Associates v. Employees

Living in America, you can't help but notice that some of the big box retailers make it their policy to refer to their employees, as their associates, so when you are in Home Depot or Wal-Mart or some other similar retailer, you will invariably hear at some point, the verbal callout for an associate to help a customer or guest with something or other.  One would like to think that an associate working within an organization would actually mean something that signifies that this person is a true colleague within the work environment, whose voice or work assignments would be looked upon as worthy of respect and consideration.  Unfortunately, that often is not the case, and fundamentally within organizations in which all of the lower level employees are designed as associates, is most definitely not the case.

In point of fact, for whatever reason, the company doing the hiring has made a policy decision that the semantics of calling their employees, by the name of associate, helps to sell the illusion that the person employed by these retailers is really an important component within the organization, when in actuality, they are nothing more than pawns to be pushed around the chessboard for the greater good of the organization itself.

The truth is, as Shakespeare tells us: "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet;" and that which we call by names masking the true nature of the work at hand, smell just as rotten as they always have.  These so-called associates at Wal-Mart often make a wage of just $9 or $10/hour, pointedly signifying that any association that they have with management must be of the traditional employer/employee relationship and hardly one in which the associate has even a marginal place at the table.

The thing is that there isn't anything wrong with being an employee of a given company, in fact, there is a lot to be said about being gainfully employed and working for a living, no matter the title or job position, as there is dignity in doing a job well and being respected and being paid for just that.  While there are plenty of good paying jobs in America, there are also in this service-based economy a lot of jobs that don't pay well and don't have a lot of prestige associated with them.  However, these jobs are a way to earn money, to develop responsibility as well as to stay busy and active, with perhaps windows of opportunity for advancement and promotion.

These big multi-national corporations that employ so many people have an inherent obligation to provide a fair deal to their employees, and that deal necessitates true candor and honesty.  Therefore, to call a man, something that he is not, is wrong, it is a lie, and it is not becoming of any corporation or its leadership.   In truth, companies hire people, these people hired are correctly known as employees, most of them upon being hired are not associates, because they are not at that time merited and valued members of the organization, and until such time that they become so, it is wrong to falsely label them as such.

Applications only Accepted Online

Back in the day rather than seeing a sign posted on a window stating that "only online applications accepted" you instead use to read on that window "applicants apply within". There is a very large difference between the ways applicants are often treated today, more or less quickly compartmentalized into a "go or no-go" scenario, as compared to way it waswhen the application as well as the person was dealt with face-to-face.  While there are advantages to either way in recruitment procedures, limiting people to just online applications, without exception, is inherently prejudicial to certain people without it necessarily being seen as overt in its effect.  That is to say, first off, that some people are people persons that want to engage another human being from across the table and that is their strength, and that strength does not lend itself successfully to an online application.  There is also a more sinister side to online applications, which is that there are a large percentage of people in America that are functionally illiterate, which often means that they won't even attempt to make an online application, or if doing so, will not understand the rules of the road so that their application will be rejected forthwith, even though they may be properly skilled at the actual job at hand.

So too another complaint about the acceptance of online applications only is that those that understand well the process of how these applications are looked at and handled, will best be able to put together the key words and their work experience in such a manner so as to make their application more likely to be accepted as desirable by the algorithm which has been programmed to search for certain traits and thereby in effect to segregate the job applicants into "acceptable or rejected" bins.    This means in effect, that a high percentage of people aren't even considered for the job, and by definition and implication, means too that the applicants making it to the next round, have been pre-molded into the type of "cookie-cutter" desirable background that the company is looking for which hardly bodes well for diversity.

While one can certainly understand that companies are well aware that time is money and that it follows that they often don't have the time or the resources to deal with applicant after applicant live and in-person, this does not mean that accepting applications only online is the fairest, best, or most efficient way to accept applications.  In fact, as a matter of course, responsible companies should mix it up a bit, and at least during certain periods of time when looking for future employees, they should accept applications in person, as opposed to just doing so only online.  

