The Continual Rise of Child Sex Abuse

Phllly.com reports that: "In 1970, 40 percent of households were married couples with children. Such households made up just 19 percent of homes in 2013."  Further philly.com reports that:  "Of children living with only a mother, 48 percent had a mother who had never been married in 2013, up from 7 percent in 1970."  This means, that within the last two generations America's nuclear family has fundamentally changed, and while on the one hand, the more liberal conditions in America may be considered to be a living reflection that adults should be entitled to live their lives in a way that they best see fit, signifying their personal choices as adults, one would be amiss to not reflect that the new family structures of today do have cost and consequences to society in general, and in particular, children.

The fact of the matter is that child sexual abuse, has been a regrettable part of life for far too many children for far too long, but what makes it appreciably worse, is the fact that child sex abuse is increasing at a substantial rate in America, to which, a primary reason for this increase is as reported by cachouston.com is that: "Children who live with a single parent that has a live-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child sexual abuse than children living with both biological parents."  This means, that a biological single parent with a live-in partner that is not biologically related to the children in that household have in a substantial amount of cases, increased the risk of the biological single parent's offspring being sexually abused to appallingly high levels.

Indeed, there are logical reasons why a non-biological adult would have a strong tendency to be more of a predator than a biological parent and that begins with the fact that within most parents, especially parents that are not psychologically damaged, or abusive of alcohol or drugs, is an innate urge to want to nurture their offspring, and that it would be atypical for any biological parent of sound mind to desire to abuse their own progeny.  On the other hand, those without biological connection to children that they deal with, are free from that incestuous conflict, and further to the point, often as an adult are able to utilize their authority position, their power, their strength, their deceptions, and their experience, to take advantage of the gullibility, trust, and naiveté of children.

While most parents are quite protective of their children and keep a relatively high guard when dealing with strangers and the outside public, regrettably, within their own domain, within their own home, their defenses are often left exposed, and the enemy that they should really fear, is that enemy that is already within.  Unfortunately, in a country that has dropped its moral guard and has made highly sexualized media and its images a part of everyday life, this to a large extent, helps enable the perpetrator even more and eases the road that the abuser needs to take to conduct his unseemly business.

The thing is that single parents with children are often overwhelmed already with a litany of legitimate concerns, such as health, welfare, work, bills, school, as well as all of these things as they also apply to their children.  The single parent's desire is to have a helpmate to which their selection of a fellow adult to assist them and to be part of their life, may be limited to those that are not of good character, who, sad to say, for the children that they abuse, are really wolves in sheep clothing, to which times, for these abusers have never been better, in a world in which the adult attitude of anything goes, has torn down the barriers and negated the sanctuary for far too many of our children.

Plastic Bags and Dog Poop

America has somewhere on the order of 80 million dogs, to which in modern times, owners of dogs are far more diligent in collecting the poop that their dogs create each day, typically by utilizing small plastic bags dedicated specifically for dog poop.  The thing is, in many communities, plastic bags are considered in and of themselves to be a nuisance because plastic bags aren't really biodegradable, and because of plastic bags light size, stretch ability and flexibility are easily transported into all sorts of places, land or sea, to which animals often will try to ingest these bags, only to cause themselves harm.

A dog pooping on your own property, gives an owner a fairly large array of options such as composting in your backyard, creating an aerobic digester, a waste digester system, letting nature takes its course, or having an outside poop-scoping service come visit your yard periodically to collect your pet's poop for professional composting or similar.  All of the above seems fairly reasonable to accomplish for a given pet owner, however, many pet owners, walk their dog each day, and thereby their dog usually performs its business in the public square to which, out of courtesy, or perhaps out of health concerns, or the fear of a monetary fine, the owners of the dogs, scoop up the poop.

