Subprime Auto Loans

The United States has an insatiable love for automobiles of all types, and not too surprisingly, with the ubiquitous ads for all sorts of cars for all sorts of people, there is a demand from those that have poor credit scores for automobiles.  You might think, that those that have financial resources that are relatively weak, as well as having poor credit and/or work history, in addition to pretty much struggling from paycheck to paycheck would be completely locked out of getting an auto loan for a new vehicle, but this thought would be wrong.  Even though, it makes logical sense for people that have low financial resources to spend money prudently and to thereby look for a vehicle that is used, reliable, and relatively inexpensive, they are instead lured in by the siren call of the illusion of relatively low monthly payments with little or nothing down, so that they can have it all, and they can have it now.  This means that vehicles are available not only to be sold to those of a low credit rating, but specifically these people are actively targeted and marketed to. 

In 2015, the wsj.com reports that there were over 17.5 million cars and light trucks sold in America, with a total value of these sales of about $570 billion.  This amount of sales could not have occurred without significant sales to those whose credit worthiness was shaky.  Once again, similar to the subprime housing debacle, loans to those of weak credit worthiness are being securitized and repackaged to be sold to investors that are hungry for yield, to which some of these subprime portfolios are, once again, rated at AAA.  

Unlike, the mortgage crisis, there are advantages to the subprime loans being made in the auto industry, which can be broken down into the fact that autos are easy to repossess, have a stable reselling value, and a very liquid market.  However, like anything, a sudden oversupply of defaulted car loans would saturate the market and would thereby drive car values down.  While this is bad for those that loan money for the autos, it can be even worse for those that the loan was issued to in the first place as they will be responsible for any "deficiency" in the difference between the actual selling price of the vehicle once repossessed, against the amount of monies owed, over and above any penalties and late charges applied against them.

Even though subprime loans are priced to take into account the low credit worthiness of the buyer of such, with lenders consequently charging an interest rate of 18% or even higher, in which the cost of money to them is only around 1-2%, making for a very large margin, that is hardly a guarantee that the loan will be paid on a timely basis or even at all, especially if the economy should take a significant downward swing.  The bottom line is that the poor credit rating of the buyers of these new vehicles, is clearly a sign that these purchasers in aggregate will not be able to make all their payments, yet these loans are specifically made and targeted towards those very people, primarily because those that initiate these sales, feel very confident that they will find a willing buyer of their securitized loans and thereby are able to book a profitable sale, without the worry of blowback.

There is a wrong belief, that this time it is different, but it is exactly the same, any way that you slice, dice, and make it, as large loans to people that have not demonstrated credit worthiness, that do not have meaningful assets, and further that do not have the resources to deal with bad financial times, are destined to end badly for many of them; and the ultimate buyers of such investments, will find that underneath the pretty wrappings is nothing but financial misery.

Communism Part IV

Communism as envisioned by Marx and Engels has never existed and never will exist; their belief that a new world order would be created through the State in which the proletariat would rise up and thereby eliminate or eviscerate the capitalists, private property holders, and previous inheritors of wealth, has never occurred, and will never occur.  Marx and Engels seemed incapable of comprehending that the new State that they urged the creation of could only be created by force and that this new State power and wealth would come by the forceful takings of the former capitalist's money and their private property, now placed under State aegis.  As for the former capitalistic exploitation of labor, this would continue as the same as it ever was, with the difference being that the exploitation of such would now go directly to the State and its beneficiaries.

Communism, far from uplifting the proletariat, would use their newfound wealth and power taken from those that use to have it, to bend society to the dictates of the State, which would or would not have some features of communism, depending upon those that were in power.  In any event, State power and State control of all apparatus, including especially the media, justice, and productivity, would allow the State to dictate to the people the propaganda that all was well, when, of course, all was not well at all.

What makes communism such a galling and annoying system of governance is the fact that when the people own nothing, except in common, whatever that is supposed to mean, then they are subservient to the State, and are in essence living in a serfdom/feudalism paradigm, hardly revolutionary in any way.  When bad governments, and abusive power, create the conditions for revolution and change, the people, especially the proletariat will never be secure, will never be free, and will never have self determination, in any form of government that in its inception, aggrandizes unto itself all power and wealth, whether this is expressly stated or implied.

For those that profess that they desire to live in a world that is far more equal in opportunity, in fairness, in justice, in income, in brotherhood, and to see far less exploitation of others, this can only exist in a society that recognizes the inherent sovereignty of the individual and that thereby each individual is created equally and has specific inalienable rights.  Only when mankind recognizes that a person's rights come from God, and not by arbitrary State fiat, will they ever have a chance to create a government that supports and benefits these rights and that government in order to be legitimate is created specifically to secure those rights.

Far from it, America as a nation, was not founded as a capitalistic country as that was not its purpose in its declaration, its purpose was to break forever free from the mistaken notion of the Divine right of Kings, and to replace that with the knowledge that each of us is an equal child of the most High God.  Man's inhumanity to man has led us to terrible poverty, injustice, and inequality; unfortunately, communism is in actuality never the rise of the poor and oppressed to their rightful place at the table of fairness, but instead merely a changing of the guard and semantics for the betterment of those that have no soul to conquer those that do.

Communism Part III

History is full of very intelligent people that are woefully ignorant on important things.  The one thing about communism is that it seems to attract a lot of people that intellectually should know better, but are somehow drawn into communism as if communism is the answer for poverty, lost, unfairness, and so forth, whereas from the very inception of communism on a world stage, (e.g. the Bolsheviks) it has instead been the bastion of the bourgeois intelligentsia, not to uplift the disadvantaged, but to control them for the benefit of that bourgeois intelligentsia.

While one can certainly sympathize with anyone that wishes to uplift the downtrodden and huddle masses of the world, communism is never going to be the way to accomplish this.  For instance, while it does sound wonderful that each and every citizen should be able to be accommodated with the very basic necessities of life, such as food, shelter, education, and opportunity, the communistic State only wants that to occur in actuality after they, the bourgeois intelligentsia in conjunction with the military arm of such a State, are satiated with all the material and beneficial things that they claim either that they need or our entitled too.  Not too surprisingly, their satiation never is complete, their corruption never ends, and their bickering is ever constant, along with the very basic fact, that their fruits essentially come from the labor or exploitation of the underclass, which in aggregate has little incentive to accommodate them, even under the penalty of death, imprisonment, or banishment.

