Boycotts are Effective

President Calvin Coolidge stated in 1925 that the:  "the chief business of the American people is business". This quotation has been somewhat truncated in history to be remembered as "the business of America is business."  However, it is rendered, the point is essentially the same, and any consumer would be well to remember it, which is that America takes its business and its money very, very seriously.  It then follows that if you want to make an impact, an impact will be made, when the everyday flow of money to businesses is interrupted in some way, form, or fashion.  That is to say, many people will nod their head, distractingly or not, or mumble their agreement about whatever that you are talking about, but they often won't readily react to any of it, till it affects their life or their bottom line.

This modern age has never seen a better time to organize and to initiate boycotts, mainly because the ability to stay in contact, connect, and communicate with other people of a like mindset, has never been easier, with all of the tools that allows one to stay in touch with one another in real time, via cell phone, or similar, and further that the power and immediacy of social media can easily take a smidgen of an idea, create a molehill of it within a short span of time, and possibly a mountain from it within just a few days.

Each person, in themselves, has economic power, and this power is utilized each and every day, whether recognized or not, by the financial decisions that we make, so that in aggregate, these decisions may easily affect the bottom line of corporations which rely on consistent buying behaviors and revenue streams to maintain their status and profitability.  Further to the cause, there are many products and services that are somewhat similar one to another, to which, the only real differentiation between it and a competitor is the perceived status symbol or reputation that a given product has over its rival.  Therefore, anything that is brought to the fore that might tarnish a company's burnished image, is certainly something that most companies would be vitally concerned about, irrespective as to whether there is a belief by that particular company as to whether the boycott has merit or not.

This means that targeted boycotts are in actuality accomplishing a dual purpose: of impacting sales, as well as impacting the product and the perception of such, to which all of this combined impacts the bottom line.  It is that threat or the actual action of, that creates the dialog between those that boycott and the company that has created the issues of the boycott to begin with.  Unfortunately, in America, appealing to the better nature of people or a given company's character, often will not accomplish much of anything, whereas battles that affect the flow of money, whether in the short or the long term, will most definitely get a response.

 In addition, the mainstream media will often play a massive role in the effectiveness or nationalization of a boycott, to which the boycotters can help their cause by being able to present their issue in such a manner that the "sound bites" of this modern age can distill it and highlight it so as to engage the short attention span of most general audiences.  Boycotts can be highly effective, and can be looked upon as grassroots democracy in action, recognizing that organized people have the ability to vote with their dollars each and every day.

2 Peter 3:10

We read in Holy Scripture the following: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." (2 Peter 3:10).  This passage has two distinct parts, to which the first is that the second coming of the Lord which will be as a thief in the night, and the second part is that heavens and the earth will be burnt up and be no more, akin to a gigantic nuclear explosion.

It is amazing how often we get commentary from experts or even religions built around the knowledge of our Lord's exact date of His second coming, to which, none of these predictions have ever come to pass, and probably none ever will.  The scripture is clear that the Lord will come as a thief in the night, which makes the point fairly clear, that man will not know His exact coming, and in fact, it will be unexpected and unheralded.  That doesn't mean that man should not prepare for His second coming, in fact, man should, in his actions and duties, always be aware that our Lord may come at any given moment, so man should at all times behave in such a manner so as to be of service to our Lord, by his love of neighbor, and his sincere purpose of behalf of God.

The second section of this passage is of particular note, as it should frighten anyone that interprets their Bible in a literal manner because the elements are being melted with a fervent heat, does not bode well for planet earth or its inhabitants.  However, the Bible is often meant to be meditated upon, and for symbols to be metaphorical or allegorical, so that a careful contemplation of the heavens burning up and passing with a great noise should be looked upon in the manner of understanding that the old must be completely annihilated in order for the activation of the new.

This signifies that the true second coming of our Lord is a time that you will recognize when the old you is burnt away, much like a controlled forest fire that takes out the dead underbrush so as to bring forth new growth and for the good continuance of that vital health for the forest.   Also true, is that no one can get into heaven being of two minds, either you will serve the one, or you will serve the other.  This means that the change that we desire, the second coming that we must have begins first within ourselves, and it is this that must fundamentally change within our being, or we will never successfully cross the bridge over to the other side.

The earth that we live in is exactly the earth that we have made and if this earth is unsatisfactory in any manner, such as in justice, love, truth, and faith, than that fault lies within ourselves and no other.  Our Lord has ever put forth into our being all the ingredients that we need in order to effect real change, but this change must come not only from a sincere heart, but also from a heart that recognizes that its way--that is selfishness and strife cannot possibly ever be the way. 

