Core Inflation Nonsense

How many times have you been listening to your radio or reading an article or watching some pundit on television talking about the present day inflation rate but then qualifying it though, by stating that such and such stated inflation rate, has taken out volatile items such as energy and housing, leaving us with something that they then call "core inflation", whatever that might mean. It seems to me that if you are going to drop out certain items from the Consumer Price Index (CPI) because they are too volatile, by virtue of their price dropping too low,  too quickly, or rising too high, too fast, you are missing almost the entire boat of what inflation is really suppose to measure.

What inflation should measure is the change in the CPI irrespective of whether certain items are volatile or not, because that is the reality of the situation, and should be recognized for what it is worth.  That is to say, if gasoline prices go up suddenly, the money that you are paying for gasoline out of your pocket has changed, and that change is immediately felt in your pocketbook, and to ignore that change as being volatile or seasonal or whatever, misses the entire point.

While it is a given, that calculating the CPI is not going to ever be easy, no matter how it is done, it becomes even more problematic when one recognizes that consumers are intelligent enough to adjust or downsize in response to certain trends or unexpected things.  For instance, if meat suddenly becomes super-expensive because of a massive recall of beef contaminated with e-coli, then a certain percentage of consumers will probably purchase less meat and find instead meat substitutes.  In fact, this is going to be true of a lot of consumer items and that change in consumer habits, whether temporary or permanent, trending for a short period of time or not, is extremely difficult to quantify, yet somehow that must be accounted for in order to quantify and/or qualify the appropriate current inflation rate.

The fact is that consumers have a lot of discretion on a lot of things that they purchase or utilize on an everyday level, but conversely there are also certain items and things that they have very little flexibility on, and it is these items especially that the government should pay careful attention to; which would in particular be housing, taxes, insurance, healthcare, and energy.  These items should actually be the main ingredient of true core inflation and should be monitored, smoothed, and adjusted as necessary, but however that is done by those economists the end result must accurately reflect and be accounted into the official government CPI level.

Instead, we are basically given information about inflation which strips out the most meaningful components to the index because the government for whatever reasons does not want to own up to any inconvenient truths.  For instance, in 2008, both housing and oil plummeted to phenomenal depths over a very short period of time, with the Case–Shiller housing index dropping from 170.09 in 2007 to 133.97 in 2008, as for oil it was price at $97.91 on January 4, 2008 and closed at $44.60 on December 31, 2008.   The government, however, claimed that the inflation rate for 2008 was 0.1% which was absolutely ludicrous, considering that housing and energy both cratered, as well as the fact that America verged on the edge of a financial meltdown.

In summary, this means that the CPI index as published is in actuality a shell game, with the basic thought process being that in order to prevent panic or uprising by the population at large, keep giving the credulous public that same old song and dance.

Cell Phones, Distractions, and Balance

It seems  nowadays that just about everyone has a cell phone and that most people use their cell phones a lot, while there are some that even seem to use their cell phone all of the time, no matter what else they may be doing besides just talking, surfing, or texting.   The thing is conversations can be distracting, depending upon the attention that you pay to the conversation, and anytime that you look down at your cell phone to read a text, look up a contact, check your facebook, or write a text, you are, by definition, taking your eyes off of something else and that too can be a problem.

The first problem with cell phones is where to place the phone such as, for example, holding it in one of your hands, pretty much no matter whatever else that you're doing, or have it holstered, or have it in a separate spot while using blue tooth for your conversations and texts, or the worst of them all, having your phone in one hand and almost in front of your face, while you are in motion. The thing is that if you are in motion and one of your hands is holding your phone, and if in addition, that phone is blocking one of your eyes or possibly both, your visual motion cues whether you are walking, driving, baby sitting, or whatnot, have been compromised.  This means that activities that you would normally be paying vital attention to, such as stairs, sidewalks, lampposts, pedestrians, other drivers, and so forth, are either barely getting the attention necessary to deal with them prudently or being simply placed into a "I got this" zone, when you most definitely do not have it under control.

It's difficult to determine how many car accidents, pedestrian accidents, falls, and so forth, are caused or contributed greatly by the improper usage of cell phones when moving about.  The bottom line is most people want to believe that they are always under control when it comes to multi-tasking, and that whatever small distraction that a cell phone might bring to the table, they through their superhuman instincts and razor-sharp reflexes will always have the appropriate counter-response to whatever comes their way.

The thing is that there are two basic problems with this thesis: one is that even ordinary conversations to which your attention is hardly diverted away from what you are currently involved with, can almost without notice, switch over to something that is far more intense, which engages your conscious mind and focal point to such an extent that all other tasks and visual clues are pushed far to the background.  Then there is the second problem which is by virtue of having a phone in your hand or in your hand and blocking all or part of your visual field, you are, if walking, placing yourself into a position where your balance can be lost in such a short period of time that to in order to recover from that particular misstep it may be too late to prevent a fall, and now with your valuable cell phone in one hand, you may subconsciously be reluctant to release or slow to release that same valuable phone in order to properly brace your fall.  In addition, should you be driving, you may find that road conditions have changed to such an alarming degree, that you need to slam on your brakes, or jerk your steering wheel to maintain your lane, and so forth.

What it comes down to is that using a cell phone is not a free ride that enables you to do all the things that you desire to do without any negative consequences.  In fact, there are definitely trade-offs, whether recognized or not, to which negatively impacting your visual field and/or always having one hand gripping a cell phone are not wise choices.

Uber, Lyft and Taxi Drivers

How many times have we heard these words, "life isn't fair"?  The reason that we hear that so often is the fact that often our perceptions indicate to us, whether legitimately or not, that life is not fair, that there appears to be rules unfairly applied and/or unequally enforced.  Take, for instance, the taxi wars, in which consumers can now utilize services from companies such as Uber or Lyft, to go from point A to point B, and so forth.  While this certainly feels like a win for consumers, this would imply strongly that there are losers in this game too.

The biggest loser in the Uber war is the entire taxi cab industry, from the managers, to investors, to State and city coffers, to employees, and to maintenance personnel, in which all of these people and entities are most definitely being impacted in a negative way and seem to be on the wrong side of time.  The thing is that is hardly a surprising result because when government allows one entity to play under different rules and regulations than another entity, the side that has the more favorable rules is going to be in the driver's seat.  This is, in a nutshell the exact situation in which taxi cab companies are regulated by city, State, and county officials, and have specific rules in regards to disabled-accessible vehicles, workers' compensation, work hours, unionization, limitation of medallions and car fleets, and so on. 

