Bank Holding your Deposit Funds

People work for money, if they didn't, they wouldn't work, so when it comes to money, whether that money is a physical check, wired funds, smart phone deposit, direct deposit, cash, or whatever, when you make that deposit into your banking institution the fact of the matter is, you consider those funds to be your own.  However, that isn't necessarily true for physical checks, especially if the amount is over $5,000 and the check hasn't come from the US Treasury or similar.  In those cases, the big checks, which perhaps you have worked long and hard to achieve, aren't available to you on the day of your deposit, but instead are put into some sort of bizarre "holding" period by the bank.  It's akin to scoring a goal in an important game, only for the video review process to be interminable.

The ability of a bank to essentially freeze your deposit distinctly shows you who the boss is and who the boss isn't.  The law supports the bank so that when you make a deposit of $4,000, by law, they only have to release a paltry $200 of it to you on that day, or on the next business morning depending upon the time of your deposit, and then depending on the time that you made the deposit they can hold the balance of your deposit for an additional day, so that the funds won't be fully release to your bank account until the third business day.  If, the check is larger than $5000 and/or suspicious, they can hold the amount above $5,000 for a "reasonable period of time", making it a calculated gamble for the consumer as to when the full amount of your deposit will be credited and available in your account.  As you might imagine, this can be a real inconvenience for people that have already earmarked that money to pay for tuition, home upgrades, or for a down payment on their car, bills, or the like. 

The height of frustration for a consumer is knowing for a fact that the check that you have deposited is good, but not being able to get your hands on those funds, especially when the news of your bank deposit being on hold is both unexpected and unwelcomed.  While you can certainly try to get the funds released earlier, whether that occurs or not, has a lot to do with the person that you are talking with, how accommodating they are, and your overall "mojo."

The tragic thing is that every physical check has a MICR line at the bottom of the check, which is scanned at the end of the day, sent to a processing house for clearance of said check, and quickly processed through the respective bank systems, to which your bank knows for a certainty whether the check that you have deposited is good and has thereby cleared the funds from the other bank, well before the time periods that they have put your deposit on hold.  The fact of the matter is, it doesn't take longer than 24 hours for a check of under $5,000 to clear in virtually all cases, nor does it take much additional time, if any, to verify whether a check of over $5,000 has cleared or not. 

While banks have the right and fiduciary duty to protect themselves from fraudulent checks and deposits, the game is rigged entirely in their favor, consequently that is why they avail themselves of the flexibility of using other people's money for "float" to enhance their profits while cheating the consumer out of his.

Umbrellas in the Sunshine

I always consider this to be a real-life oxymoron whenever I see someone on a bright, sunny day, walking with an umbrella to protect themselves from the "harmful" sunny rays.  I mean really!  From what I can gather, these sun-phobic people are almost exclusively women, additionally umbrellas do appear to be far more prominent amongst Asians, but I've seen all races "protecting" themselves from the sun with an umbrella.  It just seems like a total waste, rather odd, as a good sunscreen could accomplish as much with no one the wiser, with a scarf to protect your hair from "bleaching", or a sunhat would serve this purpose just as well.

While I can appreciate the dangers of too much sunshine, or too much exposure to the sun, the fact of the matter is, there would not be any earthly life without it.  Adequate sunshine is essential for good health, because it enables us to increase our Vitamin D levels; the warmth of the sun feels good both physically and emotionally, it boosts our immune system, and your overall health is improved by your exposure to sunlight.

That said I get that the real general reason why people utilize umbrellas in the sunshine is to eliminate or to minimize their exposure to sunlight so as to either to maintain their present skin color or to not allow their skin color to get any darker.  This follows the unfortunate rule that within certain cultures that those with pale skin are considered to be of a higher social status than those that have been exposed to the sun.  When in actuality those with wisdom know that you should only judge a person by the content of the character and not by the flawlessness of their skin, neither should you assume that those that work with their hands outside in the sun, are somehow people born of a lesser God or with lesser talents or with lesser love.

However, I do believe that people are free to choose, and further that they are free to believe what they want to believe, the line is only crossed, when cliques are created that separate people by color, or by creed, or by politics, which in order to assert how righteous or privileged that these particular people are, they have to as a matter of faith also put down others who are non-believers by birth or by virtue or by inclination.

People should be careful for what they wish for, for those that wish for the sun to never touch or to blemish their precious skin, it is easy enough to accomplish, by simply staying inside your house, and minimizing your time outdoors, along with also taking precautions to utilize umbrellas, hats, gloves, clothing, sunscreen, and the like to protect yourself at all costs when outside in the sunlight.    Perhaps by doing so, your life will be more fulfilling, perhaps not, either way the decision is yours to make. 