While it might sound enticing to actually live in the pretend world of which all are provided with the basic human rights of living, this would actually necessitate that somehow the State would be capable of successfully divvying up the resources to accomplish this.  The problem is, when the mindset of communism is that there is no God, there isn't much of a real reason in a dog-eat-dog world of a zero sum society to want to give up what you have labored for to someone that has not labored for it, whether by sloth, by illness, by age, or whatnot.  Instead, you will want to protect your own, against all who are trying to take from you, which may necessitate taking actions that are in direct or indirect conflict with the communistic State.

Further to the point, in order to violently take from some in order to give to others, that necessitates force, and in order for State force to be utilized effectively, that force must be controlled and managed by the State by both the whip as well as the weal.  This means, in short, that the dreamlike society in which all are benign and that get along with each other, by aiding the other, helping the other, assisting the other, willing the good of the other, doesn't exist with or within communism and never will. 

Anyone that truly desires harmony, sharing, and brotherly love, is to be admired, however, this is something that is absolutely consistent with Christianity but not with communism.  Communism merely takes a snapshot of a utopian society and preaches that we can get there because that is what the masses want or desire, and the only thing preventing that achievement is those that have wrongfully stolen or exploited their labor and opportunity.  Thereupon, communism replaces the old regime through violent overthrow and brings forth their new regime, changing the players, but never changing the game. While the words are different, the game remains the same, all are equal, so they say-- only some are more equal than others, and those some very well know it and will make sure that you know that as well.

Communism Part I

Communism is a pathetic godless philosophy, a pitiful excuse for the State to aggrandize onto itself all powers against the people.  While, Marx may have believed that the Communist Manifesto was a brilliant piece of economic theory and writing, it was actually fatally flawed from its inception with a gross misunderstanding of revolutions and the human psyche.  The fact that anyone, that anyone at all, can believe that at any time, that the proletariat, that is the poor people of any nation, will rise up in unison to take control of industry and production in such a manner as to eliminate competition and instead to provide a world of cooperation and unity, to which all will share equally in the produce of their labor, is fanciful garbage.

The forgoing is not, however, the biggest error of communism, as nothing is worse in the inept communist manifesto than the fact that communism, does not acknowledge the existence of, let alone the omnipotence and omniscience of God.  This line of thinking, if you can even call it that, is the very thing that truly demonstrates the blind trying to lead the blind. 

If there is no God, than everything is permitted, which in functionally means exactly the opposite of what communism purports to want, which is a world of peaceful co-existence in which nothing is personally own and all that is created is shared with the population as a whole as needed.  While there certainly is a lot to be said positively about sharing, about harmony, and about recognizing the true ownership of anything, communism is not a philosophy which will successfully accomplish any of these things.

To change man, you must change his heart; and to change society, you must first change man.  The change that so many people clamor for starts with their own self and cannot be legislated or mandated into existence.  That change can only come from the recognition that there is one immutable God, that there is Truth, one Truth, and that there is justice, one justice.  For all those that do not recognize that these fundamental and inalienable rights are given to all men by the grace of God, theirs will always be a life without meaning and with little purpose.

Another problem with communism is that there are absolutely no true communistic States and never will be; there may be nations that purport to be communistic but on virtually any level, whatsoever, from the governance of such, from the equality of such, from the justice of such, they are all far, far removed from communism as envisioned by Marx and Engels.  The reason for this being so, is because it is often in man's nature to want to unjustly rule over others, to control others, to use others, and to dominate others, and if you do not believe in God or eternal justice, than there is absolutely nothing that will stop you and your cohorts from ever becoming satiated with all that you want at the expense of those that truly labor for it.

Any nation that does not recognize that each of its citizen's fundamental rights come from Almighty God and not via the State, will rue their foolishness and their castles built upon sand; as this deception foisted upon the people is an abomination that will enviably be answered when darkness faces Light.

Communism Part II

One does wonder why there have been so many people of high intelligence that have gravitated to communism, as you would think, that they, of all people, would know better.  It is one thing, entirely for those that are truly the underserved, the oppressed, the proletariat, to want to be a part of a new system that will level the playing field and that will then provide them with food, shelter, fairness, and an appreciation of labor, when these things have formally been in short supply, but for intellectuals, those that typically already have good jobs and privileges, a penchant for communism seems senseless.

Perhaps certain intellectuals gravitate to communism because they believe that there should be more sharing from one person to another, certainly that seems sensible and neighborly, and perhaps too that too often governments have been active supporters of the status quo.  Then so too, perhaps intellectuals sell out their own nation for communism out of spite, out of hate, out of being bullied or the like, because they aren't properly appreciated, so that when the communists come knocking, they are eager to do a deal with a regime that will properly respect them and reward them for their traitorous activities.

Additionally, there are many that gravitate towards communism because they buy the line that only communism will allow society to live in a world in which income and labor will follow the mantra of: "from each according to ability, to each according to need".  Of course, like those that are so caught up in a cult, that they ignore the warning signals, those that are caught up in the lure of a socialist society in which all are equal and none are exploited, apparently don't recognize that in order to achieve such a State, there will be arbiters of such, and these arbiters will have the power to destroy, punish, or kill those that do not obey or are not in lockstep with the program.

However, all said, the worst of the worst, are the intellectuals that sing the praises of communism while truly knowing better, and blithely ignore all the ills and crimes of the State against the people.  These intellectuals do so for a lot of reasons with the primary reason being that as long as they are treated well, appreciated, and provided their safe haven that is all that really matters.  Further to this point, the difference between esteemed scientists in America, for instance, as compared to an esteemed scientist in communism, is that in America that scientist makes a good salary but is in almost all cases far, far removed from real temporal power.  However, in communism, scientists are well appreciated, especially when they create or discover things that will help the State in its oppression or control of the people, in one form or another, and thereby these scientists can become important functionaries of the State, with all the attendant benefits.

