Rights and Privileges

Our Declaration of Independence declares that our Creator has given us "certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  These are just some of our implicit rights and our Declaration of Independence goes on to state that in order to secure these rights our government is instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.  Additionally, when our Constitution was passed into law, an integral part of our Constitution, was the ratified Ten Amendments, also known as our Bill of Rights, which further stipulated specific rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of the press, rights to be secure against searches or seizures in our persons or our houses, and that we have rights retained by the people not specifically enumerated by the Constitution, to name just a few of our most important and precious rights.

Rights however, are not the same things as privileges, in which privileges are government-issued and government-sanctioned activities which can either be granted or revoked, according essentially to government dictate.  Consequently, a country that has inherent and implicit rights which are unalienable and granted by our God is by definition, superior and safer to the individual and his rights as opposed to a country that within its government laws, police, and judicial actions, makes its own rules according to what it believes to be best for the people or for the government at large.

The more power that the people cede to government, the more their lives will be dependent upon government fiat and less on their own initiative and effort.  Additionally, just because a Constitution has been created and enacted which recognizes the sovereignty of God, above man-made laws, does not mean that in actuality this government, or any government, will not in practicality, become effectively the ruling law of the country.  To wit, a citizen may have specific unalienable rights, but a Government may be no respecter of those rights, if it is poorly run, poorly administered, corrupt, misguided, or worse.

However, having unalienable rights that have been formally recognized in both our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution gives us a solid foundation in which to do battle against our government and unjustly enacted laws which are suspect in their application and their constitutional legality.  Without those unalienable rights, we would be at the mercy of a government which can determine that night be day, or day be night. 

Too many of us get caught up in the benefits that the government grants us, such as healthcare, social security, Medicare, food stamps, welfare, marriage, business licenses and the like, but these are all privileges which can be modified or revoked at a moment's notice by the government itself.   There is a severe misunderstanding that these forgoing items are rights, but they are not, they are more akin to assistance or gifts from the government's largess. 

It is well to remember that privileges are dispensations, that you are not legally entitled to have any of them, should those edicts change, therefore a life built around privileges is a life built on sand itself.  On the other hand, your rights are built on solid rock, yet you must fear the government huffing and puffing its way against your edifice, and therefore eternal diligence and constant vigilance is the tax you must pay to maintain your rights.

Little Wars

According to Wikipedia, there was somewhere around 15,163,603 to 17,989,982 deaths which can be attributed to World War I, in which this number also included civilian deaths due to military activity, crimes against humanity, and war related famine or diseases.  A mere 21 years later was World War II, in which Wikipedia estimated that there was around 60,000,000 to 85,000,000 deaths attributed to the worse war in the history of mankind.  It has now been nearly 70 years since the end of World War II and we have yet to have World War III and it doesn't appear all that likely that this will occur in the near future, for this mankind should be eternally grateful.

Since the ending of World War II, there have been plenty of wars in and around the world in which many people have died, been injured, or displaced.  Yet, these wars have been getting smaller and smaller and more localized as time has gone on.  The last big war in the sense of casualties for the United States was Vietnam and that ended nearly 40 years ago in 1975.  Since that time, America has been involved in numerous foreign wars but the footprint of these wars have been relatively small in both scale and time, with the exception of our recent incursions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but despite the length of time we have spent in these two countries, our casualty numbers are significantly lower than either Korea or Vietnam. 

Most of World War I and of World War II were fought on European shores, but countries such as Germany and France, that have historically been enemies for centuries, are now both members of NATO, and France is Germany's top exporter of goods.  While America and Russia suffered through a "cold war" for over 40 years, there was never an actual war, and through effective diplomacy along with the dissolution of the old Soviet Union, the cold war faded away in 1991.

Perhaps the biggest change over the last 25 years is the ascent of China.  China is most definitely the "wild card" in the geopolitics of potential war, as the things that China needs for its continued growth and strength are similar to what we desire as well as other countries.  China imports oil, chemicals, machinery, technology, and has a massive population to feed and to care for, to which continued economic progress and expansion is critical for its ongoing success.  Because China has a population of over 1.3 billon peoples and an oversupply of males because of their "one child policy", it seems logical that China might get involved in some localized disputes with other countries, such as is has with Tibet, as well as other neighboring nations that they could flex their muscles on.

There isn't a lot of doubt that as China becomes more of an economic powerhouse it will desire that its global influence become greater than it is today.  However, this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that it is oil that runs the economic engine of China and therefore it is in China's best interest that they actually work hand-in-hand with United States, NATO, and other nations to assure themselves that the safe transportation and ready availability of oil continues without any undue interruption.

Therefore it can be stated, that war is bad for business, and as long as the access to oil and other important minerals, chemicals, and technology is smooth and continual, World War III is not possible.

Good Advice

Good advice is something that nearly everyone wants or desires to give to others.  But how are we able to determine that the advice that we are receiving is good advice in the first place, or in turn that the advice that we are giving is actually any good for that person?  The best place to start is to consider the source that is providing you with that advice and the more facts or information that you are able to substantiate about that source, the better feel that you will have of the validity of that information.  For instance, if you are talking with someone that has a law degree, is successful in his practice of law, and you ask him for his advice in his field of expertise, that advice will probably be quite valid, depending of course upon how much he actually knows about you and your motivations.  However, if you ask the same advice from a friend of yours, that isn’t all that savvy about the law and they respond with something like “yeah, you should be a lawyer, you’re smart”, that advice isn’t really worth anything to you at all.  In fact, it is hardly advice it’s more akin to just being polite.

When people ask you for your advice, in order to be of real service to them, you should qualify your advice with an honest appraisal of your perception of its validity and you must also take into consideration the real information and understanding that you have about that particular person.  After all, even if you have a great expertise in a certain specific area, it may not be relevant to that person, because they don’t have the capability to act upon it. 

Receiving or initiating good advice is something that we owe to ourselves and others.  When we receive good advice and act upon it, it can literally change our life, because we may be hearing what we need to hear, as opposed to hearing what we want to hear, and there can be massive chasm between those two things.  When we give out good advice it is a service that we owe to others, because it shows our solicitude, and our concern that we have an inherent obligation to be of service to others in their pursuit of happiness and success.

