Fake Cashier's Checks

America is the land of opportunity for all those wishing to get a piece of the America dream, to which for some people, as a matter of course, they will let their desires and their greed to get the better of them.  It isn't surprising that so many people get caught up into scams in America, as even the government, with its State lotteries, sells the illusion, that any sucker, can strike it rich, if they just pick the right numbers on the right day.  When it comes to cashier's checks it used to be that cashier's checks really were as good as cash, as by definition the bank that the cashier's check was drawn upon, guaranteed the funds behind the check issued.  While, technically that is still true today, the problem is that in our hi-technology world, the means to create cashier's checks that have the look of the real deal has never been easier and to the uninitiated these fake cashier's checks look very real.  Further to the point, bank tellers aren't paid very well, and typically aren't overly concerned about the legitimacy of your cashier's check, except perhaps to inform you, that the cashier's check may take a few days to clear your account, which to those expecting that their cashier's check should be treated as if it was cash, surprising.  To make matters materially worse, cashier's checks, along with other various bank checks, may indeed become available within a business day or two as funds that you now have direct access to, signifying in your mind, that the check has cleared, even though, technically it hasn't.  In any event, even if a fake cashier's check was to clear and to become a firm deposit in your account, once your bank discovers that they have been deceived, they will immediately take and have the right to extract the funds back from your account, and, if for some reason, your account balance does not allow them to do so, they will come after you, for the funds, and possibly for check fraud, a felony.

Unfortunately, for too many people, the allure of what they believe to be an actual cash instrument as in a cashier's check, even under suspicious and strange circumstances, like, for instance the "cashier's check" being made out for an amount larger than what is properly due, is too enticing to walk away from.  Then too there are situations to which as part of your due diligencewith the transaction you are conducting, you only are willing to accept the cashier's check with proper ID and so forth, never suspecting that both the cashier's check as well as the ID, are actually clever forgeries.  All of this is deeply troubling, especially when you are being fooled by people that come across to you as being very polite and professional.

They say a sucker is born every minute, to which, mistakenly, most people do not consider themselves to be susceptible to being that sucker.  So too, a fool and his money are soon parted, especially so when the fool believes that he is getting over on someone else, only to find out that it was he, that was being played all the time, by that sweet siren song of easy money for nothing.

California: the Superrich and the Super-poor

If California was a separate nation its GDP would be eighth highest in the world, just behind Brazil, and ahead of such notable countries such as India, Italy, Russia, and Canada.  Not only that, there are only three countries outside of the USA that are at a minimum double the GDP of California, which are China, Japan, and Germany.  California is also one of the few States, perhaps the only State, to which it is or could easily be self-sufficient in agriculture, energy, manufacturing, healthcare, biotechnology, hi-technology, and has the two biggest usage ports in America.  Additionally, California has not only the Pacific Ocean, but mountains such as Mount Whitney at nearly 15,000 feet, and rivers such as the Sacramento River, as well as Lake Tahoe.  In addition, California has the University of California school system, which is the most highly rated aggregate public university school system in America, to which some of these campuses are amongst the very best universities in the world.  It's fair to say that California has it all, but when you look at California, there is an ever-widening gap between those that are superrich and the super-poor.

California has 111 billionaires, trailing only three other countries in this category, excluding America, itself.  On the other hand, as reported by ppic.org, "All told, 40.8% of state residents were poor or near poor in 2013."  As reported by 247wallst.com, "… roughly one in 10 California homes are worth more than $1 million," which goes along with the fact also reported by 247wallst.com that 8.1% of households in California, make $200,000 or more annually.  Additionally, as reported by ppic.org, "In 2013, 78% of poor Californians lived in families with at least one adult working…" indicating, that the poor are poor in California, not because they don't work, but because the cost of living is so high in comparison to their paltry wages, in addition to the fact that the average household size in California, is the 2nd highest in America,  meaning that there are more mouths to be fed and bodies to be sheltered in living quarters that are often priced beyond their means.

In point of fact, although California doesn't want to own up to it, part of the reason why the superrich are so rich in California, has to do with the fact that the powerless, the disenfranchised, the undocumented, and the ill-educated people of California are exploited by the rich.  That is to say, for instance, if you need landscaping or home repair work accomplished, many Californians avail themselves of the opportunity to select and negotiate with someone looking for such work in order to save money.  So too this is done again and again when it comes to child care services, maids, restaurant employees, janitors, agricultural laborers, and so forth, to which the owners or managers of such, utilize cheap labor to lower their costs and thereby to increase their profits on the backs of those that need employment and have little or no negotiating power. 

Superrich Californians never both to ask themselves why there are so many impoverished people in California, because they really don't want to know the truth of the answer, but the truth is, the rich need the poor so as to have plenty of labor to both serve as well as to service them, and care little of how the super-poor live and are treated, because they don't want to be bothered with troubling little details like that.

Your Public School is Collecting Massive Amounts of Information on its Students

The majority of children go to public school in America, to which these schools are "free" because they are paid for by the tax dollars of the residents of a given community.  Public schools should be accountable to the residents of that community, and in particular, to the parents and the actual children that attend the school and this should be preeminent over all other issues.  This means, rather than the data that is being collected about students being controlled, accessed, and in the hands of governmental authorities -- that instead, it is the parents and to a lesser extent, the actual students, that should have primary access to this vital information.  That is to say, while it appears fair for schools to keep a database of actual grades, attendance records, test scores, extracurricular school activities, and disciplinary actions, each one of these records, each one of these events, should be available at will, to the parents.  Further to the cause, data that represents student's racial characteristics, family situation, height, weight, religion, income of family, address, siblings, medical, prescription drugs, and so forth should be handled in such a manner that no student, ever, should have this information available to be sold, borrowed, or utilized by any governmental agency or private company that would allow these agencies to monitor students and be identified by their real actual name.   While there might be some valid reason why this personal information needs to be correlated and analyzed in the first place, each student's real ID should be protected, and this primary directive should be inviolable.