This signifies that the main reason why so many intellectuals desire communism is not because they are looking for some sort of socialistic paradise, although they may profess this, but in fact, are looking instead for a regime that will permit them to be one of the elites that dictates to the people, how they should or shouldn't behave, or what they shouldor shouldn't do, because these intellectuals believed that they are not held In high enough esteem, and that communism will finally give them both the platform as well as the respect that they deserve, which will then be utilized to keep the dregs of society in their place, for their own betterment as well as for the service to those that were born to be served.

Civilian Deaths Greater than Military Deaths in World War II

War should always be looked upon as the last best choice to resolve conflict as the intended and unintended consequences of virtually any war includes not only the destruction of all sorts of infrastructure within countries, the attendant massive usage of resources for destructive purposes, but also the wholesale destruction of human life, be it male, female, child, or soldier.  No matter how focused a given war is on targeting just military personnel on the opposing side, all wars bleed over to civilians, and to make matters worse, modern-day wars are incredibly inhumane.

While World War II was a war that was desperately fought to stop the wanton rampage, rape, and evil intents of the Axis nations, the Allied nations, didn't conduct their nature of war in response by taking into account at all times, that civilians should not be deliberately targeted.  The upshot of this incredibly bloody and violent war is that according to historylearningsite.co.uk the overall civilian deaths from this war were estimated to be 30,497,000 peoples v. an estimated 24,517,000 soldiers of the war dead.  However, if we also consider the amount of civilians killed by virtue of war related famine or disease, the new count for civilian deaths rises to a total of another 30,000,000 peoples as estimated by Wikipedia.org signifying that the overall amount of civilian deaths which can be attributed to the war as being at a more than 2:1 ratio than those that died in battle.

While death is indeed an integral part of the art of war, for soldiers that partake in it, it should not be that those that are civilians should suffer at rates of death far exceeding soldiers.  While some of those civilian deaths are the unintended consequences of war, it is an absolute fact that many of the civilian deaths in World War II were deliberately targeted by virtue of their creed, by virtue of deliberate bombing, as punishment, as terror tactics, and so forth, which proved the same point again and again, that munitions as well as man's inhumanity to man are extremely lethal.

The judgment of any nation should be based upon how they treat the poor and defenseless, especially in the most tying of times, and the upshot of World War II is that virtually all countries failed this test in either the highest degree or in various degrees.  It is a damnable shame that the Allied parties in so many ways lived by their actions that the way of justice was "an eye for an eye", a fallacy of the highest order.

Today, as never before in the history of mankind, the ability to kill people, civilian or not, to destroy nations, and to self-destruct is in the hands of the few and powerful, who literally at the stroke of a pen, can unleash this terrible destruction upon all corners of the earth.  The problem with such power is that those that unloose such are so far removed from the field of action, that they subsequently feel none of its horror or comprehend correctly its unnecessary wanton destruction.  This type of thinking is desperately wrong, sick, patently pathetic, and a disgrace, especially for those that claim that God blesses their country.

Bad Guys

There are way too many media outlets such as movies, television, and so forth that try to portray life in the most simplistic terms available, so as to make one side, to be all good, whereas the other side is all bad.  Of course, in these types of situations it is fairly easy for those watching or participating to sanction whatever treatment that the bad guys get, because, well they are bad.  Unfortunately, it is because of this type of simplistic and specious reasoning that there is not now, nor will there be ever, peace on earth, because as long as you aggregate to yourself, as the good entity, that you have the right to annihilate what you have designated as bad, you are no longer good.

America is a great military power, both within as well as without, so that the same mindset that we take to war with our foreign enemies seems to be the exact same mindset that we take to war on our domestic foes.  For instance, whatever country that we seem to have a dispute with, the mainstream media makes sure to march in lockstep with the military-industrial complex so as to portray this foreign country or insurgency as something that is less than human, or less than civilized, and of an imminent danger to the world at large.  While there may be some truth in this portrayal, it is typically only a small sliver of truth, whereas the biggest issues of the day, of justice, of economic opportunity, education, and so forth, are left far behind.  In regards to our domestic foes, America so often prefers to militarize things so as to portray that drastic and strong actions by the State or its agencies are necessary to interdict drugs, or whatever, and that therefore basic civil rights, basic justice, and basic civility, must be push aside, for the greater need of stopping the bad guys.

All of the forgoing is intellectually dishonest as well as being directly subversive to the principles of our Constitution as well as our Declaration of Independence. Today, in far too many instances, government and its agencies have aggregated onto themselves the godlike belief that they are the sole arbiters of what is good and what is bad and subsequently that they will do whatever that they deem to be necessary to deal with the problem of the bad guys. 

The thing is that justice carried to the extreme, is injustice.  And every bullet pumped into a bad person, should have been a bullet used only because the exigencies of the situation mandated it.  So too, every country that we carpet bomb, assassinate their high officials, interfere in their domestic affairs, and disrupt their normal day-to-day activities, should be a country that clearly is a meaningful menace not only to its own people but to the world at large.

The easiest thing for all these authorities to say to us each and every day is that they spend all of their time searching, targeting, and destroying the bad guys, and because of their great patriotic duty they have made the world a safer and better place.  In fact, they haven't done anything of the sort, except in the most extraordinary of circumstances; instead, they have kicked aside the principle of human empathy and of being a good neighbor, and have forgotten what our greatest President told us, "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?"

Arrest Warrant Issued for a common Traffic Ticket -- Really?

It is a shame, that the law is so often used in America as a hammer to keep the poor, dumb, unorganized, unenlightened, and immature under the thumb of the State.  It is absolutely a disgrace that a mere common infraction, such as getting a ticket for speeding can lead to jail time but it can and it does.  The first mistake that most people are unaware of is that a traffic violation is a much more serious offence than might be imagined, in fact it is often considered by the State to be a criminal offence, although classified as a petty offence or an infraction which is a special category in which it is classified as neither a misdemeanor or a felony.    I suspect that this special classification for an infraction in the criminal code was probably done so that those receiving such traffic violations would not have to own up to having a criminal record, so that when asked by a prospective employer on a job application as to whether: "have you ever been convicted of a crime other than a minor traffic violation," the answer is straightforward.  In addition, the other strong hint that a traffic violation is a criminal offence is the fact that should you chose to dispute your ticket; you are allowed to confront and to cross-examine the police officer in a court of law.