Another big loser in the Uber wars is the drivers of the vehicles themselves, to which, they are deceived into believing that being a Uber driver is somehow going to allow them to make good money, while being treated as independent contractors, responsible for their vehicle upkeep, gasoline, insurance, maintenance, and with no guarantees of a sustainable income as market forces primarily determine the compensation for Uber drivers at any given time.  The fact of the matter is, while there isn't anything wrong with being or desiring to be an Uber driver, realistically, this means that what you are desiring to be is a taxi driver in all but name, and thereby making the type of income, that a taxi driver would make on an hourly basis but without any employee benefits because you are not an employee of Uber.

Most people can find some justification for whatever actions that they take, to which I suppose, that when it comes to utilizing Uber, people talk up the convenience, the seamless usage of an app on their phone, the payment structure, the front seat, the experience, the quality of the vehicle, respect for the business disrupter, capitalism, and so forth, when in actuality, it mainly comes down to the point that Uber is cheaper and will save them money.  Uber, itself, would not exist without the massive amount of money behind them from venture capitalists, who rather than being seen as some sort of hero for opening up alternatives to taxi's; should be seen for what they really are, conducting business which relies on its success by playing under rules that favor them at the expense of the taxi industry, while also successfully exploiting their independent contractors, to do all the labor for them, while they make the easy money by taking a nice piece of every transaction.

"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the State but from the hand of God"

The above quotation would probably get many speakers at College campuses removed forthwith from the stage as advocating the supremacy of God, over the secular rights of mankind, and by virtue of this sentiment, clearly be in direct violation of the separation of Church and State.  Oh, how America has degenerated into a land that spends an inordinate amount of time trying to stamp out God and religious activities in everyday life, in the false belief that God's place in this world is only in the House of God, and nowhere else.  What absolute bunk!

To demonstrate conclusively the degeneracy of American values in the last fifty-odd years, that quotation above, comes not from some pundit from a religious program, or some professor at a religious school, or a historian trying to be provocative, but in fact, came from a politician.  This particular politician, ran for the Presidency of the United States of America, and in so doing was elected, and upon his election he stated in his First Inaugural Address that: "And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." 

The President that made this statement in his Inaugural Address made it clear that the United States fundamentally in its government, in its Constitution, and in its republic, recognized that the rights that we hold so dearly, that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, come from the very hand of God and not via the State.  Further, this fundamental truth is so important and so vital, that for world peace and harmony, this innate knowledge must be spread, learned, acknowledged and implemented by all nations and principalities, so that the oppressive hand of the State can be removed and invalidated, being replaced instead by the guiding light and truth of God.

Unfortunately, that is not the direction that the world has turned, as the leader of the free world, America, has instead made it a point to marginalize God in such a way so as to make the State the preeminent and all-knowing entity that all must pay obeisance to.  This is a mistake of epic proportions which, if continued, can only lead to the destruction, collapse, and ruination of America, itself.

What far too many citizens fail to recognize, is if all of our fundamental rights come from the State, and not from God, than what the State has given to us, can just as easily be taken away from us.  Further to this point, whatever that the State demands of us, we must adhere to, because as part of this bastardized worldview, we are subservient to the State, itself, and whatever the State deems to be right is right, and what the State deems to be wrong is wrong, no matter our own beliefs. 

In the end, there can only be one boss, and that is either the State or God, there is no other way.  The State can exist as an adjunct to God, as an adjunct to the natural rights that we are each gifted by God, but if the State instead legislates God out of existence, then the State stands at opposition to God, and that foundation, rests on sand, and will end in the only way that it possibly can.

On January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy in his Inaugural Address recognized the sovereignty of God, a self-evident truth, unfortunately today, that truth more often than not, is a light that many important and influential Americans are trying to extinguish, so as to plunge mankind back into the darkness of ignorance and oppression.

The Needless Tokyo Firebombing of March 9, 1945

On December 7, 1941, the forces of the Empire of Japan launched a successful surprise attack against Pearl Harbor, which resulted in the sinking or running aground of eighteen US military ships, and the death and injuries of nearly 3700 Americans, of which the vast majority, were military personnel.  Since, at the time of this attack, Japan and America were not at war, the death of these soldiers were non-combatants, and because the attack was a surprise, FDR declared that this was "… a date which will live in infamy."   While there are a lot of things one can say about the attack at Pearl Harbor, it was without question, a military attack upon American military resources, made in the hope that the American naval forces would be irreparably damaged in the Pacific theatre. 

Japan, initially, was quite successful in their military excursions, as they were victorious in battles and conquest of strategic resources in the Philippines, Hong Kong, Singapore, and other nation states.  Alas, for Japan, their success would not last, as the Allied forces, in particular American forces, would battle back and retake and reclaim areas that had been ceded to Japan.  Not too surprisingly, because this was war and Japan was a fierce fighter, many American men died as they borne the battle on behalf of their country, the Allied nations, and freedom.

By March of 1945, the outcome of the war with Japan was clear, yet the Americans had lost many good men at a terrible cost in hand-to-hand combat as they had taken back island by island, areas previously commanded by Japanese forces.  This meant in actuality that there was no military justification for the firebombing of Tokyo, just as there would later be no military justification for the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  The planning of the firebombing of Tokyo, was deliberate, and carefully thought out so as to inflict as much damage as possible; it was also stunningly effective, as about three hundred B-29 bombers dropped nearly 1700 tons of bombs that completely annihilated 16 square miles of Tokyo, resulting in the deaths of approximately 100,000 civilians, the injuries to perhaps another 50,000, and homelessness for an additional 1 million civilians, during the ensuring massive firestorm.

General LeMay is credited with the strategic planning and the implementation of not only this firebombing attack but subsequent firebombing attacks against other Japanese cities.  LeMay was alleged to have said: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.” Not too surprisingly, American history has been written so as to emphasize the "infamy" of Japan's naval attack upon our most strategically important Pacific naval base, whereas any discussion of America's deliberate and wanton firebombing of Japanese civilians, is couched in terms of having to do so in order to destroy the "cottage" war production of certain Japanese cities and other assorted justified nonsense.

