Liberia Should be an United States Territory

Liberia became a sovereign nation in 1847 and since that time has been in charge of its own destiny, however, Liberia also has a special history with the United States, as this African country was founded by the American Colonization Society in 1824, by freed blacks from America, that were sponsored by the United States government, as well as repatriated slaves taken from the trans-Atlantic slave trade and brought to the shores of Liberia.  Liberia's capital city of Monrovia, is named after our President James Monroe, who was an active supporter of a homeland for freed Africans, in a time when it wasn't clear that Africans in America, would ever be in a position to be properly assimilated or truly free in America.  While the founding of Liberia was controversial and not universally supported by either white or black in America, its founding was considered at the time to be progressive for Africans.  Additionally, when Liberia was founded it displaced native peoples from that land, to which some native peoples of Liberia subsequently rose up and took exception to the Americano-Liberians who ruled the country and rebelled against them, to the effect of two devastating civil wars within the last forty years, the result of tribal tensions and unease, for this country which is the African continent's first Republic.

The above would perhaps imply that the Liberian people as a whole have no interest in being part of the United States as a territory, but that isn't necessarily the case as there are massive advantages that are recognized as being beneficial to having "Uncle Sam" providing aid for this nation, which encompasses such things as education, health, military, and economic aid.  As long as the conditions were such as to provide autonomy for the people of Liberia, the people of Liberia would probably have a great interest in seeing that this opportunity was offered to them since a rising tide lifts all boats.  Consequently, America should take the steps today in conjunction with Liberia, to allow Liberia to vote upon this very issue, and thereby to decide their future fate.

The great advantage to Liberians if they were to become a United States territory is the advantage of being afforded the opportunity to have the same sort of rights as United States citizens, including the right for safe passage to and from the United States.  In a country of over four million peoples, Liberia has a per capita income of less than $500, if they were instead to be a United States territory, their incomes, health, and opportunities would rise significantly.  This would also provide the opportunity for American corporations to invest much more money, material, and knowhow into Liberia than has been done in recent times and subsequently would thereby provide vibrant opportunity for native Liberians to be gainfully employed in private enterprise. 

Liberia is in a unique position to have a special and more consequential relationship with the United States, on formal terms, to their benefit as well as ours, if both parties put their heads together to present this historic opportunity in the best possible light.  President Obama is the right leader, as well as being in his second and final term of office, so there is no better time to do so than now.

How Come Asian-Americans Are Smarter?

That Asian-Americans are the smartest racial group by educational achievement in the United States is not something that is suspected or surmised, it has been verified, and it is emphatically true.  Asian-Americans have by racial classification, per the Pew Research Center, the highest percentage of Bachelor Degrees in America, the highest median income of any group, the highest work ethic, believe strongly that the United States offers a better opportunity to get ahead, and have been able to achieve all of this despite the fact that the majority of Asian-Americans, with the exception of the Japanese, are foreign born, and consequently that English is not their native tongue.

The achievements of 1st generation Asian-Americans is absolutely phenomenal, and there are only three basic possibilities as to why they have been so successful in America, which are: they are genetically superior mentally, their immigration to America is selective so consequently American is only permitting the immigration of the cream of the crop, and finally that their work ethic and their study habits are superior to the average American.

According to photius.com the top three countries ranked by IQ are all Asian countries, but those same three countries which are Singapore, Japan, and South Korea, are also the top three countries in per capita GDP, leading to the supposition that there is a high correlation between per capita GDP and higher IQ scores.  Next, we have to consider as to whether Asian-American immigrants are so successful because American selectively allows the immigration of only the best and the brightest of them to our shores.  Although the most common path for Asian American immigration is actually through family connections, there are a substantial amount of Asians that are recruited each year by major colleges and universities in America so that these campuses can meet both their enrollment goals as well as their financial obligations, and since American universities are held in high regard as well as America being a destination that is strongly desirable, top international students are educated here.

Finally, there is the question about work ethics, and the supposition that your own effort, initiative, and dedication help you to achieve meritorious success in education.  It almost goes without saying that if one student desires only to spend their time playing mindless video games, gossiping, watching TV or the like, whereas another student attends to their studies, dedicates themselves to their craft, and is culturally conditioned to give their best and to represent their family well, that the devoted student, if not initially, will over time surpass the slacker student, in test scores and ultimately worth in the marketplace of employment. 

While there are, no doubt, a myriad of reasons why Asian-Americans are smarter than any other racial classification in America, it would be a gross mistake, to attribute their intelligence and success solely to genetics, and thereby to excuse oneself from even attempting to engage in trying harder at learning and applying oneself to becoming a more complete and a better person.  The real lesson to be learned here, is that your effort matters, your struggle matters, your grit matters, and that if you make it matter, you too can more easily find success.

The Royalty and their lack of Surnames

In more formal times in America, one was introduced to another person, as Mr. Jones to Mr. Smith, although to a large extend this has fallen out of favor, yet formal introductions are still used in judicial settings, also as a form of respect from a younger person to an elder person, and especially from a student to a teacher.   Certainly also servants were not to utilize their masters first names under virtually any circumstance, and despite the servant often being older than the child she had responsibility for, the salutation for children was often Master John, or Mistress Anne; whereas the children themselves could always address the servant by her first name. 

When you take a look at the royal family in England, you take it for granted that their names are Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, Princess Diana, and so forth, but if you take a step back, you do wonder, why is it that these royal personages are being addressed by their first name and where is there last name?  In actuality, the royal family does sort of have surnames, but they are seldom used, and in the case of the English royal family, their surname, Windsor, isn't really their surname. Windsor is, in fact, a name that they chose because previously Prince Albert, who was from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, didn't sound too British, for the dynasty of Britain's royal family, so the royal family chose Windsor as the House that they were from, and subsequently used Windsor as their last name, so that from time-to-time Queen Elizabeth was known to use the name Elizabeth Windsor. For the royalty in general, their last names, whether used or not, are often referring to the territory that they rule over, as opposed to anything else, but seeing that they are the Monarchs, the choice of such a surname is at their discretion.