All of the foregoing leads up to the very unfortunate aspect of getting a ticket, which is over and beyond the fact that a traffic violation will cost you monetarily in both the infraction cost as well as the increase in your insurance premium, is that the failure of paying such in a timely manner and/or failure to make your court appearance will often lead to a bench warrant being issued for your arrest.  The fact that one mere unpaid traffic violation allows any police officer to arrest you for "failure to appear" is one of the most insidious features of the police state that we live in.  There are very few people that would welcome being arrested at any time, and there are very few people that would believe that a minor unpaid traffic violation should allow the State to arrest you to begin with, but they can and they do.  This again points to the seriousness of an infraction, because that infraction starts the process by which if you do not obey the dictates of the State, you will be subject to incarceration.

Further complicating the manner, a simple unpaid traffic violation, can and often will escalate to a higher fine and penalties for that non-payment, in addition to a bench warrant being issued against you, which can easily morph into additional crimes, such as the very likely suspension of your driver's license, which is a criminal misdemeanor offence, itself subject to fines, penalties, revocation of car insurance, and jail time.

None of this should ever be allowed to occur in a country as rich and as favored as America, but that is the way that it is, and the weight of this justice is unfairly placed on the very citizens that really can't afford to pay the fines and their attendant penalties, to begin with.  While it is one thing to pin a traffic violation on a given driver, it is completely unfair, unequal, unjust, and arbitrary to pursue an unpaid fine by leveraging the massive State resources against an individual for a relatively small amount of money and to place that person behind bars. 

A lot of this is caused because the police and court forces of so many cities often rely far too heavily upon those very fines to support their institutions and infrastructure, and thereby have a vested interest in seeing that the public is ticketed often and that they pay those fines or suffer dearly for their lack of obeisance.

USA Drug War and Corruption

America has been in a drug war since the Nixon Administration in 1971, a battle that has clearly gone in favor of the drug purveyors, since all the drugs that America traffics in are readily available and have been so for nearly fifty years.  According to rand.org, utilizing 2010 dollars for a national survey in January, 2012, that:  "… national estimates of market sizes for four illicit drugs: cocaine (including crack), heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine (meth)," it was estimated that " … that drug users in the United States spend on the order of $100 billion annually."  In addition, as estimated by huffingtonpost.com that: "… the U.S. government spent between $40 billion and $50 billion each year fighting the war on drugs."  This signifies that all the king's men and all the king's horses has produced little or no lasting damage to the infrastructure and trafficking of illicit drugs in this country, despite the sophistication and experience of our drug and police forces, as well as America having a robust and respected rule of law.

So too, this implies strongly that there are really only two distinct possibilities, for the war on drugs to have been such a complete and thorough failure in America, to which the first is that our policing, our drug interdiction forces, and our justice, are completely ineffective in the tasks assigned to them, by virtue of the fact that the drug lords have more money, weaponry, and are more sophisticated in their trade, which is a theory that is absolutely absurd.  The second possibility, and the only real possibility, is that the monies involved in successful drug trafficking are so great, so high, so wide, so prevalent, and so pervasive that those that are in the position to stop, to prevent, and to interdict drugs, find that the lure of easy money or its equivalence is a siren song that cannot be resisted.

The bottom line is that the corruption of drug money in America reaches into the pockets of so many of those that have the authority and knowledge to do something significant about it; that those very people are the ones that have been compromised, willingly or not, in such a way that their abiding interest is now in seeing that the drug flow continues and is sustained because their lifestyle depends upon it.  It is that lure of making a quick and easy buck that makes so many of the enforcers in the drug trade turn the other way, because they cannot resist the benefits of their illicit gains.

The drug war in America will never effectively end, because the two sides that ostensibly oppose each other, are actually intertwined with each other, and because each side benefits greatly, at the expense of the good taxpayers, good health, and of those that play by the rules, the drug peddlers are permitted free reign to ply their trade as long as they pay tribute and abide by certain rules that are sanctioned by the drug overseers wearing governmental and policing hats.

It is not possible in a country as rich, as sophisticated, and as brilliant as America, that drug traffickers can have the run of this country, unless those that can stop it, discover that the monies involved are just too rich and lucrative to refuse, and why not, just as long as the users of such, are principally the dregs of society, and far, far away from the imperial money elite.

The Luxury Tax in Sports

In the major American sports leagues, there are three leagues, the NHL, MLS, and the NFL, to which there are hard salary caps on player salaries, which means of course, that payroll for players cannot exceed that amount of money which has been contractually agreed upon, period.  This means that having a hard salary cap in those sports is great for the owners, and unfair to the players, since it limits the players in receiving what the market will bear for their services.  In the NBA and MLB there are no hard salary caps, instead, they have put into place, a luxury tax, which if the nominal salary cap is exceeded, a penalty is assessed to each team that exceeds that cap in salaries.  As you might expect, the luxury tax is a fairly recent invention, beginning in 2003 in baseball, and 2002-03 in basketball, to which, it is stated that the purpose of the cap is to assure greater parity in their respective sports, which sounds egalitarian and almost fair, but as expected, hides the real truth of the matter.

The thing is, if a luxury tax in a given industry or a salary cap for that matter seems like a good and fair business practice, why is it, that there aren't any luxury taxes on labor whatsoever on some of America's biggest multi-national conglomerates such as Apple or Microsoft or ExxonMobil?  The reason that there isn't a luxury tax on these entities is that it doesn't make any sense as nobody is putting a gun to anybody's head, insisting that so-and-so Manager or CFO or whatever, must have a certain salary, as pretty much, these companies compensate the people that work for them, what they feel or what has been approved through the Board of Directors or management as fair and reasonable in their employment compensation packages.

