The Two Great Commandments

In the Jewish religion there are 613 commandments as compiled by Rambam and recognized as such by many of the Jewish faith.  In the Muslim world, there are also a multitude of commandments, to which there is most definitely an echo of the Mosaic Ten Commandments in the Koran.  In the Christian religion, there is a confirmation of the Mosaic Ten Commandments as witnessed by Christ stating in Matthew 19: 16-19: " And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." This saying by Jesus directly addressed six of the Ten Commandments, and by implication invoked the other Four Commandments. 

The above signifies that those of the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faith all have in common the pertinence of the Mosaic Ten Commandments to their faith, and further implies strongly that there is a hierarchy of Commandments for those of faith. That is to say if another saying or commandment or attribute of Holy Scripture or of the Koran is not consistent with the foundation of the Ten Commandments than the Ten Commandments must supersede them, as when two laws are in conflict, one law must rule over the other, and that law must be the higher law. 

Mankind has a great love for rules and regulations, because without them, man is often lost or confused, and thereby laws were enacted for man's benefit.  Yet, when those laws no longer make sense, are outdated, wrongly reasoned, or unjust, than the moral law of God must trump all.  However, unfortunately, there often will be those that argue that some certain law must be obeyed because it is God's law, or the law comes by a great prophet, or the law is written in this Holy book, and so forth, but recognize that in all this, that sure judgment is left in God's hands, alone, and woe unto those that would assume that power unto themselves, for the Christ warned us of such a hypocrisy: "Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." (Matthew 23:28)

The laws given to mankind are like a pyramid:  with man's laws at the base, than the interpretation of God's laws, than the general Commandments by God and His prophets, than the Ten Commandments, and finally at the top of the pinnacle, the two Great Commandments, which are: " Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)

And how exactly does one demonstrate his love for God; this is done by aiding the poor and the afflicted, bringing the lost sheep to God's word, demonstrating one's power and control by meekness and long- suffering, feeding the hungry, thirsting for God's righteousness, being merciful, cleanliness of one's heart, promoting peace, suffering persecution with grace if it should come, and by surrendering oneself to God completely.  Those are indeed the attributes of one who truly loves his God, "Ye shall know them by their fruits," (Matthew 7:16).

In regards for the love of thy neighbor, recognized that the race is never over, till all complete it, therefore it behooves us to see the neighbor in all, because each of us is a true child of God, and thereby brothers-in-arms eternally.

The Strange Disappearance of Labor Strikes

Labor strikes within America were somewhat common events in our history with some being successful, some not, some being violent, some not, but through it all labor strikes were part of the American fabric from the late nineteenth century to the infamous steel labor strike of 1959.  While there have been strikes since 1959, the decline of labor power has been consistent since that time, as reported by prospect.org that: "In the early 1950s, one out of three American workers belonged to them, four out of ten in the private sector. Today, only 11.8 percent of American workers are union members; in the private sector, just 6.9 percent."  The decline of labor power within American has been precipitous, unprecedented, and ultimately incredibly damaging to labor, wages, benefits, job, and to all the common people that aspire to achieve the American dream.

The fact of the matter is, many people complain about their wages, and complain about their work hours, and complain about their benefits, and complain about the way that they are treated, yet they continue to work as a suffering servant, mainly because one way or another, they need some sort of wage in order to try to make their way in the world, and something is certainly better than nothing.  The most significant issue with those that are unhappy with their wages, especially in jobs which are considered to be readily interchangeable from one person to another, is that they as an individual, have in essence, absolutely no bargaining power, in that no matter what that they say to their Manager or to management, they that control their wages, know that that particular person is probably very easy to replace.  This means that on an individual level it is almost futile to believe that you can negotiate for yourself a better wage package, and furthermore, even though there may be other jobs available for you, the job conditions at those places of employment, will be eerily the same.

As the old saying goes, there is strength in numbers, and there is strength too in having a union represent you as well as your fellow workers in negotiations with corporations.  Quite frankly, even the very best employees are often unskilled in negotiating for themselves a better pay package, simply because they do not possess that sort of initiative or confrontational mindset.  In today's world, there are millions of jobs that simply do not pay well, and will not in the future pay well, and that are currently occupied by non-union employees.  It is these jobs that cry out for union representation, because of the sheer size of the labor force and also the fact that in aggregate the labor numbers involved are truly humongous.

The fact that jobs with McDonald's, Yum! Brands, Wal-Mart, and Target have very little union representation is no strange coincidence but is part and parcel of the corporate mentality of each of these behemoths.  Look, it makes all the sense in the world, for these massive corporations to not desire nor want union representation at their respective companies because their overriding objective is to make money for the executives and the stockholders of each company, and labor is an important cost component that they wish to suppress in cost.  That does not mean, however, that this viewpoint is either fair, or right, because it isn't.  These big organizations have their labor force over a barrel, with the only real hope for such a large labor force is in uniting into one strong organization and then truly having a seat at the table to negotiate fairly with management.

As it stands today, because these workers are non-union, there isn't a real option to go on strike, because there is no collective agreement amongst all of these laborers, nor is there one central laboring body designated to negotiate for them.   Today, we will occasionally see an organized one-day strike which while having symbolic importance, doesn't really change a thing.  Additionally, there is the cry for "Fight for 15", but that fight often lacks the power and teeth that only a real united labor force can provide.

There aren't any labor strikes today, mainly because labor has been divided and conquered, so that what you often have is the lowest paid workers fighting amongst themselves for the right to simply have a job, no matter the pay.

The Perpetual Free Pass that Apple Gets

Plenty of people complain that life isn’t fair, but you will never hear that complaint coming from Apple, Inc., because they believe for a certainty that life is very, very fair for them, for apparently as the old saying goes, paraphrased and updated for the 21st century, "What's good for Apple, Inc. is good for the country."  There is no company in the world that consistently gets and receives the most favorable press in the world that Apple does, to which Apple's product announcements, news, shows, and updates are treated as if rock-star like events.  There was a time, long ago, when Apple was the upstart, as witnessed by the Super Bowl ad of 1984, where Apple was perceived to be the force of freedom and empowerment against Big Brother and groupthink, but today Apple is the State, itself, with its many sheep-like followers and sycophants, bleating how wonderful and great Apple art. 