Life itself has proven again and again, that the best candidate does not necessarily have the best credentials on paper, but has those unseen substances and character that are the touchstones of success and advancement in life.  An algorithm and an automated process that simply rates people on a certain pre-conceived scale probably does a commendable job of eliminating those that are clearly unqualified, those that are questionable, but also some of those that would be most excellent, because their skill-sets often range well outside of the company's preconceived little box.

The Internet, Technology, and Choice v. Higher Education Costs

According to mic.com "In 2015, the average student borrower is graduating with about $35,000 worth of debt," and also, according to bloomberg.com:  "The expense of higher education has risen more than 550 percent since 1985."  Both of these above statements should be of massive concern to all Americans and logically when taking into account all of the hi-tech advances that have been made over the last thirty years, these statements should be seen as a source of real disappointment as well as a financial disgrace to those that are just trying to educate themselves to get ahead.

The fact of the matter is that there does not seem to be in effect, a policy in place that is determined to lower school costs and to make that an overriding mission.  Instead, while colleges have changed over the years in some fundamental respects, such as by allowing more students to have more choices in regards to how they receive their education and the tools that they use to do so, the changes to date, are not nearly dramatic enough, nor have they often been of a monetary savings to those that have minimal financial assets to begin with.

Higher education has done a massive disservice to students by simply not taking the time to look at the problem from the right perspective, and that perspective for certain students, should not be to provide all the bells and whistles, all the brick mortars, all the fringe benefits, and all the massive, convoluted, and redundant bureaucracy, but instead should have as the overarching principle to provide a focused curriculum which makes its very purpose, first and foremost, to competently teach students the subjects that they need to know so as to provide them with a degree in their discipline of choice, which will enable them to get meaningful employment. 

The biggest mistake that higher education makes is not scaling up their system so as to make the overall product more affordable to the students that wish to partake of it.  For instance, a live lecture within a fixed physical building, which has limited seats, along with mandated physical books, at a fixed location and time, is the most expensive way to lecture students.  Instead, an online lecture, previously recorded and edited, with additional information which answers the most common questions, along with adjunct professors or advanced students, providing additional online help, which would be essentially available for the most part to all students at any time of the day, through the internet and displayed on their laptop, is something which could be readily scaled up to handled a student body of considerably more people than can be contained within a physical classroom, yet the costs of this online setup, which is repeatable, is of far less expense. 

Further to the point, the cost of physical books, have been and continue to be a very sore point with students, but this can easily be mitigated, by not having any physical books at all, but instead having all books available online, which eliminates the expense and the inconvenience of print runs, as well as making it far easier to revise these books and course materials in the future.

The thing is the way that college education is looked at for a significant amount of students, is fundamentally flawed, to which I suspect, most college campuses, seem to be somewhat oblivious to the actual costs associated with education.  Instead, the way it should be, is to start with the premise that there is an absolute desire to create a curriculum for a bachelor's degree, to which the cost cannot exceed a certain fixed amount of money and then to plan such a course out in such a manner so as to achieve that noble goal.

If, in fact, that it is true, as Obama said, that America desires that we "…put a higher education within reach for anyone who wants it," than the only way this objective can be met is for price, convenience, and sensibility to be working together like a well-oiled machine.  The more innovation, the more imagination, and the more determination that we make in order to provide real choice for our higher education needs, the better the outcome will be.

School Teachers are Compensated Very Well

It does help to have strong union representation on your side, and school teachers throughout America, have two strong unions that represent them, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Educational Association. For some reason, there is a myth, that school teachers are not compensated fairly, are underpaid, have exceedingly demanding jobs, and are not appreciated, but in fact, in today's world, there are fewer and fewer good middle class jobs, that require just a Bachelor's degree, and that pay as well and have the generous benefits of a typical school teacher's salary.  It can be said, unequivocally, if you believe that you have teacher like capabilities or desires, that being a school teacher, is probably one of the very best jobs that you could aspire towards.