We are now seventy years removed from these firebombing attacks upon Japan, which should with strong justification be seen as both cruel and as unusual punishment.  It would be one thing to then say, well, that was then, and this is now, but the fact of the matter is, America has not lost its lust of targeting and dropping devastating bombs on other countries, always finding some shaky justification to do so, but never having the courage to admit of the sickening effect that the bombing has on the suffering civilians that have received our terrible swift sword, and the living hell we have gifted to them.

The GED, High School, and Free Public Education

In America, not everyone graduates high school, in which it is currently estimated that just 81% of Americans graduate high school.  The problem with not graduating high school is that your job opportunities, job employment, and income are all correlated strongly with educational achievements, so that those without a high school diploma or equivalent are subject to the worst of these conditions, with an employment and earning future being considerably more circumspect than those with at least a high school diploma or equivalent.  In fact, not even the military at this point, will accept you as a recruit without a high school diploma or a General Education Development (GED) certificate.

So a person without a high school diploma will not only have a future with far dimmer prospects, it also means, implicitly, that they probably are not competent or need assistance in such basic tasks as reading, writing, and arithmetic, all meaning that because of their lack of education, other institutions that they will deal with in the fabric of life, will more easily be able to exploit them.  Fortunately, there is a sort of second chance opportunity for those that missed their chance or failed to get their high school diploma, for one reason or another, and that is the GED exam.

While it can be said, that the passing of a GED is basically considered to be the equivalent of a high school diploma, it is never, however, perceived as being better than a high school diploma, as for instance, for those trying to enlist in the military, a GED is classified as Tier 2, as compared to a high school diploma application which is classified as Tier 1. A GED also means for the person achieving it that they have had to take a five-part GED exam on their own time, with their own money, and further that they have passed the examination in all of its categories in order to receive the GED qualification.

This then brings up the basic point that since a public high school education is free of cost and is superior to a GED in the first place, and further that a high school diploma is the touchstone to basic employment opportunities, functionally literacy, and income, than why wouldn't everyone want to buckle down and get that high school diploma to begin with.  Yet, each year, many students drop out of high school, or perhaps it should be stated, begin to transition out of schooling, way before high school, and subsequently receive no diploma and minimal education.

It would be one thing if the students dropping out of school did so because they had pressing family obligations such as farm work, or something similar, but in point of fact, most students dropping out suffer from one or many of the following issues: low socio-economic level, dysfunctional family problems, drug/alcohol/family abuse, peer pressure, immaturity and poor decision making, lack of language skills, psychological problems, and substandard schools/teachers.

In America, most everybody likes things that are free.  Our public educational schools are one of those things that are not only free but will help to educate you and make you a better person as you learn to develop the skill-set that you need in order to excel or at least hold your own in the real world.  By all means, if it isn't too late to get yourself a high school diploma, than do so, and if not, then study, apply and get yourself a GED, because without either, you will find the world to be desperately harsh and unforgiving.

Porn Sites and the Law

While people can certainly still go to brick and mortar stores and purchase pornography, for the most part, the overwhelming majority of pornography, whether purchased or viewed is now done over the internet.  This does present several problems from both the viewer/purchaser perspective as well as the actual website/owner operator.  For instance, most people viewing or purchasing porn, no matter how the porn is labeled, presume that what they are viewing or purchasing is legal to do so, especially if they do not download, copy, or purchase anything, but only view it.  This viewpoint is not legally correct, as the First Amendment does not cover or protect you from viewing child pornography or things that are judged to be "obscene".  In regards to obscenity, for the most part, prosecution authorities typically do not pursue cases of this sort, for whatever reason, although the laws on the books allow them to do so.  As for child pornography, at the present day, this is aggressively prosecuted and appears to be the only area of the porn industry that the justice system consistently acts against.

In regards to the actual website that provides the porn for viewing and/or purchase, with the exception of the basic boilerplate legal notice disclaimer, if you are of age to view porn, you may do so, without having to show demonstrative proof that you are of age.  This means that the barrier of entry for the viewer is virtually non-existent.  Additionally, while there are adult web sites that have legal disclaimers on their porn in regards to having verifiable proof of the legal ages of the performers in the videos that are being viewed, the vast majority of porn sites, have no such disclaimer or legal notice, whatsoever embedded into the video. This means that the viewer or purchaser of most porn online is assuming that everything that is being viewed or purchased is both legal as well as being authorized, but that assumption is often misplaced.

In point of fact, porn web sites, should have to prove a couple of things to their viewers, such as first that the sexual actions being view or purchased are legal to begin with, which means, by definition, that they cannot be hosting or storing any child pornography whatsoever, and additionally that all images/videos being shown/sold are not obscene and legally authorized.  Also, and very importantly, each video clip should state that the performers in it are of age, that there are records that prove this, and further that these performers have each provided written and expressed permission for the usage of, the reproduction of, the distribution of, or the exhibition of this particular performance for the time period, so indicated.

There isn't any real good reason for the government to assume that these hosting websites showing and distributing porn have the legal right to do so, where often, that legality would appear to be seriously in question.  The thing about digital media is that it can be copied, edited, re-posted, and modified, ad nauseam, so that the actual ownership of such product or legal right to distribute it, is murky, at best. 

The porn genie was let out of the bottle, a couple of decades ago, and in the internet age it has morphed into something that lacks any semblance of control.  However, there can be control in the porn world, and that control begins with the enforcing of basic legal copyright laws such as: who owns this, who has the rights to this, and what are/are not the distribution rights to it; and those that cannot prove satisfactorily that they have said ownership rights or authorized permission, and further are not in violation of Constitutional law, should be put out of business or held accountable.

Live longer--Discipline your eating Habits

Numerous studies have been done on rats, mice, and monkeys that demonstrated when restricted to a diet that reduced their normal caloric intake but still provided a healthy and balance diet, that these animals lived considerably longer and were in much better physical health than animals that did not have these same dietary restrictions.  In fact, the evidence indicates that a diet low in sucrose in conjunction with a diet that doesn't permit overindulgence promotes healthier animals that suffer far less from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes.

In regards to humans, more people than ever are living to 100 and beyond in the world today, in which, for industrialized nations, Japan has the highest percentage of centenarians.    Not too surprisingly, Japan has a far lower incidence of obese people as compared to countries such as the United States, in which, only 3.4% of Japanese are obese, whereas America's obese level is over 30%.  Additionally, by taking a careful look at healthy senior citizens, that are still vibrant and getting about on their own power, they are, on the whole, those that maintain a desirable body weight.