The bottom line for sports is that there should not be an arbitrary salary cap or luxury tax applied when it comes to player's salaries, rather the players should not be limited in receiving what is fairly due to them for providing the sports entertainment to begin with.  The whole purpose of the luxury tax is basically to protect the owners from "overspending" on labor, and thereby to in aggregate, improve the bottom line for them and them alone, in a given sport.  This is a great deal for the owners, but an unfair one for the players of the sports, to which their careers can end or be terminated at any moment, with little or no possibility of ever being able to command the type of salary that they have received by playing their particular sport, outside of that world of sports.

The issuance of salary caps with or without a luxury tax is in reality, a form of legal collusion by the owners against the players; despite the way most media outlets try to spin it.  To say, that the purpose of a luxury tax is to create a level playing field is senseless, since the payroll for a team in NYC as opposed to Milwaukee, should not now or ever be close to the same amount, as the media and advertising rights, the wealth, and the overall worth of NYC is second-to-none, and thereby the salaries of NYC players should naturally be appreciably higher.

The luxury tax is in essence, a way for billionaire owners, to protect themselves from themselves, at the expense of the real value of the labor that makes the sport to begin with.

The Inflation-Adjusted SAT

The SAT is one of those very important, seminal tests that measures aptitude and intelligence which is especially pertinent for those students seriously considering going on to college.  The roots of the SAT began back in the 1930s and early 1940s, to which its popularity and need for college admissions and eligibility increased significantly over time so that the SAT test score soon became the score for high school students to master, and to demonstrate their worth.

While it isn't surprising that test questions have changed over the years, it is surprising that the amount of time given to answer test questions has also changed from year-to-year, additionally an essay section was added to the SAT but later dropped as a requirement to it, and it is especially surprising that test scoring itself has changed from year-to-year.  All of these changes, means in effect, that a SAT score for somebody in 1950 is not equivalent to the exact same SAT score in 2015.  Perhaps that is the way it should be, that is that testing evolves and changes over time, but one can make a very strong argument that the true purpose of the SAT or any testing for that matter, should be to measure the mastery of certain subjects such as math and reading, and the requirements for that demonstration of mastery, should be fairly constant and not in a state of flux.

What a lot of people, may not recognize, especially parents that recall their own SAT scores from back when they were in high school, is that the SAT board, for spurious reasons, decided that in April of 1995 that SAT scoring needed to be "recentered".  Of course, in America, you can always count on words being utilized and applied in ways that seem to obfuscate the true meaning of what is going so, such is a word like recentered, to which those giving the SAT scores, decided that since SAT scores were in a dramatic freefall, and because they felt that the true center or average for a given SAT score for those taking it, should be 500, they changed the scoring of such, to reflect that desire.  This means, for a parent comparing their pre-1995 score to their child's post-1995 score, that comparison will not be between apples and apples, since scores have been uplifted since 1995.  For instance, in 1992, the average math score was 476 and the average reading score was 423, whereas in 2015 the average math score was 511 and average reading score was 495.  To the unaided eye, it would appear that students had gotten appreciably smarter since 1992, but in fact, those scores, once the recentering bias is removed, are in fact, not meaningfully different. 

The long and short of it is, that the SAT scoring, test questions, and time allocated for such, have changed so meaningfully and been distorted by design that a grand illusion has been foisted onto the American public, to which this illusion purports to show that American high school students are smarter than their parents.  Unfortunately, that isn't true at all, at best today's high school students aptitude and intelligence are equivalent to their parents and at worst they are a sad reflection of the greatest generation and their progeny.

The Auto Insurance Accident Claim Repair Game

Getting into an auto accident is never a fun thing to be involved in, especially if there are bodily injuries and the like, however, sometimes, the accident really comes down to damage just to the car and not to the body of any individuals within the cars.  The biggest surprise people will get for just about any accident, especially those accidents which appear to be "minor", such as a dented door and broken window, is that the cost of repairs of a vehicle are almost always considerably higher than you expect.

Although there are lots of recommended procedures in taking care of a claim for an accident, in one form or another, you are most likely going to have to contact your insurance carrier.  When doing so, you might find that nowadays there are apps available which allows you to take pictures of your car and the damages, so that a repair estimate can be formulated, or at least started, just from those photos.  Another thing, is that your insurance company often has a depot to which if you drive your car in, they will write up the paperwork, give you a general idea of the repair work involved and then they will drive your vehicle over to their authorized collision repair center for a comprehensive repair analysis and cost which they will email to you, all typically accomplished within 24 hours.  If you, as the insured, accept this quotation, your insurance company will take care of the repairs, logistics, and whatnot and your vehicle will be repaired. This means that as a consumer, you don't have to run around town getting two or three quotes, that if you so desire, you can simply let your insurance company handle everything.

As might be expected, there is a price to be paid for convenience.  On the good side, you save time, further since you aren't responsible for monies paid for your repair above your premium, the overall cost of the repair is pretty much immaterial for you.  In addition, most repairs come with guarantees, even lifetime warranties, which may be of value, or of questionable value, once you look underneath the surface of what a lifetime guarantee actually covers.  Additionally, this cozy relationship between the repair shop and your insurance company exists for a reason, and the primary reason it exists is because insurance companies can drive in a lot of business to a given collision center, in return to which, they expect the collision center to use parts that may be refurbished, recycled, after-market, and non-OEM in order to effect the repairs, all of which are typically buried deep within the terms and conditions of the repair.  Also, if you as a consumer desire to go outside their "pre-approved" repair facilities, which is your prerogative, you may find the whole insurance process in regards to time, approvals, reimbursement, timely payments, and whatnot, are all working against you, not to mention the fact that with the possible exception of "gear heads" most people don't have a preferred body shop to effect car repairs to go to in the first place.

While it is true that auto insurance companies do want to see that the repairs made to your vehicle are competent, they are at the same time, bottom-line conscious companies, so that their overarching goal is to see that your vehicle returns to its "pre-loss" condition, a term which allows them to save money on parts and possibly labor, while you on the other hand, are paying for the full freight on your car insurance policy, regardless.