Remember though that if your beauty is skin deep, so must be your soul.

The Internment List

Most Americans are somewhat aware that during World War II, Americans or aliens of German descent, Italian descent, and Japanese descent living within the contiguous 48 states were interned in concentration camps as possible enemy aliens, or as possible enemy combatants, or as punishment for their heritage, or as a convenience for the government, or for purely racist reasons, despite their actual US citizenship in about two-thirds of these cases.  Was there any American organization that was able to prevent this unjustified and hysterical internment of thousands of civilians who had committed no crime, without trial, and prejudged by their adopted country or their country of birth?  There was not.

What most people are completely unaware of; however, is that the process of identifying and arresting these men, women, and children for relocation was already well identified prior to our entry into World War II.  In other words, organizations and communities of these people were infiltrated, monitored, or reported upon, so that upon the military decision to round these certain people up, the process had already been well laid out.  The decision to intern Japanese, who were for the most part small businessmen, fishermen, and farmers, was premeditated and deliberate, to which, our entry into World War II only served to implement plans that were just waiting for the go-ahead.

That was then, and this is now.  Our country today, encompasses the largest military budget in the world and is second only to China in regards to actual manpower.  Additionally, virtually all communities within America have a well-armed police force.  America is state-of-the-art, in which there is probably no country worldwide that has the sophistication of our monitoring equipment, our communication equipment, and our massive databases as America has today.  Never has this country known so much and in real-time about your name, your location, your habits, your assets, your bank accounts, and your friends and family relations. 

Within America, a list has already been created, dividing each citizen into certain categories.  America is already prepared at a moment's notice to declare martial law, to arrest and to intern citizens or residents that they deem to be problematic, not sufficiently patriotic, or a general nuisance, and to move these people efficiently and effectively to their designated concentration camps. 

You say that this can't happen in America, it already did, and it will happen again.  You say that this time is different, that civil rights organizations, media outlets, and the people in general, will rise up and defend our rights; they won't, because they can't.  Civil rights organizations and the few good people of America that care to make a stand won't have the wherewithal to do so.  While they may have tremendous moral courage, they lack firepower, core efficiency, money, assets, and justice.

When the government freezes your bank account, what will you do?  When the government identifies you as a "dangerous domestic insurgent" where will you run?  When the government already knows where you are, where will you hide?  When the government promises that after these few million peoples have been properly processed and interned that all will be back to normal, who will complain?

All the power in this country is contained with the government's hands; executive, judicial, and legislative are totally in their domain.  You, as a good citizen, will willingly obey their edicts or you will surely suffer the consequences.  No worries though, after they have broken you completely, you will be free to go.

The bogus land of Opportunity

America has the greatest multi-media in the world, to which one is lead to believe that anyone can achieve or have those things that are so readily displayed in those formats.  If one is mobile and lives in or about a major city, in America you will thereby discover great edifices, wonderful houses, beautiful parks, and natural delights, that are truly awe inspiring.  While our streets are not paved in gold, the richness of America is fairly easy to behold, but there is a problem with this vision though and that problem is that this vision primarily holds for certain sections and certain peoples of America, but with others, many others, their vision is blurred and nightmarish.

From the day that you are born, you will discover that America is not a level playing field, and for way too many of us, you will start out behind, having no real opportunity to make up ground for being behind, and consequently you will forever be behind, forgotten, kicked aside, and shunned.  In fact, for far too many people there won't be even one day when you have personally lived in a land of real opportunity, your dream was aborted at birth, and in its place you have the substitute of pipe dreams, wish fulfillments, and lottery tickets.

There are a multitude of reasons why America cannot hold itself out as being a true land of opportunity.  For instance, there is the geography of failure, to which if you are born in an impoverished, underserved, dangerous, and forsaken part of America, such as certain sections of inner cities, you pretty much have signed a warrant which stipulates that you will be distinguished as nothing more than a menace to society and treated as such.  If you are born within an unstable family structure, such as a stressed-out single-parent household, or a dysfunctional family, or a family unable or incapable of making reasoned and mature decisions, those faults will transfer onto yourself.  If the school that you attend in order to receive your free public education,  isn't a real school at all, but is, in fact, more akin to a war zone, under budgeted, malnourished, and hopelessly inept, you will quickly fall behind, never applying yourself, and consequently giving up.  If your peers and mentors are people on the fringes of society with little of the pluck and virtue that make up great character, but instead are dealers of shortcuts, scams, and hustles, your vision will be circumscribed by what you see as the evidence in front of you.