Still you might wonder, doesn't the use of someone's first name, even with a salutation such as Prince or Queen seem rather too personal, especially considering that this is the royal family.  In point of fact, it is, that is why in actuality, the Queen is usually addressed as "Her Majesty", and not as Queen Elizabeth.  In addition, the Prince is known as the "Prince of Wales," and also we have the "Duchess of Cornwall," as well as "His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh," and so forth.  So in actuality, the common citizen, will not be shouting out, "hey, Queen Elizabeth," as this would be considered to be in rather poor form and not the appropriate way to address the Queen.

So in actuality, the reason that we don’t often see surnames associated with royalty has a lot to do with their lack of necessity of having a surname, and when it comes to introductions, royalty will be accorded their respect, by being addressed by their royal titles, as opposed to any intimate familiarity with their actual first names.   Also, as you might suspect, the lack of surnames for royalty, goes all the way back to Biblical times, when we had King David, King Solomon, and so forth, so today's royalty and their naming conventions are consistent with the way it has always been, perhaps in the faint hope that we will see today's Kings and Queens as God's sanctioned representatives here on earth. 

The future of African-American Population Percentage in America

Racial classification is somewhat arbitrary, but in general there are five great races which are: black (African-American), brown (Latino/Hispanic), red (American Indian/Native American), white (Caucasian), and yellow (Asian).  Not too surprisingly, one racial classification may not be the most appropriate designation for a significant amount of peoples in America, to which some people will identify themselves as being multi-racial, whereas others that do have multi-racial characteristics do not.

As you might suspect, the census questions in America in regards to race have changed over the years, so that in the 18th century the categories for race were not the same or as diversified as we have currently, nevertheless, according to Wikipedia.org, in 1790, 19.3% of all Americans were African-American, although the vast majority of these African-Americans were enslaved.  While the population of African-Americans has always increased in America decade by decade, the percentage of African-Americans in America has continued to drop so that the African-American total population percentage is now just 12.6% as of the 2010 census.  In the year 2000, for the first time, since the census had been taken in America, African-Americans were surpassed by Hispanics in America, by a relatively small percentage.  However, in 2010, the Hispanic population in numbers as well as percentage far exceeded African-Americans, as there is estimated to be over 50 million Hispanics in America, at a percentage of 16.3% of the population, whereas African-Americans are not even 39 million peoples.

The fact that Hispanics have overtaken African-Americans in America is not a big surprise, as significant portions of America, use to be part of Mexico, Mexico is contiguous to the United States, Hispanic immigration, legal as well as illegal, has historically been quite high, and Hispanics have the highest birthrate of any race in America.  What this does mean for African-Americans is that they will never again be the second most populous race in America.   This could pose a tremendous problem for African-Americans as in only the last fifty-odd years, have African-Americans been able to assert any sort of political or economic power within America, to which this power may soon dissipate and be ceded over to another racial group as African-Americans become displaced.  This does not mean that Hispanics and African-Americans should be at odds with one another, not at all, in actuality, working together may be the most prudent and beneficial thing to do in order to accomplish their collective goals.

In 1960, there were less than 1 million Asians in America.  As of the census of 2010, there are now nearly 15 million Asians in America.  Additionally, according to the nytimes.com, it was Asians, not Hispanics, that were the biggest immigrants to America in 2010, as: "about 430,000 Asians — or 36 percent of all new immigrants, legal and illegal — moved to the United States in 2010, compared with 370,000 Hispanics."  Whereas for African-Americans, according to Wikipedia.org, we find that "from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 to 2007, an estimated total of 0.8 to 0.9 million Africans immigrated to the United States"   This means, that in a forty-two year period, not even 1 million Africans immigrated to America, whereas in just one year, almost 1/2 million Asians did. 

Only recently have African-Americans been surpassed in population by Hispanics in America, and that was mainly because of the massive amount of immigration of Hispanics to America, and additionally the higher birthrate of Hispanics.  If Asians are able to continue to immigrate to the United States at numbers approaching 1/2 million peoples, year after year, they will too surpass African-Americans, far sooner than anyone expects at the present time.  So in fairness, to African-Americans, who were first taken to this country by force, a far more liberal policy of African immigration to America should be implemented and this needs to occur now.

The Establishment Clause

Our First Amendment reads:  " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"  The purpose of this amendment was to preclude and to prevent our National Government from ever imposing upon its citizenry a national religion that all peoples of this country would have to adhere to.  In addition, this important Amendment makes it clear that we, the people, are entitled to freely exercise our religious beliefs without interference from our National Government.  Yet, today, through rulings of various courts, and through the gradual secularization of our country, powerful agents within our government and judiciary want us to read this Establishment Clause as essentially separating or creating a wall of separation of church and state, and thereby mandating that the United States of America is, in essence, a secular state, to which it was created.  This viewpoint is not only fundamentally wrong; it is also a grand disservice to our people, and a bastardization of our Constitution.

It is important to realize that back in the days when our nation was founded, that national religions in European nations was the norm.  For instance, Denmark's established church was the Church of Denmark, England's was the Church of England (Anglican), and France's established church was the Holy Roman Church (Catholicism).   The founders of our great nation did not want to repeat this error in America by creating one national church forced upon its citizens.  Instead, each State of our union of States had their own established religion such as Massachusetts (Puritan), Pennsylvania (Quaker), Maryland (Catholicism), and Virginia (Anglican).  Thomas Jefferson well understood the dangers of even a State-established religion and the vital importance of not being coerced into believing, against a man's own free volition, one religious sect over another, or even being compelled by law to believe in the Almighty at all.  Consequently, in 1779, Jefferson wrote and submitted a bill for Religious Freedom in Virginia, which later became enacted in 1786.  The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom meant that: "Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever…"

James Madison, Jr., our 4th President, and the "Father of our Constitution", was a fellow Virginian, who was also the man that presented Jefferson's bill to the Virginia legislature, and championed its passage by that legislature, meaning that Madison was intimately familiar with Jefferson's viewpoint on the establishment of a National or State religion, and thereby Madison made it a point by enacting this act as our 1st Amendment to our Constitution, that our National Government would never impose a National and compulsory religion upon its denizens.  What this did not mean, however, was that the National Government that we created, was a secular state, because America well understood the merits of religious and moral virtue and the inestimable value of these twin pillars.  It meant, instead, that America provided its citizens the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs without interference from or by the State, and further that the National Government would not favor one religious sect over another.  This enabled thereby the flourishing of religious sects and beliefs that could not have been attained in a country to which only one established religion was permitted.  That is why America, today, has such a diversity of ways to worship our Lord, and recognizes and upholds that each man can seek that Kingdom as he best sees fit.