Statute of Limitations on Credit Card Debt

When it comes to getting money, most credit card issuers are not interested whatsoever in their being any sort of statute of limitations for them to collect on their money.  Further, to complicate the waters about the actual statute of limitations on credit card debt, this statute varies from State-to-State, to which the issuer of the credit card may successfully argue in court that the statute should be based on the State that the credit card issuer so designated upon issuance, rather than the State that you reside in, or whichever favors the issuer of credit to begin with.  The bottom line, whether you've moved or not since the credit card was issued, is that the determination of which State's statute of limitations applies, has more to do, with the party that has the power, as well as maximizing the length of the statute for the benefit of the collector, above all.

Consumers should care a great deal about the statute of limitations for credit card issuers or their designated assignee for the collector of such, because that length of time can vary from as short as three years to as long as ten years from the date the credit card payment was due and no payment was made to it.  That time is important, because once a credit card company debt exceeds the statute of limitations, the creditor no longer has recourse to the collection of the debt throughout the court system, which means that they no longer have the legal right to sue you and collect on a judgment, against you.  This doesn't mean that they will necessarily stop trying to collect on the debt; it fundamentally means that they have lost the power of the court to legally compel you to do so via summary judgment.

However, whether a debt has exceeded the statute of limitations is still something that must be judicially decided in a court of law, as the statute of limitations, varies from State to State, varies from credit card to credit card, and this statute expiration must be either successfully proved in a court of law, or conceded by the creditor.

When it comes to the statute of limitations, there is still one more hurdle to overcome, which is, as mentioned before, the statute begins running from the initial due date that you missed your payment on your particular credit card debt, which is quite straightforward, if you can find that statement or have documentation through the credit card company of that date, or from a credit score report.  However, if since you missed that payment you have made any payment whatsoever towards that debt, the statute of limitations typically re-sets from that payment that you made, so that, if you missed payments for six months, and then decided under harassment or whatever, to make a payment, and then stop paying once again, you have moved the statute of limitations six months further down the road.

This means from a credit card debt standpoint, that you must be very careful when deciding that you wish to pay the debt, as every time that you make some sort of payment towards it, the statute re-sets, and this payment itself, encourages the debt collector to believe that you wish to or have the means to make good on the debt, signifying that they will be less inclined to cut you a good deal on it.

Credit card debt collectors count on you not knowing your legal rights, nor understanding correctly the statute of limitations in your particular circumstances, and will exploit this knowledge against you.  As a consumer, it pays to be well informed, as that knowledge properly applied, will afford you the opportunity to extricate yourself from inconvenient, uncomfortable and seemingly unending debt situations far better than those who simply give up or don't pay attention.

Revolutions

The governments of the three most powerful countries in the world today, which are: America, Russia, and China all had violent revolutions, while there are different reasons for each of these revolutions, the bottom line was wars of independence were fought, lost, and won.  This most definitely proves the somewhat obvious point that in order for a violent revolution to overcome its opposition, that you need both men and weapons.  So that one in general can conclude that when those in power are in lockstep with the military and/or paramilitary of that country, that unless there is a coup within that leadership, or alternatively a tremendous amount of strategic help, arms, personnel, and outside assistance, that it would appear nearly hopeless for any revolution to replace those already in power.

Yet, there have in fact been revolutions that have occurred in which the regime changes from the hands of those in power and control of military forces and weaponry to the people that have demonstrated effectively against these particular regimes, such as in India, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.  This clearly demonstrates that revolutions can be successful through the route of non-violence, especially when the resistance is broadly base, with a strong moral force behind it, and with a high level of civil disobedience against laws, powers, and principalities that are both arbitrary and capricious.

This means that revolutions can be successful through either violent or non-violent means, while keeping in mind the very valid caveat, that revolutionary upheavals are also often unsuccessful in their violent or non-violent opposition.  In either case, whether violent or non-violent in their resistance, people's lives will invariable change, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst, which presupposes the very valid point which is that any opposition, that any revolution, should have a clear agenda of what they are trying to achieve and it is that agenda that they must live up to, as demonstrated In such seminal documents such as our Declaration of Independence.

 The thing about revolutions is that it is always far easier to destroy what already is, yet it is far more difficult to build up what should be.  That is to say, it is natural for people to have valid complaints, and further it follows that those same people believe somewhat simplistically that everything will be just fine if those certain people in power were removed.  However, often times the very problems that one thinks will be corrected by a regime change are instead found to be so intractable, so systemic, that there are no easy solutions to such to correct them, and virtually all the efforts in a revolutionary cause have come to naught, as the new boss is the same as the old boss (paraphrased from the Who).

It does take a strong man to face down the barrel of a gun and not to flinch in their vulnerable position, and often times to gather that strength comes from a strong, moral core, which understands and knows that non cooperation with evil is the basis of all that is good, and the opposite of such is treason

Refined Carbohydrates, Sugar, and Acne

There is plenty of advertising thrown about that either states or implies that your diet has little or nothing to do with the condition of your facial skin, particularly in adolescence, when so many people are prone to developing acne.  The thing is that your diet and acne most definitely have a correlation, we intuitively know this by virtue of the fact that diets that consist of a lot of refined carbohydrates and/or high sugar concentrations such as white bread and white pasta, most cereals and processed foods, candy bars, and most sodas, provide the body plenty of calories but also hits the body with insulin at a rapid rate which has a high correlation to weight gain, other physical ills, and the onset of diabetes over an extended period of time.  This signifies that your diet most definitely has a material impact upon your body, which logically would include the human skin and your face.

Treatments to take care of acne via over-the-counter medicines and prescriptions are big business for the purveyors of such, to which, these treatments are typically and fundamentally treating the symptoms of acne but not the underlying cause with media often selling the canard that the development of acne is simply a rite of passage, whereas like many things in life, you as individual, have significantly more control of it, than you might at first imagine.

In America, too often we are taught that in order to correct things, we simply need to pop a pill, or slap on some ointment, and so forth, whereas a lot of times through good common sense, and the proper understanding of nutrition, hydration, and cleanliness we can do much more to aid ourselves rather than spending our hard-earned money on things that don't do all that much for us, except to deplete our funds.