In America, there are many people who strongly desire to live both long and healthy lives, but there is often astrong disconnect in believing that doing so, is in their control, but often times it really is.  The fact of the matter is that what we eat, how we eat, and how much we eat, has a strong correlation to our overall physical health and weight.  This correlation has been proven in animals that have 96% of their DNA in common with humans, which strongly signifies that this is something that should be paid attention to.

Humans are creatures of habit which often comes from their environment, their family, peers, and their natural inclinations.  Just because we, as humans, have been doing something for a number of years, which has become a habit for us, does not mean that that particular habit is beneficial for us or right. A man's mind, his beliefs, and his actions are powerful things, so that patterns are not easy to break, but break they can be, if we so desire it.

In a world in which we too often just look at things from a very short term perspective, it is easy to put off doing certain things and creating certain habits that will be beneficial for us in the long term, by simply not being concerned about the long term overall or by simply following in line by rote habit.  When it comes to food, there is a belief for some people that food is pleasure, or should be a culinary pleasure, or a social exercise, or satisfaction, or a combination of all or some of these things, but food is too important to our overall health to leave to blithe ignorance. 

Living a longer and healthier life is not about starving one self, but is definitely about being more diligent in consuming a diet of healthy foods, which typically means a significant reduction in refined carbohydrates, as well as avoiding added sugars, and all foods that have had their good nutrients bleached out from their product.  The foods that we eat and how much that we eat, most definitely matter, and those that adhere to this law, will more often than not, live longer and healthier.

Let the Dollar Be Backed by Oil

The United States government use to back the dollar with gold, but in the depths of the depression, FDR took the United States off of the gold standard in 1933, with the additional requirement by law that all citizens that had either gold bullion, coin, or certificates must redeem those items by May 1, 1933, at the redemption price of $20.67 per ounce.  Then, in 1934, the United States returned to the gold standard, and set the price of gold at $35/ounce, effectively inflating the price of gold by 69%, which simultaneously took away real assets from people that had redeemed their gold by deflating their net worth with the new government manipulated increase in gold pricing.  The price of gold remained stable, though, by law until 1971, when President Nixon took America off of the gold standard, once and for all, to which the country since that time has not returned to it. 

Today, our country has a deficit of approximately $17,810 billion dollars, whereas in 1971 the deficit was under $400 billion dollars. Today, gold is worth $1323/ounce whereas the price was previously fixed at $35/ounce.  The dollars that we use to conduct our business and financial transactions today, states that: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."  The note, aka the dollar, is backed by the Federal Reserve, it is not redeemable in gold or any other specie, and is primarily backed by government debt, issued in the form of US treasuries, and their equivalencies.  Since 1971, America has had double-digit inflation in four different years, although none during this current millennium.

The fundamental problem with the issuance and use of dollars today as our currency is that there is no real foundational soundness backing the value of the dollar, other than that it seems to work, even though the overall deficit that we have accumulated year by year has gotten larger and larger, with little or no constraints on this government largess and mismanagement of the commonweal.  In order to rein in this free spending mindset that is in essence sticking future generations with debt created by the present generation and those before it, the dollar should be constrained and this could be done by using oil or possibly other domestic natural resources as the backing for the dollar.

The thing about oil is that America has a good abundance of it, to which America is now, once again the largest oil producer in the world.  Additionally, oil, bar none, is the most important commodity in the world and has been the most important commodity in the world for a century; in addition, fundamentally much of this nation's success, power, and wealth, is due to the successful exploration and exploitation of petroleum. 

It is only natural then, that there should be a formal union of oil with the United States dollar, which will by its effectiveness, constrain the Federal government from running amok, and force it to get its fiscal house in order.  This would not only stabilize America, but would also allow, the US dollar to continue to be the monetary medium of value for other countries to establish their currencies against, so that, in effect, America's oil-backed dollar would become a true stable value as an international currency reserve.

Food Is Fuel

Our physical body needs food and water in order to survive, and in the absence of these things, starvation, followed soon by death will be the end result.  In general, most people have a pretty good idea, that their automobiles will only run on the appropriate fuel for that car, which is why, you don't see people filling up their gas tanks with water, or other stupid stuff, which will ruin their car; as well as in general, people understand that proper care and maintenance are fundamental keys for sustaining not only life in general, but material things that we utilize each and every day.  This then leads to the question; if we are intelligent enough to recognize that things of some worth to us have specific requirements to maintain them in good condition, than we probably too want to treat our body as if it really matters vitally to us by making good decisions.

For instance, most people understand that excessive smoking and excessive drinking, will take their toll on our bodies to which we will suffer from cancer, or cirrhosis of the liver, or other associated physical ills, not to mention that it will likely impair our judgments and damage family relations.  So too does excessive caloric intake which will over a period of time, increase our body fat, our girth, and our weight, to such an extent that the extra weight that we carry upon our physiques will take a toll on our bodies to the point that we may be prone to suffer from diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease, as well as often having lower self esteem.

The thing is that the foods that we consume each and every day most definitely have an outcome on not only our physical health, but our mental well being, psychological feelings, and overall demeanor.  This means, that all things being equal, we should want to consume the foods that are more beneficial for us, and to try to stay away from the foods that are detrimental to us, as quite obviously, not all foods are the same in substance or effect for our physical body.  The finding and the knowing of which foods that are more desirable to partake of, isn't necessarily very easy, as we are inundated everyday with all sorts of commercials, ads, and propaganda, that appeal to the emotional parts of our being, to which beneath the surface, the product may or may not be profitable for us.

Additionally, news reports, media, books, and friends, provide us with all sorts of contradictory information, that even if we are quite diligent about eating the "right" foods that the definition of "right" appears to be in flex all of the time.  If we think that we can short circuit this process by simply only eating foods that taste good to us, we often will find that people will gravitate, most unfortunately to things that are sweet as opposed to neutral or bitter tasting foods, and sweet foods, in particular processed sweet foods, because of their sugar content have been shown to be almost conclusively not good for our bodies.

The thing is our body is our own, and ultimately it's up to us to make good food choices, and to then implement those choices into our diet.  After all, food is fuel, and we should want to run our body on the fuel that is most beneficial for us or clearly understand the tradeoffs if we don’t.