The reality of the situation is that Apple is just like most other multinational corporations, an entity of incredible power and influence that has zero interest in full disclosure or playing fair with the public or of truly being democratic with its employees as witnessed by their compensation packages which are hugely favorable to those of the high executive ranks, so much so, that as reported by Bloomberg Businessweek in 2012, four out of the top five executives with the highest fiscal compensation were all from Apple.     Neither too does Apple play fair with paying its fair share of taxes, whereas this is fairly common with any multinational company, it is disappointing that Apple hides behind the smokescreen of stating that "Apple pays all its required taxes, both in this country and abroad," which is at best a truth, but is certainly not the whole truth, because Apple along with its phalanx of tax attorneys, lobbyists, and accountants, make sure to take wholesale advantage of the tax code, while throwing out self-serving bones such as: "…Apple does not move its intellectual property into offshore tax havens…" which makes it sound as if Apple is as almost as American as the proverbial apple pie. The fact of the matter is when massive multinational corporations use tax dodges to skirt around paying their fair share of taxes, they pass that burden onto the American people themselves, and/or future generations. 

Because too, that Apple and its products are perceived so favorably by the public at large, Apple knows that it can consistently charge a higher price for its products than its competitors can because Apple's goods are almost universally recognized as being of more valued and as status symbols, whether they truly are or not.  This means that a massive influx of money passes from the general public for products that from a strictly utilitarian perspective are overpriced in comparison to their real underlying worth and intrinsic value, because these Apple goods have achieved cult-like special social significance.

Then too there is the issue of Apple employment, where is often overlooked, but shouldn't be in an era of perpetual American low employment numbers.  Apple outsources the bulk of its assembly work overseas, specifically to China, for the basic reason of taking advantage of low labor costs as well as their perceived docile labor conditions.  These assemblers are not directly employed by Apple, but rather a contract is issued to a manufacturer such as Foxconn or Pegatron to assemble the devices, and subsequently these contractors take care of the direct employment and pay of the assemblers doing the work, not Apple, and these jobs are not even considered for Americans in America.

The bottom line is that Apple makes a ton of money, each and every year, and further that it has little interest in doing right by America and its citizens, what Apple wants to do--it is already doing to superb effect, which is enriching the select and privileged few, while taking lots of money from the mesmerized and credulous rest.

The 30 Year Mortgage is Just Way Too Long

Let's face it, most Americans when they take out a mortgage on their home take out the traditional 30-year fix mortgage, no matter their age, yet there is absolutely nothing else that you will buy in your life that you will ever come close to committing to thirty years to.  While it goes without saying, that a home purchase will almost always be substantially higher than any other material asset that you will ever purchase, it is difficult to separate this away from the fact that thirty years is thirty years, which is an incredibly long time, to be able to say, at the end of it, that this home is now finally all mine!

While there are other mortgage plans for shorter duration times, such as 15-year mortgages, along with hybrid mortgages, there are also incredibly mortgages that are even longer in term such as 35 or even a 40-year mortgage, which is truly mind boggling.  Also, there still exists many plans, such as FHA, VA, USDA, amongst others, that allow home buyers to quality to purchase a home with little or no down payment for something that is being sold at $250,000 or even more.  Additionally, while most lenders only give out their best mortgage rates for those with high credit scores, adequate income, and with a 20% down payment, homes are sold all the time to people without that 20% down payment as long as they qualify and purchase private mortgage insurance or are qualified under a special program.

In America, there was a time, a few generations ago, when in order to purchase a home, the down payment had to be at a minimum 50% of the home price in order to qualify to get a mortgage for your home and that mortgage was "interest only" and usually for a very short duration of time, such as three to five years, to which at the end of that period of time, either the borrower would then make that payment in full via a "balloon payment" or the loan would be refinanced.  This way of purchasing homes actually worked fairly well, until the time of the depression, with its attendant massive unemployment, and most importantly, the deflation of home prices, whereupon the lenders of mortgages, had little interest in extending loans on property to which the principal had declined and their lien value had been significantly eroded.  Not too surprisingly, the aftermath of this crisis, was for more government involvement in the housing market, which lead to eventually the 30-year mortgage becoming the standard.

The main problem with stretching out any loan for long periods of time, is that while on the one hand you are able to lower the payment of such a loan to a reasonable level, you are, on the other hand, extending the loan period of time for such a great length, that it ends up costing the consumer an incredible amount of money; for instance a $250,000 home, may after interest payments for 30 years come to a total of $450,000.  Additionally, the fact that these mortgages are even available in the first place is a significant contributing factor to the overall higher pricing of houses to begin with; in other words, the more people that "qualify" to buy a home, than the more available dollars that are chasing after homes, which typically means a higher price; whereas, the less people that "qualify" to buy homes in general, would in aggregate, lower home prices.

Not only is today's 30-year mortgage loan way too long, it is also set up in such a way that in conjunction with low down payments, lends itself to a much higher incident of foreclosures and financial troubles for consumers than is really necessary.    While it is often part of the American dream to own one's home, transparent affordability documents, along with having an appropriate income and a proper down payment is a surer way for home happiness.

Some Revolutions Succeed and some Revolutions Fail

The American Revolution succeeded, but in order for it to succeed, it needed men, personnel, vision, weapons, strategy, money, time, an overarching purpose, foreign help, and significantly underappreciated, the eventual letting go of the British Empire grip upon America.  Our Declaration of Independence made it clear that the signatories of it and major participants in this revolution recognized that they were indeed pledging: "… to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."  Fortunately, for those that had both the initiative as well as the wherewithal to rise up against England, the revolution was a success, and not only that, ultimately our revolution established a wonderful republic, with strong individual rights, including both freedom of religion as well as the press, along ultimately with material prosperity heretofore never before seen in the annals of history.

However, while the American Revolution succeeded, not every revolution does, and the consequences for both failure and/or for revolutions that go on for years and years, with revolutionary forces sometimes inching forward, and sometimes falling back, are consequential for the people as well as the country as a whole.  While it is true that many people within their own country may be dissatisfied with the political as well as the economic and overall freedom contained within their country, it is one thing to complain about it internally with friends or family, and entirely another thing to actually contemplate and more importantly to actively take steps to effect change within their country.

The main problem with being part and parcel of the change that you wish to make within your country is that things for your country as a whole, as well as things for you personally, could get a lot worse than they are presently.  Revolutions are complicated, to which once started, the end is often not clear, to which in virtually all cases, the standing government has enormous advantages over any revolutionary force, simply because logistics, military, surveillance, and whatnot strongly support the status quo.  This means in almost all likelihood in many revolutions, some part of the current regime must be compromised or accommodated to the revolutionary forces, in order for the revolution to have a decent possibility of success.