Currently, most owners just use a plastic bag and after finishing scooping, tie a knot and dump the poop into their outside trash can.  This means that when their regular trash, along with all their poop in plastic bags goes to a landfill, that in all likelihood, the lack of oxygen reaching into the plastic bag, means that the poop will not biodegrade, and in any event, is far from being the best or most appropriate way to deal with that type of waste.  A better plan is to scoop up the poop with something that is a water-soluble material, yet able to hold the poop successfully till you are able to get to a toilet inside your home and then flush it away.  Because this is America, this product has been invented and usually uses names such as flush doggy bags, or dog flushable, to signify that you can utilize your toilet system for this disposal.  Unfortunately, there is a learning curve, depending upon your skill-set and the size of your dog, in order to utilize this product successfully, as well as the fact, that a dog flushable may or may not be correct to use, if you are on a septic tank system.

Modern man takes advantage of indoor plumbing each and every day, to which, it makes logical sense that a far cleaner and efficient way to handle dog poop disposal in the absence of composting or biodegrading the waste in your backyard, is to allow your pet to utilize the same indoor plumbing that is so successfully utilized for humans.  While the process of getting that waste into the sewage system for your dog is far more problematic, it is man's obligation to society as well as to man's best friend, to do their part to make life more bearable and more environmentally friendly than todays toss it in the garbage can and pretend it's not poop, style, which pretty much ignores the reality of the situation.

Life in the Social Media Fishbowl

It is entirely one thing for celebrities to have to deal with living life in a fishbowl, however, at the end of the day, they have the money, the contacts, the getaways, the lawyers, the publicists, and the sanctuary to go home to, and that will pretty much keep the dogs at bay, along with the fact that celebrities have been taught, trained, and have the experience to play the fishbowl social game at a competent level; on the other hand, there are your everyday average people, some more sophisticated and adept than others, that have for whatever reason, decided to or defaulted to living their lives in a sort of "open source" manner, letting any and everyone to weigh in on their lives, and unfortunately, these people have absolutely no hope of controlling the spin of what is their life, for better or for worse.

The usage of social media is inherently unfair to the users, because most users are completely inept or unaware of how deep, how pervasive, and how completely out of their hands, information that has been posted in different forums can be, once posted.  In addition, the world is full of all sorts of people, to which those that love utilizing social media, commit the cardinal sin of believing that the type of person that "likes" them on facebook, or reads their tweets, is obviously someone that is of the same social milieu, or mindset, or similar, whereas, quite unfortunately, there exists a huge percentage of people that aren't anything like that at all.

The fact of the matter is, each one of us is vulnerable in our own way, and while the world does indeed have many good people that wish the best for you and desire to be a positive influence in your life; there are also an incredible amount of people, that are two-faced, prone to envy and jealously, hatred, and outright get pleasure in being the thorn in your side or worse.  The problem with social media is that those that do not have your best interests in mind, are basically given a free gift through social media to analyze you, to stalk you, to understand you, to exploit you, to monitor you, and to harm you. 

Social media sites such as facebook get it all wrong, when they offer you the opportunity to add people into a category called "friends" when it is functionally impossible for people to have hundreds and hundreds of real friends.  It is these so-called friends that can compromise your life, and bring emotional and physical pain to your very existence.  Think about this for a moment, you break up with your boy friend, and even though you have blocked him from your social media sites, if he is determined or devious, he can still see what you are up to, via, another person that you are friends with, by using their access to you, without your knowledge.  Additionally, there can be many "friends" that aren't really your friend reading your posts, and biding their time, waiting for a situation when you are hurt, vulnerable, alone or down, to spring their trap against you.

There isn't any good reason why someone that you really don't know, knows everything about you, and you literally know nothing about them.   Your life should be your own, not shared indiscriminately with those that have not been properly vetted, because there are some people that are evil, and they live for an opportunity to bring real harm and damage to you

Law and Rules are Enacted and Enforced to control the People

There are many, many people, who cry out whenever there is some perceived unfairness or injustice that there ought to be a law.  The problem with this mindset is that the United States already has substantially way too many laws, and these laws applied on nearly an everyday basis are biased, senseless, erode our freedoms, are arbitrary, and often conflict with other, greater laws.  The point about laws that many people get just wrong, is the impression that the more laws that there are on the books, and/or the more laws that are strictly enforced, the better behaved and the less crime that society will have, when in actual fact, the more laws that are created and enacted, typically makes for more people that are unfairly susceptible to being arrested or restrained from conducting their lives in a manner that they so desire.