Evolution is real

America is a country founded on religious principles, to which we are reminded that each of us is born with inalienable rights, yet the way that today's western evolution is taught is at contradistinction to that mindset.  That is to say, far too many scientists and far too many textbooks, take a certain perverse pleasure in describing how somehow living organisms originated from some primordial soup, which ultimately led to human life, itself.  This theory is fundamentally flawed, however, on two very basic and important levels.

First, there is an old Latin saying, ex nihilo, which means "out of nothing", which signifies in its statement that you cannot create anything at any time from nothing, ever!  For every cause there is a beginning, or if there was not a beginning, than that must mean it existed always and always will exist.  Further, anytime that there is a beginning, than there must so too be an end, and by definition, that end would signify that what was there from the beginning had in its makings, its inevitable end.

While evolution is real in the sense that life evolved over time, through the adaptation to its environment, and through natural selection, to then from that statement believe that material life is all there ever was and all there ever will be is a falsehood of immense proportions.  The propaganda that is spread so prevalently by so many people of such high intelligence, but apparently also of low common sense, is that somehow you can create consciousness out of nothing.  Further to this point, there is a fundamental mistaken belief that evolution somehow proves God does not exist, to which, those that believe in such nonsense, miss the entire purpose of human life on this plane, completely.

Evolution can be looked upon as progress, with many a false step here or there, but over long extended periods of time, a relentless pursuit of adaptation that proves the adage that this world truly does represent the survival of the fittest.  If the lower forms can adapt and evolve over time, why not then, would this law not hold true for mankind, itself?

In point of fact, evolution does hold true for mankind, to which man, has an innate desire to seek out truth and light.  For scientists, this often seems to mean, and only means, a natural progression through natural laws, without the guidance of any Higher Being; but this type of thinking is a falsehood, because where does your consciousness come from; it cannot come from nothing, it cannot come from the evolution of mere material matter, it must come and does come from the breath of God, Himself. 

Most die-hard evolutionists believe strongly that man is the measure of himself.  This is a pathetic joke and hubris on man's part. The whole purpose of man's evolution on earth is to find his way back to God, while also lending a hand to his fellow man in so doing.  None of this can be achieved without the ability to communicate, relate, and to understand the essence of one another.  Those that believe that evolution is strictly a material process get caught up into a material world, a world that will entrap them and confuse them, and they will therefore never break free from the delusions of this world until such time that they come to recognize the avatars that have come upon this earth time and time again, are here even now, that state as simply and succinctly as possible, the purpose of evolution is to re-unite your true self with God, and that is all.

Calories are not all equal

Scientists and the government gets things wrong all of the time, to which as a consumer and as a human being, we must always be vigilant in recognizing that not everything that we are taught, is the truth.  Sometimes, information is wrongly applied, sometimes information is just plain wrong, and sometimes information is misinterpreted, and when it comes to calories, pretty much all of these things are true.  A calorie as defined by Merriam-Webster is: "a unit of heat used to indicate the amount of energy that foods will produce in the human body."   I suspect that definition, in of itself, will surprise people, who are actually completely clueless about what a calorie is. Now, because the human body is a complicated and masterful piece of work, to which because of the biochemical reactions within the human body when processing food, it is not possible for all foods to be assimilated exactly the same, you come across the basic calorie conundrum.

While the fundamental premise from scientists/government is that a calorie is a calorie that is one of those regrettable half-truths, that is dangerous for all those that do not know the full truth, which is that all calories are not the same, because different calories are treated differently within the human body. To the point, scientists have conducted numerous experiments that measure and test the effect of different dietary restrictions on animals that are similar in biochemical makeup to human beings, to which they have definitely determined that it isn't the caloric quantity or amount that matters, but the substance of the calories themselves.

This means that most diets and exercise programs get it all wrong when it comes to reducing weight, in which the basic belief from these pundits is that to reduce weight comes down to simple mathematics.  That is to say, they first determine the normal amount of calorie intake that your body needs to maintain its weight on a daily basis while also possibly formulating a program which adds on some bodily exercise, and then they reduce your daily caloric intake, accordingly.  This means, that with lower caloric intake, you will actually lose weight, which is true, and your ability to continue to lose weight or to maintain your weight loss simply comes down to being disciplined, and nothing much more, which is also true.  The problem, though, the fundamental problem with this type of approach if it is done to perfection, will be that it typically works for a while, until it no longer works, because the person under this caloric intake reduction program simply can't overcome the constant hunger that they feel within their body.

Instead, when it comes to losing weight and for general good health, one should not be focusing exclusively on caloric intake, but should instead be focusing mainly on the content of the calories.  The fact of the matter is that the human body and mind, treats and processes foods differently, based on the food that is being consumed.  That is to say, not all calories are equal, because foods are not equal.   In order to lose weight then, one needs to reduce their intake of bad foods and bad calories, and to replace them with good foods and good calories.  This means pretty much the obvious, that eating ice cream of 500 calories is not the same as eating a steak of 500 calories.

This leads to the point that our food choices do matter, which means that the consumption of foods that have limited or virtually no nutritional benefits should be eliminated or significantly reduced, and instead should be replaced with foods which have known nutritional value. 

The Exploitation of Middle Eastern Oil

No matter how you slice it, oil is the most important commodity in the world and will probably continue to be the most important commodity in the world for the foreseeable future. Not only is oil the most valuable fuel in the world, so that without it, economies would quickly falter and then decay, but its incumbent uses such as in plastics, roadways, chemical products, and so forth, are seemingly endless.   While nations can be successful without strong domestic oil reserves, such as Japan, Germany, and France, there are then also nations with strong strategic reserves that are rich simply because of their oil wealth, and for no other discernible reason, such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait.

Because of the dual value of oil, to which simply having it and successfully exploiting oil will increase the wealth of your nation, as well as in the usage of it domestically, which provides jobs, stability, growth, modernity, infrastructure and all the incumbent advantages of being in control of a reliable, consistent, and inexpensive fuel source forming a solid basis for a nation; oil is, by definition and practicality, that incredibly valuable commodity that greatly influences the outcome of wars and of wealth, along with its inherent weaknesses of corruption and the exploitation of nations.