The foregoing also implies quite strongly, that often in revolutions, the change that is so much desired, does not come into effect, because the former apparatus of the government must join forces or becomes subsumed as part of the "new" regime, now compromised in values in such a way that as the Who says: "Meet the new boss -- Same as the old boss."  So not only do revolutions fail with all the attendant penalties for those that are on the wrong side of the battle, so too do revolutions fail because they fail to adhere to the very principles that brought upon the revolution in the first place.

Our world today is filled with much conflict as well as revolution, to which many times men are quick to take up arms, but not so quick to think through the consequences and the ideals of what it is that they truly want and whether such a want is universal, fair, and just.  Any revolution that believes that might is right, is wrong, as a true people's revolution must start instead with the knowledge that only from universal justice applied equally to all, is the very light enflamed that brings freedom to its people and their land.

Inflation

Dictionary.com defines inflation as: "a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency."  Most countries prefer a little bit of inflation in their currency, especially because they wish to avoid falling into a deflationary environment, which America suffered through during the great Depression, to which deflation produces the twin evils of downward wage pressure on job holders or in absence of being able to achieve that, their employment is more susceptible to termination, as well as if prices are getting cheaper, consumers will delay purchases, which will slow down economic activity, creating a vicious downward spiral.

In modern times, America as demonstrated by its Consumer Price Index (CPI) which acts as a proxy for inflation, has shown consistently a small percentage growth in inflation, year by year, exactly what American policy makers' desire for the country as a whole.  However, the accuracy of the measure of inflation is an issue of some controversy as different economists have different ways of measuring the real inflation rate for America as a whole.  For instance, the federal government has a vested interest in posting inflation figures which are moderate because it is they that have to come up with any additional monies for cost-of-living adjustments as needed for various legacy programs, which in aggregate can be quite significant.  Additionally, while the most direct way of measuring inflation is to simply take a basket of consumer goods and services and then compare those goods to the previous year to thereby come up with the annual inflation rate, the criticism of doing this is that some goods and services will not exactly be the same in regards to one year to the next for either quality, performance, or the substitutionary habits that Americans would employ if one item becomes prohibitory expensive.

This means that even though when Americans can see that the price of a dozen eggs has gone up, or meat, or gasoline, or insurance, or a wealth of other items, so too must they consider that the electronic goods that are available for purchase, often have either maintained their price or come down, and frequently with better and more sophisticated features than seen in previous years.  Additionally, wherever that you do your shopping at, prices are elastic and dynamic, with seldom there being a time (with the exception of a Dollar Tree store), that the price for any particular product, no matter how common, maintains its same price year round, or instead has a small, barely incremental budge in its price that you pay a little bit more for.

While inflation is absolutely real it is also far easier to see over extended periods of time, that is to say, when you watch an old movie, and see someone paying for a drink with a nickel, or purchasing a fine dinner for less than a dollar, part of you watches that in disbelief, that there ever could have been a time when the price of these things were that cheap, but it was.  Inflation today, is very difficult to measure accurately, with probably no system being foolproof, that is why transparency in how the official government inflation rate is calculated along with giving time and just due to other calculated rates by other formulas and economists will give an overall clearer picture to the whole inflation thing. 

The inflation rate of currency does matter, because money is a common storage of wealth, and without taking proper measures to protect or to increase that wealth due to inflation, than that wealth will surely be eroded over time.

Corporate Corruption

We read in 1 Timothy 6:10 that: "For the love of money is the root of all evil…"  This Scripture reading is quite familiar to virtually all people and certainly very familiar to those that work in important and meaningful positions at corporations.  Of course, corporations are concerned about all sorts of things, but at the end of the day, most public for-profit corporations are most concerned about either making money or developing a sure path to getting more money or for getting more market share or for simply getting more.  This corporate desire for ever improving gross margins, for ever increasing sales, and for meeting and exceeding quarterly expectations, places significant pressure on all those that work there to do what is necessary to achieve those goals.  While there may be very specific rules and regulations within a given corporate entity of what is and isn't allowed, when it comes to the money aspect of it all, just the basic allure of money, seems to trump all good judgment.

The first step in any contemplated corruption is simply taking a given rule which is clearly quite black and white, and deciding that instead, that there is room to negotiate around the edges of it.  In virtually all cases, corruption begins first with the thought, once the thought has begun, the pathways for achieving the desired result become quite clear, and soon the execution of the thought is finalized and the deal is done.  It doesn't matter much if the actual originality of the idea comes from you, or whether, in fact you have piggy-backed upon the ideas of another person, or been told to do it, or simply become a copycat of what you know or perceive that others have done themselves.

The beauty of corporate corruption, unlike your own personal corruption, is that your fallback excuse is that you have done this for the good of the company, and not for your individual glory or benefit.   Often times, there is truth in this statement, in fact, sometimes corruption actually costs you some money in order to pull it off, but you are willing to make this sacrifice because the payoff or the gift that you have provided, is the tool that will nail down the order for the corporation and thereby benefit the greater whole. 

Also too, fueling the fires of corruption is being in a situation to which you know that your bid is the fairest and best but instead of rightfully winning the bid, instead you lose that bid to another bidder because they made an arrangement or similar with the awarder of such.  In these types of situations, there are only so many times that you can return to corporate headquarters with the message that you have failed, before you vow or are placed in the necessity of achieving success.  It is in these types of situations, that the true character of a man is met, and so often, in a corporate world of justifications, equivocations, exceptions, and the bliss of seeing just about everything in "shades of gray" as opposed to black or white, the corruption is enacted.

While there are many laws that deal with corruption and its many facets both internal to corporations as well as universal within America, as long as the major metric that measures a company's worth is the amount of money that profits its executives and its stockholders, the temptation to make a way will be the way, over and over again.

At-Will Employment

The concept of at-will employment always favor the employer and never favors the employee, because in short, at-will employment, means that either party, that is the employer or employee can sever their work relationship at any time, without notice, and for basically any reason that is not in conflict with a higher law.  This means that the employer can at any time fire or dismiss you from the job that provides all of your income and/or health benefits without your consent, whereas you, as the employee, have the basic right to quit at any time, hardly a right that is equal in concept or in effect.