If you turn back the clock back to a time when people lived in small communities and tribal configurations, just struggling to make a go of it in a society in which there was no sponsored healthcare, no hourly wages, no guarantees of much of anything, do you really think that there was one big boss, with hundreds of written books next to him, studying, applying and executing law as he saw fit, for his community?  It just didn't occur, as the rules for any given community were undoubtedly straightforward and pretty much followed the general guidelines of not stealing, not murdering, and not lying, while also having the people demonstrate the type of obeisance necessary to placate the God of that community, with pretty much the most important thing being the survival and protection of the community.

The laws that man has in the modern day times, though, are endless reams of pretty much the "haves" trying to maintain their status and position vs. the "have-nots" and nothing much else.  So too the law has corrupted itself to becoming a perpetual and annoying busybody into the affairs and conduct of one's everyday life; because the fact of the matter is that one's thoughts, one's body, one's actions, one's vices, are for the most part, not something that the State should have any need to know, especially in instances to which no other person or entity is impacted in a detrimental way.

When the law is arbitrary, capricious, unequally applied and enforced, the State is in the driver's seat, and you, as a sovereign individual, are instead treated as a servant to the State.  This means, that your freedom of movement, your freedom of action, is restricted by authorized governmental agencies, to which, in a country to which there are thousands upon thousands of laws, many of them: obscure, subject to interpretation, and unknowable; in addition to all sorts of judicial courts, and over 1 million lawyers, just about everyone on any given day has committed some sort of rule violation, infraction, or crime. 

The bottom line is that when you as an individual are subject to being stopped and frisked, questioned, held, or intimidated, all in the public square, because the State has you in their sight, there isn't much that you can do about it.  All these laws and all these rules are meant to protect the ruling class from any incipient uprising, to control and to mold the population, and as always, sold to the public as required in order to effect appropriately the public safety.

Every Mosque in America has been compromised

The 1st Amendment to our Constitution is very clear, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," which would strongly imply that Americans are entitled to worship in any way that they so choose.  The only possible limitation on this worship would be meetings held in a house of worship in which the congregants are actually contemplating or planning treason by participating or by actively giving, aiding, or abetting our avowed enemies of the State, to which some of those enemies would include known terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.  In fairness, America has an absolute obligation to protect its people and its borders against foreign as well as domestic enemies to which it is certainly conceivable that some of these enemies would meet in a mosque, as a significant amount of peoples that oppose America and its policies are avowed Muslims.

Where the ground becomes quite shaky though, is that despite the protests of the Executive office or the Department of Justice, that America does not or will not infiltrate and spy upon Mosques without a valid warrant or similar, all that really means in the doublespeak of American government, is that no directly paid FBI agents, or no directly paid NSA agents, will infiltrate mosques, and nothing more than that. 

This government has proved again and again, that laws aren't so much meant to be broken or pushed aside as they see fit, but that position papers can be created for virtually any law, with interpretations spun on a given law, allowing the law to be bent, formed, and manipulated so that the government can do what it wants to do, and having created the Orwellian named Homeland Security in 2002, the government and all of its affiliated and subservient departments will not allow, and will never permit, mosques, or other congregations of Muslims to be unmonitored in this world of heightened domestic concern.

This means and signifies for an absolute certainty that at a minimum every single mosque, without exception in America, is monitored, to which the government records the license plates and thereby the identities of the worshippers, the hierarchy of the given mosque, the banking and spending of money at that mosque, the sermons in the mosque, and any other pertinent information that can be observed, noted, or recorded.  While this information can be gathered through all sorts of law enforcement or governmental agencies, one of the easiest ways to gather such intelligence, is to have within a mosque, a person or persons that have previously been either compromised by the government, or in need of aid, such as monetary aid, or employment aid, which necessitates their availing themselves of help from the government in return for these people providing the intelligence or information desired by said government.