Western nations are very good at many things, and certainly one of those many things, is in the exploitation of those that are ignorant of the true value of certain commodities and goods.  While it might seem amusing that valuable jewels, minerals, and furs were traded by illiterate savages in yesteryear for mere trinkets and cooking utensils, it isn't so amusing when blowback comes back to haunt you.  For instance, the House of Saud, made a formal agreement with Standard Oil of California in 1933, to which, Standard Oil was granted exclusive rights to the oil in the eastern desert, which later proved to be the greatest oil find in the 20th century.  While Standard Oil, later to be known in its partnership with the house of Saud as the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) provided monies and funds to Saudi Arabia in return for its oil, the main intricacies of the negotiation wasn't really with Saudi Arabia, but with Great Britain, so that these countries jointly would be able to exploit and extract whatever amounts of oil that they could from the Middle East for their mutual benefit.

Not too surprisingly, domestic oil companies while working in partnership with foreign nations, found it to their benefit to negotiate with countries that had a political structure in which the power and resource control were held in the hands of the elite few, as opposed to truly democratic countries. This meant too that the United States in conjunction with oil companies, made it their policy to supply whatever that needed to be supplied logistically, militarily, strategically in such a way that America's access to cheap middle eastern oil would not be tampered with by middle eastern nations, reneging on their contractual obligations to this country.  By virtue of this mindset, American companies were able to exploit and to profit by billions of dollars from their favorable deals as well as providing military supplies, communications, and technology to protect or uphold these foreign oil regimes from foes, both domestic as well as foreign.

While Middle Eastern nations have asserted more sovereignty over their own affairs in recent years, they are, to a large extent, still at the mercy of the technology and infrastructure of Western nations and their immense power, to which the tentacles of the West reach into virtually every aspect of their lives, their politics, and their country, and with the massive amounts of money that oil represents, corruption is absolutely rampant, meaning for the most part, that countries such as Saudi Arabia are in so deep that they could not possibly extricate themselves from the West; while the massive wealth inequality breed inside their restrictive country sets the stage for citizen revolt and upheaval that very well may shake the very foundations of this world.

The All Important Difference between Darwin and Wallace

Unless you are in the scientific field, a good student, or someone that knows their history fairly well, you probably aren't familiar with the name, Alfred Russel Wallace, whereas the name, Charles Darwin, is a name that most everyone is both familiar with as well as having a general idea of the fact that he is the man behind the origin of theory of evolution and natural selection.  The thing of it is, though, although Darwin seemingly gets all the accolades, each biologist actually independently came up with the theory of natural selection, although there were differences between the two, with Wallace emphasizing more the adaption of species to their environment, as compared to Darwin and his belief in the survival of the fittest, as well as species changing via sexual selection.   That said, the two biologists had their papers read at the Linnean Society of London in 1858, to which the society stated that, "The gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet…" 

Nowadays, if this sort of thing would have happened, as in a "co-discovery" and "independent," it might have well have degenerated quickly into an all-out fight as to who was first, original, and so forth, but fortunately those Victorian times were different and far more genteel.  The fact of the matter is that Wallace was entirely gracious to Darwin, his social superior in class conscious England, but at the same time Wallace never felt upstaged or in egotistical need for his name to be emblazoned in glory.  Above all else, Wallace was a colleague, a scientist, a biologist, a naturalist, as well as being a reserved man, who felt more comfortable standing behind "Darwinism" than being front and center with it, with Wallace, himself, clearly being a man who appreciated those that advanced science for the benefit and education of mankind.

The theory of evolution, however, was something that for a religious society, especially those of a religious stripe that took their Scripture as the literal truth, was both of momentous as well as terrifying importance for the meaning of mankind, itself.  For Darwin, man, was subject to the same laws of other species, to which mankind must therefore too have descended from earlier species, which in our case meant the great ape family, signifying that man, himself, had evolved from apes.  It was that type of admission, or theory that would obviously create havoc for both the meaning of man, as well as to man's status in the world.  That is to say, if man was merely a creature that had somehow evolved over time, this could conceivably be also seen as a stipulation that God was either irrelevant or non-existent, and that therefore it then followed that the Bible, itself, was merely a fable.

While we cannot know for a certainty what Darwin's enlightened views were on God, he self confessed to being an agnostic; whereas Wallace was a devout Spiritualist, freely admitting that given the right circumstances the living could communicate with those that were physically dead as well as humans having the innate ability to communicate or to become attuned with the Higher Intelligence.  This meant that Wallace knew that the evolution of mankind which gave man the ability to think, to reason, to communicate, the knowledge of mathematics and symbols, space and time, as well as our innate code and understanding of ethics, moralityand natural law, could only have come to us via a Higher power.  Because Wallace knew this, he intuited and understood that each human life, without exception, has intrinsic value as well as being given a free will, so that each of us is ultimately the sum of what we have accomplished by our conduct and interaction here, and that therefore our evolutionary spiritual progress was written by our deeds which we carried with us upon our departure from this material plane.

Man's Search for Altered States of Consciousness

Inside each of us is a desire to know something more than what we see or respond to in this material world.  However, there are plenty of those who contend that this indeed is all there ever will be, and anything else beyond this world is merely wishful thinking; yet, each of those people, each night, experiences a world beyond this world in their own dreams, which often takes them beyond time and space.

Man has an innate need to find something outside of himself and outside of his typical world.  While some may find this altered state of consciousness easily through prayer, quiet contemplation, or meditation, others take an entirely different route with the usage of drugs and assorted substances that through chemical reactions to the brain force the consciousness into a different state than it is at everyday rest; very often this desire to get "high" comes from the desire to become something other than your perception of whom or what you fundamentally appear to be.

This need for an altered state of consciousness, no matter how it is attempted, comes from a thirst for something outside of ourselves that will provide meaning, purpose, contentment, and answers to the questions that we have.  Each of us believes, no matter where we are at, at one time or another that we are lacking in something, which means that we should be searching for that something else, although often we don't really seem to know what that something is.

For some of us, we try to drown out that search by staying busy and occupied, so that we never have to take the time to actually contemplate that beyond our small little world, are things that are so much bigger.  For others, that search is so vague; we don't know how to go about searching for it, so we take substitutes for it, by ingesting or smoking substances that will ease our mind in such a way, that we aren't worried about the search, itself.  Then there are those that know that if they can just still their active mind, and turn within, that they can indeed connect with a dimension beyond this one, and experience true peace and love at a capacity previously unimagined.