For instance, recognize that the salary of a school teacher, depending upon the State and country of residence, can range from about $40,000 to $84,000 per annum, depending upon experience and educational achievement, to which a school teacher has typically a commitment of only 190 work days a year, and might be entitled to 15-20 days off for sick and personal reasons.  On the other hand, employees working for private enterprise, on average work about 224 days a year, a significant and meaningful difference in hours and days worked.  Additionally, whereas a large portion of those employed by private enterprise are responsible for the funding of their 401K retirement plans, perhaps with company matching, while often receiving absolutely no pension benefits, school teachers are provided with very generous pension plans, of which the formula is based upon their highest three to five salaried years, depending upon their location, and their years of service being a school teacher.  As reported by theday.com, the average school teacher pension is: "…$47,386 for Connecticut retired teachers."

In addition, teachers are able to purchase through a program called "The Teacher Next Door" a HUD house for a 50% discount off of the list price, and further are eligible to apply for a loan with the FHA to which the down payment could be for said home as low as $100.  This important benefit, in and of itself, is absolutely massive, as there is no material asset that will cost more money for the typical American, than the purchase of their home.

Yet, for the most part, most Americans are bamboozled by the mass media, to believe that the school teacher's job is a job of woe, and of unlimited thankless service, to which school teachers are the suffering servants of the State.  In fact, school teachers, are extremely well compensated, especially given their salary, their hours, their pension, and the security of their position.  Additionally, school teachers as a whole, are accorded a fair amount of respect from the public. 

While the importance of having good teachers cannot be discounted, it would appear, that given their compensation and their generous benefits, that the school teachers of today, should be some of the most qualified and competent school teachers ever, based upon the fact that smart people gravitate to where the money is at.

Population Control

In America, adults do have the freedom to procreate, although the State for the most part sends out a clear signal that pregnancy is something that is within your bodily control and therefore you should take appropriate steps to control it, and if not, the State wants to help you to do so.  For instance, the State spends an inordinate amount of time and resources making readily available to citizens' its wide array of birth control aids, of which Americans have quite a few choices and options, to which the State hopes that one of these aids you might avail yourself of.  Additionally, abortion is legal in America, subject to certain rules and regulations; and with proper ID, morning after birth control or emergency contraception pills are also available to females which can be readily obtained from any major drugstore.  The result, even without a specific State mandated population control policy, is that procreation in America has dramatically dropped over the years, so that the birthrate in America has come down considerably from previous generations, filling one desirable goal of the State.

However much that you like to think the opposite, the fact of the matter is the State hates the concept that all should have an equal right to procreate as much as they so desire and all of this occurring without exceptions or restrictions.  In fact, it's quite fair to say, that without the religious influence that believes strongly in marriage along with valuing family life and the fruits of such, that the State would have a far more baleful influence than it already has in regards to family planning and procreation within America.  Fortunately, whether you agree or identify totally with a particular religious persuasion or not, the impact of those of faith impacts strongly how population control and procreation freedom is dealt with within this country.

While every country needs its citizenry in aggregate to have a desire to at a minimum maintain its population base and/or to grow it at a rate that is sustainable within the country, most every State wants to have a say as to what people are the chosen ones to reproduce at a higher rate than others. As demonstrative proof of this, hear Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., as he rendered his argument on the winning side in regards to whether the State could enact compulsory sterilization that: "… Three generations of Imbeciles are enough” . 

For some people, the inability to conceive is unbearable and also devastating to them and for their quality of life.  Additionally, for others, their capability to conceive was wrongly taken away from them by the State, itself, by means of forced sterilization, sanctioned by State agencies.  The State most definitely wants to control and to influence which segments of our population in general are encouraged to have children and which are actively discouraged from doing so. 

The battle between the State and the freedom of the people is an ongoing battle, to which the State has access to an endless array of resources that helps enable them to press forward their desires, yet, the people in whole, through it all, have remained resolute and unbowed.

Patrick Henry - Great American Patriot

There are few school children that cannot quote Patrick Henry's most memorable call to action: “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”, but the speech itself given at St. John's Church in Richmond, VA in 1775, is much more than just those seven indelible words.  For instance, it is important to note that Patrick Henry was a God-fearing Christian, and one that believed strongly in the faith, to which this speech itself, made it clear that the highest loyalty a man should have was not to an earthly king but to the "majesty of heaven".  Further, Patrick Henry stated that the cause now presented to those contemplating rebellion against English tyranny, was quite straightforwardly whether one was ready to stand for freedom or to submit to "submission and slavery".  These words weren't meant to be taken rhetorically, but were words demanding action, to which Patrick Henry's voice cried out that "the war is actually begun."