In actual fact, in today's society, to which everything is being digitized, and with the understanding that information is power, government agencies as well as private companies absolutely love being able to access pertinent and actionable data, especially in regards to students from ages five to eighteen, which, no doubt, would allow these entities inside information as to how to exploit such knowledge to their advantage at the expense of the actual students themselves.  There are two basic things that are being lost in all of this unnecessary and intrusive data acquisition: to which the first, is that schools are there to actually teach, and students are there to actually learn and to think.  The second basic thing is that these students are young, impressionable, mistake prone, decision challenged, and vulnerable, to which they should be allowed to grow up in an environment that is not constantly monitoring, and digitizing their every activity, good or bad.

Schools should not be seen as a battleground, they should instead be seen as a sanctuary, and as an opportunity for all that attend to learn at a minimum the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic, along with core moral values.  In actual fact, the testing of students is for their benefit, their attendance record and behavior is for their benefit, their interaction with other students and teachers is for their benefit, the school itself and all that it contains, is for their benefit.  When a school system becomes not a vessel for learning, but instead a tool for the indoctrination of and for the benefit of the State by providing massive pertinent data for manipulation and exploitation of and on behalf of private enterprise or State, than schools have failed this country, their parents, and most importantly, their children.

We Need Term Limits for Congress

After Franklin D. Roosevelt's 4-term Presidency, the 22nd Amendment was proposed and ratified, limiting all future Presidents to no more than two full terms, or eight years in office.  This seems reasonable for a republic such as the United States, so that we, the citizens, would not have to live under the same Executive for possibly twenty years or even more, as there are many countries to which, once a particular personage rises to their equivalency of the Presidency, do not ever leave office, unless they are overthrown, or die, while in office.

In regards to the judicial branch, judges are appointed to stay on the bench, while maintaining "good behavior", which basically equates to lifetime appointments.  This may or may not be a good idea, but at least it is settled policy, whereas for congressmen, both for the Senate as well as for the House of Representatives, there are no terms limits, whatsoever, and those that are members of such, have proven again and again, that once in office, they have no intention of ever leaving it.  In fact, there are at least 50 members in the history of Congress that have served during their tenure uninterrupted terms of 40 years or more while in the Senate or Congress of the United States of America.  This length of service is far too long for those that are in theory, public servants, to the people, and should not be permitted, so consequently we need a Constitutional Amendment to this effect.

It doesn't seem fair to the public, that the legislative branch of government, elects members of such, that once elected, have a strong desire, often realized, of staying in office, for year after year after year. These elected men and women are the actual lawmakers of America, and rather than being seen as servants of the people, are in fact, the masters of the people.  In point of fact, the only way to pry back cronyism, favoritism, corruption, and ilk of this sort, is to have as a matter of policy, term limits, to which no member of the Senate should be able to be elected to any more than two terms, or a total of twelve years, and no member of the Congress should be able to be elected to any more than four terms, or a total of eight years.

For those that argue against Congressional term limits, with the reasoning, that each election cycle gives the people a choice, which seems both democratic and reasonable, this is countered by the fact that incumbents by virtue of being in office in the first place, have enormous advantages over any other challengers either from within the party or from the opposing party, because specifically, the power and money behind politicians is only interested in backing winners, and the smart money almost always backs the person already in office, so that business can be conducted as usual.

Further to the most basic of points, the only real reason why any Senator or Congressman would run for election and hold office term after term after term, is because the benefits, the power, the influence, the money, the prestige, is so enticing that once in, they do not ever want to get out.

Time Clocks and Unfairness

There are millions of Americans that have to "clock in" each day, when they begin their work, and also have to clock out during breaks for meals or rest, as well as to "clock out" when their shift is finished for the day.  The thing about technology is that it is quite accurate, so that when you clock in or out, it really does have the correct time and since today's time clocks can be integrated in real time to a database that establishes comprehensive records for each employee, that information is actionable without the necessity of additional timesheets or similar.  Of course, it is the employer, that has the last say, because employers monitor timecards and  can adjust hours worked either up or down, to which, all employees as a matter of course, should compare their payable hours to their time sheet to verify that they are not being shorted hours.  While there might be legitimate reasons why an employer adjusts a particular time sheet, none of this should be done without proper notification to the employee involved, even, for relatively minor amounts of minutes, as an employee deserves to be paid for every minute of work accomplished on behalf of their employer.

In most States, it is not the amount of time that you work in one day that triggers overtime, but whether or not you have worked more than forty hours in one week, so that on a given day, most companies do not care if you have worked a bit over or under your eight hours or not, as long as, by the end of the week, you do not exceed forty hours, without prior management authorization.  This means, effectively, that companies are very good at making sure that they do not pay any unauthorized overtime, which obviously is a benefit to the company, but, on the other hand, they don't readily care, typically, whether you are short one or two hours of the forty that you are supposed to typically work in a given work.  The person that should care about being short, especially if one is consistently short, week after week, is the employee, because those one or two hours each week of not meeting your allowable weekly allocation, can cost a person about $1000 or much more in gross pay over the course of a year, whereas the extra time that you have off, is seldom worth losing that sum of money.

The problem that a significant amount of people will have with time clocks, is unless they are very diligent in all their activities in regards to their labor by always starting their day at the same work time, taking their breaks and meals at the same time, and clocking out at the same time, sort of like a machine, they are at the mercy of a machine that has no give and take.  That is to say, if you consistently show up a couple minutes late, clock out for a couple minutes longer at your breaks, and leave at shift closing time, because the company does not permit an extension to this, than you will as a matter of course end up short by a couple hours each week, by virtue of those "little nibbles" at your labor.  While on the one hand, you can argue that one shouldn’t be paid for the work that hasn't been clocked in, what isn't often taken into account, is that the employer has deliberately "gamed" the system, so that you will come up short on your paid hours, but often produce the same output as other employees that have received pay for the full forty hours worked.

The Established Religion of America is Atheism

The 1st Amendment makes clear that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," which has not been violated by Congress, but has been violated by the Supreme Court, as the Supreme Court through its rulings in the modern age, has consistently taken the position as stated by Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark in 1965, that those that have a: " meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God…"  would be eligible to be classified as a conscientious objector which allows exemptions for those so qualified under: "religious training and belief."  This, in a nutshell, and in effect, means that atheism, expressed in a certain way can be interpreted by the courts to be parallel in its "belief of unbelief" as to that of those that believe in God, and since the courts have erected "a wall of separation between Church and State", this has subsequently created a vacuum for atheism to be the de facto established religion of the United States, because atheism is the belief in the absence of God, which is not part and parcel of any Church belief.