Unfortunately, not all advice that is given is well-intentioned, good, or of service to others.  A few words from the wrong person with the wrong motivations can break your confidence, take you down the wrong path, take advantage of certain character weaknesses that you have, and the like.   Therefore, it is wise for you to always remember that you are sovereign in your own person, therefore that you must take the time to contemplate or to ignore advice that is given you, whether solicited or not.

The funny thing about advice is that sometimes the advice that you receive, is rejected, unwelcomed, and discarded, only, somewhat incredibly, at a later time, and upon further contemplation for you to now conclude, that the advice when first given was in fact, valid and correct.  There are many of us that will spurn good advice because we are unwilling to acknowledge that we are not as wise as we wish we were. 

It's fair to say that true wisdom syncs much better with true humility, but not a humility that denounces oneself, but a humility that recognizes that we are fallible and have our need of good advice in order to help us stay on that straight and narrow path.

Food Stamps for Cash

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), but better known as food stamps, is a godsend for people that are suffering from unemployment, ill health, low income and the like, because it is a program that provides an (Electronic Benefits Transfer) EBT card to individuals and to families that allows them to purchase food from their local grocery store.  On the surface, this sounds like a wonderful thing; after all, food is necessary for the body, necessary for good health, and seeing that the United States is the "bread basket" of the entire world, almost an obligation that the United States must provide to its less fortunate denizens.

There is a significant problem with this program, though, in which there are obvious winners and losers within this institution along with the $79.6 billion dollars that was doled out through SNAP in fiscal year 2013.  Some of the biggest winners aren't necessarily the obvious ones, such as farmers, distributors, truckers, lobbyists, and the grocery stores themselves, yet the fact of the matter is, the more money that the government "gives away" in a certain industry, the more money that business and its respective constituents will reap.   That is to say, of course people need to eat and to purchase food, but if there is an extra $79.6 billion or a subset of $79.6 billion that is added to the pie, that will make an appreciable difference to all of the players in the food business industry.

Another problem with the food stamp program is that food stamps are sold, transferred, and bartered all the time.  The average selling price for food stamps in my neighborhood is 50 cents to the dollar.  One might ask how is it possible that impoverished people could even contemplate selling food or the equivalent of food for cash and at such a significant discount.  While there are lots of answers depending upon individual circumstances, quite commonly the biggest reason is that the recipient of the food stamps doesn't need all that money-equity locked into food stamps, in which they would prefer to have discounted cash in exchange to purchase something else of more worth to them.

This would strongly imply that our current food stamp program is too liberal in its benefits and is consequently being abused by some of its intended recipients.  In fact, the average monthly participants receiving food stamps has nearly doubled over the last ten years, which is an astonishing increase for a country that has in theory, recovered from its economic recession.  A sensible bill has been proffered, in which food stamp recipients would be required to have their photo ID attached to their EBT card which would undoubtedly cut down on these types of third-party sales and consequently on the fraudulent usage of food stamps, but the passage of such a bill seems doubtful, since the status quo would much prefer the structure as it currently is.

Of course, you could make a very strong argument that when you place what is in essence the equivalency of money, even discounted money, into the hands of people, that they will use said money as they see fit as opposed to what the intended usage is.  This is the essential problem of a handout which can be monetized as compared to a handout that is merely a bridge to get a particular good or service.  So when it comes to our food stamp program, expect more of the same, after all it does help to pacify the underclass as well as providing extra revenue to important powerful institutions.

Drug Possession with Intent to Sell

I don't particularly care for crimes of the "mind", in which the government takes the position that it is God, and therefore knows what you intend or notintend to do with a particular controlled substance.  The fact of the matter is that selling is selling and that possession is possession, but the government wants to carve out a huge middle ground in which by virtue of you having on your possession a certain specific arbitrary quantity of a controlled substance that this, by itself, is worthy enough of being charged with the "intent to sell".  It seems to me that just because you like to possess drugs in "bulk" or in a higher quantity than what one usage might require, does not, on its own, indicate that you are intending to sell it.  For instance, when I go to Sam's Club, Iby definition buy in bulk, with absolutely no intention of eating all that food at once, nor do I intend to sell or distribute it to a third party.  Why should a person be subject to more severe criminal penalties for purchasing or possessing drugs in bulk with a trumped up charge, such as intent to sell?  The fact of the matter is, if the government is so sure that this person is a seller or a dealer in this controlled substance, why not catch him in the actual act and be fair about it?

In general, crimes should never be about intent; they should instead be only about actual physical evidence and action, not supposition.  I realize that in some cases, such as in methamphetamine laboratories that the evidence may appear to be so overwhelming that the drugs being manufactured must be for sale, but if you aren't able to catch the perpetrators in the actual sale or distribution of the drug itself, that really isn't good enough.  The prosecutor and the State will say that they know the intent of the criminal, but in actuality, they don't, because the fact of the matter is, that people have intentions all the time, both good and bad, some of those intentions are not exercised, despite the appearances that they were going to be exercised.  People do change their minds; people do change their behavior, even at a great personal cost or at great personal peril.  Epiphanies can happen in an instance and through that epiphany a previous intention may be nullified.

The penalties for large drug possession of controlled substances in this country are high and stringent enough already that adding on subjective charges of an intent to sell, is an unfair burden to the defendant.  Intent as a crime is a very slippery slope with no benefits to most members of society at all.  The most likely beneficiaries are policemen that don't do their work diligently, intelligently, or suffer from a woeful lack of being able to outthink criminals, and the prosecutorial arm of the Government that utilizes additional charges to make their role so much easier in getting the alleged perpetrator to plead down to a lesser charge.

Basically, just because you intend to sell something, doesn't mean that you're actually going to find a willing buyer, or even if you do that you will receive in return the terms that your desire, and consequently in the end, you might not even make the sell.  After all, businesses fail all the time for lack of sales, even with the intent to sell, and if you don't sell it, that shouldn't be a crime because it sure the heck isn't a sale.

