but no degree, than associate's degree, bachelor's degree, master's degree, and finally a doctorate degree has the lowest unemployment of them all.  Consequently, the amount of education that you have achieved contributes to a significant and very meaningful degree as to whether you are employed, how much income you will make, and what opportunities that are available to you.

To a large extent, a degree from any accredited university will be treated about the same in regards to job applications and opportunities, with the recognition and caveat, that degrees from prestigious universities with long-standing reputations or particular valued specialties being a force all of their own.  The reason that there is such impartiality for say a Bachelors of Science from one college to another is that in general, the requirements to procure such a degree are relatively similar, so that a prospective employer will feel comfortable that you have achieved a certain fundamental knowledge in your collegiate experience and major.

The problem then becomes, not that there are now so many private colleges for profit, or online courses for convenience or a savings on expenses, or night classes, or any of the flexibilities that our modern internet connected age has created, but that never has it been so easy to create diplomas that might look nice and read nice but are essentially diplomas without real work, nor effort, nor stringent requirements, nor are they on the same playing field as a legitimate and accredited degree from a known and respected higher learning institution.

People aren't stupid and when it comes to finding employment, making money, and job opportunities, some will make those necessary adjustments to get their piece of the American pie, even if that means shortcuts, lies, deceits, and trickery.  The people getting and receiving degrees from colleges in which the work involved is minimal, or substandard, could be credibly falling for that siren song of what appears to them to be a legitimate degree from a legitimate organization, as if receiving some sort of gift from higher up.  Many, however, are pretty much well aware that what they have "earned" has, in fact, been purchased for the express purpose of having a credential which they have not merited through their schoolwork or studies.  However, whether they receive their tarnished degree through a form of blithe ignorance or knowing willfulness does not change the fact that their degree is wholly unfair to their prospective employer and fellow employees, in which their degree should reflect that certain standards have been achieved and earned.

While diploma mills aren't going to go away anytime soon, I do believe that higher degree diplomas should be properly vetted through either our U.S. Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation in a such a way so that each diploma for every individual is approved with an unique number, demonstrating that one of these aforementioned organizations, has reviewed and approved the diploma as being from a valid organization for a particular person.  Résumés would then also include as a matter of fact that unique number as part of their application for employment, and for recent graduates, a statement such as "certification pending" might be appended, in which, if that certificate ends up being invalidated, that person would be subject to dismissal. 

Compulsory National Service

In the United States today, there are no requirements for compulsory national or military service from our citizens.  We are fortunate to have enough volunteers to serve in our armed forces so that there isn't a need to compel citizens to sign up for either national or military service.  Some people would consider compulsory national service to be a form of involuntary servitude, but that certainly wasn't the viewpoint during the foundation of our country in which in colonial times, it was common for states to require compulsory militia service for all free males, so as to have sufficient forces and arms to repel invasions, insurrections, and to uphold the law as required.  Militias were necessary in order to protect one's home and homeland, and the responsibility to do so, was a basic requirement of free citizens within our country, everywhere.

You can make a strong argument in which there is a lot to be said for all citizens being compelled for a mandatory period of time to serve their country via the military or the national service, so as to understand that freedom is never free, that sacrifice and teamwork are part of our national character and part of being an American citizen; that citizenship in America isn't necessarily a birthright, but something that entails duties and responsibilities to our fellow citizens and our country. Instead, we have a country in which to a large extent, our armed services are made up of peoples that are from below average national median income areas, rural areas with few opportunities, and also those trying to escape from the our generally poor economy especially for those that are not higher education qualified people.

The United States acts as the world's policeman, in which, perhaps, if all citizens were compelled to serve their country in some capacity, there might be more of a protest over our foreign adventures.  It is always far easier to support armed intervention overseas, knowing that you or your loved ones, won't ever be in harm's way.  If you do not have skin in the game, it's difficult to empathize with someone that does, despite the fact that that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I wish that we lived in a world in which we all got along, but the fact of the matter is that we don't.  In order to try to fulfill our dreams of a world in which we recognize that we are all in this thing together, all of us need to spend time engaged with other people, other countries, and other circumstances, so that we can better appreciate and not take for granted the greatness of our own country but also to know and to recognize that it is not so much that the people around the world are so different than us, but instead to acknowledge their similarities to us.

It is high time to acknowledge not only our responsibilities to ourselves, but also to our fellow citizens, and ultimately to the world.  The world is messed up, maybe because we are not involved in it as much as we should be.

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.