This means, in effect, that every decision rendered against religion or precluding religion in the public square, on public property, public schools, in governmental policies and implementation, supports and abets irreligion, secular humanism, and specifically, atheism; because it is atheism which the Supreme Court now protects, establishes, and supports to the exclusion of all other religions within America.  Atheism is the established religion of America because atheism is a form of religion which offers no symbols, offers no services, offers no edifices, offers no tribute, and does not behave in the traditional manner of churches or other common religious organizations, yet atheism is the protected established religion of America because it is effectively the law of the land and is subsequently allowed to practice its religion openly and without restriction as well as being essentially sanctioned by the United States Government, by virtue of the fact that atheistic belief negates all other overt religious symbols and services in the public square, making atheism the standard bearer of governmental policy.

If you do not believe in God or Gods, you are an atheist, and atheists, unlike other mainstream religions, are allowed to profess and proselytize their "belief of non-belief" without hindrance by the government.  This signifies the seismic shift that the place of real belief in a Creator that gifted us all equally with inalienable rights has been thrown violently into the dustbin of history to be replaced by the belief, that man is his own god, or equivalent of, answerable to no one, except its fellow man, and that those that are in power, actively support this doctrine.

The religion of atheism is a most dangerous religion, because when you dismiss God, you also, by definition, dismiss moral law and truth, replaced instead by arbitrary law, or animal law, to which man has been reduced to just an intelligent beast, and left to do battle for the survival of the fittest.  While this fits in perfectly well in this Darwinian age, it is a monstrous step back of the evolution and the advancement of mankind, to which true enlightenment has been shamefully counterfeited by the darkness of man's ignorance and his arrogance of false knowledge made into a new dogma of the prison of unbelief.

Government Guarantees always create more Bad Loans

There is the old saw that many of us have heard, which is, "what would you do if you knew you couldn't fail?", which I suspect is supposed to be an object lesson in breaking out of our fears of the unknown, of failure, and of not pushing the envelope further than we thought possible.  The problem though with this sort of sham thinking, or exercise, is that there is no bravery, no courage, and no victory in performing or doing things which you cannot fail at, because there is no risk involved, no matter how you slice it.  Additionally, in the real world: all decisions, even indecisions, have consequences, so that, especially in a country that congratulates itself unceasingly that we are the bastion of free enterprise, there is that certain knowledge that to achieve your goals, you must prepare, work hard, and must take calculated risks in order to accomplish things of real merit.

In regards to a government, especially a government that has gotten bigger, larger, more invasive, than ever before, this size and impact of government has dramatically changed the dynamics of business in America, and typically not for the better.  There is in the scheme of things, typically no shame in failure, especially if lessons can be learnt from that failure as they so often are.  The only real shame in failure is the type of failure that comes from ridiculously stupid activities, unrealism, lack of capital and proper pre-planning, an inability to adjust to objective facts, and so forth, to which those that are ill-prepared in one form or another, often receive their just desserts of failure.

Unfortunately, when the government has a budget of nearly $4 trillion dollars all sorts of nonsense can be backed by the full faith and credit of our sovereign government.  Additionally, for political reasons as well as other assorted governmental policy excuses, there are programs created and are part of governmental policy, that signify whether implicitly or explicitly that the government will back certain companies and industries at the expense of other companies and industries, all in theory, for the betterment of the people.  In actuality, of course, government guarantees to which the government determines where the people's monies should be allocated, actually disrupts the normal give and take of commerce and business activities within America and instead allows certain select representatives of the people to hand select who to back at the expense of those that are left behind.

This means in a nutshell, whenever your industry or your company is backed to the hilt by the government, that the economics of how your business is run, is entirely different, because when the power behind you, "guarantees" that they will make good on whatever silliness or stupidity that you create, all sorts of havoc will originate from this ill-advised policy.  For instance, knowing that you cannot fail, fundamentally changes the incentives of a company, so that risk taking, especially risk taking that will benefit the most significant players at a given company, becomes incentivized, since the downside appears limited and/or even guaranteed, whereas the upside could put you and yours on easy street, forever.

In short, governmental guarantees of loans and businesses takes the risk away from private enterprise, and instead unfairly burdens the taxpayers to which they end up paying full freight to essentially subsidize the favored businesses of their governmental masters

God and State: King Henry VIII and Napoleon

In 1947, the highest court in our land, the Supreme Court, interpreted the 1st Amendment of the Constitution as creating a: "… wall of separation between church and state."  While this inexplicable decision has had mostly negative consequences within America, there is one bright side to the forced and legal separation of Church and State in our country, which is, when State power and Church power are combined into one solidified entity, the people are for a certainty, under the thumb of total despotism, with no recourse to either State or God for relief, as the State as God, holds not only all physical power over the servants of the State, but absolute spiritual power as well.

In history, there have been numerous empires, combining the power of Church and State as one, to which, two of the most intriguing examples are Napoleon Bonaparte and King Henry VIII.  In regards to France, the country's religion was Catholic, however, the power of the Pope was contained within the Papal State located in Italy, so that for any Emperor, in any country, there was going to be, as there was, an uneasiness between Church and State, especially when that Church has influence over the subjects of your empire, and in addition to that influence, that Church has representatives within your sovereign nation, and, as part of Church policy and purpose, was able to extract what could be considered to be "tribute" to the Church's coffers as well as having control of valued properties within France.  Thereby, when it came time for the coronation of Napoleon, at the Notre Dame Cathedral, Napoleon himself, conferred the crown upon himself, as opposed to the Pope doing so, signifying, that this Emperor, did not need bow to the spiritual authority of the Papal State.  Additionally, to drive home further the point, that Napoleon, as opposed to the Pope, had the force and military might to do as he wished, Napoleon, held Pope Pius VII prisoner for nearly five years.  This imprisoning of the Pope was not done so as to destroy Catholicism, or to abolish Catholicism, but to bend Catholicism to the purposes of the Emperor, so that in effect, the Papacy would be enthralled to Napoleon.