Stop and Identify Laws

No doubt, most people have read a novel set in a foreign country, or watched a movie to which the action is in a foreign country, to which at some point in the novel or movie, one of the characters is asked for their "papers" in order to confirm their identity for the authorities, with failure to do so, leading invariably to their arrest or detention.  For those not in the know, you might think that laws like that don't exist in America, but in fact, they do.  Twenty-four States have so-called "stop and identify laws" which are in essence, the same thing as demanding the papers from a person in the public square.  This does not mean in America, that you must or are required to carry some sort of legal identification upon you, 24/7, but it does mean, that should you be stopped by a law enforcement officer and he demands that you identify yourself, not providing such identification, in some form or another,will probably result in your detention, depending upon your particular circumstance and how you handle yourself.  It shouldn't be that way, but courts have ruled that as long as the police officer had a "reasonable suspicion" that you may be involved in some sort of crime, that they may indeed demand that you identify yourself, and everyone, I mean everyone, can easily fall into that amorphous category of being under "reasonable suspicion".

The above would strongly imply that America is, in actuality, a police state, because if a man can't simply go about his business, without having to answer to law enforcement officers, who apply arbitrary law to you in order to compel you to identify yourself, you are not truly free.   Additionally, it almost doesn't matter in principle what your real Constitutional rights are when you are detained by the police, because if you insist upon using them, such as being clever in your responses to the officer, by asking, for example," if you are free to go or are you being detained," without identifying yourself, the situation almost for a certainty will get worse for you, so that the better part of valor, especially if you have not committed a crime, or know that you don't have a warrant for your arrest, is probably to produce your identification, or to provide actual biographical identification information to the officer, so as to keep the situation from escalating to such an extent that you probably will regret it.  Of course, that means, essentially that you are giving in to the police state, but when you are dealing with a legal authority, that also has the means to arrest you, to maim you, or even to kill you, perhaps passive obeisance is your best move.

What stop and identify laws mean for Americans, is that your freedom of movement can be imperiled at any time for virtually any reason, by the very people who have sworn to protect and to uphold Constitutional law.  Unfortunately, for you, most police officers, are not Constitutional experts, and certainly aren't interested in debating with you the meaning or the intricacies of Constitutional law, they are, however, quite good at making it quite clear to you, that their requests will, more likely than not, be sanctioned and upheld by the judicial system, and/or the barrel of their gun.

Nightly TV News Shows cannot afford to be controversial

Nightly TV news shows cannot afford to be truly controversial.  They can't afford to run cutting edge news programs with information and with details that tell their viewers the actual truth and lowdown of corporate, government, and justice policies.  Why?  There are several reasons why this is true, for instance, TV news shows are dependent upon not just having viewers, which is a given, but on advertising dollars, and those dollars most often come from corporations that will not continue to advertise on a TV program which is critical or too insightful about their business or their business actions, whether directly or indirectly.  It is a truism that the man with the money, has the power, and advertising dollars will flow more often to TV news shows that are in conformance with the desires of the advertisers and not the other way around.

Additionally, and somewhat disappointedly, many people in the viewing audience do not want, nor do they desire, true cutting edge and informative TV news programs, mainly from their total apathy, as they basically tune in to these programs, to pick up on entertainment gossip, sports, soft local interest stories, weather, feel good confirmation stuff, and dirt on whomever has fallen recently out of favor.  TV news programs are only too willing to follow a predictable and routine pattern to accommodate their viewers to which rather than learning something of real value, would rather just have their basic values affirmed, rightly or wrongly.  This is all well and good for your nightly TV news reports because they rather just preach to the choir, and have little interest in any controversial fare that could upset not only most of their viewers, but also surely their advertisers.

This in a nutshell means that news reports are pretty much out of the business of breaking real and meaningful news.  Back in the heyday of commercial TV, the big three of ABC, CBS, and NBC, would broadcast video of the Vietnam war, Watergate, civil rights, and other current affairs with real significance and some controversy, but today's same media outlets are always and invariably behind the curve, so that if any of today's big four (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) should show video or pictures of the Iraqi or Afghanistan wars, or domestic police violence, this is done not in order to break news, but in order to catch up to what has already be disseminated through other media outlets.  So that what we essentially get today, are broadcasts of events or actions in which the networks will invariably spin the pictures or video into a carefully worded context that fits into the desired story that the networks, which are all massive multi-media corporations, want to impart to us in a manner in which we will understand that at the end of day, you're OK, we're OK.

It cannot be emphasized too greatly that today's TV news reports companies are all beholden to advertisers to which without them, and the rates that they charge advertises, they would essentially have a broken business model.  Also, each of these multi-media corporations must answer to their stockholders, their stock promoters, their Board of Directors, to which the objective is always, to "make their numbers" so as to maintain and to increase their stock price and, if applicable, their dividend.  The making of money is always foremost in mind for these news shows with controversy, truth, and cutting edge reporting as their nemesis.  They want instead to impart to us that while bad things do happen, it's just temporary, or an accident, or a misunderstanding, or a mistake, and it's all going to turn out just alright, then they will flash a big pearly smile, and say something like "now a word from our sponsors".

Metadata and Photography

There has probably never been a period in time when so many people take photos and exchange them, post them, or develop them, as we see in today's present world.  The ease of taking pictures, the fact that you can take photos with your phone camera, or with your digital camera, and the reality that your pictures do not need to go through the step of being actually developed by a photo-print shop, means that people are taking more photos than ever.  The bottom line is once you obtain your phone camera, or dedicated digital camera, with the exception of storage space, you can snap as many photos as you desire, without having to worry about absorbing any additional monetary cost. 

While the above is all well and good, there are general privacy concerns that most people are oblivious of when it comes to the photos and the data that is stored.  I suspect that most people, would take it as a given that the camera that records the shot, also records the date and time, along with probably recording the camera type and speed, as well as the aperture size.  There may be some people that definitely know that their particular camera will also record their GPS location, and thereby love their camera for that feature, because it allows them to shoot a lot of pictures on, for instance, a traveling excursion, without having to wonder exactly where they took that picture later, when they try to piece it all back together.  Finally, for more professional type camera users, they understand the importance of metadata in protecting their copyrighted images and hence would be strong supporters of any metadata associated with their photos.