America has done a great disservice to some of its citizens, by emasculating them, so that in return they can hand them food, shelter, and other entitlements without expecting or desiring anything in return.  It's a poor bargain for those citizens, because that trade effectively makes them wards of the State, with little or no marketable skills and nothing to realistically aspire for or to achieve.  Their dream of equal opportunity has been canceled out for these people; most of them having had their dreams effectively nullified upon their birth, in which they have committed no sin and no offense. 

For some, America is still a land of real opportunity, but for far too many, it's a house of mirrors, a fog of hope, and a promissory note forever unpaid, in arrears, and perpetually in default.

Sumptuary laws

I suspect most people are completely unaware that there was anything like a sumptuary law back in the Middle Ages, laws that were pass, in order to primarily maintain class distinctions and to control, modify, and to keep in their place the middle as well as the lower class as to what was or wasn't allowed to be consumed for food, or worn for clothing, or purchased in general.  It material life wasn't unfair enough already, the ruling class, wanted to make it quite clear that only they could wear certain clothes or to consume a particular food, so that class distinction was readily maintained by certain visual clues. 

The ostensible reason for these laws was to encourage thriftiness in purchases by these unentitled peoples, to maintain social structure, and to enforce humility upon them.  Although sumptuary laws are a thing of the pass, their application in certain ways is still relevant today.  For instance, top line foreign cars are made for a specific type of person and aren't suppose to be driven by those that don't have the appropriate status to purchase them, that is to say that those people aren't really the intended buyers of said vehicles.  This also applies to housing in certain areas of cities, and to other hi-end personal purchases, their advertisements, their catch, is all meant for a certain segment of the population and to a certain extent, to a particular further segment of the population that includes "up-and-comers" and to a small extent "wanna-be's".

The class distinction in the Middle Ages was not something to be trifled with and the sumptuary laws were meant to make sure that people knew their place and that they did not have the effrontery to assume that they were equals at any level with the ruling class.  Furthermore, trade and other areas of commerce help to make some of the more common people, successful, perhaps a little too successful, but the ruling class wanted to make it quite clear that no matter the money, nor the intelligence, nor the accomplishments, nor the work ethic, that you could not demonstrate outwardly your positive change in fortune.

After all, the ruling class was accorded a specific respect as were those in the clergy that often worked in conjunction with the powers-to-be, so that neither had an interest in seeing their authority challenged or confused in any way, form, or function.  After all, if somebody else dressed or ate in the manner of the ruling class but wasn't part of that class, the rulers believed that therefore the entire edifice was threatened by this breach of decorum, in which it might be shown, that those not of that class, could comport themselves in such a way that they appeared to be of that class, indicating or implying perhaps that there was not such a huge distinction between peoples as the ruling class would have you believe.

This means that in the Middle Ages there was no room for a true Cinderella story, that your upward mobility was not only limited by station, but also by what you were permitted to wear, or to eat, or essentially how you were able to comport yourself.   While official sumptuary laws are a thing of the pass, fragments and images of them still exist in our world today.

Informants

A true informant is somebody on the inside, engaged in some sort of criminal activity or the knowledge of such, that for either selfish motives or for the greater good, feels a necessity to inform police authorities of this activity and after such communication will either continue in his former role as he was with the oversight of a particular police agency or will be essentially immediately utilized to turn State's evidence against the alleged perpetrators of the crime or crime in process.  The other type of informant, which unfortunately is far more prevalent, is the fake informant, an informant created by circumstances and selfishness, that is either incapable of doing the time for a particular crime that he has been charged with, fearful of retribution by someone or something, and in return for a lesser sentence, or being let go, is given the assignment of infiltrating certain crime targets and reporting such to appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Informants are only valuable to law enforcement agencies if they have actionable activities to report, if they do not have these, any funding that they receive for expenses, for their cover, for their lifestyle, and for compensation for their "work", will be reduced or cut-off completely, to which they may have to return to jail or be relieved of their duties with little chance of employment opportunities that pay well.  A significant portion of informants are selfish, desperate, and of less than a worthy character, which is a significant downfall of informants in the first place.  I mean, if you take a lowlife liar and make him an informant, what sort of real actionable information will he provide you that isn't already compromised in some way, form, or manner?

Further to the cause as why informants are a contradiction in action, is their ability to help instigate and to plan criminal activities in the first place.  From my viewpoint, an informant should never be permitted to engage in criminal activity as aiding and abetting a crime in progress, is a crime, no matter the cover, and so unless the informant is essentially passive in his actions, he is literally changing history by participating in it.   In today's hi-tech world, the need of physical informants should be at a new low, as recording devices and the like have never been more prevalent and more effective than they are today.  Police should be satisfied with a hands-off role in which they merely observe and record activities and then make a conscious decision on what to do base on their real-time observations and experience. 