The thing about acne is its prevalence amongst cultures that have "advanced" to the point where instead of eating whole grains, fruits, and protein such as in meat or fish, they have migrated to the eating of foods that have been processed for ease of transportation, shelf life, and consumption -- the attendant result is that the corresponding incidence of acne has gone up considerably.   That is to say, studies have shown that in cultures in which the incidence of the westernization of the diet has not occurred, such as in the diet of the people on the island of Kitava, that there is no occurrence of acne, whatsoever. 

The modernization of America has on the one hand eliminated deadly diseases such as bubonic plague, typhus, and malaria, whereas on the other hand we have seen an increase in heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, all of which are debilitating and/or the cause of death.  Too often, we are under the wrong assumption that if something tastes good that it must be good, or at least, not bad for our body, but this is simply not true.  What we consume into our body does make a difference to our overall health, and when going through adolescence and the massive hormonal changes of that age, it would be wise to recognize that our skin tone and our complexion correlate strongly with our diet, and that an improper balance has ramifications that include but are not limited to the onset of acne.

Psalm 49: 6-7

We read in Holy Scripture that: " They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; none of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him." (Psalm 49:6-7).  America is perceived as a material world of which money and power most definitely are highly effective to those that are able to utilize these knowingly.  While, no doubt, there is a certain satisfaction in seeing money applied so as to relieve someone else from a particular debt or a difficult legal situation, signifying that money in of itself has value here on earth, it does not reach, however, beyond it.  This means, that no matter the power or riches that you have been gifted with, and/or the influence that you are able to display in this material form through this wealth, your wealth ends, when you or your beneficiaries come face-to-face with God at your respective judgments.

You cannot buy God, while that seems rather obvious to most, the lives that people live on a day-to-day basis belies this common sense knowledge.  For far too many people, that are used to seeing that their influence, their power, their money, or their knowledge, in conjunction with other attributes are able to change the course of events, believe that in themselves, that such power as this, can be called upon at any time for any situation, but it cannot.

The purpose of this above psalm is to remind each and every one of us that the true treasure that we earn in this world, will be with us upon our physical demise, so that it can be said, that in this world, although your reach may indeed be far and secure, beyond it though, your power is meaningless, without form and void.  God does not now or has ever been impressed with material wealth, especially with those that have determined by their actions and their mindset that the god that they will truly serve is the god of mammon.

The main problem with wealth is that so often it distorts one's view of the world, mainly because wealth is able to apparently resolve or ameliorate so many problems in this life, so that it may then appear that wealth is the answer to everything when in fact, it's never the answer, it is at best, a sidestep. However, those that take the bread of life, and bless that bread with the foreknowledge of He who is the benefactor of life, will discover that those loaves have often multiplied so as to provide an easing of the yoke that so many are burdened with, a continual blessing for those of the true faith.

Do not waste your precious time in the pursuit of material gain, as that is the illusion sold to you by the opposition, perhaps playing on your fear, or on your belief in the false security that money will provide all that you may ever need, but instead acknowledge that those that pursue God with an unending passion, have gain all, and drink of the living water that refreshes the soul and has no beginning and no end.

Individual Sovereignty

Each person should be sovereign over their own self, which would include not only our physical body but also our mind, yet in many ways today we are not sovereign over ourselves, as this sovereignty has been wrongfully taken by the State, other government authorities, family members, or possibly even our employers.  The most important document in all of American history, is the Declaration of Independence, which makes it very clear that each of us, by our birth, by our humanity, by our Creator, have inalienable rights, and that amongst these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The purpose of government, the purpose of society, the purpose of family, is for the opportunity for sovereign individuals to band together, so as to secure these rights, and that these entities that are joined together are instituted amongst man, deriving their just powers from the consent of those so governed by them, and further whenever any form of governmental or alliances in general become destructive of these ends, the people, as well as specifically individuals has the right to alter or to abolish them.

Unfortunately, in America, we have come a long way from these noble sentiments and now live in a country to which our individual sovereignty is under assault each and every day, on virtually every level that one can think of.  Not only are our powers to basic movement and the decisions that we make, subject to all sorts of arbitrary law, this present government in conjunction with certain favored industries, subject us to endless propaganda that are in direct opposition to the very principles of the founding of this great nation.

While it certainly makes sense when bands of people group together, that a rule of law be created, that rule of law itself must be impartial, fair, just, and sensible, and in sympathy with individual sovereignty.  It is not for the government to take upon itself, to be dictator of what we can or cannot do as sentient beings with our own mind and body.  It is one thing entirely to create laws that arbitrate between what one person has done to another, but it is an entirely different thing to create laws that punish what one person does, advocates, or does not do to himself.

While the State and the people should have an interest in you as an individual, that interest cannot and should not extend to punishing you for acts against yourself, that others somehow have determined to be worthy of some sort of punishment.  An individual, any individual should be entitled to do whatever that they want to do with their own body and mind, as that is part and parcel of having inalienable rights to begin with and as long as in so doing, they are not interfering with another person's sovereignty over their own bodies and minds or violating the property of others, they should be left free to choose the actions that please them.

The main issue that is far too common in today's society, is the overreach generated by so many people and governmental agencies; while it is true that on the one hand we are our brother's keeper, that duty is based on the love of one's neighbor and not aggrandizing to ourselves the right to punish those for whom we disagree with in regards to their doing and believing.

Abortion, Feticide, and Infanticide

Even though the law of the land signifies that abortion is legal under certain terms and conditions throughout America -- a woman's right to choose as to whether to abort her fetus is something that is still both vociferously debated as well as being a highly emotional and moral issue.  The ramifications of abortion of demand is fraught with medical controversy, as it is possible that the same medical doctor that you attend to for the birth of a given newborn child, is also the same medical doctor that performs abortions, to which, there is an inherent moral and professional conflict between these two distinct activities, to which one is about the celebration of newborn life, while the other is about the premeditated taking of life.

Of course, for a female to even consider having an abortion in the first place, that female must be pregnant, yet, despite the fact that never in history has there been so many ways to prevent pregnancy such as through options as in birth control pills, IUDs, injections, condoms and so forth, there are around one million abortions performed in America each year, to which it is surmised that very few woman having abortions, actually desired to be placed into the unenviable position of aborting their own fetus to begin with.  This would strongly imply that because abortions are legally available for females, that logical and straightforward steps to prevent an unintended pregnancy are forsaken, perhaps under the mistaken notion that pregnancy is always something that happens to the other female, not you.