We must endeavor to release the old and to embrace the New Jerusalem, by focusing our minds and our hearts on all that is good and right, and to do all this with a singular purpose.  Then, in time, He will come.

The Political Power of the Northeastern States

The United States currently has fifty States, of which, the physical square miles of each, varies considerably.  For instance, in the continental United States, Texas is by far the biggest State in the union, so big in fact, that the thirteen smallest States combined would still be less in size than Texas.  The foregoing might seem to be one of those little trivia questions which don't mean much of anything, until you recognize a couple of very important points.  The first point is that our Congress, the legislative branch of our government, makes laws, to which that Congress has two parts of it, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.  The amount of members that each State sends to the House of Representatives is based on the State population, which is updated every ten years, although the amount of members in total that make up the House does not change.  The Senate, on the other hand, has two members per each State, and this does not change ever.  The second point, is that America has distinctive territories such as the West, South, Northeast, and Midwest, that often vote in concert with one another, so that any one section of the country that is more heavily represented, will have more influence than another section of the country, and by virtue of having more Senators in a given section, can and will definitely influence legislation.

The area of the country that has the seven smallest States of the union is the Northeast and those States are Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts.  The other three States that make up the Northeastern quadrant are Maine, Pennsylvania, and New York, in which not even New York ranks in the top 25 of States in physical square miles in America.  These ten States represent 20% of the Senate and have shown consistently over the last twenty-odd years that their mindset is quite similar, which is not surprising considering that only three of the twenty Senators from these States are Republican.  In fact, over the last six Presidential elections (1992-2012), all ten States have voted Democratic each and every time, with the sole exception of New Hampshire in 2000.  The fact that the Northeast has that type of consistency equates to it having an undue influence in the political field of the Senate, and should rightly be looked upon as the Northeastern bloc.

The upshot is that States such as Texas and California, while having huge populations and many members of Congress, are still significantly short-changed when it comes to their particular geographic area of the union mainly because their Senate presence is so anemic.   In addition, large States with little population, such as Wyoming and Montana, are given much more of a say, even though there virtually isn't anyone that actually lives there.  This doesn't mean that the Senate as structured is necessarily flawed, but what it does mean is that the fact that the Northeastern part of the union has all the small States gives them an undue influence over national politics simply because they were so fortunate as to have significantly smaller size colonial footprints that later became States.

The thing is that those that are in power, hate to relinquish power, which is probably a significant contributing factor as to why so many of the States created later, were much larger physically in size, so as to not diminish the power of the smaller States, by adding a bunch of competing small States, and thereby diluting the Senatorial power of the Northeast.

The New Chicken: Turkey

According to the nationalchickencouncil.org in 1965 the per capita consumption of chicken in America was 36.9 lbs, whereas the per capita consumption of turkey was 7.6 lbs, and for all red meat was 133.9 lbs.  For 2016, it is estimated that red meat consumption will be at 105.3 lbs, chicken will be at 91.4 lbs, and turkey at 16.2 lbs. This means that in the last fifty years, that red meat consumption on a per capita basis has actually declined a significant percentage, whereas chicken consumption has grown enormously to which it is only a matter of time, perhaps five years, before the per capita chicken consumption will be greater than red meat consumption, and while turkey per capita consumption has grown in consumption by more than 100% over the last fifty years, it has actually fallen further behind chicken because chicken consumption has grown at an ever higher consumption rate.  The most significant reasons for chicken to have taken significant market share away from red meat are because of its cost per pound, which can be attributed to the more efficient raising of chickens, the much greater weight of chickens that are raised today, as well as the fact that chickens also take less time to mature than they did fifty years ago, as well as the wide usage of chicken products in fast food restaurants and the like.

A lot of the advantages of chicken are the same advantages of turkey, to wit, that turkeys have also grown in size and breast meat considerably over the last fifty years, farmers have also become more efficient in the raising of, and that on a per pound basis, turkey prices are comparable to chicken prices, and are often cheaper than chicken.  The main issues against turkey are that it is often associated with eating as a main course only during Thanksgiving and Christmas festivities, and virtually ignored as an evening meal, thereafter, most likely because of the physical size of turkeys as well as the labor and cooking times of turkey.  That is to say, that the average turkey sold to consumers is simply too big for everyday usage.