There can be exceptions to the full effect of at-will employment, for instance at-will employment can be superseded by State or Federal law, and in addition at-will employment is subject to certain exemptions, depending upon the State or the city of your employment, to wit exemptions such as Public Policy, Implied Contract, and Good Faith may apply.  Also, there are certain job segments to which typically employees are not treated at-will which are government employees of either State or of the Federal government, and union employees that have enacted a collective bargaining agreement with the employer, which has specific rules attached to it in regards to the termination of employment.  In the absence, of working for the government, or of being part of a recognized Union with a contract with the employer, most other American employees are employed at-will, whether or not they have signed a document to that effect.

While it is fair to say that most Americans would not disagree that an employer has the right to fire you for just cause, very few Americans would agree that your employer should be able to terminate you, without a good and valid reason, yet, at-will employment essentially means that your employment is in danger of being terminated at any time, for virtually any reason, or in jurisdictions to which there aren't further lawful protections, for no reason at all.  That type of mindset is inherently unfair, and while non-government employment companies should have the flexibility to promote or to layoff employees at their discretion, that right should be tempered by laws that fairly protect the employee.

Additionally, in an era of merger and acquisitions, it is of enormous benefit to companies that are either looking to acquire or looking to be acquired to have their labor force setup in such a way that their employees are all classified as at-will, because that gives the acquirer of such a company the powerful flexibility to terminate, layoff, or let go, any and all employees not deemed redundant or necessary for their continuing operations of the merged organization, which often times means a massive savings in terms of labor cost.

In today's world, many employees survive literally paycheck to paycheck, to which if they were to lose their employment; this would have an immediate and detrimental effect upon their lifestyle and ability to take care of obligations.  Most employees only want from their employer, a fair deal, nothing more and nothing less, so that if they as an employee have done their part, they should then expect in return that their employer should honor theirs as well.  A handshake between a new employee and employer should mean something, and what that should mean should supersede the bogus conception of "at-will".

Yellow Cards in Soccer

Different sports have different penalties for infractions and egregious fouls, to which soccer has its own special and unique rules dealing with these incidents.  In soccer, there are two basic offenses, there is the straight red card which is issued to players for the most serious fouls and for obvious infractions such as illegally denying the opposing team a goal-scoring opportunity, and then there is the yellow card, for bad fouls that aren't quite worthy of the red card, persistent fouling, professional fouls, and other assorted things that are an infringement to basic good sportsmanship.  The difference between a red card and a yellow card, is a red card is an immediate dismissal from the game itself, whereupon, that team will have to play the remainder of the match shorthanded, which is a significant disadvantage, whereas for the first yellow card on a player, there is no dismissal, however, for a second yellow card on the same player in the same game, those two yellow cards equate to a red card, and the player is dismissed from the field of action.  So in summary, a red card means immediate dismissal from the game, whereas one yellow card is a caution to a particular player, but should that player get a second yellow card they too will be dismissed from the game.  In soccer, it is neither infrequent for a red card to be issued to an offending player, nor is it infrequent for one player to be dismissed through two yellow cards.  However, in regards to a yellow card, the field manager of the team does have an option, of removing said player from the field through a substitution if he has not already used up all his substitutes.   Anytime, any player receives a yellow card on the field, a good manager should immediately consider his options so as to better protect his team from suffering the ill effects of a second yellow card, and consequent dismissal of that player.

As discussed in the newyorker.com, it is estimated that the removal of a player from the soccer field, "… cost the offending teams about .015 goals per minute left in a game," which basically means that playing short-handed is not something that you ever want to have occur to your team.  This should signify, that when any player receives a yellow card, the manager should determine that player's value as compared to the disadvantage of being short-handed, should that occur, and consequently that is why a manager should make it a liberal policy to substitute players that are on a yellow card.  Of course, not all players are created equal in either their abilities or in their propensity to get a second yellow card.  For instance, neither goal keepers nor strikers should typically need to be replaced, because strikers typically have limited defensive duties, whereas goalkeepers are typically given the benefit of the doubt in controlling their area of the pitch.  However, for defenders, to which it is their main purpose to prevent the opposing side from getting good chances on goal, as well as midfielders that are there to control the pace and content of the game, serious consideration for their removal must be taken into account.  The fact of the matter is there are only possibly a few elite players in the game that are worth .015 goals per minute, so the better part of valor is to err on caution and subsequently to take the issue of a yellow card to your player as something that does necessitate a valid counter-move.

Why is Hawaii so much Richer than Puerto Rico?

Both Hawaii and Puerto Rico became United States territories in 1898, with Hawaii becoming the 50th and last State of our union in 1959, while Puerto Rico still remains a US territory.  Hawaii is located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, far away from the mainland.  The closest US city to Honolulu is San Francisco, and yet that flight distance is 2082 miles.  The closest major non-USA city from a different continent to Honolulu is Tokyo, Japan, and that flight distance is 3854 miles.  In contrast, San Juan, Puerto Rico is 1031 miles away from Miami, Florida, and some 3,661 miles away from Lisbon, Portugal.  Additionally, while Hawaii is literally in an ocean far away from any mainland, Puerto Rico is surrounded by many other islands in the Caribbean, as well as being close to Central America and South America.  One would think, giving the location of Puerto Rico, that it would have little problem of being equal to or greater than Hawaii in regards to its income, but in fact, Hawaii according to the Census Bureau Median Family Income as reported by justice.gov tells us that for a "1 Earner Family Size", Hawaii has a median income of $53,751, whereas Puerto Rico comes in at a mere $23,168.  This means that Puerto Rico's median family income is lower than any of the US fifty states, as well as being lower in median income than Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands (all US territories).

On the surface, this doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, Puerto Rico, in the sense of beauty, weather, and location, would appear to be the equal to or comparable to Hawaii, although this is obviously something that is relatively subjective.  While, Hawaii and Puerto Rico are both tourist dependent, as well as being recipients of US military investment, Hawaii does have the all-important naval military base at Pearl Harbor, whereas Puerto Rico lacks this; but they are similar in their capabilities in regards to agriculture, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, and although Hawaii does have more graduates with Bachelor Degrees than Puerto Ricans, the disparity of 26.6% to 21.2%, while significant, is not substantial. 

It is also possible too that Puerto Rico, suffers from a brain drain, to which ambitious Puerto Ricans leave the island, and move onto the mainland to search for their wealth and employment opportunities there, since native-born Puerto Ricans are considered to be United States citizens and hence have no barrier to entry.  While that definitely makes sense, that doesn't answer the question as to why native Hawaiians' aren't too doing the very same thing.