As for King Henry VIII, being unable to sire a male born child with his wife, Caroline, he desired to annul his marriage, but in order to do so, as a loyal subject and Defender of the Faith of the Holy Roman Church, he would have to get authorization for this annulment via the Pope, which did not occur.  This decision by the Pope, led to King Henry VIII in conjunction with his court, coming to a determination, that the ouster of Catholicism from England, would not only permit the King to divorce, but also would allow the redistribution of lands and properties owned and/or managed by the Catholic church and its representatives, to being replaced by favored court representatives.   Thereupon, King Henry VIII formally broke from the Catholic Church, declared himself instead to be head of the newly created Church of England, and thereby combined both Kingly as well as priestly powers into one hand. 

The lure of both earthly as well as being the authorized representative of Godly power is the type of combination that tyrants have turned to again and again, so that they, as opposed to the people, control both the physical, as well as the spiritual, and hence, leave no respite or sanctuary for their people to oppose their avarice.

Choices in Mortgages

The purchasing of a home and the mortgage financing that is part of this purchase, is for many people, the most important financial obligation that they will sign up for, ever.  This would imply quite strongly that whatever time that you devote to pursuing the purchase of a home and the financing that comes with it, should be extensive, comprehensive, and the terms of the deal should be carefully read, noted, and looked at.  The bottom line is when you are making a financial commitment for thirty years, for a home to which its value is often greater than your current net worth; you should really want to make sure that you know what you are doing.

The first issue, that many people have in buying a house, is that often the people that you are dealing with, don't actually have your best interests in mind, this doesn't necessarily mean that they are trying to rip you off, deceive you, or make for an overall miserable experience, but typically it is more that their interest is in seeing that the deal is done so that they can make their commission, or fee, or quota, and that pretty much this trumps all.  This means, that despite whatever sweet words that are spoken, ultimately the only person that really cares about your decision and commitment is you, because at the end of the day, you are the one that will have to live with the debt obligation, that could have severe negative consequences if things end up going horribly wrong.

In today's market while there are very straightforward loan packages, such as the 30-year fixed mortgage, and 15-year fixed mortgage, there are also many Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) that are offered too.  The good thing about a fixed mortgage is as the name implies, the rate is fixed for the duration of the mortgage, and therefore the payment amount each month is fixed for the duration of the loan, which is probably the best way to go for most people, especially with today's low rates.  However, banks like to offer ARMs, for a lot of reasons, one being that banks are in the business of making money, and if they guess wrong about mortgage rates, to which those rates go up appreciably, but have previously issued a lot of mortgages that are fixed and are now below current interest rates, than their portfolio will be devalued and they will lose money and perhaps be in significant financial difficulties.  One way, for banks to protect themselves from this is to offer an ARM mortgage, which typically readjusts once a year, after a set period of time, which allows the bank to raise your interest rate on your mortgage, if the index the mortgage is tied to, goes up. 

The real reason, though, that banks offer hybrid ARMs (a blending of fixed and adjustable) and ARMs and anything else which is "adjustable" or a "hybrid" is two-fold, one is that for some applicants it is the only way that they will be able to financially qualify to buy their house, meaning, that without a "below market" interest rate to begin with, you as a buyer, aren't qualified to purchase the home, which normally might be seen as a prudent warning flag.  Instead,  banks are good at easing any concern you might have of future payments, by trying to convince you that everything will be just fine, especially if you are only going to occupy the home for a few years, or, if not, that your income will surely go up over time, and so forth.  The second reason which really trumps all, is that an ARM is more profitable for a bank, particularly in regards to its fees, closing costs, loan origination, and points, to which the banks' overarching objective is to encourage you to ignore all the numbers that you see, except for that first initial payment, as if, that payment amount is permanently low and fixed, which it most assuredly is not.

Are we Soul or Body?

In America, we are fortunate, that we are given the freedom to believe or not to believe in any particular religious profession that we wish and this is the way that it should be.  Each of us should have the right to follow the faith or non-faith of our desires and that right is important to have, because the paths that each of us take of faith or not, are different, because we are each our own person.  Having said that, there is a fundamental world of difference between someone that believes that he is an immortal soul encased temporarily in a physical body on an earthly plane as compared to a person that doesn't believe he is anything other than a physical body that happens to have a mind that is able to think.

The issue with believing that you are only a physical being and nothing else is that if your belief is only in the physical, than your outlook specifically on life, your life, the meaning of life, and life and death, will, because of this belief, be diametrically different from he who believes that he is, above all, a soul.  The fact of the matter is, if your belief is that the physical is all that matters, than it is hard to find a reasonable justification for wasting both precious time and energy on matters that are not tangible to a physical being.  This means, as a body with a mind, you would be much more inclined to care specifically about physical pleasure and ego gratification, to the exclusion of most everything else. 

For those that believe only in the physical, when dear friends die, and they all die physical deaths, there are often tears of despair, as well as of love, of seeing one that once was so vibrant and whole, being laid to rest.  The death of a love one is very real, and should never be discounted, yet, if one understands that we are all souls, and not bodies, and that the very person that we loved and cared for so much still very much exists, but not in a material form, it makes for a dramatically different experience.   The physical body is mortal, that is its nature, and that nature, no matter how many surgeries, no matter how many pills, no matter how many machines are hooked up to that body, will, at the end of the day, expire.  The soul, which is what we really are, is immortal, which means there was never a time when it didn't exist, and there will never be a time when it will no longer exist. 

The conscious recognition that each of us is a soul enables one to have a different perspective on physical life, and subsequently to face physical death, with the courage, faith, and knowledge that we are not this body.  Additionally, those that recognize their immortality understand implicitly that their decisions matter, that the death of the physical body, does not stop the process that each of us has to make, which is that we do not die and go to heaven, but rather instead, that our life on earth is a proving ground in which through our actions, and through our choices, we grow our way to heaven.

American Road Rage

Most everyone while driving have at one time or another seen someone just totally lose it on the road, in which the driver perhaps rolled down their window to unleash a torrent of the most vindictive obscenities, or raised their fist in anger, or perhaps lifted up their middle finger in that notorious symbol of utter contempt, or even worse.  There are, in fact, some drivers that if they perceive that you have cut them off, or done something or other that triggers their wrath, will proceed to stalk your car down the road, perhaps even weaving in and out of traffic just to confront you, come side-to-side with you, or suddenly maneuver their car right in front of yours, so that you have to slam on the brakes.