It is that search that pushes man inevitably forward, even though at times, it appears mankind is in a period of moral decay and decline.  That search is the reason for being, it is the reason that people do not give up and will continue to push on, even under the most trying of circumstances.  No matter the noise of a busy day, or the sheer boredom of a day without direction or purpose, we are pulled, always pulled to find that which must be found.  We can talk about it, ignore it, take drugs to try to kill it or push it to the edges of oblivion, deny it, curse it, or we can embrace it and become one with it. 

Our mind cannot know peace and tranquility until it reaches union with the One mind--and with that union this delusion that traps us so well within this world will vanish as if it never was.

King Henry VIII and the break from the Catholic Church

In the sixteenth century the King of England and his court were the rulers of their people and of their nation.  Still, despite that undisputed secular authority, the Catholic Church, with its seat of power and wealth in Rome, held both valuable land in England, priestly authority, educational status and influence, moral suasion, and significant sway upon many vital areas of everyday English life.  While the Catholic Church did not rule England, or share rule with England, its services, impact, and strength were paid for in one form or another by English tribute to the Church.  For the most part, the State through the King, his court, and parliament in conjunction with Church representatives as authorized by Papal authority, worked together so as to hold dominion over the peoples of England for primarily the benefit of both ruing authorities.

However, in any sharing of power, there often comes a time, when one party recognizes that by usurping power from another, his will increase, and theirs will correspondingly decrease.  When the Catholic Church was put to the test by King Henry VIII in regards to Henry's desired divorce from his wife, Catherine of Aragon, the church would not accede to his demands, but in proof that every action or decision that we make has consequences, King Henry VIII had his response.  Henry VIII's response, was undoubtedly, well thought out and contemplated by his court, to which his chief advisor Thomas Cromwell, in conjunction with the Parliament, decided that the king, and not the pope, was the supreme head of the Church of England, and that therefore no decisions from Rome were binding upon the kingdom of England, and that therefore the Catholic Church was now in conflict with the absolute authority of the realm, itself.

The upshot of this fundamental religious change within England was that the control of papal lands, assets, priests, and the influence of religious thought, was now under the guidance and command of the King of England to which those that were of the Catholic faith, would now be compelled to become part and parcel of the Anglican faith, which for all expressed purposes, was now formally separated from the Catholic fold, so that those that failed to affirm their faith to the avowed Defender of the Faith (King Henry VIII) would now be subject to the persecution of treason to the State.  This meant execution for some priests, banishment for others, and conversion by those that were perhaps more pragmatic in their outlook.

King Henry VIII's bold break from the Catholic Church enabled the taking of papal lands and assets within English territory, without compensation to Rome.  This obviously meant a very nice bounteous gift for those in authority, those in the court and those in parliament, with perhaps a small trickle-down effect for the commoners of England.  This also meant that since the King and the Church were now in total agreement as they were one and the same, that an appeal by the people to either one, would result in the same resolution, as the King was by law head of the State as well as head of the Church, meaning that not only did he have the Divine right of Kings, but was the direct interpreter of such.

Judgment at Nuremberg

Wars are often regrettable and are almost always a very nasty business, which often brings out the worst in people as well as their countries, although on the other hand there are those that display incredible courage, prescient vision, and bold gallantry that best defines a man that has risen and commended themselves well to the difficult tasks that occur when worlds collide. World War II was a war that cost millions upon millions of lives, to which not only were there a tremendous amount of soldiers that died, but also civilians, in particular defenseless citizens that were deliberately bombed without any real strategic purpose, dragged into concentration camps and/or murdered, and so forth.

Yet, in the end, one side was victorious, to which history tells us, that they were in the right, but to subsequently believe that all of the war crimes were committed by the Axis nations, and none were committed by the Allied nations, would be a grand disservice to mankind, and a form of propaganda that deliberately skewed the facts in such a way as to define, one group of nations as being evil, and another group of nations as being good, with no shades of gray in-between.  The fact of the matter is that there were atrocities committed against humanity on both sides of the war, as well as tremendous acts of courage by representatives of each and every nation.

Since the Allied nations were victorious, and at a tremendous cost, they felt that the vanquished should have to face the music for what they had wrought.  The tribunal at Nuremberg, however, was made of, and only of, representatives of France, Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Republic, and no other countries.  This, In of itself, was deliberately prejudicial against the German defendants, as without any judges from their country on the tribunal, it mattered little how good or how bad their legal defense was, whether evidence was favorable or not, as the result was determined by the tribunal who would ruled over all, to which all of the tribunal members were members of the victor nations who had suffered greatly.

At the Nuremberg trial, the German defendants were essentially accused of war crimes, as well as crimes against humanity.  The problem with these charges was that they were either essentially ex-post facto laws, or international laws, subject to interpretation, that were applied in this trial to only the defeated nation of Germany, as if by definition, the victorious nations were absolved of all, without question. While there isn't any doubt that certain Germans committed terrible atrocities, waged aggressive war of conquest, cheated, stole, tortured, abuse and killed civilians as well as prisoners, were inhumane, broke treaties and agreements; the trial itself was far less than a search for truth and justice, and far more of making sure that some would pay in blood.

This judgment at Nuremberg, which ostensibly was meant to demonstrate justice and fairness in jurisprudence, was neither. Instead, it merely took on that guise and was instead a corrupted form of retribution that resulted in the death and imprisonment for those that were conveniently found guilty, whereas those that had a scientific or other marketable value to any of the Allied nations, were often given a free pass; mirroring in a sick way, that those that have utility would live, and those that did not, would die.

Islamic Fundamentalists, Women, and Oppression

In any country, there are laws, and for most people, there is an obligation to obey the State as well as to adhere to specific religious commands.  In some countries, there is minimal mixing of religious with secular law, whereas in other countries, there is a commingling of such.  In most of the western nations, the battle for woman's suffrage and equal rights is for all practical purposes over, with women now standing as co-equals with men.  This, in itself, is both a great advancement for women as well as for mankind, which is richer for having recognized that women both deserve their voice as well as their place at the table of life.

However, human progress is never exactly easy, nor necessarily linear, nor do all societies see things in the same manner or same way.  In recent years, we have seen the increase of Islamic fundamentalists that have made it part and parcel of their religious belief and way, that women must conform to certain rules within their society or suffer the consequences for their disobedience to such.  The seriousness and severity that Islam takes in regards to their task of what women can and cannot do within their family, within their community, and within their country is not something to be brushed aside as of no real importance to those not of the faith, or not residents of such country, but should instead concern all of us, because we are all members of the same world.