Civilization and capital punishment

As a modern country, the leader of the free world, with democracy in action, and a nation founded as a Republic, it is a bit unusual, even strange, that capital punishment is still permitted and practiced within the United States, which definitely makes our country appear as an outlier to the balance of the civilized world, especially considering that the 8th Amendment protects us from "cruel and unusual punishments", in which the death penalty clearly is both cruel and unusual. 

The most obvious reason to put someone to death is to preclude that individual from mounting a counter-offensive against a regime, against other individuals, and as a punishment for crimes that they have committed.  However, when a government or a court enacts this reckoning, they have done so after a deliberate calculation, perhaps even with a show-trial, to set forth their reasons for the execution of said prisoner. 

Another valid reason for capital punishment is to demonstrate to the population that certain crimes are punished with certain death, and consequently to make these executions public so as to set forth an example of what happens to those that disobey edicts. 

Still the fact of the matter is, that civilization, has quite clearly become less blood-thirsty when it comes to the deliberate execution of its subjects, in which this form of punishment was meted out far and wide for hundreds of years, encompassing the lowest of the low to kings and queens, who were executed for being on the wrong side of important or politically sensitive issues.

However, there are a multitude of problems with executions.  First off, they are irreversible, so that if you put to death an innocent man, or a man misunderstood, or a man of a real value or need, you cannot bring that man back to life.  Additionally, if you execute people for frivolous reasons, the population as a whole, will rebel internally and possibly externally, because they will not recognize nor respect an agency performing such a deed.  Finally, the taking of another man's life, is to certain degree aggrandizing to you, God-like powers, but unfortunately, this power is only the power to destroy life without the appropriate balance of bringing forth life, which means that this tool is solely a negative power, and will ultimately undercut your regime and its moral authority.

Fortunately, civilization has matured over the years, and we have grown in our understanding that how we treat those that are less fortunate than us, less able than us, less wise than us, is the true definition of our compassion to humanity.  Today, there is a much better understanding that within all of us is a combination of both good and evil traits and actions.  In most countries, the unnecessary taking of another man's life, cold, calculated, and final, is now seen as not necessary for justice to be served.  That is not because we are weak, or that we don't seek justice for crimes committed against others, but because we recognize that within each man is a reflection of ourselves, and that that image should be respected.

The value of a human life is more appreciated today, that is the mark of maturity and of a more civilized and reasoned society.

Think

There was a time when you walked into your local or campus library and you would notice a placard hanging on the bookshelf that simply stated one word: "Think".  I don't see those signs around any longer, perhaps they are around, but I suspect they are in libraries that are seldom utilized in distant outposts that haven't been updated to today's misguided world.  I miss that sign greatly, because the sentiment is so profound, so powerful, and so meaningful.  Instead, at my local library, there are now placards of celebrities encouraging one to read.  Celebrities?  Reading?  That just seems like the wrong way to get across the message that reading and knowledge is vital for society.

The problem is our government no longer wants us to think for ourselves, instead it would much rather have us subservient and to "obey".  That is the fundamental difference between a true democracy which encourages the free exercise of speech and all that entails, as opposed to a government that just wants everyone to shut up, adhering to and following the company line, and most of all to be obedient.  Thinking is inconvenient for governments, as it adds an inherent "wild card", whereas governments are essentially about control and stability to their rules.

God has gifted us with the ability to think, this ability should be developed and exercised, and if it is not, it becomes relatively atrophied.   Some of us live lives in which we try to escape from actively thinking, but that isn't the way a life is suppose to be lived.  Thinking involves choice, examination, contemplation, effort, and experience, and it is by the virtue of thinking that we are enabled to see possibilities and to come up with solutions to various vexing problems or challenges. 

To think is the pathway to knowing God, and subsequently to understanding the meaning of life. "In the beginning was the Word…" (John 1:1), in which God spoke or thought his consciousness into existence into our planet and ultimately to our humanity itself.  It is through thinking that we are able to know ourselves, to learn, to develop, and to grow. 

Thinking comes in all sorts of varieties and flavors, from the concentrated studying on a particular subject or phenomena, to the listening and absorbing of wisdom from others, to hard work and dedicated effort, and to the quiet and still contemplation of He who is the master of all knowledge and truth.  By our thoughts and by our actions, we will be known to others in this world.  It is through our thoughts that we process information and it is this comprehension that we pass onto others as well as to ourselves.

Thinking is our way to touch the very Hand of God, as we are in a certain sense lesser gods, but capable of tapping into and become one with God.  Our thoughts are our creations, creations that can be used for either good or for evil.  Inside our mind, and through are actions, are written who we are through the skeins of time.  Our thoughts are us, uniquely us; you should examine them, appreciate them, contemplate them, and utilize them for your own betterment and for the betterment of mankind itself.

Street Drug Dealers

Street Drug dealers are almost universally vilified by the media, politicians, regular citizens, and the police.  The penalty for dealing drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine is per Federal Trafficking guidelines dependent upon whether it's a first offense or not, whether there is serious bodily injury involved or not, what Schedule classification the drug is classified as, and also taken into account is the quantity of the drugs involved and sold.  The penalties for drug dealing are so severe, you could in theory; spend the rest of your life in prison, or no less than five years minimum incarceration, depending upon the circumstances involved.

With the penalties for drug dealing and distribution so high in America, you would think that every drug dealer would already be in jail, or off the streets, but that isn't even close to being the case.  First off, the law is selectively applied by prosecutors and the police to which, to nobody's surprise, those that are most disadvantaged, least able, trapped within impoverished communities and often racial minorities, end up becoming the most frequently targeted people by law enforcement for the selective application of our drug laws.

None of this is even close to being fair, and very few of this makes any logical sense.  When you live in a community in which your transportation is limited, your opportunities are limited, your education is limited, your wholesome family life is non-existent, and there isn't any ready money to be legitimately made, you will create your own opportunities to make do in order to live a life.  Street drug dealers seldom create a need for any drug, they are instead best viewed as enabling other people to pursue and obtain their drug of choice, and they are a facilitator for accomplishing those tasks.