There is zero chance that today's government is forgetting any of their plays from the playbook of the radical 1960s, instead, it can be stated as an incontrovertible conviction that technology, an unlimited budget, and the general greed of a generation that believes it is forever entitled, makes the governmental  work of surveillance much easier thanfifty-odd years ago.  To be a practicing Muslim in America is to be monitored, classified, processed, and watched.  For those that believe that this is right and prudent, remember that sanctuary wrongly denied for others, will one day be denied for you.

Each race looks through events through their own Prism

While it would be nice to believe that each American essentially sees events in the same way as other Americans, the fact of the matter is, that doesn't happen.  In point of fact, for an absolute certainty, the way that people see events, are colored by their prejudices, in regards to race, religion, political party affiliation, and other pertinent traits in a given personality, so that, quite obviously, there is little or no argument, that one person that relates strongly to the Republican party, whereas another relating strongly to the Democratic party will listen to a given political candidate and come to two diametrically opposed opinions as to what that politician said and meant.  What is especially disappointing, though, is that, many events and our perceptions of them, are colored by the color of our skin, that is to say, that, for instance, blacks and whites, do not come to the same conclusions about police and criminal justice, as demonstrated by the washingtonpost.com reporting: "Only 1 in 10 African Americans says blacks and other minorities receive equal treatment with whites in the criminal justice system… In contrast, roughly half of all white Americans say the races are treated equally in the justice system," which is an absolutely staggering difference in perception.

This means that, unfortunately, from a race perspective, we have something similar to the book, "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus," in that our perceptions are substantially different in many areas of everyday life because we come from different places. So too this signifies, that it is pointless to pretend that one's race does not make a difference in one's perception of police, criminal justice, job employment, immigration, schooling, opportunity, and so forth.  While America has made great strides forward to address these issues, there still remains an incredible amount of work to do, which cannot be accomplished unless each race acknowledges the basis of another's persons perspective and is able to show respect as well as empathy to the other, as compared to systemic contempt or blithe unconcern.  

The fact of the matter is when there are huge disparities between the races, in perceptions in America, that not all is well, that this is in actuality a symptom that things are very wrong.  While one has to give America an incredible amount of respect for having tried to attempt, to be a true melting pot of different races, cultures, creeds, and so forth, this grand experiment has not come to full fruition and in order to get there, much more time and effort will have to be expended in walking in the other person's shoes, for you truly do not know your fellow man, until such a time as you are able to actually be that man, and that is indeed a very hard thing to do.

Sad to say, and it just seems a shame, that man's best friend, his dog, seems to have it all so right as opposed to common man, because your dog certainly doesn't care one iota about your race, but instead cares solely about the content of your character; that is to say, how much time you spend with him, the food that you feed him, the playtime, the quality time, your treatment overall, and your fairness. 

It is fair to say that no child is born with an ingrained prejudice, so that this everyday prejudice of viewpoint is socially conditioned, and in order to remove these prejudices, understand that, we are either all Americans, all equally entitled, or we are all separate, unequal, divided, lost, and forsaken.  Until such time as you are able to see each man as your fellow brother, as your fellow neighbor, there will never be peace, liberty, or justice.

Dentist: Twice a Year, but what about your Colon

It's accepted practice that for good oral health and in order to maintain your teeth, bone density, and gums we should see a dentist twice a year.  Yet, although everything that we eat and drink are done through our mouth, most everything that we consume has to be expelled, but virtually all medical doctors are not in favor of colon cleansing, colonics, enemas, or colon hydrotherapy, with the basic explanation that the colon self-cleanses and therefore there isn't any real need.

The thing about medical doctors is that they make it part of their mission, to fervently protect their own turf, and while it therefore makes sense that medical doctors do not have a lot of respect for non-medical persons to perform colon cleansing and the like, the question really is, why aren't there hardly any medical doctors that recommend that the colon should be cleaned out periodically in order to maintain good health.

The bottom line for medical doctors is that they believe that a regular colon cleaning is not necessary and further that colonics rather than helping to clean the colon of stool and similar, can in actuality, bring harm to the patient by virtue of the fact that the people performing such a thing aren't trained medical professionals and do not understand, or misunderstand, that their actions can irritate the colon, or make the patient suffer dehydration, and so forth. 