Perhaps, finally, Hawaii is so much richer than Puerto Rico because Hawaii has attracted a large influx of foreign capital from places such as Japan, China, and Korea, to which each of these countries have people of enormous wealth that have a vested interest in seeing that some of their money is invested in American land and/or industry, and Hawaii is the closest United States state, with a population that is already heavily Asian and also easily accommodates such money.  Puerto Rico, on the other hand, is probably considered to be just another Latin American country, having therefore more in common with Central and South American countries that were formerly colonized by Spain, and despite its status as a US territory of over one hundred years, making little progress in assimilating itself to America.

We are Co-Creators with God

There is a general misconception that God is the Father and that we are something far less than sons and daughters to Him, but this is not actually true.  We are much more than what we often think that we are, for we are, in truth, co-creators with God himself.  This means, that just as God has no beginning and thereby no ending, so we too have always existed in the Word of God and will always exist as co-creators to the Master Creator himself.  The confusion as to our immortality rests in the wrongful assumption that the physical body is our essence, it is not, as it is merely the recipient of our mind, our spirit, and our soul.  Further to this confusion, is our own unworthiness in sin as well as in our actions, which convicts us within our very essence that we are unworthy to completely re-unite with God, until we have shaken off or worked out our own imperfections so as to be perfect in He who is perfection Himself.

Another question might too be raised as to why would any soul wish to ever leave our Lord in the first place, but here though is the lesson of the prodigal son which applies to all who reside here on earth, that those that wish to have what is rightfully theirs as an inheritance will have this given to them, as God will not stand in the way of any soul exercising its own free will, and when that soul finds out, as all must, thattheir way is not the way, he will return, humbler, but at the same time, welcomed in open arms by the Lord who turns none away, no matter how far the journey, and no matter how distant the country. 

Jeremiah 1:5 reads:  "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee," which signifies that before our birth onto this earth plane, that we were already in existence, so subsequently no new souls are created, they have always been, and they will always be, as you cannot create immortality out of mortality.  God is omnipresent, He is everywhere, and we are created in His image, not as pathetic imitations or little puppets, but as one in the Father--no less and no greater than He.  Any perceived separation from our Father which art in Heaven is our own misreading of what is available for each and every one of us.   

It too might be helpful to picture yourself as a little child with a new toy, a fascinating toy that can do just about everything that you could possibly imagine or that you could possibly put your mind to, while no doubt, there would be great things of beauty you might well conceive of, so too, there might be great things of horror, such as the unleashing of your very own Pandora's box.  Yet, through it all, good or bad, in the end, all will return to how it was in the beginning, as nothing mortal can ever overcome anything of immortality, no matter how dire or pleasant it may be.  Remember from John 1: 5 that; "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."  We that are one with God, are that light.

Sports Franchise Values Will Soon Peak

First consider this, Jerry Jones purchased the Dallas Cowboys of the NFL in 1989 for $140 million, to which Forbes magazine estimates its current worth at $3.2 billion.  Donald Sterling purchased the NBA LA Clippers (formerly the San Diego Clippers) for $12.5 million in 1981, and sold the franchise to Steve Ballmer in 2014 for $2 billion.  Businessinsider.com states: "In 1973, George Steinbrenner led a group that purchased the New York Yankees from CBS for $8.7 million. Forty-two years later, the franchise is now worth $3.2 billion."  While it is understood that the value of a dollar today is considerably less than when these particular businessmen purchased these sports franchises, clearly, based on today's valuations, these already superrich owners have made an incredible amount of money for being in the sports entertainment business, indicating that the owning of big-time franchises isn't really something that owners do as a matter of mindless entertainment for the privileged, but in fact, is a way to demonstrably increase their net worth considerably, on the backs of the taxpayers, the unsuspecting public, and the skills of the ballplayers themselves.

The business of sports franchises in America is really about the business of maximizing their product for the express benefit of the elite ownership.  For instance, the NFL, the NBA, and MLB either specifically have salary caps on player salary expenses or a luxury cap which serves essentially the same purpose in capping salary payroll.  There are very few businesses that can control their labor expenses, labor contracts, and so forth at the degree that these major sport franchises do without being possibly subject to expensive lawsuits for what would typically be seen as both an antitrust violation as well as collusion.  Additionally, these owners have to a considerable extent received "sweetheart" deals for stadium or arenas being built to franchise their teams to which they have often received at least one of the following: tax reductions or privileges, land cost reductions or privileges, rent reductions or privileges, concession reductions or privileges, and often are not even responsible for the cost of the actual edifice itself.

Throughout recent years, just about everything that franchise owners have wanted to get, they have received, but the easy money is approaching its end and franchise values will never appreciate from their current high levels at anything approaching what these shrewd aforementioned businessmen paid for their respective franchises in the previous century.  While sports franchises generate important revenue from licensing, merchandizing, and ticket sales, the bulk of its most essential revenue comes from television, and television is able to pay billions of dollars for these sports because they get their revenue from national advertisers, and the advertisers advertise because of the viewership of these sports.  However, therein lies the rub, as you might suspect, the viewership of sports is not necessarily the demographic that is most desirable, because sports appeal more to males, and typically more to adults ages 35 and up.  Additionally, this is the age of the internet as well as the variety and versatility of multi-media outlets that people can interrelate to, which signifies that the norm in watching television sporting events on TV is in the process of mutating into something else.

While the major sport franchises have grown accustomed to ever better deals and thereby ever higher amounts of money negotiated from the major TV networks; should that formula change, and it will, sports franchise values will change with it, and because the value of these franchises are based on future projections, those that read the tea leaves better will be the sellers of such and not the buyers.

Mr. [First Name]

In the process of growing up I was familiar with a few different salutations, such as Mr. [Last Name], my last name without the mister, a nickname, by my first name, perhaps once in a blue moon by my entire name [first, middle, and last] and my personal favorite which was when I received mail from certain relatives, as Master [First, Last Name} which when you are a young kid, just makes you blush with happiness.  When it comes to how I was addressed, I never cared for my last name being used without a Mister or some other sign of respect, so just using my last name, I always found to be extremely annoying and my response to that usage would typically burn inside.  As for nicknames, it would of course depend upon the nickname, as some nicknames are hurtful, while others are pleasurable, and then there are generic call-outs like "buddy" or "dude" which are fine if the person really doesn't know your name, but somewhat disrespectful if they do know your name. In general, though, most people addressed me by my first name, which was my preference, except for my secret desire, to be addressed verbally as Master [First, Last Name} which I thought would be the ultimately best.  In regards to how I treated my contemporaries and their names, I would basically match whatever way that they were treating me.  As for my addressing of adults, the typical way would be Mr. [Last Name], unless they were relatives in which case it would always be Aunt [First Name].   In all of this, I don't remember hearing salutations of Mr. [First Name] being used by anyone to anybody, although I suppose that it might have occurred, occasionally.  However, when I moved to the South, I began to be addressed from time-to-time as Mr. [First Name], which I found to be somewhat intriguing, unusual, and totally unnecessary, since just addressing me by my first name is fine by me, no matter the age of the party addressing me.