Additionally, street drug dealers interact with basically two types of customers.  In the first case, there are people within their own neighborhood that have a need or desire for drugs, which they will buy from their local purveyor of such products.  It is unfortunate that these drug users will trade money or perhaps their body for drugs, but you must also keep in mind that when you live in a world in which you feel empty, forgotten, and abandoned, to take something or to have something that will allow you to at least temporarily to feel relief, euphoria, or hope, is a trade that you often want to make.  In the second case, there are plenty of people that will travel to you from other communities because they know that they can procure the drugs that they desire from you, and they will gladly trade their money for your drugs.  By doing so, the drug dealer has brought money into his community, which will invariably be spent within that same community or thereabouts.  This is why the drug dealer invariably works, to make money, to have money, and to spend money, to which you cannot do this without providing some sort of service or labor and when the legitimate opportunities are few and ill-paying, people will gravitate to something else that will provide them opportunity and money.

Many people on the outside like to view drug dealers as a terrible scourge or a parasite, but in actuality they are providing a service to their community or surrounding communities.  In order for a drug transaction to take place, there has to be a buyer and there has to be a seller.  As long as there are willing buyers, there will be sellers and not the other way around.  Street drug dealers are the easy fall guy, but it's almost completely unjustified.  When you take away people's hope, their opportunity, their education, and embrace a secular society in which the State has replaced God, this will be the end result.  The real street drug dealers are those that deal out false promises, false justice, false equal opportunity, and a false god.

Religious Section in Newspapers

Newspaper circulation and their incumbent advertising revenue have been in serious decline over the last two decades, yet news reporting and news itself is of importance to significant and meaningful numbers of Americans.  When it comes to news being reported on television, there are only a limited number of topics that they will cover, and for television religion and religious topics aren’t typically on that list, except for certain religious days of the year, but even then the spin from your local television station usually has a heavy secular emphasis.  This isn’t too surprising because TV tries not to be too much of one thing or of another, TV definitely has no desire or intention to be controversial, its main goal is to produce revenue and while newspapers have the same strong desire to produce revenues, they have the added flexibility of the capability of being all things to all people.

The reason that newspapers are far more flexible in regards to media content as compared to TV, is that with TV, the television producers and editors are in complete control as to what you do or don't see, whereas with a newspaper, whether it is digital or print, the reader is the sovereign, and he can decide what articles to pursue or not to read.  Therefore, this means that newspapers have far greater capabilities to provide the entire gamut of the news spectrum, a choice that they should willingly embrace.  Additionally, and very importantly, local newspapers have an absolute obligation to propagate good citizens, as each generation has a responsibility to the next.

Within a newspaper there is plenty of opportunity to provide stories that appeal to all sorts of interests but at the end of the day, it is a community service to also build a solid foundation expounding what the duties and responsibilities of citizens are within a community.  The best way to present this to readers is via a specific religious section and while it might appear that such a section is merely preaching to the choir, on any given day at any given time, people without hope, down in spirit, will end up turning to these very pages to recognize who they really are inside.  That is why it is so critically important that newspapers provide a religious section to their provided content.  We, as a people, are still free to choose, but having that very choice can make all the difference.

Nevertheless, it appears that religion in newspapers is being marginalized into near non-existence at so many newspapers.  This is a grave mistake and a great disservice to the public at large, because the heritage of the United States is as a God-fearing nation, which historically has recognized that our life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and our equal creation came from the very Hand of God.    That above statement is absolutely true, yet today too many of us are ignorant of God, of religion, or of loving our neighbor, so that our country and ourselves suffer for it.

The New York Times motto is "All the News that's fit to Print", but that doesn't appear to really be the case, nor is it the case for so many newspapers.  You remember the old adage, that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it, all I am saying is that newspapers have an obligation to at least provide you with that water and by doing so they will do their community and readership much good.

Nuclear Forbearance

Most of us are aware that the United States dropped not one but two atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945.  The first atomic bomb that detonated was 15 kilotons and the second atomic bomb that hit Nagasaki was 21 kilotons in which the absolute destruction and devastation to these targets was overwhelmingly harsh, inhumane, lethal, and absolutely brutal.  Weapons such as these had never been seen or utilized since our world had come into existence, but incredibility, nearly 70 years later; no nuclear weapons have been detonated against other countries or peoples since then.  This is certainly a modern-day miracle of enormous importance to the entire world, especially considering that the USA since 1949 has not been the sole nuclear nation.  In fact, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea, are all known as nations that have conducted nuclear tests and that also have nuclear weapons.

That list of nuclear weapon carryingnations should be of frightening concern to everybody, especially considering that there are countries listed here that are not known as being particularly civil, safe, or the epitome of democratic values.  Yet, despite this threat, no country has used the nuclear option against another.  This is most definitely a cause to be celebrated and quite frankly to be appreciated as a sign that despite all the wars and troubles that we have in this world, we are civil enough to not bring forth the total annihilation of this good earth.

If we were, however, to turn back the clock of time, to be somewhat anachronistic, and to imagine somehow that the nuclear option had been available in Roman Empire times, or during the Crusades, or during our own Revolutionary war, or even perhaps in World War I, this weapon of mass destruction would probably have been used without compunction to annihilate the enemy (to our ultimate eternal damnation), because part of the psychology of war is always to demonize the opposition, to make them appear to be less human than you are, that your enemy therefore is heathen, unclean, ignorant, infidel, godless, or forsaken and it is thereby your noble duty to annihilate "them", as if they were best seen as vermin and nothing more.

Fortunately for us and for our planet, the world has become a smaller and more familiar place, in which most of us do recognize that our enemies, that other countries, and that other people are after all not so different from us, that, in fact, we are all part of the same God-given humanity and although we may have political differences, religious conflicts, and resource-driven disputes, we are in the end residents of the same planet which requires us all to have access to oxygen, water, food, and shelter.

In 1960, Russia successfully exploded a 50,000 kiloton nuclear bomb in a test, a bomb that had it been used against a population center would have been an incredible 3,333 times more powerful than the 15 kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.  We and other countries have the power to destroy the world as we know it, many times over, but have not, because one way or another each country possessing this awesome power knows it has a responsibility to be a good steward and gratefully, despite all of the annoying saber rattling, this remains true as of the present day.