Patrick Henry was no equivocating politician, nor some double-talking lawyer, he was a man of the highest principal and of action, which is why he is so well remembered and revered to this very day.  Patrick Henry believed in accountability and in being true to the just cause of the colonies' rebellion, but even more than that, he questioned those of little faith, who complained that now was not the time, or that the colonies were too weak, or that a compromise might be reached between us and our English masters, however, Henry knew that it was fear that often held men back, and so too it was weakness of mind, as well as there were those that would accept limitations of their liberty for a compromised life.

Yet, when we look upon America today, we must ask the question as to whether we, as Americans, have sold out the ideals and principles of Patrick Henry, and the answer to that question clearly shows the needle pointing to the affirmative.  First, America at its highest jurisprudence level has over recent history, turned this country from being one that built its very foundation upon Judeo-Christian principles into a country that believes it has no need for the inconvenience of God and old-time morals, but instead can simply right its ship with the rudder of pure secularism.  Additionally, Patrick Henry starting with the infamous British stamp tax act as well as later with the vociferous debate over our Constitution, understood well that the confiscation of a man's wealth by taxation empowered the State, often to the detriment of the people, so that rather than the State serving the people, it was the people that were subservient to the State.   

Today, if Patrick Henry was alive, he would be dismayed over the awesome and awful State power that is wielded unfairly and intrusively over most of the common citizens of this country, as well as he would be quite concerned over the rise of the secular State and thereby theincreasing marginalization of our Judeo-Christian founding principles. 

Patrick Henry's memorable words should still ring true to our ears today, and as we look upon this nation, that question should still be raised, is this liberty or is this in substance the death of liberty.

Mandated Password Rules

If you use a computer, you will soon find that you are going to have to use passwords in order to access things such as subscription sites, financial sites, work sites, and email sites.  While it makes sense that your account should be unique to you and therefore that having a password associated with your account is a good way to make it so that other people, friend of foe, or phishing sites, or children, or whomever, do not have an easy way to gain access to your account, there are some basic problems attended to with password accounts.

For instance, different sites have different restrictions, to which those restrictions have changed over time, so that if previously your passwords were once six characters, now they have to be at least eight characters.  If previously you used all lowercase, now you have to use at least one character that is uppercase, and/or have one character that is not alphanumeric.  Additionally, as bad as those are in giving you the hope of consistently remembering your password for all the sites that you visit, the absolute worse are sites that either compel you to change your password every six months, or will not ever allow you to go back and use a password that you have previously used.  This means, if you are even a halfway busy person, you probably have multiple passwords for sites, with multiple rules, and while that might be good in the sense that you don't have one master password for all of your sites, it is both cumbersome and confusing for the user.

When it comes to passwords, most websites seem to have it all wrong, the password setup shouldn't really be to conform to whatever rules that they have, but should instead be something that is convenient for the user.  That is to say, if you as a user want to have stupid passwords, easily guessed at, that should be their choice.  Apparently too, many websites already keep track of the IP address that you have historically logged in from, and therefore it makes some sense to place some additional restrictions on access when that access point is different, by for example, having challenge questions. 

Also, when it comes to passwords and security, I'm somewhat surprised and dismayed that there are many websites that allow you to select or have preselected for you a box that keeps you signed in for two weeks, without having to enter your password again, often which is valid whether you later close your browser or not .  If you think about it, this should never be an option from a safety or privacy issue, since there are very few times when your computer is 100% under your control, unless you are the only one ever to have access to it.

Ultimately, because you do not go to every website every day, and because of the lack of commonality in regards to password rules and restrictions from site to site, you as a consumer, are forced to write down your particular password for particular websites, simply because there are too many to remember, and the consequences of not knowing your password will block you out of a website that you are trying to log into.  The fact then that your password is written down, does to a certain important extent, undermine a lot of why passwords are put into place to begin with.