While there are probably many reasons, why the South, seems to be the only part of the nation, to which Mr. [First Name] seems to be used somewhat commonly as a typical way to address someone, often of perceived authority, or older, I'm okay with it, as long as it isn't racially based.  That is to say, if only black people used Mr. [First Name] but never white people to me, or if white people only used it as a form of salutation from one white person to another, but never to a black person, I would not be okay with it.  While there probably isn't much doubt, that this form of salutation in the South probably has roots in our previous days of slavery, the fact that it still exists today, is probably fine, because the salutation of Mr. [First Name} seems to be a way of showing respect to another person, without being stuck within the absolute formality of class, social, and racial distinctions that formerly were part and parcel of the South.  In addition, it isn't difficult to respond to the person addressing you as Mr. [First Name] that they need not use the Mister part at all, without unduly upsetting the social mores of that interaction.  Also, I never have an issue with anyone attempting to show either respect or politeness to me, especially if that politeness or respect is genuine as opposed to being something that is formerly impressed against them.

Latin America Pyramids

Virtually every person is aware of to one degree or another, of the Great Pyramid and other lesser pyramids in Egypt, as the Great Pyramid of Giza is after all, the only structure that currently exists that is also part of the master list of the seven wonders of the ancient world.  Impressive as that is, we read at history.com that: "Despite the towering reputation of Egypt’s Great Pyramids at Giza, the Americas actually contain more pyramid structures than the rest of the planet combined."  This means, that right here in the Americas, we are surrounded by pyramids, of great importance, that still exist to this day, to which the most famous of them is the Pyramid of the Sun which resides with its sister Pyramid the Pyramid of the Moon in the ancient city of Teotihuacan, Mexico.  The Sun Pyramid has dimensions of 733 feet across and 246 feet high, making it a truly massive structure, that was believed to have been created around 100 AD and finished perhaps around 200 AD. 

As with all pyramids, the first question, is not so much why, but how?  How was it that this pyramid was built in an age to which it is assumed that humanity was far less advanced, lacking in tools as well as basic engineering knowledge that a pyramid of this size and scope could even be conceived, let alone successfully built, that not even the sands of time has truly diminished it?  Although the Aztecs are generally given credit for discovering the Pyramid of the Sun, historians today, are unsure of what society or what people even created it, although it has been estimated that at its peak, the city of Teotihuacan had a population of 125,000-200,000 people.

The fact that so many pyramids were built in the Americas would imply that the same knowledge and knowhow that was displayed in Egypt, was available to the Americas.  Further to this point, while many people want to believe that the evolution of mankind is a slow and steady process, to which each respective generation learns from previous generations, as we evolve into a more civil and intelligent species, pyramids and marvelous things of this sort, stick out like a sore thumb, as demonstrative proof, that rather than civilization following a straight path to enlightenment, mankind instead both grows and falls, with mastery gain and then lost, only to be re-discovered as if for the very first time.

The Pyramid of the Sun stands as proof positive that it is only through man's own hubris, and self-destructive tendencies, that we are unable to grasp that indeed there is nothing new under the sun.  The builders of these great pyramids understood well that they were subservient to a Higher Power and these pyramids are testimony to that knowledge.  These pyramids were sacred sites, ones of initiation, prayer, and devotion, not made by the hands of ignorant and superstitious fools, but of those directed by an inner light, that created both the vision behind the pyramid but so too the wherewithal to successful build such.

We are told by ancient-code.com that: "The Pyramid of the Sun … the Temple of the Moon, …are in the same layout as Orion’s Belt."  Further that: "Archaeologists have found large quantities of Mica at Teotihuacan…" this in a country that has no native mica whatsoever, a mineral that is known for its properties of being able to withstand high temperatures and voltage because of its innate dielectric strength. 

While the structure of a pyramid can represent many things, such as the representation at its pinnacle as of the all-seeing eye of God, so too it represents in its shape that of e pluribus Unum, or out of many, One.

It is Not a Crime to Defend the Country of Your Birth and Residence

The United States global military presence is undoubtedly without parallel in the annals of history and clearly second-to-none.  For instance, qz.com reports that:  "Altogether, based on information contained in the DoD’s latest Base Structure Report (BSR), the US has bases in at least 74 countries and troops practically all over the world…"  Because the United States takes it upon itself to act as the world's policeman for whatever reasons, the United States consistently involves itself into the affairs of sovereign nations throughout the entire world, again and again and again.  While, such involvement in other countries from a humanitarian, educational, logistical, and benefactor perspective is to be applauded and appreciated, the involvement of US military forces is often something of a completely different nature.

In America, we take it for granted, whether true or not, that our entire population is informed, educated, and literate, along with having adequate housing, acceptable medical care, and being well fed.  While this may be the perceived norm in America as well as in most western nations as well as other first world countries, this is certainly not true for a significant portion of the world at large.  That is to say, results.org states that: "Nearly 1/2 of the world's population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day."  Further we read on speakingbooks.com that: "Illiteracy threatens over 785 million adults worldwide, translating into one in every five people on the planet."  This means, for a significant portion of the world, people are threaten with both extreme poverty as well as suffering the lack of basic literate skills, so that these people are unable to subsequently form competent viewpoints of global affairs and for the most part would be unable to come to a definitive conclusion as to purpose of any America presence.  Further obfuscating this issue, America itself, often doesn't seem to have consistent and clearly defined objectives on any of its many foreign interventions, so that the decisions of foreign citizens and the "ruling" government within sovereign nations as to whether to aid and abet American interests or to oppose them is guesswork, at best.

Then too there is the very basic issue that most everyone inherently believes that they have the right to defend themselves from attacks both foreign and domestic.  The fact that in your defense that you are massively out-armed, out-maneuvered, out-thought.and out-classed in every aspect of these things, may make your defense utterly futile, but what of it?  Are you to suppose that those that wage war upon you are in reality your liberators or are they your oppressors?  Are these people that lay siege upon your land your emancipators or are they your enslavers?  How is it possible for you, typically poor and uneducated, to know that difference between the two, and in absence of such definitive information, isn't it the better part of valor to protect your own, even until death itself? 