So what exactly is metadata?  When it comes to photography, metadata is all the data that is stored, and usually hidden behind the picture, that is invisible to the picture while containing the properties of the picture and ultimately storing all the pertinent data of the photo, which includes but isn't limited to: date, time, camera used and possibly its S/N, dimensions, pixel resolution, exposure time, focal length, GPS locale, lens used, and so on.  The details behind each photo that you have taken then are both highly comprehensive and quite specific, and consequently should be something that you may want to consider seriously before sending or posting photos, as the sites that you post or send your pictures through, may or may not remove some or all of your metadata behind your photographs.

As with most anything, metadata can be your friend and aid, as well as your enemy and downfall.  For those that take photos as well as for the people that are captured within the photos, the photographer must take responsibility for protecting the privacy of the people that he has captured within his lens.  Most pictures today that are posted, tell a story, and not just the story contained in the photograph in front of you, but the story that is contained hidden behind the picture.  That data can be used by law enforcement, stalkers, creeps, and weirdo's in such a way that you may well be faced with a situation which was wholly unintended yet comes with disastrous consequences to yours or to other's personal s well-being.

Law should Rule over Rulers and not Rulers over Law

There is no more important document in the annals of American history, than our Declaration of Independence, to which these immortal words were written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  These words are the very foundation of the legitimacy of our nation, and of the nation's laws which apply specifically to all men, not certain men, or some men, which means that these same laws must, by definition, apply to those that are our rulers who should thereby not be considered to have the imprint of the Divine Rights of Kings, but instead to be in the position of stewardship. 

Further to this point, since we are all entitled to the same unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that same Law, that same Right, should rule over our rulers, and it should never be that the rulers make law that undermines this very foundation and furthermore places the rulers and their cohorts in a position to which they interpret, distort, or bend the law in a manner that favors the elitist few, at the expense of the masses.  The laws that this country has should always be in the form that restrains the rulers from asserting arbitrary law and injustices upon the population as a whole.  This means that forever more, the Divine Rights of Kings, that they are the law as appointed and sanctioned by God, has been placed into the dustbin of history, to be replaced by law, right law, as being applicable to all.

As America has grown older, its wisdom has dissipated, and it has bastardized its very foundation, misunderstanding that the people were never made for the rulers, but that rulers were made necessary as an adjunct to the people, in order to provide more benefit, equal justice, and security for the people.  How many in our government, in our justice departments, and in leadership positions, understand these words: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27).   This does not mean that our leaders, that our rulers, must bow down to the people, but instead that our leaders must be great stewards to their awesome responsibilities to provide to their charge, the tools and wherewithal so that they can be all that they can be, to the betterment of themselves, to the betterment of their families, to the betterment of their communities, and ultimately to the betterment of their country.  No country can be greater than their own people; the rulers therefore, must lead by example, by being principled leaders, unparalleled in their vision, their wisdom, and their strength.

The gift of our leaders to their people is the gift of helping to provide the means, and the guidance for the people to perform acts of goodness as opposed to pure selfishness or evil and thereby for the people to garner the will and the desire to succeed in so doing their good deeds to the best of their given abilities.  Great leaders are fair, prudent, just, and honorable in their actions which are done both as a service and as an exemplar to and for the people.  A righteous leader understands implicitly as well as explicitly that he too must answer for his actions, even more so, than you or I, for with great powers comes great responsibilities, as our Creator is no respecter of persons and will not be fooled.

If there really is a God, then let Him strike me down, right here, right now

Those words I did never speak, but in my teenage years we were about to start a basketball game and one of my friends, said words to the effect, "There is no God, and I challenge this fake God that only fools believe in, to strike me down right here, right now, and to prove your existence and almighty power, because If you do not, than you do not exist."  I am not sure whether my friend, (and here I should better describe him as my school friend, not a close friend, as I don't believe we ever did anything together outside of seeing each other at school) was having a bad day, was frustrated, recently experienced a lost, or perhaps was in need of love, but wasn't feeling love.  I do remember that there was silence when he spoke those words, and quite frankly, I, for one, was concerned that God might just strike us all down, accidently taking us innocents to Kingdom Come, because of guilt by association, and there indeed was an uncomfortable silence for a little while.  My erstwhile friend was pleased as within a minute or two, he declared victory over this pretend God and soon we got down to the business of playing ball, but I know that for myself, I was feeling a little uncomfortable about playing the game, and very uncomfortable about any future games with this particular friend, and further to the point, I was also wondering why God didn’t just turn him into a pillar of salt, I mean, he did, after all, ask for it.

Because I was young, I certainly lacked wisdom, and consequently I actually thought that God might or should take up my friend's challenge, but I know now that isn't fundamentally the way that God behaves.  First off, despite the words that my friend used, it does not mean that those words on the surface are actually the words in his heart.  For instance, there are many people that strike out with intense frustration when their will is thwarted, or that have a provocative personality, or simply are ignorant, or angry, or just like to say mean things because it's easier to hurt someone as oppose to helping another.  God recognizes who we really are, he knows our heart, "….but God knoweth your hearts…" Luke16:15.  Additionally, you cannot test God, nor tempt him, as the devil tried to tempt Jesus in the wilderness, He responded, in Matthew 4:7: "Jesus said unto him, it is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

There was a time, however, when blasphemy or even the hint of blasphemy could cost you your life, and while that is no longer true in this country, it still remains true in certain civilizations of today, that the State has the power to enforce religious law as they perceive it to be.  Exodus 20:7, one of our Ten Commandments states: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."  This commandment is taken very seriously by certain peoples, be they Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, in fact, for certain orthodox Jews, the proper name of God cannot be written or spoken, because of the fear that by doing so, they will inadvertently take the Lord thy God's name in vain.