Losing Yourself in Christ

Scripture is full of seemingly puzzling and paradoxical passages such as Matthew 16:25: "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it," which on the surface seems to turn on its head, the typical meaning of life itself.  Yet, with any passage from Jesus the Christ, one must try to understand it, recognizing too, that with many passages, there are layers of interpretation or insight into its true understanding.  First, it seems natural, to want to save one's own life, as our whole being seems to be caught up in our work, our duties, our family and our friends, so that the desire to sustain our own life, would appear to be quite normal, and anything less than that would appear to be wrong.  Yet, when comprehending this passage, recognize too, that no matter how long, how hard, and how much you fight to sustain your life, ultimately, you will lose your physical life itself.  So the question now becomes not so much as to whether you can save your life, which you can, for a time, but instead the question becomes what exactly are you saving?

For, in fact, to save your life, any life, that also compromises the very value of life, in order to save it at that time, proves the point, that although you may have heard the Word, the Word never fully took root within you, and thereby you may have saved your life, while also sacrificing your eternal soul.  Christ makes it clear that he who loses his life, for His sake, will find the ultimate peace and redemption with Christ.  So that, those that do everything within their power, to maintain their temporal existence, as their reason for being, are, in fact, working at odds against Christ. 

This means that for way too many people, there is a fundamental mistake that is made twice over; the first mistake being that the greatest gift that you can apply is your own gift of individuality, that is to say, that your apparent mission in life, is to express yourself, in your own way, at all times, because in that way you are just being true to yourself, and thereby "to thine own self be true".  This, unfortunately, is a somewhat common mistake in a land that professes so loudly the merits of individual freedom, for being true in this instance, should mean being true to all that is right.  Then, there is the second mistake, which is not fully understanding the mission of Christ, to which, when given the opportunity to rule the world, Christ rebuked Satan; and later when Christ was praying in the garden of Gethsemane, He asked His Father for the cup of the cross to be taken away from Him, but at the same time renewed his commitment to acquiesce to His Father's will, which He did.

This then is what is meant by losing your life for His sake; it is an understanding that in His hands, you can never be lost, you can never lose, you can never die but to the physical death, a death that none can escape from, and to recognize that all who come to Christ, all, without exception, have chosen the better way, "and that has made all the difference".

Justice before Power

The most powerful country in the world is America.  Indeed, America is so powerful, both militarily and economically, to which that power extends far beyond all national boundaries. America is literally a world empire, in fact, it can be said, that it is also the greatest and most powerful global empire the world has ever known.  If it was once said, that the sun did not set on the British Empire, today it can truly be said that there is no part of this planet, to which, America is not the ring master of the greatest show on earth.  No country, no matter how big, or populous, no matter its religion, or its people, can be enemies with America, because to be truly at odds with America, will surely mean economic ruin and regime transformation of that country, should America demand that it must be so.

Of course, power is not justice, as power is at its most basic form, is simply force; whereas justice is the pursuit of doing the right thing, applied equally to all, at all times, and for all the right reasons.  To live in a world, to which obeisance must be given to power, and to power alone, is to live in a world without justice and that is the world that we live in.  Not too surprisingly, that has been the nature of the world since the time of man's falling, however, America was suppose to be different, as it was founded on the principle that man has inalienable rights given to us by our Creator and that thereby the primary purpose of our Declaration of Independence, was to declare that the only legitimate government was a government that aided and secured those same inalienable rights.

Instead, America has pursued relentlessly the siren lure of power, always power, because power need not bend to any man, power need not bend to any law, and power need not bend to any establishment, because all of the above must bend or bow to the throne and empire of power itself.  Today's America likes to wrap itself in the cloak of justice, but this cloak is indeed a false one; instead every man and every establishment is potentially subject to all sorts of tragic laws, meaning all sorts of awful things, of which, those in power determine the interpretation of such.