It is not a crime to defend yourself, and your country of your birth and residence from attacks, or to cede even an inch of ground.  You may not have a lot of knowledge, but what you do know is that you have an inherent obligation to protect your family, as well as your community, and further that you have not brought upon yourself this violation of your own natural sovereignty.  So for those in America that delight in tallying up the day's kills of the enemy, recognize that each man, woman, and child whose life has been terminated by your actions, that they were often just doing exactly what you would be doing, if you were in their shoes.

Building Down Rather Than Up

One of the quintessential American dreams is for one day to own your own property, to have your own land, and of course with that land ultimately purchasing or building a residential house upon it.  As you might imagine in a mature country such as America with its phalanx of lawyers and regulations there are plenty of obstacles and mazes that are necessitated in regards to the purchase and pursuit of your particular housing dream.  For instance, in virtually any city in America, there is a height restriction of the structure that you want to build, which may be based on the lot size, the time period of when you bought the property, zoning restriction laws, and the like, not to mention the fact that if you are proposing to build your own custom-built home you will have to create and ultimately get your building permit approved. 

There is, however, another way to contemplate your dream home and that is to recognize that with the exception of land that is bought to which you have either knowingly or unknowingly conveyed your mineral rights, the land that lies beneath your property is yours to develop and to utilize, subject as always, in all probability, to governmental regulation and oversight.  The idea to live underground, so to speak, isn't unique to the human species, as many animals in especially inhospitable climates like to burrow and/or spend considerable time underground such as rodents, foxes, and snakes.  The advantage of living underground is often the fact that the temperature extremes of both hot and cold are significantly mitigated by doing so.

There are, actually, certain towns to which it is fairly common to build virtually the entire structure of the home underground because it is more practical, more cost efficient, and more comfortable.  For the most part, though, when it comes to true underground living it is the fear of being in an enclosed space, trapped beneath ground, with the attendant concerns about oxygen and light that makes a significant portion of people, hesitant about the whole thing.  However, most people when buying land have no intention of actually creating the entire living structure underneath it, but might be intrigued about the possibilities to add additional square footage, sight unseen to the general public, of whatever their mind's desire is for the underground of their property.

While in today's world, underground additions to one's property, are typically the exception and not the rule, in cities throughout the world, to which the cost of land itself is high, combined with onerous regulations for building above ground, there is a strong reason to believe, it not above, than below.  In fact, cites such as Singapore, Beijing, and London all are experiencing a boom in underground development and living.  This trend should continue worldwide because in situations with high population density as well as limited land, it makes good common sense.

It would not be far fetch to believe that in tomorrow's master planned communities, that an option for a true underground addition might be offered to prospective buyers, and for those that already own their own homes, more often we will see serious contemplation that an underground addition to a home might easily allow for the placement of in-laws, or an entertainment center, or gym, or library, without really the neighbors ever even knowing that the Joneses have actually pass them by. 

Black Madonna

According to wisegeek.com:  "There are about 450 to 500 medieval Black Madonna's in Europe, with at least 180 in France."  Apparently, these black Madonna's were created back in medieval times from the 12th through the 15th centuries, to which one standard explanation of this phenomenon attests that because the Madonna was situated near to the burning of candles for so long, that thereby the soot generated darken the Madonna over the years.  Perhaps this explanation would hold more water if there weren't so many Madonna's all over Europe with the same dark characteristics, but because this is so, this indicates strongly that the Madonna as originally conceived was purposely made dark.  This does then lead to the question, but why?

To answer the question in part is to recognize that it is the victors that write the history, and our Western Civilization has been conceptualized in the last five hundred years or so, as primarily Caucasian, and in particular, as light skin, so that in this culture, it makes sense to visualize the Madonna as having the same characteristics in color, even though Jesus, Joseph, the Virgin Mary, are from a prototypical middle eastern heritage which would imply a more swarthy look, as opposed to something that is porcelain white.  All of this is because it is the norm to want to project upon our God, his mystics, and his prophets that in the physical, that they look remarkably similar to us. However, again, why the black Madonna, in Europe no less?

Perhaps the black Madonna originated in reference to the fact that darker soil is considered to be the richest and most organic of soils, so her darkness signifies that she is the epitome of one of our own.  Her darkness heralds that from this good earth, God himself can re-birth Himself so as to redeem us from our missteps and frailties.  That, in fact, Our Lady, is universal, and applies to all cultures, to all people, and thereby to everyone.  It is of vital importance that her presence strengthens us in our belief that as Our Cosmic Lady, that her special annunciation and that her acceptance of such, was made as demonstrative proof that man is not forsaken, but loved.

Our black Madonna makes it easier to understand that she too, is the suffering servant of God, for that her own Son, from her womb, was crucified.  Yet, her dark complexion helps us to more readily recognize that rather than her appearance to us coming across as too purified, too refined, and lacking in substance, that she is indeed one of us, and the personification of what we can aspire to be as she is our devoted and nurturing mother.

In todays color conscious world, we may seem a bit befuddled by the whole phenomena of a black Madonna, but color as a classification, for the separation of a given people, as a dividing line for class distinction, is of recent heritage, as history has typically divided man by classification of birth, faith, and his associated social status as compare to the pigmentation of a person's skin.  Our Divine Lady knows no class distinction, nor faith, nor social status, nor color, only that we all are one in God.

America's 100-Year War against Drugs

Imagine that you in a position to which you are not sure if you are dreaming or whether that you are conscious but in a dreamlike state, whereupon, as you venture forth outdoors and begin your walk your nose becomes aware of the scent of quite obviously marijuana being smoke, then as you turn the corner, you notice what appears to be a bar, and as you walk inside that darkness, you see a couple of pans on an old-fashioned coal-fired stove that seem to be cooking a little something that isn't food, and off in the corner, you see what looks to be a hookah pipe, with something being smoked, but it isn't tobacco or cannabis, it just seems like its opium.  And later as you exit that "bar" you walk into an old-fashion and quaint drugstore, whereupon you observe that one of the items being sold, says "Cocaine toothache drops".   All of this is very puzzling and confusing to you, because the country looks and feels just like America, but you know consciously that it can't be America, until you see a newspaper headline, and the date at the top of the paper, which says 1885.  Yes, indeed, there was a time in America, when marijuana, cocaine, and opium were legal in this country, in an era when man was far freer from onerous State authoritarian rules and regulations.