You would think, given that particular concern by medical professionals, and because patients are seeing non-professionals to have their colon cleanse, that subsequently medical doctors and nurses might have a real interest in performing the type of things that you would, after all, normally seen done before a colonoscopy and thereby want to conduct a periodic pre-procedure purge of the colon for patients, so as to provide at a minimum, comfort to their charge, which at worse, would be something akin to prescribing a placebo to an anxious patient.

The fact of the matter is that medical doctors don't always get it right, and far too often, medical doctors follow groupthink, to which, no legitimate medical doctor wants or desires to get out of lockstep with the standard thoughts of the day.  Yet, there is another way of looking at things, to which, medical doctors could say to themselves, if certain patients are concerned about their colon containing toxins or stool that needs to be cleansed so as to maintain good health, why don't we as medical professionals, provide that service?

After all, doctors make it clear that they recommend a colonoscopy for patients after they reach the age of 50, to which a given patient has to go through the rather uncomfortable procedure of basically induced diarrhea so as to completely empty the colon, whereas, perhaps a more mild procedure could be initiated to help cleanse out the colon that while not considered to be a colonoscopy would provide to the doctor valid information as to the general health of the colon and a comfort point for the patient.

Dentistry, itself, is of fairly recent vintage, and our oral health is appreciably better for it; it just seems sensible to at least consider the same in order to maintain a healthy colon.

Barcodes on License Plates

Many police departments are able to currently read a driver's license plate number through a sophisticated license plate recognition device which uses an algorithm to convert an image of a license plate on a particular car into its alphanumeric equivalent.  While these license plate recognition devices do a commendable job, a far more straightforward way to track license plates on vehicles would be to utilize the same thing that you see in any retail store of virtually any size in today's America, which is a barcode.  In fact, some States actually have barcodes attached to their license plates, to which, it is understood at the present day, that these barcodes are simply setup to reduce data entry errors of the license plate assigned to a particular vehicle by the Department of Motor Vehicles, so that the scanning of the barcode is done so as to correlate that information to the unique Vehicle Identification Number that each automobile has onto the DMV database. 

The thing about driver license plates is that different States have different naming conventions and further that license plate recognition devices have to utilize an algorithm in order to convert that image into actionable characters which are then processed by the police department or similar.  A far more effective way to more easily track and monitor vehicles is to have a standard barcode of a standard size and placement, to which vital information can be contained within that barcode, indicating, for instance, the VIN# of the car, the owner of the car, their driver's license #, their address, and whatever other pertinent information desired that a driver and a vehicle has that would be of most pertinence.

Of course, civil liberties groups would be up in arms about this, but in actuality, their protest would be short lived, mainly because each vehicle license plate and each individual driver's license is already uniquely identified in the first place, and thereby a barcode isn't changing anything other than the efficiency and capability of law enforcement to gather information.  That said, no doubt, the usage of barcodes on license plates would ultimately allow law enforcement to be far more systematic in their gathering of intelligence and in their crime mapping.

In addition, barcodes are read by scanners, to which the scanning of barcodes does not need to be done by an actual police officer on the side of the road, but could instead be done, for example, by a drone that is above the traffic and instead controlled by an agent, offsite.  This means, that drones in conjunction with law enforcement agencies could theoretically track known or suspected areas of criminal activity 24/7, and further would be able to provide a database of all vehicle traffic within that geographic area for a relatively low cost.  The advantage for law enforcement is that this information gathered by drone, could later be collated and analyzed against additional known or ongoing intelligence so as to discover connections, previously overlooked.

The biggest advantage of barcodes on license plates is that they eliminate both human error as well as providing vital information.  Additionally, having police officers when they pull over a vehicle use a barcode scanner to read the license plate to which this information is automatically downloaded onto their laptop will cut down on wasted time, mistakes, and provide extra security.  The bottom line is that license plates of today are already being scanned each and every day, so that the bar-coding of license plates are the inevitable next step.

What Happened to the Really Big Denominated Dollar Bills?