A country that puts power first, above all else, without question will ultimately decline and fall to ruin, because there is neither a moral compass to keep those in authority in check, nor is there respect given from one party to another.  The only thing that can temper power properly is justice, which means properly utilizing and applying the courage to do the right thing over the expedient or the wrong thing.  How many times throughout the history of this world can we ignore the blessed words of Matthew 16:26: "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"  For America to recapture its collective soul, it must now and forevermore renounce its obscene grabs of power and monetary might, and instead gravitate towards its foundational roots, of liberty, justice and equality for all.

Insanely High Limits on Credit Cards

When it comes to credit cards and their limits, there are two basic extremes out there, there are those that barely qualify for a credit card and thereby they are stuck with limits of a mere $300-$500, or enough to put an airline ticket on a credit card, or get a hotel room for a few days, or have available credit as an emergency spending backup and not much more; then there are those that have credit limits of $25,000 or $40,000 or even $100,000 or possibly even more for certain special credit cards that are issued without a preset credit limit.  Clearly, there is a wealth of difference between the two credit extremes, yet we know this truism, that banks are noted for extending bank loans typically to people that really don't need loans, so too this is true for those that are issued insanely high credit card limits, because the banks would not issue such high amounts, unless they had clear documented evidence that the person receiving such high credit card limits had the capacity for paying such.

One important thing to remember about credit cards is that the credit being loaned to the consumer is unsecured against any of that consumer's assets, which means, should things go terribly wrong for the consumer, and ultimately for the bank issuing such card, that in order to recoup their money, that bank will have to take to take active measures to recover those funds, through such possible means as phone calls, collections, and/or court.  All of those actions will cost the banks money, resources, and time, with little hope of collecting even close to 100% of the debt, making one wonder whether it's worth the risk of issuing such high credit limits without some sort of asset protection in the first place. 

The banks do have some protection for the amount of the credit default that they are subject to in the sense that even though they may issue a credit card to you for $40,000, there is often an implied understanding that you as a consumer, will never actually be allowed to "max out" the card to $40,000.  Whereas in most credit card transactions the purchase automatically goes through, in situations when your credit card is being used perhaps more than three times in one day, and/or for amounts that you typically don't charge, and/or in a location of a city that past history shows you are seldom or never at, the credit card spigot will completely y dry out, pending a phone call to that lender, and a conversation ascertaining exactly what you are up to.  So, for example, today  you are buying that super-expensive piece of jewelry and the bill is $25,000, in all likelihood, no matter how pristine your credit, there will probably be a conversation with your lender before the charge is authorizedand goes through.

This leads to the point that a significant part of the reason why high credit card limits are issued, is that the lender wants you to use their card, hoping that you will purchase things that you might not normally purchase precisely because of that credit card, and by doing so your credit card bank can make their merchant's fee on sales that would have never transpired without the higher credit limit.  The bottom line is that higher credit card limits are essentially given to people that have the capacity to pay off those limits, to encourage them to spend more than they might.

Freedom of the Press

Big government and big business make it their business to work together to control and mold the population to as much of a degree as possible, which is why so many of our individual rights of liberty are under assault, and will continue to be under attack for the foreseeable future.  The government-corporate State wants the public to believe that each issue only has two sides, to which they conveniently break it down for us into a liberal/conservative bias or into a right wing/left wing bias, and wish to present to the public the basic premise that one of these two sides must be the right side, so that whichever the selection might be, the State as a whole is satisfied. 

Although the government-corporate State has massive control in regards to the dissemination of news to the general public through cable, radio, TV, print, and the most commonly used online social media websites, they do not have complete control.  The fact of the matter is that no citizen lacks access to alternative viewpoints of all the news that is fit to print, or not fit to print, through all the common distribution systems within America.  As much as the government-corporate State wants to control and to spin news to the credulous public, it ultimately ends up being something akin to whack-a-mole, and it simply can't be done. 

While the consolidation along with the incredible power and influence of media outlets and distribution of such is most definitely cause for concern for lovers of liberty within America, viewpoints of virtually any and all possible flavors, are readily accessible to those that perform even a rudimentary search for it.  The government-corporate State wants to win the minds of all Americans and to marginalize as much as possible those that fall outside their clearly defined lines, but it can't be done, mainly because each American has a right, even a duty, to think, and thinking is the basis of free will which is anathema to State control.