Today, America, doesn't want you to believe that substances such as cocaine, marijuana, or opium were ever legal, or ever available without strict medical or governmental oversight, but in actuality that was the norm within America as well as most other nations throughout history; it is only in more modern times, that Americans have been so restricted in using substances that are derived from plants and so common to certain areas of the world.  In today's nanny-police state, the government has significant penalties for those that utilize drugs which have been arbitrarily labeled as both dangerous as well as illegal unless such drugs are taken under strict medical supervision and attention.

Yet, through it all, through all of the hysteria, there was a time when all of these illegal substances were legal within America, and the country did not fall apart.  This would strongly imply that State control of these substances are really an excuse for the government to bully around its citizens, or better put, to incarcerate certain citizens that it wishes to imprison or fine or inconvenience because the State as well as its designated agents wish to punish those that do not adhere to its particular political correctness at that time.

The government is forever putting forth propaganda that the laws that it creates in regards to the illicit usage of certain unauthorized drugs are for the betterment and for the protection of society at large, but this is in actuality a smokescreen for their real purpose of both control and as a protection racket for certain favored segments of society.  For instance, if certain medicines that contain opium like derivatives are only available to people if they are patients and properly prescribed to them by medical doctors, than this benefits directly both the medical field as well as in particular, pharmaceutical companies.  After all, the coca leaf, the opium poppy, and cannabis are not difficult plants to grow, cultivate, and nurture, but the State does not wish for you as individual to have such a power, and its penalties for those that ignore this, are incredibly severe and detrimental, so that they can forever remain your master, and you, thy faithful servant.

Why Aren't State Income Taxes--Progressive?

In America, the Federal Income tax is progressive and graduated, meaning that the more taxable income that you have in a given year, the higher the overall tax bracket that you will be subject to, so, for instance, if your filing category is single and you have $25,000 in taxable income, you would be liable for a 10% federal tax rate for the first $9,075 of your taxable income, with the balance of the $15,925 being taxed at a rate of 15%.  If, on the other hand, your filing category is single, and you have $500,000 in taxable income, you will be subject to paying federal taxes for each graduated bracket percentage amount, at the rates of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%, until you reach the threshold of $406,750 to which the income above that amount, which would be $93,250 would be taxed at 38%.

Seeing that the Federal income tax is both progressive and graduated, one would think that in the natural course of things that the State income tax for the State that you reside in, would, in fact, follow the same format, but it does not, in virtually every State of the union.  First off, there are seven States that do not have any State income tax whatsoever.  Out of the remaining forty-three States, there are pretty much only three States with truly meaningful progressive and graduated income tax rates, which are California, New Jersey, and Vermont.  If you are single in California, and have taxable State income of $25,000, you would be subject to a 1% tax rate, graduating to 2% at $7,582 and maxing out at 4% for the balance of your income.  If, you made $500,000 in taxable State income, you would eventually be paying State income taxes at the rate of 11.3%, without even hitting the top rates of 12.3% and 13.3%.  This makes California the closest in structure to how your taxes are treated by the Federal government, meaning that California has the fairest progressive and graduated tax rates in the nation, in the sense that those that earn more, pay considerably more in their percentage rate for taxes.

However, in virtually every other State of the union, and taking $25,000 as the threshold example of income in comparison to income of $500,000 in nearly half of the States, you will be paying the exact same percentage as your tax rate.  That is to say, for instance, if you live in Mississippi, the maximum State income tax rate is 5%, and that maximum is achieved for income at $10,000 and above.  Yes, that is right, in Mississippi and some twenty-odd other states, individuals making $25,000 and above are taxed at the exact same percentage as somebody making twice or twenty times the amount of money that you are making.  Also, with the exception of the three States previously mentioned, all the other States of this union, pretty much tax their constituents at essentially the same basic rate with very modest increases in percentage based on income, or in essence, a flat State income tax.

While most States do have on paper what would appear to be a progressive State income tax, in actuality, the threshold in most of these States to be subjected to the highest income tax rate in the State is held ridiculously low, and/or the percentage increase in graduated tax rates is as modest as simply going from perhaps 5% to 6%.  This signifies that most States have little or no interest in taxing their residents at real progressive rates, which benefits the few at the expense of the many.

We Don't Need More Laws; the Heart of Man Must Change

Since its independence from Great Britain, and the institution of its ratified Constitution that applied to all the States of the union, America has become a nation of laws.  We have laws that cover what would appear to be every conceivable thing, to wit, we have local laws, State laws, Federal laws, consumer laws, environment laws, tax laws, usage laws, and so forth, so that this is truly a nation of many laws.  We have so many laws in America, laws that contradict or even override another law, and laws that are outdated, senseless, or aren't even good law to begin with, that there is not a single person or a single entity within America that knows, understands, and can comprehend all of our laws.

But be that as it may, each year, each month, each day, the judicial system creates even more laws, for a lot of reasons, both good and bad, as if the mere creation of a given new law, will somehow correct, alleviate, or fix some perceived wrong without any unintended consequences of such a law.  It would be one thing, if the fundamental foundation of America was inherently flawed, but in fact, America's Constitution is a legal document, the Supreme law of the land, that is exceedingly well written and thought out.  This means, for the most part, what this country doesn't really need is more laws, what it truly needs to do instead is to take to heart the philosophy that we ought to treat our neighbor as our self, and also that our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, come from our Creator, that we should also indeed honor as well as love.

The Constitution as it stands today has all the principles that we really need, in order to live a fair and quality life. We require only that the institutions that are set to apply law have the courage to do the right thing and to apply it equally to all, which is why the Supreme Court motto is "equal justice under law".  Unfortunately, throughout a lot of American history up until this very day, justice has not been applied equally, although we would like to believe as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated that: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."  That bending of the arc towards justice can only come about, not from still more laws, or new interpretation of laws, or this law or that law, but instead from the changing of the heart of man, himself. 

All of the justice, all of the change, that a reasonable person wants in America, is available to all of us, if instead of looking upon our neighbor, as something or somebody to be struck down, or hindered, or cheated, or fooled, or any of a thousand wrongful things, we instead look upon our neighbor as a fellow brother, worthy of our love and respect that one human being is obligated to give to another.  Most people, inherently recognize the difference between what is right and what is wrong, but few are willing to live by that code attributed to John Wesley to: "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can."