There are a couple of ways to combat the physical size of a turkey, to which one is to break the turkey down into more manageable parts such as turkey bacon, turkey nuggets,  turkey breast meat and patties, turkey wings and so forth.  The other way to make turkey a more common meal to consume is to have different sizes of turkeys, consider that back in the 1930s the average size of a turkey was 13.2 pounds, whereas the present day size of a chicken is 9.25 pounds, so that the specific development of turkeys as an 1:1 alternative to chickens could readily be accomplished if certain specific turkeys were re-bred in such a manner so as to downsize their weight to match more closely to the chicken, and perhaps in order to further differentiate this as a different breed of turkey, call this smaller version of a turkey by a different name, such as a turket.

The great thing about turkeys is that their taste isn't nearly as bland as chicken, in addition to fact that turkey is already well known and popular and commonly consumed as bacon, lunch meat, as well as for special family occasions, so that given enough push and marketing, there isn't any real reason why turkey can't be consumed at a significantly higher rate, especially if the pricing of such, is comparable to chicken.

The Economics of Knock-Offs

According to manufacturingnews.com: "Knockoffs account for 7 percent of world trade", and while it is difficult to really know for sure how big the knock-off business is, it is fair to say that in any major metropolis there are many areas within that metropolis to which those that want to buy knockoffs can do so, no matter how well policed the area is.  There are many reasons for why knock-offs do major business, but it all starts at the very basic understanding that where there is a need, there will be somebody that will fill that need, and far too many people, have a need to wear or have the latest high-end design product but are woefully short of being able to afford the real thing or are woefully ignorant that those that sell high-end products in an underhanded way or at insane discounts, are at best selling a stolen product, and in all probability selling a knock-off of the product or both.

While there are and always will be different degrees of knock-offs, the most impressive knock-offs are ones that readily fool those that the product is being sold to and for these knock-offs to work, one must have created the entire gamut from the buying of the raw supplies, labor, manufacturing, distribution, and the ultimately the selling of the product all put together seamlessly in order to garner the best sales and to have an overall business model that is sustainable.

One of the great things that helps knock-off manufacturers is the fact that names like Louis Vuitton, Coach, Hermes, and so on, have created over time and through careful marketing a certain prestige and clique for their respective products to begin with, so that the selling price of these luxury goods has little or nothing to do with the underlying cost of the materials and its labor themselves.  It then follows from the above that this means that these high-end luxury goods have a very fat gross margin which allows those that have that corrupt entrepreneurial spirit to piggy-back onto these business names in order to profit from their goodwill.

The thing about handbags, for instance, is that the overall technology and insight to produce one is something that is fairly easy to reverse engineer and it is well worth it to a top counterfeiter to take their time to do so in such a manner so as to be able to replicate a given handbag so that the replica of it is good enough to almost pass for the real thing.  All of this is possible, because while the handbag might retail for $750 or more, the actual materials and labor of it, are probably no higher than 10-15% of that retail price, if that.  This means that a top notch knock-off manufacturer can undercut significantly a real high-end handbag, especially considering that all the advertising, marketing, taxes, pricey brick and mortar stores, and so forth, aren't part of their business model, so in actuality, despite the counterfeiter having to pay off or dealing with certain policing elements, port authorities, organized crime, and suffering with thievery, violence, betrayal, and shrinkage, all often without legal recourse, and so forth, the counterfeiter's gross margin will still be quite lucrative.

The bottom line is that counterfeiters could not exist without successfully exploiting the large gross margin of these high-end luxury good companies to begin with, in addition to the important fact that so many people want or need what they really can't afford and thereby take that enticing shortcut in order to get theirs.

The Absolute Uniqueness and Mystery of the Christ

There is no other religion in the world to which its founder was found guilty and received capital punishment, in the case of Christ this was crucifixion, and was then able to resurrect himself or reconstitute his physical body, continue then with his mission on earth for a predetermined period of time, before ascending to Heaven in front of his apostles.  Yet, that is the story of the Messiah, unprecedented in the annals of all human history, which would indicate that this story is the most important story that has ever been told.