Naval Blockades

The United States has not used a formal naval blockade since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962; although blockades were used during the Gulf War of 1990-1991, this was part of the overall war strategy to defeat Iraq and not a separate action without ground troops.  The United States has the largest navy in the world in both the sense of ships and of personnel and can easily afford to deploy that naval knowhow, manpower, and its various naval ships to any area of the world to effect necessary change, if required or designated to do so.

Although the USA is a signatory to numerous treaties and agreements, it is also a nation that is not afraid to go it alone, or to stretch the legal meaning of words, to accomplish whatever it believes is necessary to be done in the world at large.  One of the primary mistakes that America has made over the last fifty years is not recognizing the power of its Navy and the effectiveness of a blockade that limits both the exporting and the importing of goods within the subject country that the United States wishes to apply pressure to.  More times than not, patience and an economic squeeze are just as effective as the actual engaging of ground troops against enemies but with far less peripheral damage.

In today's world, exporting and importing of goods is absolutely essential for virtually any country of substance, because of the vital materials that are being shipped in by sea, such as oil, steel, fertilizers, machinery, chemicals, and electronic equipment.  As for whatever a particular country is exporting, if they aren't able to export it via sea, in a lot of cases, they won't be able to readily export that particular product and without those essential revenues the whole country apparatus will begin to slowly fall apart. 

While there are attendant risks to any blockade, there are few countries that will risk escalating the situation to an all-out war with America, while suffering from the stranglehold of an effective naval blockade.  Another advantage of naval blockades is it allows both parties in a dispute an easier avenue to remedy a situation before it gets entirely out-of-hand.  Saving lives on both sides of an altercation should be of primary concern to all civil nations and for the United States to have any moral suasion in this world it must lead by example and therefore it should show mature restraint in its disputes as opposed to the iron fist.

In general, the American public will not long support ongoing military engagements with perceived enemies for whatever the reason , unless we as a country are in immediate peril or the world-at-large is staggering to Armageddon.  Naval blockades allow America to get into that "sweet spot" in which they can still apply necessary pressure against rogue nations without the unnecessary cost and bloodshed that a war entails.

Well thought out naval blockades in conjunction with specific embargoes are extremely effective in bringing forth a result that will bring unprincipled nations to the negotiating table.  While blockades are a slower process as compared to unleashing the "dogs of war" it's also a more tolerant and forgiving way to deal with nations that have erred. 

Mandatory Drug Testing

There is a massive chasm between wanting, desiring, and helping people to make good decisions about their life, about their body, and about their choices, as compared to a compulsion to make certain choices or to forego activities that fit a particular construct of the government or of private enterprise which doesn't taken into account your background, or your social economic level, or the arbitrariness of the desired action itself.  I absolutely detest mandatory drug tests in any situation in which you have not been found guilty of a crime that would necessitate you taking such a drug test now or in the future. 

A man's right to privacy is part and parcel of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and should not be infringed upon, even ostensibly for good reasons to do so.  While you can make an argument that for people that have jobs that required the operation of heavy machinery, or the driving of vehicles, should be tested for drug use, that presupposes that having some sort of trace of drug usage within your body is proof positive that you are impaired, incompetent, and a real and present danger to yourself and to other innocent people.  That may or may not be true, it is absolutely situational dependent, and to paint broad paint strokes that put all people that have a certain arbitrary amount of trace chemical in their body as impaired is a step too far.

Additionally, if the real reason that drug tests are conducted is the protection of the general public at large and for the safety of the individual itself, the test and test result must be done in real time.  For instance, using an accurate breathalyzer or similar instrument which is both calibrated correctly and efficient in processing the test results may be something that is worthwhile in certain specific circumstances. 

The main issue that I have with mandatory drug testing is the grouping of everyone into "guilty", unless the drug tests exculpate you, which is exactly the opposite of what this great country represents.  There are also the issues of privacy, of stress, of inconvenience, of cost, and of accuracy which makes these sorts of tests very suspect.  Furthermore, it follows that if you allow or continue to allow mandatory drug testing, you are one significant step closer to mandating brainwave testing or similar, again for the safety of yourself or others.  The point of the matter is once the State determines that it can test you for one thing, it will invariably want to test you for everything, and those that do not meet or satisfy some pre-determined ideal that the government desires will be ostracized, marginalized, and turned away. 

Drug testing is really one of those things that are setup to separate the "elite" from the commoners, in which the elite will never fail such tests because they are the ones that establish the rules of the road to begin with.  The commoners will always be a step behind, under assault, under a microscope, subject to unemployment, banishment, or rejection at a moment's notice; so that their hands are tied and they are placed into a situation in which battling the establishment is an exercise in futility, they will instead simply be used as a tool that enriches the elite and for the recalcitrant ones subject to the elite's disposal or cleansing.

Keeping the Best and Brightest

The United States is an attractive place for foreign students to apply to for their higher education and because of this influx of students, the United States is uniquely placed to offer to the best and the brightest opportunities for their knowledge and skill-sets to be utilized in America upon their graduation as opposed to returning these well-educated and talented young men and women to their homeland or other foreign countries so that they can apply their knowledge in those places instead.  It is pure foolishness to take foreign students with F-1 visas and not to make it a concerted policy of America that these same, successful students are given the inside track of receiving H-1B work visas upon their successful graduation.   The United States should make it a clear policy that they desire the best minds in the world to be residents and citizens of this country and not to let slip from their hand the very people that can be a net benefit to society as a whole.

Look at it this way, what is the point of developing great minds, only to export them to other countries? The United States should be grateful that the best and the brightest throughout this entire world have a strong desire to receive their higher education here.  Once receiving these fine young students, it should be a government policy along with the coordination of University campuses to develop this young talent, to acclimate these young students to America, with the expressed purpose of soliciting them to work in America, as opposed to leaving this country.  Certainly, some students will leave America, that is their choice, but to not actively pursue them here, to not have policies in place to entice them, is a fundamental mistake in policy.

