Civil Asset Forfeiture

For many of us, it is a struggle to accumulate assets and those material assets that we do obtain; we have a strong interest in maintaining and continuing our ownership of them.  Consequently, it would not be fair to us, that under current civil laws, that those very assets, such as vehicles, money, real estate, and equipment, can be confiscated so readily by the police or federal policing agencies for virtually no reason at all, but simply a hint of a suspicion, in which our ability to retrieve said items is problematic.  The seizure of our civil assets is ostensibly done under the guise of these assets having being used in criminal activity or alleged to be proceeds from criminal activity, but because these are civil and not criminal charges the burden of proof, switches from the state having to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, to you having to prove that your assets have been legally obtained.  While there may be a justifiable ideal behind civil asset forfeiture in which the State has the position that they should be able to seize material assets which have been created or obtained through illicit means, this leads quickly down a slippery slope, especially when those very assets often end up in the hands of police forces or applied to their budgets directly.  This gives police and their adherents a perverse incentive to seize assets from people that they perceive to be unable or ineligible to fight back effectively.

To make matters worse, police forces appear to take a certain pleasure in bragging about how they seized a certain vehicle or equipment from their civil asset forfeiture actions, which they are now utilizing on behalf of their constituency, as if this is the epitome of great police work.  In fact, civil asset forfeiture is more akin to a legal form of "bullying" in which the police take it upon themselves to determine who or what to target and then to try to maximize the benefits that they can reap from their subsequent seizures. 

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that if you allow the police or any governing agency to reap the benefits of their takings, directly, that those seizures will increase to fulfill those desires, but none of that has much to do with justice, protection, or service to the community.  Civil asset forfeiture is very bad law and isn't necessary to begin with.  The path to take assets from private citizens should never be an easy path, and it should definitely be a path that is carefully cultivated with evidence that is truly substantiated fairly in a court of law. 

Civil asset forfeiture is yet another example of government overreach, government and police intrusion, and government incentives being turned upside-down.   The police and prosecution agents should instead of selectively and prejudicially targeting individuals that aren't part of the status quo for various reasons, be far better off understanding the necessary value and recognition that good legal law needs to be equally applied to everyone without prejudice.

The World's oldest profession

I always have despised the term, "the world's oldest profession", as used in reference to the prostitution of women.  Recent times have been quite beneficial for many women in many countries for their education, their freedom of choice, their opportunities for equivalent pay and jobs, their ownership of their own body, their determination and say of a marriage partner, their own money, and their legal rights.  These significant steps have allowed women the world over, to have a firm foundation in their own decisions, their own livelihood, and have improved the world immensely by utilizing their intelligence, knowhow, and perspective in new and important ways throughout society.

It is gratifying to see that women are at a minimum given the choice of getting education, continuing their education, and then having the freedom to use that knowledge in the world at large.  Of course, and unfortunately, that isn't the case in all countries, as there are countries of notable stature and power, that treat women as chattel, or even worse, in which women still have no rights, and are no better than common servants, with little or no natural rights.

Not too surprisingly, in countries in which women have little or no rights and thereby have little or no access to money or property, ultimately their choices for advancement and for survival of their own person, or of their families are severely compromised so that in these types of trying situations, women are put to the test, in which they must seriously consider monetizing one of the few things that they can sell, and that will often have ready buyers, which is their body.

The game is hardly fair, because the women are impoverished, with no legal or real power, with little or no opportunity, but burdened with responsibilities to themselves and to their families.  It is because of that lack of opportunity, and for their needs both psychological and physical, that women are often essentially compelled into the world of prostitution.  This unfortunate state of affairs is brought about deliberately because those that are in power feel no need to relinquish said power, and prefer to exercise that power against females that are not members of their clan or clique.

The world's oldest profession, is hardly something that women grow up wanting to become members of, it's seldom a preference or a real choice, it is instead often an act of desperation in order to survive another day.  Prostitution is a fit and function and a referendum on how healthy a given society is in its respect, concern, and care for those that are less fortunate.  A society that has many women that are pressured into prostitution is often also a society of rich and poor, powerful and powerless, healthy and unhealthy, protected and unprotected, Good Samaritans and careless Levites.  It is in short a society that doesn't take the time or have the concern for those that are less-able, less advantaged, less gifted, than the elite or the fortunate that also mistakenly believe that they have some sort of God-given right to do what they do.

The world's oldest profession shouldn't exist; however it exists primarily because of the evil and selfishness in man's heart.

The White House use to be non-imperial

The White House use to be truly open to the public, in which the public could pretty much show up and gain admission into the White House without any questions being asked.  Those days are long pass, and today in order to access the White House, or specifically certain portions available to the public of the White House, one must be properly vetted and consequently apply through one's congressman and then upon approval, if you are approved, you will be allowed to be visit the White House after going through security, showing your identification, and shuffling through the eight rooms opened to the public, all under the watchful eye of the Secret Service officers.

Perhaps this is the way things should be, after all, the White House is a special place, the President and his advisors are special people, and we are just subjects to his White House.  Hold on though, that isn't what America is about, in fact, the President is not our King, he is elected by the people, for the people, and to represent the people.  The President is beholden to us and not us to him.  The White House is not the Presidents but ours, it is his for a little while, but it is ours in principle.

There was a time when the White House would be literally overrun by the public at inaugurations, with White House items becoming damaged or even taken from its premises.  On an average day, the President would be inundated with visitors trying to solicit the President for jobs, offers, and public service.  The press felt that they too had the right to inquire or question the President about this or that for the public consumption, no matter the inconvenience to the President and his tasks. 

While we can never go back to those times, it was during those days that the people felt a greater connection to the Presidency, that the President was one of them, that they, the people, were part of this great republic, with a voice and an opportunity to be heard, in which they could actually visit and possibly speak and communicate with the President of the United States.   These were times when the President understood the importance of the people having access to the President, to hear their voice, to break bread with them, and to solicit their cares and concerns.