This means that a proper studying and understanding of Jesus and his mission is of utmost importance for fundamentally understanding the purpose and meaning of everyday life.  Everything that Christ did was for a purpose, yet Christ's words, parables, actions, and life were never presented in such a manner that all would know the Truth because without effort, without desire, without love, and without dedication, the message of Christ was mystifying but those specifically that knocked upon the door of Truth, with the right attitude, with the right heart, and with the right mindset, would discover the Light that surpasses all human light.  That said, even those closest to Christ, his own disciples, were incredibly often at a loss as to the real meaning and purpose of Jesus' actions, to which, only upon his crucifixion, resurrection, further instruction, ascension, and the day of Pentecost, did his disciples finally understand the meaning of the Christ, and only at that point, did his disciples clearly understand their own mission and purpose in life.

For many people, even today, the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died on the cross, as if He was a common criminal, or as an enemy of the State, seems inexplicable.  How is it possible for the son of God to die?  How is it possible that Jesus could be scourged, beaten, spat upon, mocked, unjustly convicted, and even somehow when given the opportunityto be freed was democratically outvoted by the people in favor of Barabbas, an insurrectionist.  The answer to this basic question is twofold, first Jesus followed this particular pattern in His Life, so as to fulfill Scripture, further it was done, to fulfill his own prophecy that he had previously declared, but for the most part, had been misunderstood by the populace.  Further, the actual crucifixion carried with it the connotation that Jesus the Christ was the symbolic sacrifice of this innocent lamb to God, as a testimony that the sin that is mankind, could only be cleansed by this sacrifice, and by His wounds, we would be healed.

Yet, there is a further message, often left unsaid, in regards to the crucifixion and death of Christ, and His later resurrection.  That is the point that humankind is created in the image of God, and that image is not the physical form of man, but the spiritual soul of man, so that the crucifixion or death, of anybody, let alone the Christ, is the death of the physical man, but never of the spiritual man.  This means that anybody, that gets so caught up in this world, so as to believe that what they are seeing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, are missing the Truth.  The Truth is we are spiritual beings encased in a physical form, and that physical form will suffer many slings and arrows, that many believe is the ultimate reality, whereas the reality is we are a little lower than angels, and are children of the Most High God, invincible, unending, and filled with His glory.

Maintenance Margin

The hardest part in anyone's financial life is building up a nest egg, once that is done, most people will discover, through happenstance or whatever, that money makes money.  For instance, many people have a brokerage account, which can be opened for trivial amounts of money such as $1000, and with that brokerage account they have a vast array of equity investments that they can make.  When opening up a brokerage account there are a multitude of questions to answer, to which, one of them is whether you desire to have a "cash" account or a "margin" account.  A cash account is about as simple as it can get, which simply means that if you deposit $10,000 you can buy up to $10,000 worth of equities or mutual funds.  A margin account, however, is fundamentally different, to which, typically in most brokerage accounts, if you deposit $10,000 you can buy up to $20,000 worth of equities or mutual funds.  As you might imagine, there are caveats when it comes to margin accounts, to which the two most fundamental caveats, is that when you borrow money to utilize for your margin account, the brokerage  will charge you interest in order to do so, additionally, and fundamentally of extreme importance, should your investments go down in value, you will be subject to a "margin call", which in essence means that you must either come up with more equity by depositing more money into your brokerage account or sell at least part or some of your positions.  This means that a margin account is not for the faint hearted and further that those utilizing margin accounts must as a matter of policy, pay daily attention to their brokerage positions or possibly suffer the consequences for their blithe unconcern.

Margin itself is governed by the Federal Reserve's Regulation T as well as the brokerage company that you are invested with, so that, even though the regulation allows you to margin at a 1:1 ratio to your equity amount, in theory your brokerage company, might be more conservative than that, and hence rather than let you margin at 50% equity, they may set the number at 70% equity, depending upon a lot of factors, which would include your experience, your net worth, and the investments that you make.  There is, however, another part of margin, which many people are unaware of, which is maintenance margin, this is margin that goes into effect usually after a designated period of time, which typically stipulates that the amount of equity that you need for your securities drops from 50%, to as low as 25%, which is the legal limit.  This then indicates that an equity cash deposit of $10,000 would now at its maximum, be able to hold $40,000 worth of equities, or twice the initial margin requirement.

So what does this all really mean, well, in an age of unprecedented low interest rates, the cost of borrowing money has plunged significantly, so that margin rates can be so low that brokerage accounts exceeding $3.5 million, for instance, can be offered margin loan rates of just 0.97% or possibly even lower.  What this means in effect, is that because margin rates are so low, and because you can leverage up your investments to a 3:1 ratio (equity 25%), that sophisticated organizations do this sort of thing all of the time so as to maximize potential gains in an era to which it is difficult to effect a yearly gain of 7-8%.  According to nyxdata.com margin debt in America in December of 2015 was at $461,200 ($ in millions) or nearly 1/2 trillion dollars, against free credit cash accounts of $151,618 ($ in millions) and credit balances in margin accounts of $127,891 ($ in millions).  The bottom line is that the stock market is highly leveraged, and leveraged money is money that is highly susceptible to panics, and panics lead to recessions and/or to depressions.