A free press is not something to be taken for granted, as there are many totalitarian countries that make it their policy to control the information that is provided to their populace as much as possible, and in conjunction with that control, to penalize those that have the audacity to challenge those in authority.  A country that has control of the press, is a dangerous place, because it censors the press, which therefore means it censors the mind, and thereby creates two worlds, one that the State believes exists and it owns, and a shadow world of an alternate reality, to which denizens of such, recognize that just one wrong step, can cost them everything.

American citizens desperately want to believe that the government-corporate State treats them fairly, but time and time again, they see that this is not possibly true.  Further to this point, the government-corporate State wants to keep as H.L. Mencken states: "…the populace alarmed…" to which every little thing is a crisis that can only be resolved if the government-corporate State gets a little more power, a little more control, just for a little while, till this one little thing, gets resolved, because they, the government-corporate State really cares about you and they will protect you. 

The thing is though that mass hypnosis of an entire nation can only work, if everyone drinks of the same Kool-Aid, even 90% of the populace is not enough, even 95% is still not enough, for try as they might the government-corporate State can't get to 100%, fundamentally because freedom of the press still breathes strongly within our shores, let it ever be so.

Doomsday Clock

I suspect that most people have never heard of the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board" who are the people that move the hands of the symbolic doomsday clock, which currently reads at 11:57PM, or just three minutes to midnight and apocalypse.  The Board includes seventeen Nobel Laureates, so their scholarly attributes are certainly something to be admired but the doomsday clock which has been in existence since 1947, has never read anything earlier than11:43PM, so for nearly seventy years, we have been minutes away from the final apocalypse, but in fact, we are still here, and so is this planet.

While one can admire the board for perhaps keeping in the mind's eye that we live in a nuclear age to which atomic destruction is literally just a few logistical buttons away at any time, the fact of the matter is, if all you ever do is to put the public at their wit's ends, that the end of the world is just seconds away, but none of that ever happens, you have done a massive disservice to the world at large.  In point of fact, if it's almost always midnight, if we are always on the edge of utter annihilation, but year after year, nothing happens, than by definition, the doomsday clock is a false flag and utterly useless other than a pure propaganda tool.

We live in a world that has gotten much smaller over time, to which virtually any point on the planet can be visited by air or by sea, at any time.  While there are around 195 sovereign nations in the world, of which some of those nations are warring, there is no World War III, nor is World War III, even likely at this point.  What these eminent scholars get so very wrong, is a basic misunderstanding of the power of the world at this time, to which the most vested interest that any world-class leader of any world-class nation has, is to get along with others, because a world that destructs itself, is exceedingly bad for business. 

The doomsday clock makes too much of words, but not of actions, too much of speeches and propaganda, but not of deeds.  Every country as a matter of course, wants a devil to blame for its troubles, so is it no wonder, that east blames west, or north blames south, and vice versa?  What is missing from the doomsday clock scenario is an understanding, a fundamental knowledge, that the most powerful players in the world today are all talking to each other, because at the end of the day, while they may not see things or have philosophies that match the world eye to eye, they do see that there is just one world, and as long as they have some piece of it, they're okay with it.

Had the nuclear age arrived back in the middle ages, or in ancient times, when man often deluded himself into believing that he was a god, or that his country or his people should be the sole master of the world, and that all others therefore were non-believers and should be annihilated for the sake of the chosen people, or as a matter of ideology, than indeed, the doomsday clock would be correct in foreseeing imminent destruction.  In those times, certainly, someone may well have pushed that button of no-return, but fortunately we live in times when mankind is actually more civilized and communicates with those it disagrees with.

In reality, the doomsday clock should be set to something like 2:00AM, because that is the actual reality of the situation, and for that we should be thankful.

Witness Protection: Is it good or even right?