The thing about driving is besides the fact that the vehicle that you are driving weighs on average about 4,000 pounds is that in any reasonably large city, once you get behind the wheel and outside of your place of residence, pretty much you as well as the other people that are driving around you are effectively, anonymous.  That is to say, you really don't know who is driving the car in front of you, to your side, behind you, and so forth, and you really typically don't actually care.  Additionally, there are the rules of the road, implicit and explicit, that you as a driver may feel must be obeyed, whereas someone else's interpretation may be diametrically quite different from yours and this can easily cause conflict, given the right (or wrong) circumstances.  Also, of course, there is the fear factor contained within driving, the actual knowledge that each and every day that people die or are seriously injured while driving, so that when you are cut off on the road, that fight or flight survival response is activated.  So too, there are people that step behind the wheel that are impatient to get to their destination, or have had a bad day, or need medication, or are lacking in good judgment, to which all of these may be valid contributing factors to their road skills or lack thereof.  That said, though, by far the biggest factor of road anger of them all, is the fact that you are unnamed, unknown, unknowable, and thereby effectively entitled to the most outrageous actions possible, since no one will ever be the wiser to them.

The thing about driving which is totally different than something like walking is that when you accidently bump into someone in the street, you  typically don't overreact, but normally apologies are offered by both sides, because you can see one another as fellow humans; so too, it's why people don't get especially bent out of shape when someone cuts into the line or appears to do so, at a given store, because you may not be sure for a certainty that what you believe has occurred, actually did occur and even if fairly certain, your reaction typically ranges from perhaps a few choice words, often muttered, or perhaps a polite and fair inquiry about what you saw, but almost never do you begin with absolute rage.  The difference between people to people, as opposed to car to car, is that there are societal expectations and rules that prevents us from going at each other's throat, especially when we really don’t know the other person, whereas inside our 4,000 pound behemoth of a car, we feel invincible, inviolable, never to be crossed, and ready to unleash our inner beast, knowing that if push comes to shove, that we can just drive ourselves out of trouble.

In short, road rage occurs because the circumstances of anonymity, the temporariness of the situation, and our ability to speed off into the night, makes it rather easy to have our say, to demonstratively display contempt, and feel triumphant in a certain, twisted way.

America: Surrounded by Peace but Always at War

America is a fortunate country, with the great expanse of the Atlantic ocean separating it far from England, which was a proximate reason as to why America was able to not only declare its independence from Great Britain, but also was victorious in its cause.  So too is the West Coast of America, protected from Asian machinations, to which the Pacific Ocean's great expanse, precluded Japan from attacking our mainland during World War II.  America shares its border on two sides, with Canada to its north and with Mexico to its south, of which, America's relationship with each neighbor is not only very close and cordial, but beneficial to all parties.

America was last at war with Canada during the War of 1812, to which Canada at that time, acted as a proxy of Great Britain.  The war is generally considered to have ended in a draw, to which, neither side gained or lost any land with the upshot of the war being ultimately the demilitarization of the Canadian and the United States border skirmishes and the beginning of normalization for these two English speaking nations.  In regards to Mexico, the Mexican-American war of 1846-1848 was a war in which defeated Mexico ultimately ceded to America huge swaths of its land, which ultimately made up all or part of the States of: Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, along with Mexico conceding Texas' independence and annexation to America, an independent war first begun in 1835.  Later, during Mexico's revolutionary period of 1910-1919, there were many skirmishes along the American and Mexico borders, and subsequently small battles between the two countries, before a lasting peace between these nations was initiated.

Yet, despite over two centuries of peace with Canada, and one century of peace with Mexico, the United States has a Defense budget of nearly $600 billion, to which the next closest nation in expenditures for Defense is China, a nation of more than one billion more people than America, and whose defense budget is still under $200 billion.  Neither nation contiguous to America is a threat to America, in fact, it can be stated, unequivocally, that American relations with its neighbors are about as good as they possibly could be, yet America spends billions upon billions of dollars on Defense, not really to protect itself domestically, but essentially to assert itself internationally and to be the sole dominant military power in the world. 

All of this Defense spending and constant military international presence throughout the world has meant that the United States has become endlessly engaged in skirmishes, battles, and wars, of one form or another, year after year after year.  President Washington in his Farewell Address of 1796, warned us to: "…steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…" and further that: "Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side….", yet these prescient warnings from the Founding Father of our nation are completely ignored today to the overall detriment of this great nation.

America is not Europe, America is not the Middle East, America is not the Far East, and further to the point, America is not located in Europe or the Middle East or the Far East, yet America behaves as if it does.  In actual fact, almost all of the war that America insists on involving itself in isn't really necessary, yet it is done as a matter of course, as a matter of policy, and sold to the public as if it is our patriotic duty to do so.  It isn't, it never was, it isn't right, and it's fundamentally at odds to what this great republic was meant to stand for, which is liberty and justice for all, and not for the establishment of an imperial empire.

To Serve and Protect--Private Police Force

Depending upon your race, creed, age, place of residence, and many other factors, your opinion or experience with police in all of their many functions may be diametrically different than someone else's.  The thing about police is that your interaction with them, voluntary or involuntary, can dramatically change your life within seconds, so that it is fair to say, all things being equal, your basic preference would be that in an interaction with a police officer, you would prefer that the officer demonstrated strength under pressure, respect, discretion, and calmness, as opposed to someone having a distinct proclivity to take serious action first, and then to maybe ask questions later.

The best police officers are officers that actually have taken the time to know the people on their beat, from all walks of life, and are fair, as well as reasonable and rational, but unfortunately, that type of service does not exist in most communities, which is unfortunate.  There are communities, though, typically very exclusive communities, often homogenous in racial characteristics, without apartment dwellings, rich, well off, educated, and isolated, that have set up covenants within their community for the security of their community.  These covenants allow the community to hire directly a "patrol" that is neither your basic security flunky patrol, nor police officers, sheriffs, nor other officers of the law.  Instead, the patrol of that community is typically made up of ex-law enforcement officers, retired or not, and possibly others that have a law enforcement background with all having the type of personality that works well with people of known privileged.