When you are far removed from the public, in which virtually no one that visits or speaks with you is a true common man, a true representative of the people, than it is difficult to understand the public pulse, to empathize with the people, or to really relate to their concerns and cares.  At that point, you are no longer a representative of the people, you certainly are not one with the people, and you are more akin to the Kings and Queens of yesteryear whose voice is the voice, whose law is the law, who are the rulers, for better or for worse.  

The Vaccine Controversy

First, what is a vaccine and why is it important for our health?  In order to combat harmful and dangerous germs and pathogens, your body is inoculated with a serum, this vaccination will contain a defused version of the pathogen, which will mobilize your T-cells and your B-cells to respond to it as if your body was being attacked by a dangerous foreign invader, in which by so doing this will provide you with immunity against the real disease, should your body ever come into contact with it.  Because of vaccination, diseases such as smallpox, polio, measles, and diphtheria have been essentially eliminated from all those people that have been immunized from these known destructive and harmful pathogens.  This, in short, is the greatness of modern-day science, of preventative medicine, of knowledge rightly applied.

Smallpox was a deadly scourge in America during our revolutionary days, yet many American lives were saved because men such as John Adams, George Washington and his soldiers, and Benjamin Franklin, to name a few notables, made it a policy to get inoculated during these colonial times.  These fine men were part of the leadership and vanguard of their day, and their noble examples and calculated risks that they took led later to the discovery of the smallpox vaccination by Dr. Edward Jenner, which saved countless lives of children and adults then as well as now.

There is no controversy that vaccines work and are highly effective, but today in our upside-down world, there is a renewed controversy that vaccines are either not necessary, do harm, such as creating autism, and consequently should be a parent's choice or voluntary.  This is a sad state of affairs, especially when the medical information and data overwhelmingly supports the commonsense approach of receiving your regularly scheduled vaccination shots.  It is especially disturbing to note that those that do not inoculate their children put their children as well as other children in danger, in which their highest priority should be to remove known dangers from them.

While I understand and sympathize that any medical procedure has risks, and that vaccinations correctly applied can have adverse reactions, there is also an attendant risk in no action, in avoidance, and in the unnecessary belief that you are superior in your thinking for medical procedures, rather than the unison of medical doctors and medical researchers the world over.  Is it even logical to really believe, to even contemplate, that doctors mean to harm your child?  The empirical evidence is clear, immunizations save lives, and it is as straightforward as that.

Still it is certainly well worthwhile, to study, assimilate, and to make sure that our vaccinations are as safe from adverse effects as we can make them.  To this, I applaud the discussion that critics of vaccines can be bring to the table, nevertheless, this criticism should logically be led by accredited professionals, and it shouldn't be some sort of slick sideshow, with celebrities and those of that ilk, but it should instead always be aboveboard, transparent, and very, very real.  Your child's life, innocent, depends on it.

Tyranny in America

America was founded and established by essentially peoples escaping from religious persecution, which wished to worship their God in a manner in which they would not be interfered with, and would also give these same people the necessary religious freedom to pay homage to the One that created them in His image.  There were also others that came to America for the adventure, for the challenge, for a new start, for the new frontier, and to embrace this far country.  Through hard work, toil, sweat, and blood, a new nation was formed that would become the United States of America.  That nation founded as a republic in 1776, was initially a bastion of great republican virtues, a nation that respected and celebrated pluck and virtue, but now it is a land that has re-established itself as essentially a meddling tyranny and Godforsaken.

Whether you recognize it or not, life has changed within America over the last few generations.  Nowadays, you are a fool to not know or to not believe that all of your email, all of your cellular phone conversations, and all of your public activities are being monitored and ultimately stored by the State and placed into massive databases for evaluation.  The State with its sophisticated spy apparatus, voice recording equipment, data retrieval, data mining, and intensive algorithm powers are working 24/7 to monitor and to interdict enemies of the State.

The State position is straightforward, if you are not part of the operation, nor part and parcel of the enforcing or monitoring of the operation, nor a "connected" elite that has immunity from the intrusiveness and effect of the operation, than you are subject to all of the State's actions to your person, to your property, to your employment, to your family, and to your life itself.   It is to the State, and to no one else, as to whether you are allowed the luxury of continuing to live life in America as if you are still free, still free to move about, still free to think, still free to write, still free to complain, but the State holds the ultimate power as to whether your existence will continue without harassment or whether your existence will either be compromised or extinguished.

A government that has the power, authority, and the money, to provide you with health, employment, housing, and food, is a government that has the power to take those very things away from you. In return for all this beneficence bestowed upon you, the government only asks in return, that should they need to avail you of your services that you will comply with their request with no questions asked. 

Our government holds all 52 cards, they can sell you the illusion that the game is fair, but it is most certainly not.  Today's governmental tyranny is basically benign for most Americans, maybe even welcomed from those that are too lazy and too complacent to care.  However, this great domestic and well-armed police force along with our well-trained military forces, can in conjunction with intelligence either manufactured, or obtained, be easily turned against its native population, and it's only a matter of time.

Torture and the Geneva Convention

We are a nation of laws, but unfortunately, we are also a nation of lawyers, wily politicians, and an overzealous military apparatus, in which certain lawyers as instructed by certain government officials spend an inordinate amount of time, energy, and resources, to come up with ways to "legally" circumvent or to interpret laws in such a manner as to support USA tortuous actions both domestically and abroad which are, in fact, clear violations of that law.

In general, and almost without exception, the United States, feels that it is above the law in circumstances in which the law doesn't favor their actions and since the United States is not a country that can be trifled with, it is able to have its way.  America spends a lot of time justifying its actions, in a false belief, that such justification, makes their actions right or legal, when in actuality, it does neither.  Wrong is wrong, no matter how you try to dress it up, and the use of semantics to cover your actions, along with willing public speakers and writers that press your point, ultimately won't change the true colors of your actions.