Believe it or not, the Federal Reserve back in the 1920s printed the $500, the $1000, the $5000, and the $10000 dollar bill, before ending this printing as of 1944, and retiring these currency valuations, apparently, for good, even though $500 today would be worth only about $37 dollars in 1944 currency.  While there are all sorts of valid reasons why these currencies went out of favor such as the fact that checks, check-like instruments, electronic transfers, and so forth, have replaced the need for high denominational currency, the fact is that high valued currencies such as the $500 or $1000 if re-issued would be utilized, especially the $500 dollar bill. 

That said, there is validity behind the reason why large currencies probably won't be issued again in the United States because cash transactions are transactions that for the most part, the government can't easily monitor or track, to which the governmental preference is cash substitutes of any sort that they can track.  While that might be good for governmental monitoring, that certainly isn't a real benefit for people that prefer to take care of their own business without having to justify their behavior.  Additionally, in a country to which as reported by millionairecorner.com that: "There are 29 Million Mass Affluent households with a net worth between $100,000 and $1 million," that this would seem to signify that the handling of $500 dollar bills would not be unusual and probably preferred as an option for a meaningful percentage of them.

The fact is, depending upon your family size and shopping habits, it is very easy to spend over $100 on a dinner, or at a grocery store, or at a warehouse store, or an electronics store, or a home improvement store, or for vehicle repair, or for home repair, or in purchasing something as common as the latest non-contractual Apple iPhone, and so forth.  While the government might believe that legitimate Americans don't need to utilize cash for any of these transactions, or don't want to make it easy to use cash, the fact is that cash is a legitimate form of payment and of receiving payment and is appreciated for its convenience and because cash is fungible.

For some people, too, there is something magical about money that cannot be replicated by a credit card or a check note, or by coins, but needs to be money, and having in one's possession a $500 or a $1000 dollar bill would just seem to be coolest thing in the world, perhaps giving one a slight dose of dopamine just by touching it.  Then too, places that cater to people that like to spend money like water, would appreciate larger denominated bills because the more cash, especially the higher valued denominated cash in one's pocket, the more inclined someone is to spend it, as well as the more inclined the seller is to try to extract it from him.

There was a time when a $100 bill, just seemed like a lot of money, it kind of still represents that, but for the most part it does not, as just about anyone can carry or represent a "Benjamin," and as people like to brag about just about everything, want to show off about just about everything, placing big denomination bills back in the hands of the public, would not only be practical, but would also be fun.

The Steady Decline of Births in America

The USA birth rate has been in a steady decline for over a century, and probably even longer.  As reported by infoplease.com, there were 30.1 live births per 1,000 peoples in 1910, as compared to just 13.8 per 1,000 peoples in 2009.  To put this in even more meaningful perspective, in 1910, the population of America was approximately 92 million peoples, yet there were 2,777,000 newborns created, whereas in 2009 with a population of nearly 307 million, there were only 4,131,000 newborns created.  Clearly, the birth rate in America has plummeted and based on this steep and precipitous decline it would not appear that this will be changed anytime soon, without governmental incentives.

There are a multitude of reasons why our birthrate as well as other industrialized countries birth rates have declined, to which the most meaningful are the fact that typically the more educated the woman is, the less children that she will bear, in addition to that fact, the age of women when first getting married has risen considerably over time so that the older that a woman is upon marriage the less children that she will bear.  Then too there is the fact that with both abortion legal in all 50 States, as well as the fact that the variety of birth control pills or other birth control devices have never been more available and reliable, signifies that "non-planned" births and "shotgun" weddings are both in decline.

Then too there is the reality that the population mix in America has changed over the years, to which the urban population percentage currently is approximately 81%, whereas back in 1910 the urban population percentage was only about 46%.  So too, as reported by consumer.healthcare.com, in 2013,"The teen birth rate was almost one-third higher in rural counties compared to the rest of the country."   The thing about rural communities back in 1910, and while certainly less true today, is that children were often seen to be a net benefit, because of the fact that the parents of these children could utilize them as free labor in the harvesting and production of food or other rural products, whereas in urban areas, children are more of a cost burden, and in recognition of this, parents have less children.