For my friend on that day, he lived to fight another day, and many other school days; I do not know, however, where he is today or how he is even doing.  I suspect that he forgot about the incident many years ago, and perhaps it made no impression upon him even on that day.  It did make an impression upon me, as provocation is generally not a wise move, especially against He who is all knowing and all powerful, nor is disrespecting God smart, but even if we never directly take our Lord's name in vain in our words, by our actions most of us do so every day, as how many of us can honestly state that we live up to these words of Luke 10:27: "And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."

English is the Universal Language

To the victors, go the spoils, and so essentially this is the most significant reason why English is the universal language in the world.  Before the United States became the most powerful and the most influential nation on earth, there was the empire of the United Kingdom, which took its language to Australia, to India, to the Caribbean, to Hong Kong, to Egypt, to Canada, and yes, to America.  America was not just founded by English speaking settlers, but also French, as well as Dutch, as well as Spanish, but it was the English language that became dominant in this country, because more English speaking colonists than any other colonist came to America, as well as the fact that Great Britain in conjunction with its colonists was consistently victorious over the French and its colonists in America.

Whether English is the "best" language, isn't really relevant, it is, with the exception of your native language in your country of origin, the most important language to have knowledge and proper use of as it is necessary and most conducive for diplomacy, for business, for the internet, and for education, to which it is beneficial for all parties involved.  This does not mean, however, that you can't be successful without knowing English, of course you can, what it does mean is that it is far better to know and to be able to apply English for those that are motivated to be successful and worldly wise.

The Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, to which the inhabitants of earth, were of one accord in language, but had also demonstrated their willfulness and obstinacy against God, ended with the confusion of not being able to understand each other, because they dared to defy God, and the Lord "… confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." (Genesis 11:7).   Consequently, today, there are over 6,000 spoken languages in our world, whereas for ease of communication and understanding it would be far better to have a common tongue that all could relate to.  That language exists today, in the form of English.

Language is incredibly important tool in order to not only properly communicate from one party to another, but also for ease of understanding of what the other party is trying to communicate to us.  While one can demonize another for myriad reasons, it is far easier to do so, when the other person not only doesn't look or behave like us, but doesn't communicate in a tongue that we can understand, making it easier to dismiss the other person as uncivilized, stupid, or nor worthy of our respect.  This type of disrespect and misunderstanding can lead to fights, to disputes, and even to war.

In America, we have done a poor job in learning other languages, to which most native born denizens know and can only speak English; to which I suspect the basic thinking is that since English is the universal language, why bother.  Languages, however, do rise and fall in popularity and usage, so rather than being that "ugly American", it would be better to obtain and put forth the effort to learn another language, so as to do our part to make this a smaller and more pleasant world.

Cuban Trade Embargo

The United States doesn't like to lose and for the most part doesn't need to lose in virtually any of its actions, whether they are diplomatic, trade related, charitable acts, education, or war.  Cuba was once a country that was in the United States satellites of nations; after Cuba, as well as Puerto Rico and Guam were lost by the Spanish to America in 1898.  Thereby the Cuba-American relations were close until the time of Batista's overthrow in 1959, by Fidel Castro.  The United States subsequently participated and planned the ill-advised and disastrous Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, and then in 1962 discovered ballistic missiles in Cuba, that led to a showdown between Soviet Russia and America, to which an agreement was reached, and the removal of such missiles from Cuba was performed.

In the fifty-odd years since then, the United States has maintained an embargo against Cuba, which quite obviously has hindered Cuba and its economic development.  Consequently, from a strict punishment perspective, one could say, that the embargo itself has been effective, but the people that it has mainly hurt, have not been the government of Cuba, the power brokers of Cuba, but the masses of Cuba, who have suffered from the lack of material wealth, lack of economic opportunity, and poor overall healthcare.  The mark of a great country is never to be seen in the suffering that they impose upon innocent civilians but in their magnanimity and generosity towards those that are less fortunate.  As Cuba is located only about ninety miles from the United States mainland, this is a great shame upon us, and completely unbecoming of the world leader in freedom, economic success, and liberty.

President Obama's recent announcement of full diplomatic relations with Cuba, and the beginning of normalizing relations between these two nations, is certainly something to be celebrated by all true Americans.  Of course in the political world that we live in, to which there are vested interests on both sides of the aisle, a mere announcement of normalizing relations does not necessarily translate into it actually happening, but it should.  Let us do well to remember that there was a time when America, was not afraid to take the big initiative, as it did when Nixon began the process of normalizing relations with China back in 1972, to which by 1978, diplomatic relations had been restored, and thereby has consequently seen the rise of China economically in the world.  The United States conducted this action with China, yet was still able to maintain its special "unofficial" relations with Taiwan.  Based on this great diplomatic success, how is it even possible, to consider nothing less than the same for Cuba, a situation which is far less complex, and with a country that we previously had a successful diplomatic relationship with.

The best way to ensure that war and ill feelings towards one country to another does not occur, is to have both open diplomatic as well as fair trading channels.  It is far easier to demonize a nation when you turn your back on it, and refuse to engage them as one mature nation to another.  The bottom line is a more successful Cuba will be better not only for Cuba and its people, but also for the United States, as well as demonstrating to the world at large that America is a gracious, forgiving, and merciful nation, that leads by example, rather than by empty words.

Usain Bolt -- Football

Most people do not pay a lot of attention to track and field events, but when you have a man as talented and as dominant as Usain Bolt has been in track and field, he is the name that comes off of people's tongues.  It also helps that Usain Bolt is the perfect name for a sprinter, and that he is personable and a likeable person.  Mr. Bolt famously commented that he would like to play for Manchester United in the Premier Football (soccer) League.  While I don't doubt that Usain Bolt has the capability and the potential to be a fairly decent soccer player, the problem with the position that he would be seeking, which is the striker (forward) is that the striker has to do two things exceedingly well.  First, he must be able to have the competency and the grace to control the soccer ball onto his foot at pace, and further, even more importantly, the ability to put the ball into the back of the net and thereby score goals as there are many soccer players that excel with their footwork but find themselves to be non-lethal in front of goal.  But certainly, Usain Bolt would pose a perplexing problem for defenses in which he would typically run off the "shoulders" of the defensive players in order to get behind them, receive the ball, and to put his shot on goal.  Still, that's a lot to task for any man, especially one that hasn't grown up through the academy at Manchester United or similar.