It takes two to Argue, One to Change

There are times when perhaps it isn't so good that we are able to communicate to each other via talking, writing, texting, and so forth, simply because, there are times when one person wants to get into an argument with us.   It is one thing to have a discussion, a conversation, a formal give and take, to which each side gets an opportunity to talk, and each side gets an opportunity to think, listen, and react, all done in such a manner, that neither side gets emotionally overwrought.  However, it is an entirely different thing when one side, or both sides, unleash upon the other, with absolute venom and contempt, expecting somehow, that by doing so, something constructive will come out of it.

As always, the change that we want or demand in others actually starts within our self.  Other people are virtually never puppets that we can control with the strings of the puppeteer, but rather are their own individuals, made up of all sorts of different factors and inputs, to which, as much as we might think that we know everything about them, we really do not.  However, on the other hand, we do know ourselves, or should, which means that by working on ourselves to be the best person that we can be will make most everything else better.  This means, that we should try to treat others with the same dignity, respect, concern, understanding, and caring that we would like others to treat us.  For instance, most everyone makes some sort of mistake every single day, but seldom do we vilify ourselves unmercifully for having done so, mainly because it really isn't necessary to do that, because we are already in recognition that we have made the mistake and have usually taken measures to correct it.  This signifies that when our partner makes an error in judgment, that reading them the riot act is seldom the thing that will be beneficial for both or either party, although it very well might lead to a stinging and ugly argument.

For many people, life is full of frustrations, to which, some are in our control and some are not.  The bottom line is that other people often don't think like we do, don't behave like we do, and do things differently than how we do it.  This doesn't necessarily make them wrong, or bad, or mistaken, or foolish, although it is conceivable that it does, what it does mean is that they are different than we are, and we should respect that.

The unfortunate aspect of arguments is frequently the other side does not want to hear you, but instead wants to validate themselves against you, often very assertively.  That is to say, the impression that they want to make in their argument against you is typically that they are so superior and wise, whereas you are so stupid and clueless.  But if this is so true, why has it taken them so long to discover this, as this seems to invalidate their very premise of the argument. 

Those that are emotionally overwrought and argumentative have issues, to which, perhaps some of those issues actually have to do with you, or with each other, but many times it has to do with something entirely else.  Remember this, does it make sense to argue with a madman even if they have a point or two?  It is far more sensible to diffuse the situation by not getting caught up into it, as not every accusation or complaint need be met with an answer; their fiery venom will burn out soon enough, keep calm at the center, and recognize that this too will pass.

Grandparents make Great Parents

As reported by usatoday.com: "According to 2010 U.S. Census data, 4.9 million American children are being raised solely by their grandparents. The number is almost double that of the 2000 Census -- 2.4 million."  Whether grandparents are raising their grandchildren solely and without the aid of their grandchild's biological parents, or whether they are helping to raise grandchildren in conjunction with the parents, more and more grandparents are taking a more prominent and meaningful role in the raising of today's children, and that trend doesn't appear to be on track to reverse itself anytime soon.  In general, the more family members that take an interest in any child's life and development, the better that child's life will be, because children more often than not, need attention, need validation, and need love.

The thing about grandparents that often puts them in such a favorable position in regards to their aid in the raising of grandchildren can be broken down into many factors.  For instance, grandparents typically have more time to interact with children, they are often more accommodating, more patient, more generous, more experienced, less sensitive, and have more wisdom, than parents do.  In addition, grandparents often don't have conflicts such as ambition, night school, too many hours at work, or fatigue from work, liaisons illicit or not, being overwhelmed by too many things at once, and so forth.  In general, grandparents are just more relaxed and more settled than parents are, with less concern about themselves and more concern about others, and generally a more appreciative outlook about the more important and vital things in life.

It's tough being a parent, to which, some are parents far too young, inexperienced, underfunded, immature, and struggling to make ends meet, to name just a few ofthecommon everyday parenting issues.  Obviously, the more things on any particular parent's plate, the more difficult it is for that parent to be a good parent, even if that parent has a great desire to be so, and coupled that with the inevitable mistakes that are made as a parent, leads often to a poor or a not desirable relationship between parent and child occurring.  