In addition, to all of this above, there is the fact that people today have many more things available to do and to keep themselves occupied as compared to families back in 1910, to which, you only have to look at your typical day and behavior to see how often and how much time you spend on social media, your cell phone, your computer, entertainment options of all sorts, and the fact that whereas previously lives were centered around accomplishing work from daylight to sunset, with modern lighting and all of its amenities, people can extend their days, indefinitely.  Back in 1910, most of the items that we take for granted today, either did not exist, or existed on a limited scale, for urban people, or for people with lots of money.  This meant that rural people, especially and for the most part, once their hard labor had been accomplished for that day, had few options to entertain themselves upon nightfall other than conversation and copulation so that without birth control and considering the fact that they married younger, resulted in a significantly higher birth rate.

The Poor Spend too much of their Income on Fast Food

While it is true that the more money that you make, the higher the percentage of that money made is spent on eating food outside of the home, the difference between poor people and upper class people or poor people and middle class people, is that those with more money can avail themselves of more dining options by virtue of the fact that they have more money.  When you are poor, making smart and informed decisions about how and where to spend your money is imperative, yet, often, those decisions made are not wise or prudent.  While there is something to be said about treating your family to a fast food meal as a reprieve or a thank you from time-to-time, there is something more to be said about having the discipline and structure to actually cook or prepare meals at home as being far more cost conservative, as well as, in general, being more healthy in the content of the food consumed.

While it is quite unfortunate, that impoverished people are often surrounded by a plentitude of fast food restaurants offering plenty of calories for the cheap, the quality of those calories are often too sugary or too high in refined carbohydrates to do a body good.  In addition, poor people often have more corner convenience stores that once again, typically don't offer a lot of healthy choices for those wishing to grab something quickly and take home to eat or to snack on.  In fact, the only real way, that indigent people have any hope of both saving money on food as well as eating a meal that is more healthful for them is to have a grocery store near their place of residence, or work, or available nearby through some sort of transportation.

While, young people, have never known a world without fast food being both prevalent and common to indulge in, in actuality, fast food as an industry did not start its rise until the 1950s, and while there are many reasons for fast food restaurants to exist, such as their convenience, their fairly reasonable cost, their fresh off the grill food, and the perceived lack of time to prepare one's own meal, each one of those reasonsisn't by itself a good enough reason why so many Americans routinely indulge in buying fast food, sometimes, even multiple times in one day. 

The fact of the matter is, all things considered, it has never been easier to prepare meals at home, but for whatever reason, perhaps through heavy fast food advertising that sells the illusion that eating fast food makes for a pleasurable and deserved event, or perhaps because so many people just don't perceive that they have the time or are able to structure the time to buy and prepare their own meals, the eating of fast food is considered nowadays to be as American as the eating of apple pie.

The thing is, while it is a given that the poor have always been with us for proverbial generation after generation, millennium after millennium, fast food has not been, and fast food in and of itself, is not helping the needy to utilize the little that they have in the most prudent and effective way.  It is, as the old adage goes, far better to teach a man how to fish, than to give a man a fish, so that, it would seem to behoove all governmental and school services to expend a much greater effort in providing the basics to the general public and especially the indigent poor on how to buy, cook, and to prepare good, healthy and cost effective meals at home, as this skill seems to have become essentially dormant in far too many households that are struggling to just make it day by day.

The conversion of Failing Shopping Malls

America loves to shop, but while true, America certainly doesn't lack for shopping options, which, of course, includes shopping from home that is, via the internet, combined with the fact that Americans are extremely mobile with their cars meaning that Americans aren't stuck having to shop at their local mega mall, as they have a multitude of choices available to them.  While the right shopping mall in the right place is still doing quite well, as reported by the nytimes.com, though: "About 80 percent of the country’s 1,200 malls are considered healthy, reporting vacancy rates of 10 percent or less. But that compares with 94 percent in 2006…" which signifies that a considerable amount of malls are not on the path of doing well, and probably won't recover to doing well anytime soon.  This then, poses the problem as to what to do with failing shopping malls, or malls that are clearly on the path of failure, to which these malls already have the infrastructure built up and working but find their property being underutilized.