To make matters worse, it is the America public and, in particular American soldiers that will suffer the blowback of America's illegal and poorly reasoned tortuous actions.  When the United States shows no respect for the Geneva treaty that it is a signatory to, in which they play fast and loose with both the letter and the spirit of the law, it takes no stretch of the imagination to recognize that other countries and principalities will also do the same at some point, at some time, somewhere, to some one.

The United States can only lead by example, and its actions or actions of its proxies in regards to its torturous behavior to detainees, to combatants, to prisoners of war, is clearly objectionable.  To make matters worse, none of it is even necessary, as torture in of itself, is highly debatable in regards to any accurate and actionable information being obtained.  Torture, is though, quite sadistic, quite painful, quite degrading, and it also has long-lasting physical as well as psychological damages inflicted to those that are tortured. 

Certain peoples within the United States, believe that it is necessary that we be the world's biggest bully, that if certain people that we detain don't obey our commands, or aren’t obedient to our desires, that it is thereby imperative that we show them who the real boss is, because any other action would show weakness and the United States can never be shown as weak. 

But in weakness, there is great strength.  Again and again, great nations have changed, or been toppled not from arm insurrection, not from violent upheaval, but have been changed because they have been shamed into right action.  These brave men, unlike their oppressors, will not give in to hate, nor to the infliction of suffering, nor to the wrongness of justice that oppresses, but they will instead resist and they will be disobedient to man's law wrong applied, to man's strong arm wrongly used, and they will instead answer only to the Higher law.

Torture is an injustice; it has no place in the American lexicon, and will only leave a great trail of tears as America decays into a wasteland of hatred, hypocrisy, and hollowness.

Tattoos on vehicles

As reported by harrisinteractive.com in 2012, one in five adults (21%) has at least one tattoo on their body, in which tattoos are considered pretty much to be permanent body art, although there are ways to remove a tattoo should you be so inclined in the future.  While there are a multitude of reasons why people get tattoos, certainly one of them is to express yourself and to establish yourself as your own person. 

Cars are considered by many to be status symbols, and that they often identify you as a certain type of person or clique.  For example, most drivers of a Toyota Prius would be seldom identified as beer-swilling rifle-toting redneck backwoods people, but perhaps if you were driving a certain Ford pickup truck that might describe you to a "T".

But when you look around at vehicles on the road today, pretty much the only vehicles that you encounter with "body art" are business vehicles for flower delivery, plumbing, trucking, or whatnot.  You do see some cars that are "tricked out" but that often cost a lot of money in regards to wheels, rims, headlights, stripes, spoilers, or certain paint jobs.  The only real "body art" that I see on some vehicles are bumper stickers which do make a statement but hardly brings status or envy about your vehicle.  So I ask, why not tattoos for cars?

The really sweet thing about tattoos for cars, is the fact that should you have a change of heart, or sell your vehicle, it isn’t all that difficult to re-paint your car to cover up or modify this art, should it come down to this.  The best thing about tattoos for cars is that it gives you the opportunity to uniquely express yourself on the road in which you can make your own statement, and put your own imprint on society.

Cars are a great canvas in which to create this art, and the shelf-life of cars are finite enough, that as you migrate from one stage to another in life, you can amend your desire for what you want to present on your automobile.  This isn't about putting together a unique paint job, or coloring scheme, which has its place, but instead creating something that means something to you and that will allow you to express your individuality or status in such a way that it brings you a certain satisfaction while contemplating it.

Like any trend, this has to start somewhere, with someone or some people taking this concept and running with it.  Out of all the material items that you purchase in life, typically the second most expensive will be your vehicle, and for people from the ages of 18-30, your car purchase is the single biggest purchase that you will probably make.  By definition, cars are driven, they are exterior status symbols.  You may have friends, business associates, that never visit you at your home, or your apartment, or your crib, but they know you by your car. If you have body tattoos they might not ever see those tattoos, but they will see your tattoo on your car, so make it count.

Poker’s four color deck

For anyone that plays online and especially for those that multi-table, (that is simultaneously playing other poker tables in order to get in more poker hands per hour) the four color deck is pretty much mandatory, as missing the possibility of a flush or misreading the board in such a way that you don’t take into account that you or your opponent may have a flush can be devastating to your bankroll and to your confidence.  Additionally, besides the fatigue on your eyes in which you must discern whether the black card that is displayed is either a spade or a club, or the red card being shown is either a heart or a diamond, there is the mind fatigue of yet another item that you must pay careful attention to, within a split second, when you are playing poker online.

Consequently, I suspect that most players default to using the four color deck while playing online, whether they multi-table or not.  After all, there are four different suits in poker; it only makes logical sense that each of those suits should have a separate color.  Unfortunately, for reasons that I find hard to fathom the four color deck has not transferred to live poker games in casinos around America or for that matter, the world.  It is conceivable, that in today’s world, poker has succumbed to the illogic that tradition knows best, even when technology clearly shows that this tradition should, in fact, change?

Because poker is a game that has few winners, and many losers, I have heard that casinos are reluctant to change the color configuration of their decks because they fear upsetting the clientele that frequent their casino.  I have also heard it reasoned that some players enjoy the fact that their opponents may misread or not see a potential flush on the board and they enjoy having that extra edge.  Obviously, neither of these are good reasons why a four color deck isn’t used, but perhaps like anything, if at first you fail, you should try again.

While I don’t particularly recommend subterfuge, why not, for the sake of argument, introduce the four color deck during tournaments, without any real notice to the players that have signed up for the tournament.  I mean, my goodness, what player or players would refuse to play under such conditions, when the whole purpose of a player’s entry into the tournament is the opportunity to catch lightning in a bottle.  There is yet another way to introduce the four color deck to tournaments and that is to get some sponsorship money from the manufacturer of the deck at hand, or in absence of straight sponsorship money, a substantial discount on the decks, themselves.  I do believe that if four color decks caught on in tournaments, that the transition to live regular poker games would become far smoother.