There is another sport, also known as football, that would probably be better suited for Usain Bolt, and that is American football (NFL).  The best player to have translated his previous success from an elite sprinter to a highly successful wide receiver was the future hall of famer Bob Hayes.  In his day, Bob Hayes, was considered to be the fastest man alive, as is Usain Bolt in his day.  It is difficult to translate Bob Hayes' speed into present day times, because when Bob Hayes ran sprints he did so on dirt tracks with running shoes that lack today's sophistication.  Additionally, Bob Hayes ran the shorter distances of 60 yards and 100 yards, with his personal best for 100 meters beingan impressive 9.91 seconds. 

The nice thing about football for a person that doesn't have experience in it is that it involves for a wide receiver the ability to run patterns, something that is easily taught and learned.  The difficult part of football is catching the thrown football, while also having to deal with the physicality of getting tackled and hit by defensive players, which relates to the overall fear factor of the sport.  Usain Bolt's speed as well as his height of 6'5"would provide him with impressive credentials that defenses would have difficulty adjusting to.  So that because of his impressive winning credentials, his name recognition, and abilities, Usain Bolt would certainly be worth a try-out for a NFL team.  At age 28, Usain Bolt, cannot afford to wait any longer and while they say that Bolt's speed is "late speed" that translates very well to the NFL, because that would mean that once he is behind the defense that they will never catch up with him.

The Semantics of War

The War Department of the United States was responsible for our Army as well as for our Navy, until 1798, when the Navy became separated into the newly formed Naval Department.  In 1947 the Air Force of America became formally known as the Department of the Air Force, as well as the Army becoming known as the Department of the Army, in which the Army, Air Force, and Navy, became part of the National Military Establishment, which later became what we call it today, the United States Department of Defense in 1949.  There is a massive difference in the definition and meaning between a War Department and between ourpresent-day Defense Department, that is to say that the Army, Navy, and Air Force can most certainly be utilized for defensive means, but they are always aspects of actual war.  Consequently, the Department of War or the National Military Establishment are properly labeled, whereas the Department of Defense is a poorly worded deceit, especially considering that the United States is the sole military superpower in the world and that it has not declared a Congressional War since WW II, yet in actuality it has been an active agitator in many wars since the conclusion of World War II.

The United States has been recently involved in two protracted wars, although undeclared formally, with Iraq and with Afghanistan that have lasted for a considerable amount of years, with the Iraqi war entitled "Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the Afghanistan war entitled "Operating Enduring Freedom".  In neither case are these wars in any way, form, or manner, about actual freedom for the Iraqi or for the Afghanistan people.  Instead, these wars are specifically about locating, attacking, and killing certain peoples that are designated as enemies of the state, whether or not they are actual combatants or enemies to our state.  Therefore the use of the word freedom in this given context is especially galling, because in actuality America is actually trying to create not Free states of free people in these countries, but simply servile people, susceptible to our using their natural resources as our own.

In less than two weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on United States soil, the United States combined various Federal Department and agencies into the newly formed and created master department, our Homeland Security.  To some people, just the name Homeland Security sounds creepy, as if somehow just outside our borders we are surrounded by waves and waves of foreign bogeymen that we need to protect ourselves from.  Additionally, the term Homeland sounds like a foreign term, poorly placed and more akin to something that Germany would use back during the rise of Hitler, to which Hitler referred to his country as needing to: "take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."

Then there is the USA PATRIOT Act which was signed into law in 2001, to which this act essentially gives new, powerful, and invasive hi-technology tools to governmental agencies to effect domestic spying on its own citizens, all under the guise that this is needed to protect our country and its citizens from terrorist attacks.  This act is hardly patriotic, in fact arguably it is the "doublespeak" of patriotism which is better defined as having the courage to stand for right when you are in the right, in the defense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, while also having the grace to admit when you are in the wrong and thereby to correct one's actions or to suffer the indignity of making a stand on the soils of shifting sand.

The Homosexual Headline

It is surprising to see headlines in a respected national newspaper or national media outlet that state, for example: "Tim Cook: Apple CEO comes out as gay", in which one can easily question the relevancy of such an admission or the newsworthiness of the item itself in the first place.  At least in Tim Cook's case, there is some relevancy, as he goes on to say that being gay has allowed him to feel a:  "…deeper understanding of what it means to be in the minority" and  "…more empathetic".   However, my complaint with these sorts of headlines is that you never see a headline that reads: "John Doe of Mega-corporation is heterosexual," I mean why not?  I suppose most people would answer that since this is the norm that consequently this isn't news, but I'm not convinced that a person's sexual orientation is relevant to the business world or most public-forum environments in the first place because sexual activities are typically quite private, no matter the given orientation.

The fundamental point is that if a person's given sexual orientation is not germane to the work that they perform, and in most instances it certainly is not, it shouldn't be discussed in an admired and credible media outlet, because it isn't relevant to the subject at hand.  There is no merit in "outing" someone when it has little or no significance to that person's public life.  What adults do behind closed doors sexually should be their own private business and nobody else's. 

Most people do not or would not care to be defined via a headline as per their sexual orientation, because although sex may be an important part of their life, it is typically a very private part of their life, and necessarily so.  Therefore what should define a man via a headline is in fact, their public persona, the way that they represent themselves through their employment, through their charity, or through their public activities.  There are very few people who upon being introduced to you in a public forum, would say something to the effect, "Hi, nice to meet you, I'm gay," mainly because it would be considered to be a faux pas.

There should be a limit to what isn't or what is considered relevant and appropriate for being reported through the media and not everything that one becomes aware of should be considered to be fair game.  The problem that too many media outlets have is their wanton race to the bottom, to expose the most dirt,  the most titillating, the most salacious news items and the most negative things that they can find out about a given person, without ever really considering the consequences or the purpose of such "news". 

All of us should be much more concerned about the content of their own character, as opposed to being concerned about surface/shallow things or activities of others that are done with discretion and conducted in private.    A man, any man, should be able to take off his hat at the end of the day, and just be able to relax in his own domain, and his own castle, and not have to worry that the barbarians are not just at the gate but actually have overridden it.