Law enforcement should be very particular about the informants that they work with and there should be a strict oversight committee monitoring the activities of such.  There are always going to be people that will trade information for money, information for freedom, information for their beliefs, and those communication lines should therefore remain open and vibrant.  What really isn't needed is the manufactured informant, in which law enforcement insists that they must have an informant to keep tabs on a certain non-desirable organization or people because they lack inside information about said target and then go out and actively seek an informant of dubious value and integrity.  Doing so creates a very slippery slope, a slope that isn't good for America, isn't good for Americans, or its ideals, or its standards. 

Remember that two wrongs don't make a right, it's far better to hold yourself responsible and accountable to that higher standard.

Guantanamo bay

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is in the news a lot, mainly because of the notoriety of the foreign alleged enemy combatants that have been imprisoned there by the United States military forces, but that is a story for another day.  What is of more interest, however, is the fact that Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba, and Cuba is a nation that we have had an official economic boycott with since 1962, despite the fact that Cuba lies a mere 90 miles away from US soil.  Additionally, Cuba is a communist nation, but somehow the United States, has an active naval base in Cuba, its only naval base in a communist nation, to which Cuba is a sovereign nation and is not partnered with the United States in the usage or maintenance of this naval base.

The Cuban-American treaty was signed in 1903 ceding control and a lease of 46.8 square miles of Cuban land and the bay surrounding its naval base to the United States.  In 1934, a new agreement was signed, which essentially permitted the United States to maintain its presence in perpetuity because of the clause which stipulated that: "… until the two Contracting Parties agree to the modification or abrogation of the stipulations of the agreement…" to which the United States has no intention of changing this anytime soon. 

Despite Castro's protests that:  “The Republic of Cuba repudiates and considers as null and illegal those treaties, pacts or concessions signed under conditions of inequality or which disregard or diminish her sovereignty and territorial integrity,”  no tribunal, no International Court, has invalidated the current treaty, nor is this a realistic hope for Cuba.  The fact of the matter is, the United States is physically in Cuba, and it isn't leaving, and while the port has a strategic purpose, in the scale of things, it really isn't necessary for our naval exercises or our fleets, since we have excellent ports state-side as well as in Puerto Rico.  The main purpose of our continued presence there is basically to be a thorn in the side of Cuba and nothing much more than this.

Once the United States gets a foothold in a country, it doesn't like to retreat from it, as America pretty much follows the format that once in, they will leave at their own volition and on their own terms.  As a small sovereign island nation, Cuba has basically no recourse to remove the United States from its soil.  There isn't any country that will help Cuba, because the risks of doing so are simply not worth it, but Guantanamo Bay does serve as a bargaining chip for the normalization of the relations between our respective countries. 

The fact of the matter is that America trades with virtually every country in the world, no matter its political affiliation and it is therefore high time that America removes its trade embargo with Cuba through some sort of quid pro quo basis.  Perhaps America is waiting for Fidel Castro to die in order to initiate these changes, let us hope that this is the case, because if America truly wants to be looked upon as a world leader, it should start first with its relations close to home of a former friend, later to become an enemy, but no doubt amendable to burying the hatchet in recognition that our proximity to each other necessitates friendlier and more amicable relations.

Good Boy

According to Wikipedia.org in America "more than 1.2 million households currently live in public housing of some type." The reason that so many households must live in public housing has everything to do with their lack of income and their lack of opportunity.  In fact, most major cities have waiting lists for people that are qualified for public housing but lack accommodations and/or the budget for these impoverished people.  When it comes to public housing, do not think for even a minute that the playing field is fair, because it clearly favors one type of citizen over other types.  The rules for public housing assistance make it very clear that their preference is households in which there is not a history of any criminal activity.  In fact, a felony conviction for any member of your household often results in your eviction or disqualification from public housing, with frequently the further restriction that if a relative or friend that is a convicted felon visits your residence, than you are subject to immediate disqualification from public housing which will many times lead to your eventual eviction.  More perplexing, a mere arrest or a series of arrests for criminal activity can trigger your eviction or disqualification for public housing under the guise that this represents a "history of criminal activity" and although it appears that higher courts have upheld the standard that an arrest without a conviction is not criminal activity, most public housing authorities ignore this rule.