With the advancement of technology, there is a strong desire for students that excel in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in which for the most part, in those industries; the strong command of the English language is not a necessity, making it a very good fit for foreign students whose strong suit is not the English language.   There isn't any reason, though; to limit our desire for graduates to just these fields, as the best and the brightest encompasses the entire domain of human intelligence and knowledge. 

America is also unique amongst countries as the primary and best living example of a nation that is a true melting pot that embraces and assimilates all nationalities, all creeds, and all people, as Americans. While virtually every country in the world has peoples within it that are not native to that particular creed, origin, or color, these different peoples in those countries are often treated as lesser or unequal, whereas America has made many giant strides over the last fifty years to encompass all people as their own, and not limiting Americans to being just White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants (WASP) as it was once primarily known as.

There is a misconception that to be an American, you must be born here, or to legally immigrate here, but that definition is far too narrow and far too confining.  To be an American, you must be willing to work hard, to apply yourself, to embrace liberty, and to dedicate yourself to achieving something of real worth.  The United States should make it a firm policy that they desire the best and the brightest to be Americans, and to welcome them through our golden door.

The HIV/AIDS Paradox

According to mayoclinic.org, "AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) is a chronic, potentially life-threatening condition caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)," and also "there's no cure for HIV/AIDS, but there are medications that can dramatically slow disease progression."  This essentially represents the mainstream medical and media viewpoint of the AIDS/HIV crisis.  However, just because this is the established medical opinion in regards to the nature of HIV, this does not itself necessarily make it right. 

The father of those that oppose the conventional HIV theory, that HIV causes AIDS, is Dr. Peter Duesberg, of UC Berkeley.  Once highly respected by his colleagues and the recipient of numerous public funding grants and awards, he is now virtually a man alone in his lab, without any funding from government agencies because his HIV theory does not correlate with the conventional theory in regards to HIV.  This, in of itself, is a reason to want to learn and listen from this man, because "going with the flow" is the easiest thing to do in the world, as the refuse and debris of life simply go with the flow, but a man that is willing to be vilified and ostracized by his contemporaries is a man worthy of the consideration of our respect.

Dr. Duesberg is the author of the seminal book "Inventing the AIDS Crisis", in which he challenges conventional wisdom by asking if HIV really does cause AIDS, why is it that a significant portion of AIDS victims are not HIV positive?  Also, if being HIV-positive is the necessary precursor for getting AIDS, why is it that there are so many people that are HIV-positive that have not and will not ever develop AIDS despite not taking any antiretroviral drugs?  Both of these questions blow absolute holes through the prevailing theory which essentially repackages old diseases such as Kaposi's sarcoma, tuberculosis, leukemia, and pneumonia, into AIDS. In other words, if you are diagnosed as having Kaposi's sarcoma, and you are also HIV-positive, than that means by the new medical establishment rules that you are not dying from Kaposi's sarcoma, but from AIDS.

Further to Dr. Duesberg's points, HIV is by medical definition, a virus, in which the billions of dollars that have been spent throughout our medical establishment and research laboratories have been ineffective and unable to create a working vaccine for this virus.  This would strongly imply that HIV is not, in fact, a virus, and that the search for a HIV vaccine, is a search in futility, and a colossal waste of time, research, and money.  For all the critics of Dr. Duesberg, it is as simple as this, create the vaccine, which will eradicate AIDS, and you will save millions of lives and put Dr. Duesberg's theory into the trash bin of history.

Finally, why hasn't the HIV/AIDS crisis become a true global epidemic such as the "black plague" pandemic of the 14th century?  It should be, after all there isn't a cure for HIV/AIDS and according to the medical establishment HIV can be transmitted through bodily fluids, blood transfusions, sexual contact, injection drug usage, breast feeding, and occupational exposure.  Behind the scenes there are reasons for why certain theories are supported and why others are suppressed, rightly or wrongly, and every day that the vaccine for HIV is undiscovered is another day that proves the point that the medical establishment has it all so wrong.

Domestic Terrorism

Terrorism is one of those things, that gets a lot of our attention and gives us plenty of concern, but there are two types of terrorism, there is terrorism that comes from within our borders, and then there is terrorism that comes from outside our borders.  We like to believe that within our borders that we can control our own destiny that we are all one, but sadly we are not.

Domestic terrorism essentially has its roots in people that reside here who are powerless, frustrated, fearful of change, and have great and significant delusions of grandeur.  What breeds terrorism is people that feel that justice has not been served, whether correct or not, and further that there is no hope for these samepeople to effect change through our democratic process, so they turn instead to a terrible shortcut in the delusional hope that by so doing they will bring forth both change and justice.

The fatal misconception in domestic terrorism is their wrong belief that by harming innocents that they will somehow hold the higher moral ground or effect real change.   Domestic terrorists take it upon themselves that they have the right to harm or take the life of others, because in their judgment this is the punishment that need be meted out in order to bring forth the justice that they believe to have been lacking.  These delusions rest in individuals or in groups of like-minded individuals that somehow have closed their minds to the consequences of their actions and to the fairness of their same actions when it comes to other people and the harm that they will cause them. 

It is probably fair to say, that domestic terrorism effects no political change within the system, that is to say, that terrorists claim by their actions that they will make change, or bring attention to certain issues that will change, but in virtually every case, the negative consequences of said action, overwhelm the political agenda of the terrorists which seldom results in even putting forth an open dialogue about the issues that the terrorists are ostensibly so concerned about.  The fact of the matter is, by harming, killing, or wreaking havoc, you will effectively ostracized yourself from domestic society, even if elements within that society may have had some sympathy for your point of view.

Domestic terrorism is a difficult element to control, or to eliminate, without losing the essential being of what it is to be an American to begin with.  Within any society there are going to be certain people that are unstable, illogical, and poor at decision making, yet they too are Americans.  It is therefore essential and humane, to put forth the efforts and the programs to help those people to make better and more mature decisions, and thereby to not close the door on their hopes and aspirations.  A very dangerous man is a man without hope, without belief, and unloved, because when you truly believe it is you against the world, in which you are so right, and they are so wrong, bad things will invariably happen.