The Federal government Witness Protection program began in 1971, to which the purpose of the creation of this program was basically to protect certain criminals from being harmed or being threatened, in order for these protected criminals to feel safe in testifying against other criminals that they were previously intimately involved with so that by so doing this in a court of law their testimony would often convict these other lawbreakers.  The basic premise of the program is it often takes a criminal on the inside to take down other criminals because that is the only certain way that the prosecutorial arm of the government can obtain both the necessary evidence to convict but also have a prosecutorial witness that is considered to be both reliable and of pertinence to the crimes at hand.  Of course, another way of looking at it is that the government as a matter of course, rewards snitches and turncoats by providing them new identification papers and often a free pass to enjoy life, without suffering the consequences or penalty for what their former criminal actions would necessitate.  This means that the law most definitely treats criminals unequally with some criminals being able to get away with murder, in return for their valued assistance in taking down other criminals that have done the very same thing.

It is one thing to provide witness protection to the innocent bystander and/or the whistle blower, a person that has not done anything wrong, but wishes to see criminal actions punished for what they are, and it is entirely a different thing to take people that have knowingly committed heinous crimes and let them go not just scot-free but with new identification papers that allows them to become part of a community to which none of the other residents have an inkling or a clue that the person that lives next door to them is, in fact, a bona-fide dangerous criminal, himself.

As bad as that is, it gets even worse, when you consider that there are many thousands of Americans, good people all, that wish for a reset button in their life, a chance to start their credit history over, a chance to live in a new community with a fresh start, and a chance to let go of the past which has been a hindrance to them and to begin life anew.  Unfortunately, this opportunity is simply not available, because unlike the criminals that get fresh starts for turning against their former cohorts, these Americans are not part and parcel of criminal enterprises.

There is too yet another problem with the entire Witness Protection program and that is if the government has the power to give certain designated people all the identification as well as other necessary documents and further the wherewithal to make a living in a new community, who is to say, that this same power can't be used over and over again, for any individual that the government wishes to favor in such a manner.   The government, as always, often starts a program with good intentions, but too often programs morph into something completely different.   The Witness Protection program gives off the very distinct scent of corruption and gives away way too much for those that have sacrificed way too little.

The United States Makes the Best Military Equipment/Why Not the Best Cars

The United States spends far more on military expenditures than any other country in the world; they too are also by far the largest exporter of military equipment than any other country in the world.  Yet, when it comes to the manufacturer of consumer cars and trucks, the United States is not the industry leader in sales, or reliability, or on any other metric that could possibly be thought of.  How is it possible that America is so proficient and skilled in providing military equipment which countries all over the world readily use to protect and defend their country, but on the other hand are so easily surpassed in quality in regards to passenger vehicles?

One way to answer that question is to say that quite obviously the sophistication and knowhow behind military equipment does not necessarily translate the same for consumer cars, which is true, but what is also true is fundamentally military equipment must be reliable, accurate, and effective for its given task or its utility is suspect.  This means that the same care, testing, and redundancy so often put to good use for military articles should be part and parcel in regards to the manufacture of consumer vehicles.  This means that in reality, the cars manufactured in the United States, should often be industry leaders in regards to performance, sustainability, and reliability, but not in cost.  That is to say, in short, the very best cars in the world and the most state-of-the-art vehicles should be being built right here in America, to which our knowledge gained from stringent military testing and knowhow should in one sense or another be translatable into the cars that we sell and drive.

The United States spends an incredible amount of money on research and development for the military industrial complex year after year, to which no country in the world is even in the ballpark of our dedication to such.  While, no doubt, the bulk of such expenditures mainly have relevance for the military sector, there are also many items or new usage of materials that have immense crossover appeal to the consumer vehicle market in the sense of not only the sophistication of the instrumentation created but also the blending of materials and chemicals in such a way that strength is added while at the same time losing bulk or weight, so that these new amalgamations are a very good fit for vehicles.

The military industrial complex should have an obligation to more often spend time and share resources with our domestic vehicle manufacturers so that each may benefit the other, and ultimately so that the United States can consistently built some of the very best vehicles in the world, that encompass sophistication and knowhow that only can come from the combined efforts of our military equipment manufacturers and domestic vehicle manufacturers actually working together for that very purpose.

There is no reason why our tax dollars should not as a matter of course, help to benefit our domestic as well as our defense manufacturers, since strength comes not only from military might, but also from creating the best products that can be bought throughout the world.

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.