The foregoing makes it very clear that the government offers public housing to a certain segment of the population which is predominantly non-male head of household, since the male incarceration rate by gender percentage is 87-88% in the United States.  Additionally, the most frequent crime that people are convicted for in America is drug related, to which thinkprogress.org states that "…almost half of federal inmates – 48 percent – were in prison for drug crimes."  Consequently, perhaps half of people that are denied public housing based on criminal activity are essentially being denied because of past drug crimes in which typically there isn't any victim since one party is merely providing to another party a product that they desire or indulging themselves in a drug that has been criminalized..

Clearly, the government is primarily interested in providing public housing to those people of the population that are docile and obedient to their arbitrary rules and laws, people of a certain personality, of a certain gender, or certain characteristics, often lacking in ambition, or similar.  While, no doubt, the make-up of these poor citizens includes good people with big hearts, good morals and good purpose that have been denied fair opportunities or a good education, none of that really matters to the public housing authorities as ultimately all they care about is that they are simply able to follow the prescribed rules.

When it comes to the public housing authorities and their rules and formalities, their purpose is quite straightforward, if you are subservient to the Man, keep your eyes down, know your place, aren't uppity, show your respectat all times to those that are above you, and proper consideration for their superiority and wisdom, you will do alright.  The public housing authorities aren't looking for men, they won't really allow you to be a man, they are looking for boys, and as long as you are a good boy, a really good boy, you will do just fine.

Driver's License Magnetic Stripe/Barcode

As far as I can determine, every State of the union has either a magnetic stripe, or a barcode, or both on the back of your driver's license in America.  Ostensibly, this is done so as to provide a service to the police when you have been pulled over or are being questioned, so that they can simply swipe your driver's license or scan your barcode to ascertain quickly whether there is anything about your identity that would necessitate them taking a more meaningful action against you or in theory, to protect and serve you.

First off, what exactly is contained on your driver's license barcode or magnetic code?  Essentially what is contained is in digital format all of the pertinent information on the front of your driver's license with the exception of your actual picture and because this information has been scanned, any company or person utilizing equipment that can scan your license will also have the capability of storing or maintaining this information too, whether they are legally entitled to it or not.  In some States, there are laws that preclude companies or individuals from doing so, but in some States there are not.

The next logical question is why any company or individual would actually need to scan your license when the information that they are looking for is clearly in their view, right in front of their eyes.  While you can make a somewhat weak argument that the license needs to be scanned to cut down on "fake IDs" or as easy way to verify the age of someone buying liquor for employees that are incapable of figuring out your age based on your birth date, the real reason can only be for their own marketing, targeting, or nefarious purposes. 

Now let's go back to the ostensible reason for barcodes or magnetic stripes in the first place which is for the ease of use for police or other civil authorities.  The bottom line is a barcode or magnetic strip isn't necessary for law enforcement, because each driver's license, just as each passport, or each social security number, is unique in of itself, with its own individual identifying number.  Folks, it just isn't that complicated to type in a number, verify it against the driver's license, and then read your screen to see if there is any actionable information on it.

What is really happening here is that your driver's license is becoming more and more like a national ID card in which your personal activities can be monitored and tracked not only by government and civil authorities but also by stores or organizations that you have to frequent as a matter of course.  It is one thing to make this type of tracking, voluntary, by your use of a loyalty card, or a membership card, and it's another thing entirely to make it compulsory.

In short, people have a right to be left alone, people have a right to privacy, people have a right of discretion, people have a right to not have to live their lives inside a fishbowl, and people have a right to not be monitored, they need to be able to have a sanctuary.   

Credit Card Store Fees

In today's world, unless you are dealing with a mom and pop store, you are able to purchase your goods whether online or inside the physical store itself with a credit card.  Virtually all stores that accept credit cards accept Visa and Master Card, with most merchants also accepting Discover and American Express.  Those are four biggest players in the credit card issuance and acceptance world, with any other players being far, far behind.  Out of those four companies, Discover Financial Services has the lowest market capitalization at approximately at $28 billion; Discover also has the lowest merchant fees of these four credit card providers.

The use of credit cards within stores cost the stores themselves millions upon millions of dollars in credit card fees that they have to be paid to Visa or similar for the privilege of accepting this form of payment.  In other words, when you purchase a product at a store for $100 utilizing your credit card, the store never gets the full $100, but instead has to give up somewhere around just under 2% to 3.5% on each transaction which is huge percentage taken directly from the top line of these companies.  Of course, ultimately most of that cost is passed onto the consumers, in the form of higher prices for the privilege of utilizing the convenience of their credit cards.  Credit card consumers get some of the extra purchase price rebated to them from credit card bonuses, cash-backs, and the like, which means the consumer that loses out the most is the consumer who purchases his merchandize with cash or cash equivalent, which typically is the poorest segment of America, who aren't considered to be credit worthy.