I am not, however, in favor of the passage of a law, which simply states that on such and such a date, all poker played within a certain jurisdiction, must use the four color deck.  I do believe that sooner or later we will see that inflection point in which live poker games will switch over to the four color deck and put to rest the two color deck.  What is puzzling to me is why it hasn’t already happened.  It’s as simple as arguing this very basic point, which is, if the game of poker was invented today, would the deck of cards which consists of four different suits, be all of one color, two colors, three colors, or four colors to match the four different suits of cards.  The logical answer is that those four suits would be four different colors.

For those that insist on the two color deck, I would say, get over it, the four color deck is an incremental improvement, and is a net benefit for the game and for the incumbent attraction of new players.

No Trespassing

In general, I don't have a problem with no trespassing signs in regards to private property, especially if that private property was honestly achieved through hard work and toil.  Of course, if I was surrounded in my entire town by property signs that stated "no trespassing" I would probably take offense at that, but in general it's a non-issue, because typically the parks, the streets, the stores, the restaurants, the entertainment facilities are all open to the public and that's basically what I am after.  However, when it comes to government "no trespassing" signs, whether that government is local or national, I do take offense.  While I can understand a no trespassing sign and fencing being utilized to protect the public from areas in which there is a danger involved such as munitions or poisons or unstable grounds, when the no trespassing sign is essentially put there to keep the public out as if it isn't any of their business, as if they are a nuisance, that's wrong.

It's wrong because that is public money, being utilized for the public trust, and as a member of the public we do have not only a right to know what is behind that fence that states "no trespassing", but a right to visit that area, even if dangerous, when providing proper notice and under conditions that are safe.  It is important to recognize that there should never be an impression that there are two countries or two classes in America, such as the class that is privy to inside information and all that it entails, and the class of 'suckers' that are basically fleeced or taken advantage of to pay for it.

I do believe that public areas that are held in trust for the public but that display "no trespassing"  signage to the public should have readily available information as to what exactly is in that particular area and why we aren't allowed to see what is behind the door.  Our government, need keep few secrets from the public, and should in fact have an open policy of providing pertinent information to the people. I especially find disconcerting that "flunkies" are often in charge of scaring off people that are either' trespassing' or too close to "no trespassing" areas in which there is a misimpression that these areas aren't answerable to the people.

It is absolutely critical that the public has the right to roam through their country and to not have to step aside for arbitrary displays of governmental overreach in regards to public access to areas that we should at a minimum have a right to know, and even better a right to travel through.  Anytime, the government is handling something for the public trust, we, the people, should be able to access that trust, to validate it, to understand it, to photograph it, and to experience it. 

This is supposed to be a country for the people and by the people, in which we have a right to know what is really going on in those "no trespassing" areas, and a right to verify the activities therewith.  The more secretive our government is, the more secluded that it acts, the more that we can be assured that something wicked this way comes.

Black Pepper

The two most commonly used spices are salt and black pepper, in which black pepper is known as the king of all spices.  Because of the prevalence of both salt and pepper in today's society and their inexpensive pricing, we take for granted that both salt and pepper are easily obtainable, but that certainly wasn't true a few hundred years ago.  Whereas for salt, it is fairly abundant throughout the world through mining, evaporation of seawater, and salt beds; pepper is a far different story.  Specifically, black pepper was historically indigenous only to a southwestern province of India.  Incredibly, it is because of black pepper, that Columbus was able to receive the funding for his voyages to discover a western route to India in order to obtain this very pepper, in the hopes that by so doing, he would decrease the price for pepper and save Spain a considerable amount of money by negating the need for the "silk road", the historic ground transportation used for this important spice and other trade items. Unfortunately, for Columbus, and for Spain, he was unable to discover black pepper in the new world, but instead brought back the capsicum pepper which although useful as a spice, was not the "black gold" of the real black pepper plant

Pepper is derived from seed berries of the black plant vine that is now grown in several countries, but was originally native to just India.  Pepper is known to us as a flavor-enhancing spice, but it also has been used for medicinal purposes as it aids too in the digestion of foods by increasing secretions, along with its known antioxidant and antibacterial attributes.  Pepper has become commonplace in today's culinary world, in which its ubiquity in cooking and recipes is nearly mandatory, and unlike salt it doesn't contain any meaningful amounts of sodium, so that consequently its usage has little or no deleterious effects upon the body, in fact, pepper is effective in helping to reduce constipation, and aiding in the removal of toxins from the body.

People have a tendency to forget, or to take for granted, the importance of trade and exploration in order to receive the benefits, and the low-cost, of items that we assume have always been there or are readily available.  Wars have been fought over essential minerals and items, monies and great exertions have been made in order to find them, to replicate them, or even to steal them.  Black pepper is one of those spices in which all of the above has occurred and with good reason.  It is the master of all spices and is an essential ingredient for any spice cabinet, for food, and for your health in general. 

Edward Gibbon stated in ‘The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ that black pepper was: “a favorite ingredient of the most expensive Roman cookery“.  Now, rich or poor, we too are able to reap its multitude of benefits, most of us, though, clueless of the path it took to get to our palates.

9-11 lucky shot

There is a tendency to give the 9-11 hijackings and their terrorist attack too much credibility in regards to their brilliance and their audacity for their planned attacks on their intended American targets.  While, there was definitely pre-planning and serious preparation made by Osama Bin Ladin’s al Qaeda faction, the plan itself perhaps in retrospect and also because of its awesome success appears stunning, but upon further careful reflection and contemplation seems more like that long shot, or lucky shot coming home to fruition.