These patrols within the covenant laws have specific things that they are set up to do, which typically would be to handle he basic stuff: such as being first responders to resident calls, handling burglaries, collisions, housing alarm calls, other property crimes, and security checks.  Because the patrol is physically within the community, available 24/7, even if a resident was to call the sheriff, the patrol would respond first, with the sheriff coordinating with the patrol as need be, although no doubt, the covenant probably has written deep within its bylaws that the patrol works as a first responder for the sheriff, with the sheriff holding all legal and arresting authority.

The advantage of any community having its own patrol force that essentially behaves as its own resident police force is that that force will most definitely make it their duty and obligation to keep their constituents both happy as well as safe.  This means, that as a resident, if you have an issue or concern about a crime, potential crime, or incident, the patrol will both listen to you and respond well to you.  Additionally, and not too surprisingly, this also means that people that do not live within that community but are traveling through the community, will be monitored very closely, and those that don't have a valid reason to be in the community based on prima facie evidence such as having the wrong vehicle, or not a landscaper or construction worker or delivery person, and further that visual information of the occupants of suspected vehicle seem non-congruent to the community will not be given a free pass throughout the community without either formal contact or documented note of such a vehicle.

The upshot is that when the police or patrol that acts as the de facto police, are in essence employed as agents of the community as contrasted to being agents of the State, the community will get far better, far more exhaustive and complete protection from outside elements, and further to the point, the residents of such community will be in the position to which the police essentially really do serve, protect, and answer to them.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was passed in the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948 and has both a preamble as well as thirty separate attendant Articles, to which this document is purported to apply to "all members of the human family,"  and to which further we read in the Articles statements such as the following: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," (Article 5), and "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy…" (Article 12) and the list goes on and on and on.  While each one of the Articles is sensible, thoughtful, constructive, caring, coherent, universal, democratic, and makes one proud to be a human being having such noble rights, there is also a fundamental disconnect with this Declaration, which has been In existence for nearly seventy years, and that is, there isn't a government on earth, a nation on earth, or any people or human beings on earth, that actually live in a world in which these Articles pledged on the behalf of all humansare upheld whatsoever.

In fact, since this Human Rights Declaration, it has been pretty much business as usual for all nations in their repression of basic human rights to which every single nation has fallen short of adhering to these declared human rights.  It would be one thing, if progress had actually been made, is being made, and continues to be made, but in reality, the world is the same world that it always has been, to which, the strong and those that are in power, oppress, abuse, exploit, and conquer those that are weak and without power.  As for actual human rights, virtually every country follows the same template, some, of course much more diabolical than others, some much more considerate than others, which is that the government, as a matter of course, will give its citizens the human rights that they deem to be of value and/or of necessity, and no more. 

The problem with governments, laws, rights, and so forth, is that the more power and "justice" that is ceded to this government, legitimate or illegitimate, the less freedom, free will, liberty, life, and pursuit of happiness the subject citizen will have.  The reason that this is so is because government is force, and when force meets human rights, force almost always prevails against those rights.  In point of fact, the bigger and more intrusive that governments are, the less freedom and free will that people will have.

While it's nice to have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a pleasure to contemplate about how wonderful it would be to live in a world such as this, that world doesn't exist, isn't close to existing, and this particular declaration does nothing to bring any of this about.  This whole talk about basic human rights that we hear or read about so often is really nonsensical, as you don't need to hear "talking heads" state that we all have the right to free education, free healthcare, full employment, and so forth, when in actuality none of this free stuff is free to begin with, as all that we have, comes from effort, knowledge, unity, and throughput. 

Those that truly believe in real Human Rights need to only know and live these two basic truths: give proper respect to our Creator, and to treat our fellow man as a brother and as our equal in the eyes of our Supreme Giver of life, liberty, free will, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Semantics of Non-Renewable and Renewable Energy Sources

The mainstream American media follows the traditional mantra of if you repeat a lie or a deception often enough, the public will buy it.  Unfortunately, this is a particular shame when it comes to something as fundamental as the forms of energy utilized in Americathat have a direct and material effect upon our quality of life, for without consistent and reliable energy, the America that we know of, would simply not exist.  To put it in practical terms, most everyone has experienced an electrical "blackout" for at least some period of time, to which unless one is so foresighted as to have an alternate generator, no electricity is generated whatsoever in the dwelling that you are inhabiting, which means that you now have no lights, no power, no cell phone service, no air conditioning, and no heat.  So too, many people have suffered through oil shortages to which gasoline which is normally plentiful in its availability is basically unavailable because of a natural disaster, transportation disaster, or similar, so for a period of time, you are without gasoline, and no matter how fine your car is, if it runs on gasoline, it will no longer be an option for transportation.

The  semantics as noted above, signals basically to the common man that a "non-renewable" energy source sounds like a really good thing, since implied within that name is both that it's more natural, since it's renewable, and that its availability appears to be robust.  On the other hand, "non-renewable" sounds like something that we shouldn't be using at all, since it can't be replenished, so that hardly seems fair to future generations, that we are permitted to selfishly to use it all up.  The thing is though, these terms are incorrectly applied, that is to say, solar and wind are considered to be renewable; whereas oil is considered to be a fossil fuel and non-renewable and those classifications are unfair.

While it is true that the sun shines 24/7 and the wind blows all of the time, at least somewhere, these elements, in order to be utilized as consistent and reliable energy, have to be first harnessed and further they have to have special non-renewable equipment to properly harness this energy.  That is to say, there is very little solar energy generated reliably without installed panels containing numerous photovoltaic cells capturing the sunlight which are in turn tied to a control panel and then to a breaker panel.  In regards to wind power, this necessitates several non-renewal wind turbines, with its non-renewable connected transformer, substation, and transmission lines in order for electricity to be generated.

Most people have been told again and again that oil is a fossil fuel -- that is oil originates from many eons ago and represents the fossils of long since dead and decaying plants and animals and hence is therefore non-renewable.   The above is considered to be fact, but there are other scientists that dispute this "fact" and have proposed a different theory which is that oil is abiotic, which as defined, means that oil is derived not from biological matter but from non-biological matter, that is primarily a mixture of carbon and hydrogen occurring naturally within the earth's crust, creating what we know as oil. 