Not only does a grandparent have the advantages of time, wisdom, and experience, more often than not, grandparents see their renewed opportunity when thrust into the role of being a parent again, of making good on all the things that they felt they fell short on, the first time around.   While, grandparents may not have the physical capacity to get out and play with their grandchildren the way that a parent would, they compensate for this by virtue of the fact that grandparents listen to and pay better attention to their grandchildren. 

Obviously, every child wants to feel love, and the way that grandparents demonstrate this is by their willingness to joyfully interact with their grandchildren, wanting what is best for them, listening to their stories no matter how repetitious and circuitous, and nurturing them.  Too often, parents don't have the time to follow suit, and just want a child to hush, and to not be a nuisance, unable to understand that children desperately need their parental authorities to acknowledge them at the place where they are, and to see the world, if even for a moment, with the eyes of a child.  Grandparents intuitively understand this better because grandparents are often much more reflective, at ease, and receptive to the big, unblinking eyes of a child that still sees a big Heaven.

Eating Your Meal while watching someone Die on Television

Many people when then go to the movies make sure to grab a few snacks and blithely eat those treats while watching on the big screen various people die, in all sorts of ways, and really think nothing of it, because it is fictional entertainment.  This also stands true for people watching television shows, to which a fictional character is killed or a dramatization of a death occurs, or a death is depicted in a hospital scene, as we eat our evening meal, talk, text, or whatever.  None of that is very earth shaking, but the above has to do with situations in which the people that are dying aren't really dying in real life, no matter how realistic or not it is portrayed.  However, there are plenty of documentaries and news programs in which you will view actual real people, soldiers or not, being killed or shown as dead on television, and those deaths are absolutely real, yet many people go about their business without really missing a bite of the food that they are eating and most probably still enjoying.  Is this behavior somehow wrong?

The fact of the matter is that each and every day thousands upon thousands of newborns come into this world, and thousands upon thousands of those, some old, some not, some ill, some not, some expected, some not, die each and every day.  So to the point, this is the circle of our physical life on earth, to which none can escape from, to which, perhaps it can be said that in this modern, western world, we have pushed the tragedy of death, to such an extent, it has become marginalized.

While it does seem somewhat strange to actually be eating while watching someone really die on television, as if this in itself, is an act of disrespect, the thing is, that in order to nourish our physical body, we must eat, and unless we change the station, or close our eyes to the reality of life, we are bound to see and learn of things that are inconvenient or uncomfortable to us, yet, the very act of eating, should perhaps be seen as a sort of defiance that we will not go quietly into the night, and that living people must eat in order to sustain their life.

It can also be said that it's good to see death, not from a sick or sadistic point of view, but instead so that we can recognize that death touches us all, rather than that death should be covered up, sanitized, and hidden far from our view.  It use to be that people that succumbed to natural causes did so at home, in front of their loved ones, but nowadays so often people die instead in hospitals, often away from their loved ones, and/or medicated so much that their mind is discombobulated.  While this isn't necessarily something that can be avoided or even a bad thing, as in fact hospitals, their staff, and their medicine have its place, this also isn't necessarily the right thing either.  

We do need to see death, in order to better understand life, as well as to remind us that each and every day through our actions and by our words we are either living or we are dying.

Civil Suits and Self-Incrimination

If you ask the average citizen, to list all of the Bill of Rights, they probably could not do it, however, it you ask them to list what they could remember, they probably would remember at least a partial bit of the 5th Amendment, and would state that you have the right to not self-incriminate yourself, and further, this might be the sole Amendment, that they would know the number of, probably because they have seen so many criminal trials real or fictionalized on television, to which a defendant has invoked their "5th Amendment right to not testify against himself, under advice of counsel." One thing though a careful reading of the 5th Amendment shows that it states: "… nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…" this means that the 5th Amendment does not however stipulate the right to not incriminate yourself in a civil action, because a civil suit is not a criminal suit, and incrimination applies only to criminal cases.

This doesn’t mean, however, that you have to answer all questions in a civil suit, especially if you are concerned that giving answers to certain, specific questions, may present evidence that could be used against you in a criminal suit.  This point is extremely valuable because if civil suits can or could be the basis for the later prosecution of criminal suits, than prosecutorial agents would be well within their rights to suggest to the plaintiff to first pursue the civil case, and then have the prosecutorial arm of the State take evidence that would be considered incriminating against the defendant and then use this very testimony given in a civil suit against him in a criminal court of law.