In an era of high-technology and sophistication, it is surprising that the credit card issuers are able to charge such a high fee to stores without any real fight back.  It is well to remember, that companies such as Visa are in actuality, middlemen, of which they certainly provide a service, but the fee for that service seems wholly out of order with the risk and the service provided.  Additionally, those fees don't appear to be in any downward trend, to which one could make a very strong argument that the economies of scale alone of these credit card issuers should allow them to lower their fees and still maintain a nice, healthy balance sheet.

So the current situation is one in which the stores are giving up income to the credit card issuers, and the consumer is having to pay a higher net price because of the credit card fees that stores pay, with only the middleman coming out like a true winner.  This means that, for instance, the biggest retailer in the world, Wal-Mart must ask the question whether they want to issue their own national credit card that could be used in nearly all stores in the United States, as Sears did with the issuance of their Discover card in 1986 or whether they might instead make a bold and leveraged buy-out of Discover Financial Services in order to quickly level the playing field in short order.

If Wal-Mart was to buy the Discover Financial Services and thereupon encourage other retailers and consumers to utilize this credit card as their card of choice, they would have to noticeably knock down fees, perhaps 50% from the current 2% of so, which would most definitely take significant market share from the industry leaders, this would in turn, force Visa and the like to lower their fees in order to be more competitive.  The net result would be a win for retailers in general, for all consumers, and would force the biggest credit card providers to be more nimble, agile, and reasonable in their efficiency and fee structures.

Adults ordering kids' meals for themselves

Most fast food restaurants have a separate category for kids, usually for those that are age twelve and under, in which they offer kids' meals and many sit-down family restaurants also offer kids' meals.  I would assume that restaurants offer akids' menu for a variety of reasons, such as to make therestaurant more affordable for families, to appeal to kids and their simplified tastes, to bring more families in because there are reasonably-priced kids' meals, and to match what the competition is doing.  None of this is especially surprising or earth-shaking, and there are probably some families that stretch it a little bit in regards to the age requirements, but all-in-all this formula appears to work out for everyone involved.

However, I later discovered that some people, usually female, like to occasionally order the kids' meal for themselves.  The simplest way to do so, is at the drive-up window, in which quite frankly, it seems reasonable to order a kids' meal to go and even if the restaurant was to suspect you of really ordering it for yourself, there isn't much that they would want to do to preclude you from doing so.  In regards to sit-down family restaurants, this issue is far more problematic, to which some restaurants will simply allow you to order off of any portion of the menu, as a matter of customer retention and satisfaction, and others are fairly adamant that if you are not a child, you aren't going to be able to order off the children's' menu.

Is it wrong to order a kids' meal for yourself?  Basically, there are three thoughts on this.  First off, most restaurants make it clear that this is age specific, and if you are not part of that age demographic, it seems pretty obvious that you shouldn't be able to order from that menu.  Secondly, there are woman that aren't all that hungry, they are petite or perhaps even in a hurry, and consequently it isn't so much that they are trying to "get one over" on the restaurant as that they would prefer to be allowed to order only what they feel that they can eat in one sitting.  Therefore it then follows that for certain people, since there isn't a half-size option for an adult meal, that ordering an adult meal simply doesn't make sense and/or would become a temptation for them, because of dietary concerns, or calorie counts, or the like.

The problem for restaurants, though, is that the kids' menu is primarily there as an enticement for adults with their families to frequent the restaurant and to help increase business as opposed to the restaurant being built around kids' meals and their much lower selling price point.  For the fact of the matter is the profit margin on kids' meals is considerably less than for adult portions so most restaurants would be displeased if too many adults consistently ordered kids' meals for themselves.

While it is clear that adults are not kids and consequently do not qualify for purchasing kids' meals for themselves, in this era of entitlements, some adults with our without a good reason, will do so.

Why are the Reddest States in the Deep South?

With the primary exception of Florida, the traditional south invariably votes Republican, in the Presidential, in the Senatorial, and in the Gubernatorial. This doesn't make a lot of sense to which according to Gallup.com the non-Hispanic whites are 35% republican, 38% independent/I don't know, and 26% democrat, whereas non-Hispanic blacks are 5% republican, 29% independent/I don't know, and 64% democrat.  As for the other minorities, none are greater than 18% republican and none are greater than 36% democrat.  A straightforward interpretation of this would imply that states that are heavily non-Hispanic black, would invariably be democratic states, since non-Hispanic whites lean republican but aren't invariably republican.  This however, isn't the case whatsoever.