In order for al Qaeda’s plan to succeed you needed the following major items to go off without a hitch:

1.       Hijackers entry into America without any real notice

2.       Hijackers successful completion of pilot training without any real notice

3.       Hijackers successfully boarding each of the airplanes on 9-11

4.       Hijackers not backing down or aborting the implementation of the plan on 9-11

5.       Hijackers successful in taking control of all of the airplanes (though lost control or were compromised on United 93)

6.       Hijackers successful in reaching and hitting their target in 3 out of the 4 airplanes

7.       The utter destruction of the World Trade Center and other peripheral buildings.

First off, and critically, the hijackers were fortunate that our hijacking training scenario was such that airline personnel had previously learned the “common strategy” tactic for which the crew members were advised to comply with the hijacker’s demands and thereby not try to escalate the tension or to thwart the hijacker perpetrators.  The belief at that time was that by getting the plane back on the ground safely and thereby allowing security forces and a negotiation team to work with the hijackers, that more lives would be saved.  Obviously, this strategy had a fatal flaw when dealing with hijackers who mistakenly believed that by committing suicide, that they would reach martyrdom and paradise.

Unfortunately, for America, we had not updated our hijacking policies despite the fact that al Qaeda had made it previously clear that they were actively engaging in suicide missions, although at that time, none were of the airplane variety.  It was this fatal misconception which contributed to the success of this terrorist attack on September 11, as America was woefully unprepared for this new line of thinking. 

Additionally, and this is very important, despite the fact that the terrorists who had taken over the airplanes, had never flown a commercial airliner, but had instead simply and primarily been trained with flight simulators, yet consequently they were able to target the world trade center buildings and the pentagon in which they then incredibly hit their targets is simply amazing.  Now maybe I have it all wrong, maybe it’s easy to hit a specific building while flying a plane that is traveling at 400 miles per hour but I seriously doubt that this is easy to accomplish for an inexperienced pilot, yet somehow these hijackers were able to hit their targets.

The other problem with the airplanes, that hadn’t previously been taken into consideration, was that the high flammability of their fuel had tremendous destructive power because of the high heat component of that fuel being burned, and in addition the massive quantity of fuel in these nearly full tanks of the airplanes itself.  Still, I did not think, nor do I suspect that most people thought, that these great edifices of the sky would in fact burned so intensely that these structures would end up “pan-caking” uponthemselves, yet they did.

So the terrorist attacks were far more successful, they were far most destructive, than even the most optimistic man at al Qaeda could have envisioned.  Al Qaeda was lucky, it was their lucky shot that came to fruition, in which just about everything worked out ideally, and had to, for this day to go down in infamy. 

History has invoked a lot of criticism of what America should or shouldn’t have done, known or should have known, but in actuality, on that day, the gods simply did not favor us, something or somebody favored them.

Take the profit out of war and save American lives

Business is pretty straightforward, if you don't make any money, you will go out of business, if you break about even, you can continue in business, and if you make good money, not only will you continue in business, but you will have the opportunity to grow your business, become more influential because of your business, and reap all the ensuing benefits of having your business.     Additionally, businessmen aren't stupid, they and their money will gravitate to areas in which they can make money, the gross margins are good, the account receivables are solid, growth rates are promising, and the money is steady.

Uncle Sam pays exceedingly well and is the biggest player in the pond by far.  Doing business with the US government and other government entities is an almost certain way of getting paid consistently and well, with solid profits to boot.  But not every enterprise should be structured as a profit-making business, in some cases because it's unseemly to make money, for instance, in a charitable or humane based causes. However, somewhat remarkably, war is one of those enterprises in which profit is made, but really it shouldn't be, because the primary business of war is death and destruction, and that isn't something that should be profited on.

The question must be asked, how is it that the most powerful country in the world, which is realistically threatened by nobody or no coalition of countries, seems to get into war after war, incursion after incursion, year after year after year.  This only happens because there is profit in it, a whole lot of profit in it, for the business of war.  American defense entrepreneurs are in the business of making money and maintaining growth in both earnings and size, with Uncle Sam being the enabler of these enterprises time and time again.  These companies can always come up with something bigger, better, more accurate, more state-of-the-art, more modern, and so on, because man's ingenuity isn't limited by much of anything.  Our biggest defense contractors will never tell the government that they are fresh out of ideas, no longer in need of any additional funding and they will never walk away from the money that Uncle Sam has in abundance.  These enterprises want their fair share, in fact, they demand it.

However, if your take the profit out of war, you will change the paradigm.  While there may be myriad ways to take the profit out of war, the simplest way is merely to keep things exactly the way they currently are, with one fundamental change, a law that is enacted which states straightforwardly and to the point: "The dollar amount of defense contracts accrued within the current fiscal year at said company will be divided into the total amount of dollar sales for that company as a whole.  This percentage figure will then be multiplied against the ordinary business income of said enterprise, in which that final dollar amount will be forwarded as the rebated compensation to government agencies in proportion to the specific government contracts accrued within that subject fiscal year."

While, no doubt, the enterprises being impacted will raise a stink and cry about the unfair taking of their profits, it would only be fair to point out, that they shouldn't be in the business of profiteering on the real-world blood, sweat, tears, injuries, illnesses, sacrifice and ultimately the death of our American soldiers.

Supreme Court 1962 and Prohibited Prayer

The New York State Board of Regents added a prayer in the 1950s for all New York public schools, which stated: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."  The prayer itself was voluntary for all students, and hardly worthy of any controversy, yet it was considered a violation of our First Amendment rights by a few parents and a court case ensued.  The New York Court and the New York Court of Appeals sustained the prayer as being constitutional.  Incredibly, the parents then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which somewhat surprisingly decided to take the case.  The fact that the Supreme Court would make a ruling would mean, that whatever decision that they made, would be applicable nationally.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that this voluntary prayer, which most people would be hard-pressed to see as controversial, or in violation of our Constitutional principles, was ruled to be unconstitutional. 

It is always disappointing when the Supreme Court gets it as wrong as they did in the Engel v. Vitale decision; it is especially disappointing that there was just one dissenter, Associate Justice Stewart.  The majority that ruled against the voluntary reciting of this innocuous and short prayer to open up each school day are the same type of judges that would rule against using common sense and upholding our American heritage.  In essence, the effect of this ruling was to replace God from our public schools with the State then becoming our new god.  After all, if you remove God from the equation, it is only a short, logical and small step that since God is vacated from the American lexicon, our new god is now the State that we are dependent upon, and that we should supplicant ourselves to. 