Owning Common Stock

Approximately 47% of Americans own some common stock, usually through a retirement account of a particular mutual fund or funds, although you can also trade on the stock exchange for shares of common stock that appeal to you for one reason or another.  But what really does common stock represent?  I mean what is it that you are receiving for providing your hard-earned money to a mutual fund or for buying shares of Apple? 

First off, as you might expect, there are different types of stock, for instance, you might work for a company that issues you restricted stock, which typically means that until you have worked for that company for a certain number of months or years, that restricted stock is not available to you, because you have not accomplished the criteria for the restricted stock to be vested, but once vested, those restricted shares will become in essence the same as you owning common stock in said company and consequently material assets to you.  Additionally, there is preferred stock , as you might suspect just based on the name alone, preferred stock has more rights than common stock, such as the fact that in any insolvency of a company, it is the preferred stockholders that must be paid before any common stockholders receive a dime; additionally, whereas dividends are paid to common stockholders at the discretion of the board of directors to which they can increase or decrease or suspend the dividend, for preferred stockholders the dividend is paid regularly, and should that dividend be missed for any reason, because that dividend is guaranteed by the virtue of owning preferred stock, preferred stockholders will receive any mandated dividend payments before any dividends can be paid to common stockholders.

Companies may also issue different classes of stock, to which one stock class "A" will have greater voting rights than another stock class "B".  Although both classes of stock will have the same claim upon the profits of the company and its dividend payments per share, having less of a voting right, usually substantially less at perhaps a 1:100 ratio, means that company insiders have typically majority control over the company's voting rights, and consequently means that they are never in a position to which their aggregate vote can be challenged by any outside parties, including especially the lower class stockholders.

So at the end of the day, what does the typical common stockholder really own, when he buys stock of a particular company?  He essentially owns the right to receive his just due from any dividends approved and issued by the Board of Directors of said company, voting rights per his ownership and share class status, typically the right to attend the corporation's annual shareholder meeting, also the right to a copy of the company's annual report, as well as the ability to trade in or out of the particular stock at his own volition.

So why buy shares of common stock in the first place?  Usually, this is done because there is a belief that said company will make more often than not a profit, demonstrate growth in sales, and issue dividends that in whole will push the stock price up so on an annual basis the overall return of your common stock will be at a greater rate or a better return than other investments that you could select such as CDs or bonds or real estate or whatever.  

Music is our Universal Language

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow said that: "music is the universal language of mankind."   When the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" came out in 1977, the five-tone motif created was used in order to communicate and to demonstrate that the culture and life on planet earth was universal in nature and that it was a given that an alien culture in its mother-ship would be cognizant that the tonality of these notes were indicative of a civilization that was advanced and not primitive.  Previously, to this movie, who can forget the menacing warning of the two note musical pattern, from the blockbuster movie, "Jaws," indicative of an impending attack and stalking of the great white shark, which is absolutely unforgettable.

One must remember that there are myriad ways for mankind to communicate with one another, and that even the human language when spoken contains its own melodies or cacophony.  What is clear though in any conversation is that the tonality of the words being spoken and how they interplay with each other is extremely meaningful to the audience receiving these words, over and above the actual words themselves.  Music can express all of the basic human emotions such as love, amity, happiness, conflict, strife, disgust, and fear.  Hearing these emotions in music allows us to comprehend what the artist is trying to convey and to appreciate their effects upon us.

Music creates a sound, which comes to us as a vibration, creating the acoustics that we both hear with our ears while also relating to these vibrations with our mind.  While most music today is created by musical instruments, before the advent of these instruments, the music that was created previously was done by the chanting of our voice alone.  These chants were used not just as a communication device from one person to another or in conjunction with another, but as a voice chanting to our Godhead, to help to focus and to touch our higher consciousness.

The beauty about music is that it is understood almost innately by humans, that is to say, in general, if music contains consonant melodies we associate it with pleasure, whereas if it contains dissonance it is perceived as unpleasant.  It is music that we listen to or that we create that enables us to feel or to experience or to have expressed emotions that mean something intrinsically consequential to us.  It is music that allows us to feel that ineffable joy of being conscious of what we are and to proclaim that feeling or emotion to others or to our God himself.  Music is far more than mere entertainment or an expression of joy; it is the essence of the cosmic vibration that through our understanding of and devotion to allows us to become one.  Music is that universal language for us because it crosses all cultures and all peoples in its ability to impart basic emotions, feelings, information, and devotion from one party to another from this world to the next that is both ineffable and sweet.

Low Oil Prices

You would think that oil as a commodity would not be as volatile as it is, year after year, but oil, almost behaves more like a low-beta stock, as opposed to the most valuable commodity that the world has ever known.  For instance, taking a look over the last ten fiscal years, from 2005-2014, the average price of domestic oil in America on a yearly basis has ranged from a low in 2005 of $50.04/barrel to a high of $91.48 in 2008, with 2014, because of the recent precipitous slide in pricing estimated to be on track to be lower in aggregate price than either 2008 or 2013.  To get a better perspective on the price of oil, recognize that in 2005, the average price of oil as reported by inflationdata.com was $50.04 a barrel, which was the first year in the history of oil that the price of oil had exceeded $40/barrel on an annual basis, let alone the price of $50/barrel.  The recent sudden drop in oil prices is consequently not historically unfamiliar, nor should we expect this volatility to go away anytime soon. 

While there are some pundits that will argue that a reduction in crude oil pricing does both harm to our economy as well as to job creation, their reasoning is based on the premise that America produces a considerable amount of oil each year, employing indirectly or directly a few million people, there are fundamental factors to be acknowledged as to why this position is basically wrong.  For instance, in 2009, Exxon/Mobil made a profit of $19.42 billion, while this was a considerable drop off from 2008 in which their profit was a record $44.06 billion, this speaks volumes though about  the real cost of extracting oil and the profitability of the business in aggregate.  It also indicates, that large corporations, such as Exxon, recognized that because the price of oil can go up as well as down, that it behooves such a company to "hedge" their oil prices so as to normalize their earnings expectations.   It is this type of hedging that should be a matter of policy and principle for America's oil, shale oil, and fracking producers, and for those that haven't learned the lesson of the prudence of doing so, they will, one way or another.