The states with the highest percentage of blacks are as follows: Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia.  Since 1980 in the Presidential election, with the exception of Clinton twice in Louisiana, and once in Georgia, each of these states has invariably voted Republican.  In regards to the gubernatorial elections, each of these states from the time just after reconstruction until the year 2000, and almost without exception elected Democratic governors, since 2000; however, each of these states has had one Democratic governor for one term, and the balance of those years have been Republican governors.  The same voting pattern essentially holds true for Senatorial elections in each of these states in which for over 100 years after reconstruction the Senators from these states were Democrats, but just like the gubernatorial voting pattern, they have now since 2000 primarily been electing Republicans.

This can only mean that somehow that white voting patterns in the Deep South are not the same as they are in the north or other parts of America.  While the Deep South is certainly different than other sections of the country, especially in the importance of traditional religious values, the difference in voting must be substantial to overcome black votes in the south which are inevitably for the democratic candidate.   This means, essentially, that whites in the Deep South are overwhelmingly voting Republican irrespective of their party affiliation because they believe in core values such as pro-life, pro-military, anti-illegal immigration, anti-Affordable care act, anti-Union, and pro-Defense of Marriage.

That isn't the complete story though.  Unfortunately, the other aspect of white voting habits in the Deep South resides in the prejudices of mankind.  It isn't so much that the whites in the Deep South want to keep the black man down, although there is truth there, it is as if they don't want to support anyone or any program that would allow blacks or other minorities to overcome them in the pecking order of the society that they envision, and further to the point that they don't particularly care to be trifled with by those "damn Yankees" or "bleeding heart liberals".

Therefore the secret for the Democrats when it comes to changing the voting habits of the Deep South, is to recognize that since you already hold all the core Democrat votes, you must modify your pitch and your programs to appeal to the unique interests of the whites of the Deep South, which probably means being more accommodating to their values without compromising the big picture itself.

Tobacco-Free Campuses

Smoking has been around since time immemorial in one form or another, additionally tobacco was our first successful exported cash crop in America, and furthermore the smoking of tobacco is a legal activity within America.  Therefore, it's extremely disappointing to see that many college campuses have enacted a tobacco-free rule which treats collegiate students as children.  The negative information about smoking is so prevalent, that if somebody decides to smoke, that is their decision to make, and therefore college campuses should not make it their policy to preclude somebody from indulging in a substance that provides them some sort of pleasure, need, or comfort.

The call from some that "secondhand smoke" in an outdoor environment causes or can cause cancer is a red herring of the highest order.  This is sham science at its absolute worse, and if this charge is actually true, that secondhand smoke creates or causes cancer than there would be actual verifiable scientific studies that demonstrate this beyond a reasonable doubt, but in fact, according to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and their study of over 76,000 woman over a decade, the result was as reported by forbes.com "… found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke."

The real issue about tobacco-free campuses, which by the way, applies to all tobacco or tobacco related products, such as electronic cigarettes (which contains no tobacco), is their control, the primacy of your body as opposed to your spirit, the supremacy of science, and the degradation of your mind and soul.   The message that college campuses that support tobacco-free laws is that your physical body is all that you will ever be, which kind of defeats the purpose of going to college in the first place.

These colleges aren't interested in you actually thinking about what this country stands for,  or especially what this country was founded on, they care only that you obey them and their edicts, even if they are unconstitutional, unfair, prejudicial, and poor law.  There are several nails in the coffin that colleges are prepared to use; tobacco-free is just the beginning of this onslaught.  If you can't smoke, you shouldn't be able to drink alcohol either, nor should you be able to eat or consume any sugar products, or have a BMI greater than 20% for males or 25% for females.  If you're less than 5'6" for males, you shouldn't be admitted to a college campus because as Randy Newman put it: "short people got no reason to live", and if you're too tall or too talented or too good looking you should be treated as Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron was as "under-handicapped" and thereby be regarded as an enemy of the state.

Tobacco-free campuses are just another significant step in the direction of one size fits all.  We should all be the same, even though we aren't, we should all think the same, even though we don't, and we should all achieve about the same, that way we're interchangeable.   What colleges should be about is engaging the mind and the spirit to think, to contemplate, and to accomplish great things of real worth to mankind, with or without the smoke.

The two diverging paths of marijuana

There are multiple worlds for marijuana and its use, depending upon the State that you reside in.  For instance, there is the onslaught of marijuana being available for medical purposes in which prescriptions for its usage are handed out like candy, there are two States that have legalized marijuana (Washington and Colorado), additionally we have the ongoing decriminalization of marijuana in other States, and for those States that still criminalize marijuana usage a jury of their peers are becoming more and more reluctant to convict marijuana users despite clear evidence of their guilt in a court of law, which effectively negates laws against marijuana usage in those States that have not liberalized their laws.  However, despite our Constitutional Amendment that gives rights not accorded to the Federal Government to the people or to the State, respectively, the history of America over the last half-century is clearly a history of the Federal Government dominating and asserting itself into the peoples’ and State rights. 