Divestment

Public corporations have market capitalizations that are worth billions upon billions of dollars.  One should not underestimate how much power and influence money and the access to money can provide; let alone the influence and the effectiveness of the actual products being provided by the corporations.  The largest corporations in the world are absolutely serious about their money, making more money, growing, influencing, and maintaining their corporate footprint in their particular markets and products of choice.  The stock price is of utmost concern to these organizations from the upper boardrooms to market commentators, to mutual funds and their clients, and to regular people like me and you.

These multi-billion dollar corporations care strongly about their stock price because without ready access to capital, with excessive debt that isn't being service properly, without options or restricted stock that is of value, without the ability to make secondary offerings of their stock, and without the capability to finance or acquire other corporate entities, the stock itself will lag or it will significantly lag the market, which creates a downward spiral in being able to attract new talent and to maintain the current personnel structure within the company. 

Publicly-held corporations can be held accountable by the public at large, by stockholders, by consumers, and the like, if a concerted and focused effort is directed against them.  Even just the threat of a significant mutual fund or endowment or a group of influential stockholders, stating that they will divest themselves of such and such stock, if certain contingencies are not reached or obtained, can put enormous pressure on a corporation to either adjust their behavior, their actions, or to put forth a true answer to the question or questions being asked. 

Divestment is no empty or idle threat, and yes for every seller, there will be a buyer, but if the perception is that this particular stock is controversial, under attack, or under indictment, than buyers will pay less for the stock because of the risk associated with the stock.  Having said this, divestment is an extremely hard game to play, mainly because it takes concentrated power, in which by far the best utilization of that potential power would come from mutual funds or stock brokers as opposed to individual actions by individual stock holders because it is the mutual funds and stock brokers that have the concentrated proxy voting power.

However, mutual funds and major stock brokers seldom rock the boat, or bite the hand that feeds them, which means that even though public companies are accountable to their stockholders and the public at large, they don't really pay them any real mind.  This is a grand disservice to stock holders as a whole, and to any planned divestment movement.  Still, even the hint of divestment, can effect changes, or at least open a conversation between its stockholders and the corporation itself.  In today's world in which information is so quickly and easily transmitted through hi-technology tools, there has never been a better time to use this tool to make change.  The change that so many people yearn for is available to us, but it must be thoroughly thought through, it must be pre-planned, and the effort must be both comprehensive and continual.

Uber and the Taxi-Cab Business

I seldom have a need to take a taxi, but when I have taken a taxi the overall experience has been okay.  Sure, I've been ripped off but there are devious people in any business and on the other hand I have had some pleasant conversations.  Taxi-cabs do appear overall to be fairly expensive, but that appears to be because they are heavily regulated, highly structured, and also a business that has a relatively high cost of entry.  There is money being made in this business, but most of the spoils are not going to the actual drivers of the vehicles themselves who are simply trying to make a living, in which their livelihood is most definitely under assault from a new service known as Uber.

Uber is a service that brings the "taxi" to the consumer, and empowers the consumer in the making of his choices of how he wants to get around town. Uber is as simple as using a Smartphone app in which you provide Uber with your location, the type of vehicle that you desire, and Uber will provide you with an estimated time of your pickup and the price of your ride, which varies depending on whether traffic is especially busy and whether you are thereby subject to "surge pricing".    Not too surprisingly, tech savvy people have become some of the biggest proponents of Uber.  Additionally, Uber was successful in receiving a $1.2 billion infusion of cash from an investment consortium, so within a very short time Uber has become a formidable alternative and competitor to the traditional taxi business and possibility the transportation business in general.

Although Uber has done a good job of vetting their drivers and being transparent about their service to their customers, in which by so doing, they have been able to launch successfully their service in major cities around the world, the taxi-cab business has essentially been handcuffed in being able to respond to this valid and formidable competition as their business is both heavily regulated and has significant fix costs.  Additionally, the Uber model essentially "cherry-picks" the best customers and clients from taxi-cab drivers, in which the very people that have the most money and the highest savvy have switched over to Uber.   This spells trouble for the traditional taxi-cab companies and for their drivers.

Even worse for taxi-cab companies is that their retention rate for drivers is sure to drop, to which some of those drivers will willingly work for Uber, and thereby deepening the downward spiral and quality of the traditional taxi-cab service.  While in principle, I agree with the Uber business model, that you as a consumer should be able to pay for private transportation of your own choice and volition, there is also the fact to consider that the playing field is not level, to wit that taxi-cabs are heavily regulated and burdened with those attendant costs, while Uber is not.  Therefore, since the cost of business with Uber is less than the cost of business for taxi-cab companies, Uber can charge their customers a cheaper fare.

There are two ways to deal with this dynamic change in the ride sharing business, one is to simply outlaw Uber or to mandate that they cannot operate in your particular city, as some cities have already done, and the other is to de-regulate the taxi-cab business and to allow the traditional taxi-cab businesses the ability to fight fire with fire, to have their own apps, and their own innovations.  To accomplish this will necessitate politicians and bureaucrats being foresighted and inventive, something that almost seems like an oxymoron.  

TSA Pre-check

I've heard of TSA Pre-check (TSA Pre), but never separately applied for it, because I don't feel the urgency in paying any additional money to some government agency for the privilege or flying, nor do I feel like divulging additional private information about myself, or getting all my fingers fingerprinted.  Basically, TSA Pre allows certain preapproved passengers to have the privilege of not having to taking off their shoes, belts, or laptops, and to be in a shorter and more efficient line in which essentially you walk in with what you have on and you walk out the same way, only the lines are significantly shorter, the process is significantly shorter, and your dignity is left intact.  That in itself makes it worth considering.

So since I have never applied for TSA Pre, I was surprised to see on a recent flight that I was TSA Pre certified.  Honestly, I didn't complain to myself, I was actually pretty darn happy about it.  Yes, the lines were short; in fact the whole process took easily less than 5 minutes for me to first get into the line and then to walk out with my backpack.  It would have been even faster, except the couple in front of me, didn't seem to understand exactly what they could or couldn't wear.  My overall grade for the experience would be an "A", and I would be delighted to get TSA Pre approved on future flights, still I absolutely have no intention of separating applying for this flyer designation.