Life is full of restrictions and punishments, in any country, and in any religion, to which the fact that these things exist, is because countries and communities are made up of laws.  Ideally, those laws are just, equally applied, and in accordance with natural law, but too often they are arbitrary, capricious, and wrong.  There are two sexes in this world, and one sex should not be allowed to run riot over the other, as if one sex, by innate order, has dominion over the other. 

There are many ways to insist that one person should have power over another, such as through divine revelation, scriptural interpretation, manmade law, tradition, power, strength, and fear, but this does not mean that this is right or in accordance with justice.  The problem that many Islamic States have and that the communities and families of such have at the present day, is the wrong belief, that somehow their interpretation, their law, their rules, and their commands, are sanctioned by the prophet or of God, himself.  It is always rather convenient to be both the lawmaker as well as the law interpreter, to which all sorts of mischief can be accomplished under these false flags.

The thing is, it comes down to this fundamental fact, that life moves too fast for certain peoples in the world today, and consequently because of that fear they want to turn back the sands of time, and thereby to control certain things as if their judgments were sacrosanct, but they are not.  This mistaken belief, taken to the extreme, means that incertain countries or communities, women must be "protected" by restricting their movements, by eliminating their clothing choice, by taking their right to an education away from them, by monitoring them day and night, and ultimately in practicality, doing and thinking for them.

This is oppression, pure and simple, for some perhaps the cage that they are in, is gilded, for many it most certainly is not.   Whichever it is, and however it turns out, the caged bird will sing, and its song must and will be heard.

Is Marijuana Legal?

The one thing that we have learned over the last fifty-odd years in the United States is that Federal law trumps State law, for better or for worse.  While it may be true that many States have decriminalized marijuana, and that some additional States have legalized recreational marijuana, from a Federal law perspective, marijuana is in direct violation of Title 21 United States Code (USC) Controlled Substances Act.  This means, that at any time, without notification, the Federal government has what clearly appears to be the legal authority to shut down recreational marijuana, no matter the State legal status of such. 

However, in demonstration that the laws of this country are truly arbitrary, clearly dependent upon which political party is in power and how that political party prioritizes what it will or will not prosecute, recreational marijuana is alive, kicking, and legal in four States of this union.  Each of those States that have legalized marijuana have done so while a Democrat has been in the office of the Presidency, whereas most Republican candidates for the Presidency have made it clear, that should they be elected, that they would enforce the law of the land and therefore federally prosecute clear and present violations of the Controlled Substances Act.

This means, in effect, the laws of the United States in regards to the legalization of marijuana are most definitely not equally applied, and are wholly dependent upon who is in authority in this country.  This is why banks that are federally charted will not and have not conducted business with organizations that are legally selling cannabis within their State, because the banks do not want to be caught in the crossfire of aiding and abetting consortiums that are clearly in violation of Federal law.

Further to this point, all landlords, vendors, employers and employees, and any and everybody that is directly or indirectly involved in the cultivation, storing, and selling of marijuana in States to which it is legal, are everyday putting themselves in legal danger, of being subject to prosecution actions by Federal authorities.  The legal status of marijuana in those States that sell it is most definitely a status that rests on a foundation of sand, and until such time that the Federal government removes marijuana from its list of Controlled Substances that fact will not change, despite marijuana's ostensible popularity or State legislative approval.

In actual fact, marijuana proponents are in a race against time, to which four States, are not in aggregate even close to a plurality of the States needed to end this game in their favor.  In all probability, the only real possibility for the Federal government to change its laws in regards to marijuana is for a significant number of States to legalize marijuana over the next few years and the number of those States probably needs to be somewhere around twenty States. 

Should marijuana become legal in about twenty States, and should the office of the Presidency remain in Democratic hands, then and only then, would it become greater than 50:50 that marijuana would soon become legal and regulated throughout the entire United States through Federal legislation that applied equally to all fifty States.  Until that time, those purveyors of legal marijuana, cannot rest easy, despite however much comfort they may get from the smoking of cannabis, itself.

"Gentlemen do not read each other's mail"

The above quote was made by Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of State, in regards to diplomatic correspondence and the reading of it, by the United States, in 1929.  Depending upon your point of view, Stimson's attitude was either one of courageous insight which upheld the rights and the concept that diplomatic communications of nations that we were not at war with should not be intercepted and decoded, or just plain stupid naiveté of a sleuthing amateur, far outside his element, and lacking in the basic knowledge that information is power, no matter how that information is obtained.

Those spying days are generations removed from where we are today in regards to intercepting communications both domestic as well as foreign, and our ability to decode, process, along with our skill in correlating information today is unparalleled.  While there is definitely controversy about spying in America, most of that controversy nowadays is directed more towards the protection of our own citizen's 4th Amendment rights which are meant to secure us against unreasonable searches, rather than being concerned whatsoever about spying on enemies or allies. 

The thing is, if you do truly believe that it's just fine to spy on other governments as well as other country's citizens, whether they are allied with your country or not, it sure doesn't take much more effort to move the needle a little bit further over to authorize that the government should also have the right to spy domestically because we can't trust certain people from certain countries that are within our borders, nor can we trust their friends, or their friends of their friends, or associates, or their visitors, or sympathizers, or people that are in the same vicinity, or go to the same functions, or share some common link with those people, until after connecting all the dots, and all the degrees of the dots, you pretty much come to the conclusion, that the government has to track everybody, all of the time.

If you then still believe that all of this is right and good, and in fact, is patriotic in some way, than it isn't too much further of a stretch to stipulate, that the government should have the right to especially track, harass, arrest, and/or punish people that through analytical analysis are more likely than others to be a potential enemy to the State as it exists today.  This is the path that we are currently on, a country that treats its citizens separately and unequally without fairness or justice.

Do we really need to read each other's mail?  Do we really need to know all the minutiae of everybody?  The government insists that we do for our own protection and for our security, but that's simply the excuse that they use in order to more effectively monitor and to control its own citizenry.  The government wants to have all of this information on all of us to ensure that they have the means to suppress and to control us.  So far, it's working quite well for the government, while there are always going to be a few outliers, many more are content just as long as they continue to reliably receive their bread and their circuses.