Because of the Federal Government’s power and Federal judiciary that often aids and abets this power, States that have liberalized their marijuana laws face the fear and are subject to the Damocles sword that the Federal Government represents.    There is no doubt that a collision course is in process between the States and the Federal Government and the sooner that this is dealt with and it is resolved the clearer the path will be.

I, for one, am at a lost as to how marijuana stores in Colorado and Washington are even able to operate in good faith, when it would appear that they are in danger of being dealt out of business by the Federal Government at any moment.  For instance, banks which are heavily regulated will not readily accept the transactions of these businesses, which means therefore that these marijuana stores do all their sales in cash and consequently have to deal with the inconveniences of having a lot of cash on their premises that needs to be secured on a day-to-day level.

The Federal Government does not seem to comprehend that a legal business will essentially drive out the illegal business of marijuana sales, even if the legal price of marijuana is substantially higher than the illegal one.  We can somewhat judge the validity of this statement by taking a look at alcohol sales and activities during prohibition in which the illegal distilling and distribution of alcoholic goods is virtually non-existent at this point.  People, for the most part, are willing to pay a premium to be both on the right side of the law and to rest assured that the goods that they are procuring meet a certain particular standard.

Nothing about the popularity or the prevalence of marijuana should come as a surprise to the Federal Government and simply issuing an edict that the Feds will not stand in the way of the States when it comes to this issue would be all the clarity that the States would need, yet the Federal Government is reluctant to legislate this issue once and for all.  It is not for me to judge whether marijuana is any better or worse than alcohol, suffice to say, they are not the same thing.  What is clearly apparent, though, is that even for those folks that don’t smoke marijuana, or don’t believe that marijuana has any real positive value and the like, aren’t exactly clamoring for the continuing criminalization of marijuana,

The battle for the hearts and minds of America in reference to marijuana is over, the Federal Government has it wrong, the people have spoken, let the people in each State therefore make their choice, as that should be their prerogative.

Something worth dying for

If you haven't found something worth dying for, then you probably haven't found the true meaning of life itself.  The fact of the matter is that none of us gets out of here alive, in which all of us will suffer the death of our physical body, no matter how much we might not want to think about that process, or whether it will happen, or why it has to happen, it happens, to the good and to the bad, to the rich and to the poor, to the religious and the irreligious.  Since the bell will indeed toll for everyone it behooves us to discover something worth dying for, because in finding that, we will probably discover why we are living here to begin with.

There may be some in which when put to the test, will state, that there is absolutely nothing that they would suffer death for.  Perhaps they are very rich, or been bless with many pleasures in life, no doubt they are totally self-centered, egotistical, feel a certain invincibility, and are untouched in any way by pain or suffering.  The problem for this type of person, is circumstances will change, in which they too will be put to the test at some point and unprepared for this experience, will be found wanting.

There are others that can hardly find a thing worth living for, never mind dying, in which their dejected lives are already defeated, deflated, hopeless, and filled with the hunger pangs of injustice.   For these poor souls, they too often see a world of disappointment, hatred, violence, and pain, in which death is not treated as an unmitigated evil, it is seen more as a welcome reprieve,  or even as a final celebration from the cords of our earthly life. 

Most people, however, are in-between these two worlds, finding plenty of things to be happy and joyful for, and finding also plenty of things to feel sorrow and to be fearful of.  Death for most of them, is a subject that isn't readily discussed, it's best avoided or put off to another day, a day therefore to which the can has been kicked down the road, but the road and that can keeps coming back into their field of view and nudging them to pay attention to it but they won't, because to do so will make them have to face themselves as they truly are and that confrontation must be avoided at all costs. 

Still we are left with the fact that the true purpose of life is to find something worth dying for.  Perhaps for some people they will be willing to suffer death for their children's sake, or for their parents, or for a true friend, of for a country, or for love of another, or love of God, or even to correct an injustice done to another.  Each of us has a cross to bear, each of us must face that moment when we must relinquish our self from this earth, from this body, and from this time. 

For those that have found that something worth dying for, than they are already prepared to meet their Maker, come what may, to them no bullet can steal their soul, no whip can take their spirit, and no madman can annihilate their true self.  They are immortal, created by their Maker, and to Him they will return.

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.