The movement that has been made over the last few decades in America is a new and unprecedented acknowledgment that we no longer need give thanks to God, but instead we need give thanks to the State, to our omniscient judges, to our bureaucrats that run our welfare system, to the bankers that issue us our loans or money, and to our employers who so gratefully employ us.  Apparently we no longer need a higher power because we are that higher power, but alas this is the falsehood of man's error and of his arrogance.

Justice Stewart correctly pointed out that we are a religious people, dependent upon and historically appreciative of our divine Providence.  Stewart asks, why it is"…that the Constitution permits judges and Congressmen and Presidents to join in prayer, but prohibits school children from doing so?"  Perhaps the answer is because those that oppose religion as well as those that support it, recognize that: "Train up a child in the way he should go:  and when he is old, he will not depart from it."  (Proverbs 22:6)

We would also do well to remember that if and when God is eliminated from American jurisprudence, our rights will no longer come from God, but they will be dictated, instead, by the State.

President Kill

President Obama never served in the military, he is not the first president not to have served his country in this capacity and he probably will not be the last.  For example, Presidents Coolidge, Harding, and Wilson also didn’t do service in the military.   It does seem strange, though, for an academic to gravitate to the position in which Obama was quoted as saying in the book: Double Down that he was “…really good at killing people,” in reference to drone strikes performed by USA forces against enemy combatants as authorized and approved by the Commander-in-Chief. 

Perhaps in today’s day and age, becoming President necessitates that you must kill other people, by any means necessary, even Americans, if it is perceived to be in the country’s best interest as decided by the President, but this definitely seems wrong.  The taking of another human life should seldom be celebrated and certainly is not anything worth bragging about.  Additionally, and more importantly, the President of the United States should not be our designated Mafia chieftain, or our Godfather, especially in a country that purports to represent to the world: freedom, democracy, and a Constitutional republic.

The other very perplexing thing which is very hard to get one’s hands around, is how do you take a middle-age man, who hardly seems the warrior type and morph him instead into someone that is just fine with killing not just the “bad” guys, but all the collateral damage that goes along with this, which obviously includes civilians who at worse are at the wrong place at the wrong time, or sadly are wrongly targeted in the first place.  None of this should even be necessary or contemplated since the United States is not under attack by any other country on our soil, nor are we being invaded, nor are these killings being done on American territory, so this is hardly a conventional defense of our liberties.

What is it with this rush to judgment, this rush to take the life of our perceived enemies?  Apparently, with the technology and sophistication of our weaponry, our drones, our intelligence, it is fairly straightforward to target individuals or groups of individuals with some certainty that they do match the description of the target that we are intending to eliminate.  The use, however, of lethal force to take out these enemies is hardly becoming of a great country, especially since it is invariable that innocent parties, including good Samaritans, will also be injured or killed and the arbiter of who lives or dies is in the eyes solely of the United States, and no other principalities or powers.

To make these sorts of judgments, these sorts of decisions, obviously has consequences to our country, to our people, and to our future.  After all, how difficult is it for another country to argue, if targeted killings are good enough for the United States, they are good enough for us.  These types of killings also make a mockery of international tribunals and international law, if the United States believes that it is, alone, above the law, than there effectively is no universal international law. 

The saddest thing is that these targeted killings will never stop, as there will always be one more, and one more, and one more.  And for all this, we get justice, security, and peace?  Never, and the President knows it.

Powdered Wigs

If you watch or see something often enough you get use to it, so seeing paintings of prominent kings that are wearing powdered wigs (perukes), or TV programs in which barristers with those British accents have on powdered wigs, you just take it for granted that these things exist.  However, in a time of reflection, you may ask why?  After all, kings are important people, a court of justice is typically a somewhat solemn and serious affair, yet prominent people within these institutions are wearing wigs that rather than making them look dignified, appear just a little ridiculous.

Apparently, in the 16th century, which was far before the age of penicillin or antibiotics, London was suffering under an epidemic of syphilis, in which one of the side effects of syphilis was a patchy loss of hair.  Another, more important reason for wigs, was that head lice was a common problem in those times so that by shaving one's head, and then adding a wig onto the top of your head, you could take care of the problem of head lice and have an acceptable or even fashionable accessory to wear.  Then, of course, there are some people whom suffer from premature balding or graying, in which for vanity purposes they preferred to wear an elaborate wig.  So powdered wigs served both a practical use and were also de rigueur in those times.  What is somewhat incredible, however, is that powdered wigs are still used in a court of law in most Commonwealth countries till the present age.

The current usage of powdered wigs is best looked upon as a symbol that those that wear these wigs belong to an exclusive club or guild, in which commoners aren't permitted to wear things of this sort.  The powdered wigs are a bit ridiculous on purpose, because they are not worn for everyday walking or strolling through the streets but to designate the wearer as an important erudite and educated person of some prominence and to identify themselves one to another.   This means that those that wear powdered wigs will, almost by nature, even if on opposing sides of a political or judicial matter, treat each other with a bit more respect and deference than they would if they didn't wear this symbolic emblem on their heads.

Perhaps powdered wigs will be consigned to the dustbin of history in the near future, as, after all, there isn't any necessity for the wearing of them, but I suspect those that wear them have no real interest or intention of seeing this occur, as powdered wigs are an important status symbol in which in this day and age, most status symbols can be copied or imitated by others who have achieved little or nothing.  To wear today's powder wig you must essentially be a barrister, judge, or a member of parliament commemorating a special occasion, this therefore gives you a status in which it is clear that you are a person of some importance, of some worth, and of some respect.

Neville Chamberlin -- Peace for our Time

Most people don't pay a lot of attention to history and consequently they come to simplistic conclusions about complicated events which have multiple interpretations and controversies within them.  Neville Chamberlin, under trying circumstances, was able to negotiate and achieve from Hitler in September of 1938 an agreement in which in exchange for ceding the German portion of Czechoslovakia to Germany, known as the Sudetenland, that there would be no war and no further aggression from Germany in regards to this territory. 