As you might suspect, the foregoing not only seems to be unfair, but would also appear to be illegal or a violation of either civil or criminal codes.  It could very well be, depending upon how the legal system looks upon it; what it is for a certainty, is it is not "double jeopardy" because double jeopardy is being subject to the same offense twice, whereas these offenses may have the same root, but are different branches, that is, one is criminal and prosecuted by the State, and the other is civil and litigated by private parties.

In general, but not always, in situations to which there are both civil as well as criminal suits pending, or a tendency for both to come into play, American jurisprudence first pursues the criminal case, and then the civil case, which is the way it should be, as this allows the answers in a civil suit to be made without the fear of criminal prosecution.  Additionally, when it isn't clear as to whether there will be a criminal case but it is something that could occur, the defendant is allowed within a civil suit, to not answer specific questions that would be incriminating to him in a criminal trial, till there has been proper resolution of the criminal legal threat or a decision made by a judge compelling such testimony to go forward.

The thing is, judges or the law don't always get it right, and there are cases, famous cases (e.g. Bill Cosby), to which a person has given civil testimony, had the civil case settled or finalized, and then years later, been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution in a criminal case, to which their civil testimony is used against them.  This would clearly seem to be a case of being compelled by civil evidence to be a witness against himself, and even a cursory reading of the 5th Amendment, would seemingly make this evidence inadmissible.   

Should future litigation follow this pattern, first the civil and then the criminal -- with the prosecution distilling key components of the civil, and thereby melding the formidable State with private parties, this could specifically target individuals and effectively break them.

Child Endangerment Laws

There are so many laws and statutes in America that I suspect that if you were devote yourself to one hour a day to reading of such, that at no point, would you ever succeed in reading every law in America.  This means, in short, that most people are woefully short of knowing and certainly of comprehending all of the laws in America, and the less that you know about laws, the more vulnerable you are to being in danger of committing a violation of law.  While you probably won't find an argument with just about anyone that adults, especially parents, have an obligation to do right with their children, this parental authority is under assault each and every day.  For instance, it is one thing for the State to wish to assist parents that need assistance with the mentoring and parenting of their children in a positive and constructive manner but it is entirely a different thing again for the State to use their authority and their laws to wrest from parents or to punish parents, for their supposed abuse of their own progeny.

One of the most insidious things about laws in America is that prosecutors like to pile on as many dubious charges against a particular person as possible, so as in aggregate to create a situation in which the penalties of such are so great, that these particular unfortunates will have to plea bargain these charges down to something reasonable.  While the prosecutorial arm of justice may or may not see this as being the right thing to do, it is both highly effective as well as punishing against those that are accused.  To make matter worse, most adults of a certain age have children, and the fact that the government is wont to use a parent's own children against them so as to threaten parents with additional punishment, or to take away their biological children is highly irregular and unfortunate.

For instance, DUI laws are forever changing, so that the blood alcohol level of someone that is presumed DUI can be as low as 0.02% for those that are under the age of 21, 0.08% for those that are 21 and older, 0.04% for a commercial driver, while back in the 1950s the DUI presumption was above 0.15%, later to fall to 0.12% and then to 0.10% and now at 0.08% in most States.  The fact of the matter is that the definition of a DUI has continually changed not because authorities know so much more about drinking and driving but rather that authority simply want to arrest and punish more people that have had a drink with a DUI.  This leads to the point that if by virtue of the fact that you are considered to be driving under the influence and further that you also have a child in your car, that can easily be construed to be a prima-facie case of child endangerment, even though in actuality, there is a significant possibility that the DUI charge against you is functionally spurious.

While it certainly has merit to want to protect a child from unattended firearms, from drug trafficking and manufacturing, from any and assorted things that are specifically adult related and not child related, the fact of the matter is that these child endangerment laws are really used as a form of coercion to lay upon the adult to force them to conform or to punish them for non-conformance with the child used against the parent as the "whip of the law".  Not too surprisingly, those often accused of child endangerment are exactly the people that don't have the resources to fight the law to begin with, to which although often imperfect parents, love their children, and instead of the State providing brotherly aid and assistance for them, want them instead to bow to State authority or suffer the unending consequences of their non-compliance to arbitrary law.