A pregnancy occurs when upon conception an embryo is created within the woman's womb, which later gestates and graduates into a fetus, typically considered to be accomplished at eight weeks after conception, and this fetus will later be birthed at typically 37 to 42 weeks from conception, although fetuses as young as 22 weeks have been successfully delivered.   This means, depending upon the time table of when an abortion is performed, that the doctor performing it may be killing either a human embryo, or a human fetus (feticide), or even a viable fetus inside or outside the birth canal (infanticide). 

The semantics and politics of those that are pro-abortion like to spin things in such a manner so as to emphasize two points: one is that it is the woman's body and she alone, should have preeminence over it, and that the State or any moral authorities, should therefore step aside.  The other is that those that perform or participate in an abortion do not want to, or refuse to admit that an abortion is anything other than essentially aborting "products of conception", which sidesteps the real issue and is intellectually dishonest.

What is lost during all this abortion talk and action, is the fact that humanity and the sanctity of human life, itself, essentially takes a back seat to the selfishness of those that are alive at the expense of those that would have life.  Abortion is in essence, the euthanasia of the defenseless, it is feticide, it is infanticide, to which a great nation can never be a defender of, and instead the highest court of our land in order to be considered a legitimate authority must recognize that its chilling precedence has done more to destroy the fabric of this storied nation, than any foreign enemy America has ever faced.

TSA K-9 Units

Anyone that has to travel via public airlines, has as a part of that travel, to deal with security elements of airports, to which virtually all major airports in America, use the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and their primary duty is to make sure that at airports, cargo, along with its associated personnel and passengers, comply with all TSA regulations.  Of course, it isn't real clear that the TSA even understands their own regulations, as mission creep seems to be part and parcel of virtually any Federal agency created, and is certainly the case for the TSA.

Take for instance, the fact that airports now have TSA canine (K-9) units, which upon the first time that you see one, takes you somewhat aback.  Typically, most people associate K-9 units with actual police officers, to which TSA "officers" most certainly are not, which begs the question, if TSA agents are not police officers, why are they, as opposed to actual police officers, utilizing canines on behalf of their duties?

The answer given by the government would typically fall under that the canines are being utilized by the TSA to detect for explosives which is one of the most significant reasons for the TSA to exist in the first place.  If this is truly the case, though, this type of work seems beyond the scope of TSA agents, as a "positive" from a canine, would seem to necessitate taking actual action against a person or persons, to which having the legal ability to arrest, be armed, and a good understanding of Constitutional safeguards, all seem prudent for exactly this type of situation, because the fact of the matter is that most "positives" are not going to be real, actionable events at all and thereby need to be handled by those that have both the experienced and the training to deal with these situations in such a manner so as to not unwittingly upset the citizens that are supposed to be protected, but not unduly harassed without probable cause.

Another issue with TSA K-9 units is that the policy of where these units are deployed seems haphazard and logically inept.  For instance, there are security lines to enter into the actual airport terminal to which all personnel and passengers are subject to these lines in one form or another, but somehow you will find TSA K-9 units on the other side of the security window, that is to say, in the passenger debarkation and embarkation areas to which they will roam about, which begs the question, if you are going to have TSA K-9 dogs after passengers have already gone through security, what is the point of the security lines to begin with?

That is to say, once you decide that TSA K-9 units can go anywhere, than why not on the airplanes themselves before they take off, or while passengers are in the runway to board the airplane, or in the bathrooms, or the smoking rooms, or on the tarmac, or in the parking lot, or in the parking lots of facilities that are for longer term parking but are off premises, or at passenger's houses just before they get into their car. 

The bottom line is that TSA K-9 units are completely ineffective, all flash, no substance, a waste of the taxpayer's money and a disgrace to the principles of this great nation.

The Ticking Time Bomb Torture Fallacy

There are far too many people that watch scenes in movies and television shows depicting enhanced interrogation or whatever and believes gullibly that these stories truly reflect the realities of the real world, where in virtually all cases they do not.  In the movies, the producers of such, often want you to believe that for good to overcome evil, that good has to sometimes take a play from the bad guys' playbook in order to put him down, and that this action is of course justified, often because the bad guy has done all sorts of terrible, horrible deeds, that are far beyond what the good guy has done in return.  The result, is good triumphs and evil is defeated, and thereby all is good.  What rot!

The United States is a signatory to international treaties that specify that torture is forbidden, along with the fact that torture is outlawed in the country of the United States to begin with, yet America does torture certain suspects time and again, no matter what semantics it may use, and then uses their worldwide power, influence, and jurisprudence to argue that what has occurred isn't really torture, but "enhanced interrogation techniques" and other creative phrases that disgrace this country.

America sells the lie that torture is necessary against certain enemies because there are bad guys that do horrible things to America and its infrastructure, and thereby America needs to respond in kind, all in order to protect its citizens, its institutions, and its country.     The very fact that America endorses the torturing of anybody for any reason is the very test of a country's constitutional government to begin with and our ignoble failure to such reflects that America is itself, a rogue State.

Certain clever pundits like to propose, ridiculous scenarios, such as the one about a certain evil person who has been caught and he alone has vital information that if extracted in time, will prevent an atomic bomb from detonating in NYC or similar, so that even a pacifist, so to speak, would recognized that in this type of dramatic situation, that surely the violation of one bad guy's civil rights, would be worth the saving of millions of lives.  The problem with this type of fallacious reasoning is that America is trying to put forth the lie of "the ends justify the means", but in actuality the truth of the matter is, that the ends will reflect the means, so that those that believe safety lies in the torturing of others, will find that they have reaped what they have sow, when the blowback of such torture haunts them and their country to its very core.

The thing is that within any true justice system there is a road, that every country must have the determination to take, and those that veer from the straight and narrow path, to endorse circuitous reasoning, unequal justice in all of its many forms, aren't patriots, but are, in fact, the enemy within, and are therefore at mortal and moral odds with this last best hope of mankind. 

Life itself, may only give you one or two true tests of your real character, and those that fail those tests, have lost all.