The demands by Germany weren't in actuality that unreasonable, since that portion of Czechoslovakia was primarily German speaking, and the state of Czechoslovakia itself was created out of the ashes of World War I and the disintegration of the Austro Hungarian Empire, and the hope of the Munich Pact was that this annexation would appease Hitler and would prevent war.  History tells us that this didn't happen, but it did delay war for one year, or until September 1939, when Germany attacked and invaded Poland.  None of the above means that Chamberlin was a fool, a poor negotiator, a liar, or a knave, because Chamberlin did the best that he could do in an attempt to avoid and to avert the terrible destruction and carnage of World War II, and for this he should be commended.

To put things in perspective, in 1938, Europe was not just challenged by the aggression of Germany, but was also challenged by the aggressiveness and territorial ambitions of the Soviet Union, these two great powers created an interesting and challenging dynamic for countries such as Great Britain and France.  With World War I and its devastating destruction in regards to both men and materials, still in its rear view mirror, Great Britain was hardly in neither position nor eager to once again have to devote time, soldiers, money, and infrastructure to yet another great war.  This, in of itself, was reason enough to desire peace, to argue for peace, and to want to achieve peace for our time.  

Additionally, and importantly, Great Britain knew that Germany and the Soviet Union were natural enemies in which there was a strong argument to sit still and let events take their course, as the west's natural antipathy to communism was significantly higher than their distaste for Nazism.  Also, fundamentally, the German war machine would have a need to run on oil in which Germany had no ready access to this most vital energy resource which, in theory, would interfere and hinder German ambitions and its fearsome war machine.

Diplomats and countries have an obligation, a calling, to avert war, and to try to achieve peace when it is possible, to the best of their ability.  A country is great, not because it goes to war, and conquers another for a time, but because it is big enough to recognize that it is not always right, that might certainly doesn't make right, and that we have a moral obligation to try to understand others, to find common ground, and to recognize that we are all truly in this together.

To be angry, and to want to wage war is easy, to restrain oneself, to recognize the rights and validity of others, is maturity, for blessed are the peacemakers.

Moderate cigarette smoking is fine

The United States gets it wrong over and over again, in regards to certain health hazards, recommendations, and beliefs.  Whatever is currently in favor is praised, and whatever currently is out of favor is vilified, whereas the truth is either set aside, ignored, or exaggerated to make whatever point serves the purpose of the government and its mouthpieces.  A case in point is cigarette smoking, in which, if you were to believe the government, smoking cigarettes appears the be the single worst thing that anyone can do to their own body or to anybody in the vicinity of their smoking.  For the US government and its guileless citizens, smoking is wrong, a weakness, and should be eliminated, in which upon the cessation of smoking, everyone will be so happy and complete.  Rubbish.

While I do not argue for excessive smoking, I do understand that there are certain reasons why people might want to smoke.  First off, people like to smoke, because smoking helps to ease their discomfort and loneliness in certain social situations.  They also like to smoke because cigarette smoking suppresses their appetite and allows them to concentrate better on tasks.  Additionally, there is a certain pleasure in smoking which helps to relax an individual.  What the critics never seem to understand, and never seem to get right, is that there is no ongoing social situation or peer pressure which would get people to smoke if there wasn't any benefit or pleasure from the act of smoking to begin with.

There are plenty of ways to die, and certainly dying from lung cancer, or emphysema, or cardiovascular disease, is not going to be a pleasant experience, in which excessive cigarette smoking is a significant reason why these diseases may ravage your body.  However, many things that are done to excess or are ignored are not going to be good for your brain or for your body, such as excessive alcohol consumption, excessive consumption of unhealthy fats and sugars, excessive stress, and the total lack of exercise.  Your diet, your habits, your personality, your genes, your decisions, and your luck, are all going to be factors that are involved in your overall health.

For those that believe that cigarette smoking and lung cancer, or cigarette smoking and lifespan are inexorably linked and that the conclusion is obvious, that smoking truncates and ends your life, prematurely, that conclusion is called into question by studying other countries and their cancer rates and lifespan.  For instance, Japan's consumption of cigarettes far exceeds the United States, in which Japan's consumption of cigarettes is nearly 85% more than the United States, in fact, many more Japanese smoke than Americans, but Japan's lifespan is the 2nd highest in the world, significantly higher than the lifespan of the United States.  Incredibly, as reported by nih.gov in November of 2001, the United States incidence of lung cancer is "…six times higher than in Japanese relative to community controls."

Rather than act like little children and cry out that the sky is falling, such as Chicken Little, the United States should stop hiding behind lies, deceptions, and deceits.  That is the inconvenient truth about smoking and yes, moderate cigarette smoking of around five to six cigarettes a day, is just fine.

Hunger

There are fundamental things that each human being must have in order for their physical body to live, such as food, shelter, water, and health.  While more than this that is required to complete a man, such as a sound mind, religious spirit, purpose, love, and wisdom, our most basic need begins with the physical requirement for nourishment or else our body will wither and die.

Civilizations, governments, and countries are well aware of our fundamental need that we must be fed and have some sort of shelter from the elements and those that have the power or the influence to control the distribution of food and/or shelter have a tremendous hold on the population.  When that power and influence for food and shelter is held in the hands of the people commensurate with their efforts and labor, a given people will then be free from the vagaries of incompetent and corrupt governments.  However, there are a multitude of governments that control the distribution of food, of employment, of shelter, and this easily creates an environment that is unhealthy and untenable for the general population.

Never in the history of the world has the production of food been able to have been achieved with the efficiency and economies of scale that we have acted upon today.  Not only is it commonplace for food to be grown or developed or herded in one area of the world and then be distributed virtually all over the world, but this logistical brilliance and output shows no signs of having maximized itself in its effect or in its usefulness.