The Purpose of Police: Keeping the Barbarians at the Gate

As part of any mature civilization is a court and justice system created in order to promote order and to assure the public safety.  While there are many ingredients to such a system, one of the necessary ingredients, is having under State Control, a designated arm of the government that makes sure to impose order when it needs imposing, and to bring miscreants to justice.  That arm of justice is presently known as the police, to which the police worked in conjunction with civil authorities to maintain and support civil society with the police force aiding in the enforcement of particular codes and laws of such a jurisdiction.

In a nation such as America, the police are not a force unto themselves, although in truly exceptional cases they can conceivably be, as they are instead the enforcement arm of the State.  This means that police, are not independent agents of the State, but are first responders to the State and its laws, and in particular the peculiar enforcing of such laws within that jurisdiction.

While a police force has many purposes, there are two basic and fundamental purposes that any police force has: to which the first is not so much to see that the law is obeyed and upheld within a particular city, but instead to see that the law, as arbitrated by those in authority, is obeyed and upheld in that city. This means that there is conscious recognition by policing authorities that they are not in themselves to go about their business in such a manner so as to disturb those that are the masters and payers-in of said system, with their secondary purpose being specifically to setup policing so as to keep the barbarians at the gate.  But who are the barbarians?

The barbarians are always define by the State, and therefore the State decides which party is on the inside and is privileged and which parties are on the outside, and should be suppressed.  That is why in virtually any civil disturbance within a given city, the police force is almost always on the side of those that control the city politics of that city, and thereby the police force as a whole pays little or no attention to the law or even their purported purpose, such as "to serve and protect", but instead makes sure to obey those that are truly in authority.

This means, for the uninitiated, that believe that in those inevitable situations which bring forth justifiable civil disputes, to which it would appear that each side has its merits, and thereby that the purpose of the police in such a situation should be to see that each side is protected equally and in such a manner so as to reduce bloodshed and unnecessary drama, that this viewpoint is nakedly naïve.  In point of fact, in most cases, one side will be strongly supported by the State, to the exclusion of the other, which should make it vividly clear as to whom or whom not the barbarians are, and once identified as barbarians, expect those barbarians to be stopped at the gate and driven far, far away.

Sunlight and Temperature

Most people are pretty familiar with the temperature on a given day, perhaps through their smart phone, or through the display on their vehicle, or through any preferred media outlet, but the fact of the matter is that most people don't understand that the temperature being measured by all of these various devices are all drawing upon the same basic set of tools which is the recording of the current temperature as measured in the shade, above ground level and importantly being out of the elements of that day such as wind or rain.  This means, for people that go outside on a sunny day to which the temperature is being displayed at 55 degrees Fahrenheit may easily believe that the temperature in the sun feels appreciably higher, because, in fact, it is.  Contrarily, for those that go outside on the same day at 55 degrees Fahrenheit in which it is cloudy and the wind has kicked up, will find that the air feels appreciable colder, because, in fact, it is.

This means for a certainty that on very hot days, in which you are laboring outside, that many people doing work, are under the misimpression that the real temperature in the air is actually lower than it actually is, because that temperature has not taken into account the sun, the sun's angle, wind velocity, and the overall humidity.  Not too surprisingly, accuweather.com properly recognized that temperatures should take into account these factors and thereby came up with a temperature rating for cities that they have designated as their RealFeel® Temperature, which more people should pay attention to, because the RealFeel® Temperature can be of vital importance for those that are laboring outside.

In addition, temperatures within neighborhoods, can vary quite a bit, because of the amount of shading in a particular neighborhood, the amount of concrete and pavement utilized in a given neighbor as concrete and pavement both draw in much more heat to their respective surfaces as opposed to dirt or grass, and the ability or inability of wind to travel through neighborhoods is dependent upon trees and other impediments to the flow of wind.

The more knowledge that we have about the true temperature in our area, the better that we can adapt to being prudent in our activities of our day, for instance, many people are under the misimpression that the highest temperatures on a sunny day is at high noon or 12 PM, but that is almost never true, as first off the true definition of solar noon is that this is the time when the sun is at its highest elevation in the sky, which almost always occurs later than high noon, depending upon your time zone, and this is especially pronounced during "daylight savings time".  Additionally, the highest temperature on a given day is almost never at solar noon, because although the sun has reached its apex, its heat is still warming the earth despite the sun's angle now beginning its slow descent, so because more heat is still being generated than is being lost on the earth's surface, this means that the peak temperature of the day is often still approximately three hours later than the solar noon.

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.