Additionally, most people simply look upon lower oil prices as equating to lower gasoline prices and while this is most certainly true, the price of oil and its massive importance to our economy and to the pocketbook of Americans has far deeper ramifications than just gasoline for our vehicles.  For instance, crude oil, when refined and processed, will become plastics, detergent, heating oil, jet fuel, synthetic rubber, synthetic fabrics, fertilizers, food additives, medicine, paints as well as cosmetics.  All of this basically means, that the price of oil affects the pricing of the foregoing products and consequently lower oil prices is an almost certain unmitigated good.

Finally, while America which was once the greatest oil exporter in the world has recently found ways through hi-technology, equipment, and fracking to increase its domestic oil production to rates not seen in a generation, it is still a nation of petroleum importers.  According to the EIA.gov the "…the U.S. imported approximately 10.6 million barrels per day of petroleum in 2012 from about 80 countries. We exported 3.2 MMbd of crude oil and petroleum products, resulting in net imports (imports minus exports) equaling 7.4 MMbd."  Clearly, the United States is still a massive importer of petroleum products and consequently anytime that the price of oil drops, it is beneficial for Americans, because it leads to lower fuel prices as well as to lower pricing for petroleum based products.

He, who lives by the sword, must die by the sword

"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52).  This biblical passage carries an important lesson, both metaphorically as well as literally.  The fact that Jesus the Christ, could at the time of His hour, recognize and impart the truth that in His mission there was no place for Simon Peter to bring his own version of vigilante justice, but instead it was imperative that Peter understood the wisdom and placed his faith in God's law and justice, and not to rely on a tit-for-tat philosophy, demonstrated that Christ understood the fallacy of ever believing that the ends justify the means, or that fight was necessary to prove right.

Those that take up the physical sword in response to a perceived injustice, are destined to follow the sword's path which can only lead to further violence and bloodshed as well as often involving innocents into this display of arms that leaves a devastating trail of tears for many.  The Messiah wishes to impart the spiritual truth that man's way is often impulsive, retaliatory, quick to judgment, quick to justice, and lacks wisdom and faith in God himself.

There are many people that do not believe in the metaphorical wisdom that he, who lives by the sword, must die by the sword, because in their life they do not see this happening.  For instance, in everyday life, they may see a select few elites running riot over others, or an obvious physical injustice being perpetrated by one man against another, or the smooth talking of a slick con artist which fools a simple man.  All these are examples of people that are living one way, but appear to not to be suffering the consequences of their wrongful actions, in fact, they appear to be directly benefiting from them.

One must remember, however, that God is not a God that can be mocked, that for every wrong action there is an appropriate right action, and for every wrong, there is a path for righteousness.  Those that believe that you can fool God and God's law will in the end, receive their just desserts, as God's law is never subservient to man's designs or trickery.  So rest assured that the man that fooled and deceived you to get his way unjustly will ultimately face the music, one way or another, as God sees and comprehends it all, whereas man often only can perceive bits and pieces and thereby lacks knowledge of the bigger picture and of ultimate truth.

Peace and justice do not enter into the doors of this world through unjustified violence or knavery.  While there may indeed be a time to take up the sword, those that become beholden to the sword, miss the point that the sword in the hands of erring humans will often be used unwisely and to their ultimate destruction, should they not have the knowledge and wisdom to sheath the sword when its appropriate duty has been performed.  Our Messiah needed no human hands or weapons to defend Him, even to His death onto the cross, because the physical is never lord over the spiritual, as one is material and finite, while the other is indestructible and infinite. 

Choose today what you shall live to, as this becomes you.

E10 mixture vs. regular gasoline

Years ago when you filled up your vehicle with gasoline, the fuel that you bought was 100% gasoline.  However, upon the implementation of the Renewable FuelStandardAct of 2007, our gasoline has become blended with ethanol ,so that nowadays when filling up your car with gasoline, it is no longer just gasoline, but in actuality a blend of ethanol and gasoline, to wit the sign at the gas pump will state something to the effect that the gasoline that you are pumping "may contain up to 10% ethanol,"  which is known in the trade as E10, meaning that the blend is 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline.  While there are many arguments, pro and con, as to why we should or shouldn't be using ethanol as a fuel in America, that is a subject for a different day, instead the question being raised is E10 blended gasoline with an octane rating of 87 the same as regular gasoline at the octane rating of 87.  The answer is no.

First off, in order to create an octane mixture of 87 with regular gasoline, that mixture actually would contain gasoline at an octane rating of 84, blended with ethanol which has an octane rating of 113.  The fact that ethanol has a significantly higher octane rating than gasoline must imply that ethanol is the superior fuel, but in actuality octane does not equate to more power, more fuel efficiency or superiority in any way, but instead refers to the ignition quality of the gas, or in lay terms, the "knocking" of your car engine or the compression ratio necessary for your vehicle's sparkplugs and pistons to generate horsepower.  The octane that is necessary for any particular vehicle is listed in your owner's manual and while you can always trade up in octane, there isn't any valid reason to do so, whereas going down in octane from the recommendations of your owner's manual, will increase your risk of engine damage. 

In America, most vehicles that are sold run on an octane rating of 87, to which most of that gasoline that is sold for that octane, is a blend of 10% ethanol at an octane rating of 113, with 90% gasoline at an octane rating of 84, making for a combined octane rating of 87.  However, the fuel efficiency of an E10 gasoline blend is significantly less than the fuel efficiency of regular gasoline, a fact that most people are not cognizant of.  As reported by the midwestenergynews.com, the E10 blend has a lower BTU than regular gasoline, to the tune of 96.67% of gasoline's BTU, which means that E10 will get less gas mileage than regular gasoline and consequently should you be able to find a gas station that is actually selling regular gasoline without any blends to it, you can pay approximately 3.44% higher for that gasoline to achieve the same value for your dollar. 

In summary, E10 blended gasoline is not the same as regular gasoline in regards to fuel efficiency, it is inferior by about 3.33% which is the discount that you should receive for utilizing this fuel in your vehicle as compared to regular gasoline.  This means that your E10 blended gasoline will consistently get less gas mileage than regular gasoline, because this blended gas is inferior to regular gas for fuel efficiency.  America consumed 134,506,764,000 gallons of finished motor gasoline in 2013; one would hope that the environmental "benefits" of ethanol has made up for its inefficiency as a motor fuel.