I do, however, have problems with TSA Pre which I will briefly outline.  The first issue is that I really do believe that flying should be "one size fits all", I absolutely despise most TSA agents who I find too often to be non-engaging, not professional, uncaring, and asleep at the wheel, in which my feeling is that if I have to suffer, I want everyone else to suffer the exact same way.  Only if we all endure the indignity of a government bureaucracy and staffing which is essentially worthless in protecting our airplanes and passengers, will we all collectively be able to rise up to change it to something sensible.

The second issue follows closely behind the first, which is, what the government is doing in conjunction with private enterprise, is dividing airline passengers into two groups: those that are "in" and those that are "not".  If you are not part of the "in" group, which includes important business passengers that resent their time being wasted, or good citizens who feel that they have paid their dues and their taxes, than you just feel wronged to have to be treated as if you are just a commoner.  Obviously, if you keep that class of citizens happy by allowing them to circumvent the system by being TSA Pre, than they won't give a damn, how the rest of the public is treated.

So essentially TSA Pre is just another way of separating the wheat from the chaff, we all want to be that wheat, but the fact of the matter is the game is rigged, so that certain people will always be that wheat and others will always be that chaff.  They will tell you that it's fair, but it's not.

The Coming Riots in America

Many people have never heard or seen riots in America, but they have been here, as recently as 1992 in Los Angeles, after the Rodney King trial in which the white police officers were acquitted of the beating of Mr. King and riots soon broke out from the outraged public.  These riots in LA which lasted nearly a week, and as reported by cnn.com eventually entailed the usage of more than 9,800 California National Guard troops, over 1,100 Marines, and 600 Army soldiers in support of the police in Los Angeles in order to successfully curtail the violence in Los Angeles, which resulted in the deaths of more than 50 people, with over 2,000 injured, and property damages of nearly $1 billion.

Previous to this time, during the 1960s, there were the infamous Watts riots, in Los Angeles in 1965, in which there were 34 deaths, it was estimated that more than 2,000 were injured with an additional 4,000 arrested, and the National Guard had to be called in to quell the violence.  In Detroit, in 1967, there were 43 deaths, it was estimated that more than 1,200 were injured with over 2,500 businesses looted or burned, and the National Guard, state police, and Army soldiers had to be called in to quell the violence.

These riots will in retrospect appear as if walks in the park, when compared to the coming riots in America which will rock the foundations of this great country.  The problem that the United States has is fundamentally that the "great society" that LBJ hoped to create on behalf of the poor and the oppressed, has not come to fruition.  Instead, what we have is a society divided, in which a significant minority of our population today exists in virtual every American major city, by which these people survive solely from the handouts from Federal and state programs.  These handouts encompass the scope of health, shelter, food, education, benefits, and miscellaneous items to people who are either unable to work, or unwilling to work, and are often poorly educated.

Currently, all is essentially well within our American underclass in general.  That is to say, the benefits and welfare that they need is often provided to these impoverished people in such a manner as to keep them quiescent and somewhat satisfied.  The problem though is what happens when the wheels fall off of the machine, and they will fall off at some point.  In that type of situation, and please understand that our government, our police, and our military are not stupid, so that given the choice between us and them, they will protect themselves and attack us.  Not everyone, of course, but they will target everyone and anyone that is a threat to the system, to their existence, and in particular, they will target the powerless in order to control them, and if necessary, to annihilate them.

When you are the underclass you are living hand to mouth, benefit to benefit, therefore you have little or nothing stored away and when this is suddenly truncated, when your food is in short supply, and your electricity is cut off, you will take to the streets and the response from our police and military apparatus will be swift and it will be deadly. 

America is now a country in which more than one generation has lived without employment, without job skills, and without hope.  When you take away these people's sustenance, because of a "dust bowl", or some other unexpected or unexplained natural disaster, this underclass will not go down easily because they have nothing, and therefore have nothing to lose. 

The coming riots will be huge, they will be ugly, and they are inevitable.

Staking Poker Players in Tournament Play

Players love the big buy-in tournaments, so does TV, so does the media in general, and so do the fans.  Never have there been so many tournaments with such big buy-in amounts ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 and all the way up to $1 million.  What a lot of people do not know, but should know, is that a significant amount of the money being put up by tournament poker players is actually being put up by a consortium of other players, investors, or a combination thereof.  That is to say, that many players aren’t actually buying in with $100,000 of their own money, but have instead sold pieces or shares of themselves to other players and/or investors. 

The short reason why players do this is to cut down on variance, that is to say, to cut down on the inevitable ups and downs of tournament play in which the top prize money is extremely top heavy, in which if you aren’t finishing 1st , 2nd or 3rd than you aren’t making the really big money.  But just because you haven’t finished in the top three, doesn’t mean that there isn’t someone that you respect, that you know, that you play with that hasn’t accomplished that very goal in that particular tournament.  Consequently, if you imagine, that there are ten quality players, each taking 10% of each other, this will significantly cut down on each player's variance and will more easily allow these said players to participate in higher buy-in tournaments all over the world.

Having said this, this doesn’t mean that in a competitive sport such as poker, that this type of behavior, that this type of staking, or buying a piece of another player or players, doesn’t lend itself to a very valid charge that it compromises the game itself, on the basis that it follows that some players will not play as hard against other players that they have a stake in or have been staked to.  While, inevitably, these players will protest that they do not engage in such behavior, that they certainly don’t collide with each other, there isn’t any valid reason to threaten the very integrity of the game in order to accommodate this type of staking as there are a few ways to correct or ameliorate this situation.

By far the best solution, is to make it a firm rule, that players have to divulge at their buy-in, their financial backers and that each of these players must have at a minimum, at least a 50% stake in themselves, or a signed commitment from their backer or backers that these particular backer(s) are not participating in the tournament at large, in which case the player can have less than a 50% ownership in his own person.  In cases in which the player and his backer(s) are participating in the same tournament, no backer can have no more than 5% of any one player, and no player can have no less than 50% of himself.

The above would help the integrity of the sport, because it gives more of an incentive for a player to be true to himself, as opposed to psychologically being in a position in which he wants to be all things to all backers.  The integrity of the sport demands this modification, for the fairness of all involved.