Yet despite the fact that it has never been easier or more accessible to feed our worldwide population, there are literally millions of people starving to death or suffering from malnutrition each year, in which somewhere around 13-18 million people die from starvation or starvation related diseases each and every year.  One of the most disappointing things about food and its abundance, but also its uneven distribution, is never have we had so many people that are clearly obese or significantly overweight as we do today, such as in the United States in which it is estimated as reported by policymic.com that over 160 million Americans are overweight. 

While great strides have been made to distribute food to the needy around the world, there is much more work to be done.  Unfortunately, there are also roadblocks in the way for the distribution of foodstuffs to those that are most lacking, and tragically the main blockage comes from within the corrupt government structures and the civil wars and strife within these impoverished lands.  The food, water, and sanitation often do arrive to these countries port-of-call, but instead of being provided to those that are most deserving of this aid, it is instead taken by the government or its cronies for their use, bartering, or distribution.

Humanitarian aid must take into account the corruptness of certain regimes and rather than continuing business as usual, begin to implement sophisticated airlifts to population centers that are clearly being underserved.  One such idea is to take drones and adapt them in such a way as to provide emergency food items to areas that are inaccessible to conventional means of transportation. 

The hunger is real; it is for us, the living, to find that way to feed those that hunger.

Guns and Butter

Providing to your country both guns and butter, that is, war and destruction, while also providing the necessary food and material needs for your country is something that isn't possible without running some amount of monetary deficit.  Anytime that you take people and resources away from producing and creating items that have utility and purpose to instead procuring labor and material to produce munitions and armaments, you have essentially traded food for guns, and warmth for bloodshed.

There are times when it is necessary to make that transfer to guns instead of butter, especially when your country is under attack, or when the world is in an unprecedented and dangerous peril.  However, the decision that should be made is either guns or butter, not both, and the reason that the decision should be made that way is so that the people will readily understand that war has enormous material, spiritual, and sustenance costs.  If, on the other hand, you deceive your people, by providing guns, while also providing butter, you will give them the misimpression that war is just another miscellaneous expense and its subsequent cost to society is little or nothing, whereas the truth isfar different. 

Additionally, while these far-off battles are being fought in the here and now, the cost for these often unnecessary excursions in the form of payback, money and interest will not be borne by today's generation, but instead will be passed down the line to future generations whom neither voted, nor participated in these battles.  This then also does not take into account the human waste, the psychological destruction, and death of the participants in these wars, in which all of this takes a huge toll on our country and the countries that we wage war upon.

In the meanwhile, no sacrifice is demanded or implied for our citizens as a whole, and since most members of American society are not part of our armed forces, they don't pay any particular attention to our oversea wars, and they simply are disinterested since it apparently costs them nothing directly, and more importantly all the bread and circuses are still available to them. 

All this is done deliberately by our US Government, as it wants its citizens to believe that we live in some sort of Mr. Rogers ' neighborhood, in which all is well, we are taken care of, and that we all get along, except for those bad people that are far away and are dealt with by our professional forces using all appropriate means. 

Guns and butter is a very bad story sold to us by our government to give us the misimpression that we can bring truth, justice, and the American way to the world by force, while fundamentally lying to the American people about what is really going on.  Wars have consequences and should never be lightly engaged in.  Wars also have tradeoffs and long-term costs, in which our government prefers to take shortcuts and to be disingenuous to its citizens. 

The real reason why we have both guns and butter is that the government fears that if given the either/or choice, the public will desire butter, but the powers-to-be in government prefer war.

Field goal kickers are underpaid and underappreciated

In general, field goal kickers are underpaid in the NFL, and the elite kickers are significantly underpaid.  Not only are they underpaid, field goal kickers are primarily anonymous in which a casual fan might find difficulty in listing even one field goal kicker, but wouldn't have a problem with coming up with a couple quarterback or running back names.   The fact of the matter is that field goals are a major component of the game and its inherent strategy, and therefore consequently having a field goal kicker that is at the top of his profession is absolutely mandatory for serious NFL contending teams. 

For instance, every field goal attempt at less than 20 yards was converted in the NFL for 2013.  Out of 239 attempts at a distance of 20-29 yards, 233 of those were successful for 97.5%.  For 2013, a record 863 field goals were made and an overall conversion rate was 86.5% for all field goals, in which the conversion percentage of 67.1% was made on field goals of 50 yards or greater.   Additionally, 25.4% of all NFL games were decided by 3 points or less, and 49.6% of games had a deficit of 3 points or less at some point in the 4th quarter. 

All of this points to the fundamental fact that since field goal kickers contribute so many points to a team's score, that strategies are built around getting the football to a point on the field in which 3 points are either virtually assured or alternatively have a high percentage of success as opposed to trying to score a touchdown, especially when 3 points will essentially provide the team with the lead or enough points to make the game a 2-possession or a 2-score game.

The most frequent margin of victory over the last 20 years in NFL games is 3 points, of which this happens 15.38% of the time, nearly double the next most frequent margin of victory which is 7 points, at 8.04%. It is no coincidence that 3 points is the most frequent winning margin, as the object of the game is to win, and the 3 points that a field goal gives you, with a very high percentage of success, is frequently enough points to take care of business and to secure the victory.

In the scheme of things, field goal kickers are consistently at the bottom of the pay scale from a positional basis on nearly all teams, but their influence on whether their team wins or loses is either the highest or 2nd-highest to the quarterback in every case, because field goals are so often the game decider in close games and strategies are built around the success of field goals.  Of course, it goes without saying that field goal kickers are specialists, they are only on the field to kick field goals, but their impact is exceptional, and because of their influence on a game's outcome and its strategies, you should want the absolute best at this position, especially since they are underpaid significantly against their true worth.

Last year, the individual field goal success rate ranged from a low of 70% to a high of 96.2%, in which one player (Matt Prater/DEN) made good on every field goal of 49 yards or less, with just one miss out of seven on field goals greater than 50 yards.  Because there are only 16 regular season games in the NFL each game is of critical importance, having a field goal kicker than can virtually assure you that you can bank the points is invaluable, he should be actively sought out, and he should be well compensated.