In actuality, the main reason why the media feels compelled to divide energy sources into so-called non-renewable and renewable categories is the fact that the media is part and parcel of promoting a certain, specific agenda which is attempting to advocate certain specific energy sources over other energy sources so as to enrich certain specific players at the expense of others.  As always, follow the money.

The Middle Class Health Insurance Squeeze

The Affordable Care Act was enacted into American law in 2014, and like most things that have certain specific intentions, there are always going to be in a country such as America certain unexpected outcomes, to which the Affordable Care Act suffers from greatly.  For instance, the middle class carries America, because they are the only class in America that carries the full weight of being an American, with no special privileges granted to them, and no special subsidies provided for them.  Not too surprisingly, the Affordable Care Act, has been particularly pernicious to the middle class, as for single people the phase out of subsidy for health care rests at $45,960 and for families of four it's at $94,200; and because the Affordable Care Act phase out does not take into account whether you live in a community with a high cost of living or not, this phase out is especially troubling for those that do.

The thing about employers is that they are in almost every instant in the business of making a profit, and therefore make it policy to pay especial attention to all phases of their ledger book, which would include expenses, and healthcare premium expenses that are paid for by the employer is one of those expenses that makes a material difference to a company's bottom line.  This means, when health care premiums rise, and they always seem to rise, those costs either have to be shared between employer and employee, absorbed by the employer, or just passed on to the employee.  The real world upshot of all this is that the employee in many companies is suffering the dual problem of having their premium responsibility that is deducted from their paycheck for healthcare increased, while on the other hand, their health coverage has gotten vastly skimpier, unless they opt in to a more comprehensive coverage, if offered, which will cost the employee considerably more in expense. This means in a nutshell, that the affordability of healthcare for the middle class has gotten appreciably worse since the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

The problem with mandates and regulations that go on for pages and pages and pages, and further that the legislators don't even bother reading, is that America has a multitude of highly trained lawyers, accountants, and special interest groups that do pay close attention to words and their meaning, and consequently make sure that in one form or another, employers will come out alright, as opposed to the real payers into the system, the middle class employees.   The sad thing is many employees do not know even how bad or how weak their company health insurance is, till they go on to utilize it for an emergency, something unexpected, or whatever, whereupon they find out that their coverage for necessary treatment is something far less than ideal. 

The way our healthcare system works currently is a federal law is passed, the employer receives a new mandate, figures out how to manage and manipulate that mandate so that it is business pretty much as usual for them, and passes onto the employee the real impact of such legislation, which, for the middle class, means lower net pay, higher deductibles, and the shouldering of the burden of taking on more responsibility for their healthcare as well as footing the bill for it.

Subjects, Citizens, and the Declaration of Independence

At the time that those involved in the construction of and the execution of our Declaration of independence, each one of these future signees were subjects to the crown of England, and therefore were not citizens, of the British crown, but rather its subjects.  A careful reading though of the Declaration of independence demonstrates that the final Authorized and signed Version as written by Thomas Jefferson uses the word people ten times to refer to the peoples that made up the "thirteen united states of America" and once was used the word, citizens, when referring to the present King of Great Britain, with: "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas."  These words of "people" as well as "citizens" are words that we as a people, and we as citizens of this great nation, take for granted at the present time, but at the time of the Declaration of Independence, these words were, in fact, revolutionary.

The fact of the matter is that this momentous shift in thinking, as to what type of people that we were to become, did not even come immediately to the incomparable Thomas Jefferson, for as reported by the washingtonpost.com, in an earlier Declaration of Independence draft Thomas Jefferson as discovered by research chemist Dr. Fanella France reported that: "It's quite amazing how he morphed 'subjects' into 'citizens'".   Not only is this decisive change from subjects to citizens, from subjects to a people, the critical part of the very foundation of what became the greatest republic in the annals of all history, but it also set the stage so that our governing document, our present Constitution, was not a document, that created yet another king, and thereby a monarchy, but a President and a republic, with three separate and distinct branches of governance, rather than the European model of monarchies which our independence broke us free from.

To be a subject is to be under the thumb and domain of a power that is sovereign unto itself and thereby has the power to dictate to its subjects what they can or cannot do, in conjunction with parliamentary protocol along with the inevitable political give and take.  On the other hand, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people is a nation of citizens that have a voice, and with that voice they can freely assemble, so too they can petition their representatives and their government, they have enumerated rights, a government of both checks and balances, and a government that is responsive to and must answer to its citizenry. 

There can never be equality under the law, in a country to which you are a subject, but equality under the law is a fundamental tenet of citizens in a free country to which all are entitled to take part in the beneficence of its collective wealth and productivity.  America is great because it has responsive citizens, and each of those citizens are gifted with the same inalienable rights, and not one of these citizens will ever be compelled to bow or genuflect to any domestic earthly king.

Sharing an Internet Connection with a Neighbor

The first idea that you might be able to share an internet connection with a neighbor is the fact that when you first setup your Wi-Fi system inside your house, you will often see that there are several networks of varying signal strength all listed on your computer.  These networks listed are your neighbors, and quite logically when you notice that the signal strength of a neighbor's Wi-Fi connection is strong, it is fair to conclude that you probably could connect to their network, if you had their password, and hence be able to access the internet by piggybacking onto their network.

The way housing is structured in America, is that you have situations in which the housing is quite dense, such as apartments, condos, and townhomes, along with single family homes, to which typically the more windows a given dwelling has and the closer in proximity you are to each other, the easier it is to access your neighbor's internet and the more reliable and speedier that internet connection will be.  While it is almost always true that a wired internet connection will be both more reliable and faster than wireless, a wireless connection is often acceptable for most people in their typical internet activities. 

The main reason to consider sharing an internet connection with a neighbor is the fact that the cost of internet service can range from $30 to $70 a month, so the sharing of such, would equal to some considerable savings over a period of year, which as they say, "a penny saved is a penny earned".  If you are fortunate and have a good relationship with a particular neighbor to begin with, it's certainly a reasonable subject to bring up, to which the objective should be to test out the theory first, without the need for anyone to get any additional equipment, by simply having one party providing to the other party, their password to their Wi-Fi and then taking it for a ride.  Assuming that the test runs successfully, it then can be further discussed  based on the results whether a Wi-Fi extender is something worth getting, or even installing a Wi-Fi antenna on your roof to make the signal much more powerful, all depending on the commitment neighbors have to one another.

Obviously, when there is sharing between neighbors of anything, there has to be general rules and responsibilities that each party must live up to, especially if your internet provider has a data limit, so that as long as there is a good understanding between neighbors, the savings for each neighbor more than makes up for any small inconveniences that must be overcome. 

The bottom line is that there are many items that can successfully be shared neighbor to neighbor, and internet sharing is one of the more straightforward things to share of them all, as in most cases, you are simply sharing a password, and possibly equally the one-time expense of the modem/router and that is pretty much it.  Remember that anytime that you log onto a public Wi-Fi network such as at a Starbucks or similar, you are sharing an internet connection, so in fact, internet sharing is done all the time; why not consider saving some dollars and doing the same thing at home.

Public Schools, Teachers, and the Bible

No country on earth has as many lawyers as America, and the problem with too many lawyers, is that in order to stay busy and to make money lawyers like to stir up mischief, to which this mischief making can have quite negative consequences.  For instance, in today's America, there are all sorts of legal cases in regards to religious liberties, permissions, and prohibitions that are so convoluted, twisted, contradictory, and troubling that it isn't really clear what teachers can or cannot teach or permit within their classrooms in regards to religious expression or the teaching of such.

The most fundamental error that has been permitted into American jurisprudence like a virus that cannot be eradicated, is that somehow, somewhere, within our Constitution, or Declaration of Independence, there is some clearly delineated statement to the effect that this American government has mandated that there is to be a separation of State and religion, and that this specific separation must have an unbreachable wall between State and church.  The effect of this sort of misguided interpretation of Constitutional law and the policy forthwith that follows is that by forcefully eliminating the Bible, religious thought, religious interpretation, and religious interrelation with great literature and their interrelationship from the very foundations of this country's schools you have effectively torn down the very edifice that this great country rests upon.   

Most teachers in public schools, whether religious or not, want to be not only good teachers, but also want to obey the law, to which today's law puts any teacher who is religious or a respecter of such, under severe pressure to eliminate religion and all aspects of religious thinking from the classroom at all costs.  This means, in absence of religion, in absence of an admittance of a Creator, that students are compelled to believe that their existence itself is material only, and without purpose or morals or anything other than happenstance. 

The fact of the matter is, if a teacher cannot affirm the importance and influence of any Biblical passages whatsoever; that she cannot site in class specific Biblical passages, or their meaning, or anything touching upon religion, even unable to write a scriptural passage into a student's yearbook, than whatever is being taught to students is not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but is, in essence, a grand deception foisted upon these impressionable students.

While it is one thing to say that Christianity cannot be held to be the established religion of America and be right about that; it is an entirely different thing to say that the teacher's rights or the student's rights at a public school, paid for by the taxes of the people, cannot thereby exercise their Constitutional right to have religious expression when they enter onto public school grounds. 

The Bible is the most important and the most influential book in the history of Western mankind, so then to eliminate this good book, to pretend that this book violates within school premises Constitutional law, is wrong and the doing of such, is the very ruin of Western civilization.  If schools are not about truth, or the search for truth, than they are effectively propaganda machines of the State, and this godless State, and all those that support such, are in the process of and have re-birthed a new America: enslaved, lifeless, suppressed, despairing, and without liberty.

Mortgage Leverage on Housing is Way too high

The most expensive material asset that the typical American will ever buy is the home that they purchase and live in.  The buying of such a home usually is considered to be part of the American dream, not only does it represent the family's castle, so to speak, but also is a positive indication that this family has put down roots within their community, and a family that is committed to their community, makes for a better community.  Not too surprisingly, the Federal Government believes that Americans should own homes and have constructed policies to make housing more accessible for citizens by providing the guarantees behind the banking mortgage loans and valuable tax breaks for the buyers of homes.

The thing is, while the governmental desire for more Americans to own homes seems to be the right thing to do, the structure and pricing of housing today is out of sync with the realities of family size, savings, income, and leverage.  For instance, the average size of families has declined from 3.67 persons in 1960 to 3.14 persons in 2015; additionally the average size of households (all persons living under one roof) has declined from 3.33 persons in 1960 to 2.54 persons in 2015, yet despite these changes the average size of a house in square footage as reported by Trulia.com was approximately 1,540 sq ft in 1960, as compared to 2.370 sq ft in 2010.  Additionally, the savings rate for Americans was about 8% in 1960, whereas it's 5.4% as of February, 2016.  In regards to income, as reported by davemanual.com, the median income inflation adjusted income was $53,657 in 2014 as compared to $44,284 in 1967, or a modest increase of just over 21%; all this despite the fact that the labor participation rate by females has grown considerably since that time, and to which there has been a near doubling or more of married families in which both parents are working.

A careful look at the facts of the situation, would imply, that housing rather than getting bigger in size and hence more expensive to buy, own, and maintain, should, in fact, be getting smaller in size as a fair reflection of near-income stagnation,  general  job insecurity, smaller household sizes, and a significantly less savings rate of monetary savings.  Instead, despite the housing meltdown of 2007-2009 of overpriced, under qualified and highly leveraged housing collapsing upon itself, America and its policies have not learned or changed much in the interim, with the exception of basically eliminating the most egregious errors such as "liar loans".  The fact of the matter is that the more highly leveraged any investment is, the more volatile and hence the less secure that investment will be, and housing is, obviously, no exception to this rule.  Housing is the only investment, to which it is typical that payments will extend out for thirty years, to which your employment years might only be some forty-odd years, signifying that for most people, a mortgage payment will coincide with a paycheck for the vast majority of their working life.

The bottom line is that the housing market in general has far too many houses for sale that are larger than really needed, for more money than is necessary, for less down payment than what is prudent, and for a longer period of payment time than is sensible.  All of this combined, means Americans are insensibly paying for more house than they really need, and often purchasing such homes, before establishing a 20% down payment, a proven savings as well as earnings record, while also lacking an appropriate debt-to-income ratio.  It then follows, since housing is overall highly leveraged, that housing prices reflect this leverage by being higher than what they need to be, and therefore the consumer is paying more for a home than necessary; whereas more prudent and sensible standards for loans in the first place, would actually make housing both more affordable as well as more practical.