There are a lot of options when it comes to the conversion or re-making of malls, such as combining more entertainment options with malls, such as bowling alleys, movie theatres, play or musical theatres, fitness centers, good quality restaurants, small theme parks, traveling road shows, and other venues that appeal to people in general.  So too, there is a lot to be said for restructuring shopping malls in a manner in which part of the mall will be devoted to business offices, condos, hotels, or apartment complexes, which will then serve the dual purpose of having a captive audience that readily appreciates all the advantages of a given shopping mall's conveniences.  As for malls, which are beyond redemption, in disrepair, or on the wrong  area or wrong side of time, the sheer size of these malls and the availably of infrastructure and parking at these malls, makes the conversion into a community college or a hospital a reasonable fit and function for what once was a mall.

In any event, the days of a shopping mall with anchor stores being built just anywhere and the feeling that they will surely come have effectively ended, as the overall playing field is far more complex, nuanced, and dynamic in today's marketplace.  This means that shopping malls must change with the times, and therefore rely far less upon having store after store after store, and rely far more on providing the appropriate bells and whistles that will drive in customers more often for the new mall experience that will encompass more activities and viable options for the buying public.

The bottom line is that people vote with their dollars, and when a shopping mall begins its decline, it is of paramount importance for the shopping mall management to actively pursue all possible means to right the ship, as once a shopping mall is painted with the broad brush of, "nobody goes there anymore", things can get appreciably worse in a very short period of time.  This means that the community at large, must band together, because monies not spent in their tax district, but spent outside of it, are tax dollars effectively lost, with no corresponding gain, along too with the corresponding employment losses from lost jobs. 

America is a dynamic and competitive marketplace, and failing shopping malls, must find a way to re-construct themselves in order to stop the terrible effects and aftermath of a terminal downward spiral.

Targeted Killings, Assassinations, Justice and Law

There is zero dispute that America, has over the years, specifically attempted to assassinate or have assassinated prominent political leaders in foreign nations, such as several attempts on the life of Fidel Castro of Cuba, and successful assassinations of Prime Minister Lumumba of the Congo, and Commander Torrijos of Panama, to site just a few.  While sometimes these assassinations are done by USA personnel, they are also accomplished through proxy under the direction or guidance of the CIA and approved or sanctioned by the upper echelons of the US government.  It would be nice to report in this present age that targeted killings and assassinations are all things of the past, but in actuality, America seems to have substantially stepped up its targeted killings through drone strikes, SEAL team raids, and so forth, with apparently nary a worry or concern that America is violating the sovereignty of foreign countries or interfering in their domestic affairs. As bad as that might sound, it gets worse, as America does not limit itself to simply taking out "bad" politicians, or "bad" generals, or "bad" guys in general, but appears to believe that those that have certain scientific knowledge, such as nuclear scientists, are also legitimate targets to kill as well, whether it is done by proxy or not.

The most basic issue with targeted killings and assassinations isn't really the misses, the wrong targets being killed, or the collateral damage that is created by dropping bombs, shooting, or by poisoning the wrong person, but more a matter of, the rule of law.  If, the most powerful country in the world doesn't believe that the law applies to their actions outside of their own domestic country and that they, alone, or in conjunction with other countries, can decide who should or shouldn't be elected or serving in office, or who should or shouldn't be a general, or what knowledge scientists should or shouldn't be allowed to exercise, than in reality, there is no boundary that America isn't permitted to cross with apparent immunity, especially when dealing with countries that simply don't have the resources or power, to possibly stand up to a nation such as the United States of America, and they with no outside recourse to appeal to the world justice for redress.

The thing that all of these assassinations and targeted killings that make the whole nefarious affair, such a disgrace to a country as great as America, is that the killing or the compromising of powerful people of other countries, does not bring peace or resolve whatever the perceived problem was, whatsoever.  All that this killing really does is change the players, but often the game remains the same, but even if the game was to change, the underlying problems, the underlying issues of a given country, cannot be rectified by something as simplistic as an assassin's bullet.  Then too, it is one thing to take out a national politician, or a leading general, as these men are usually aware that there may indeed be powerful opposing interests who do not wish to see them alive in their current position, but it is an entirely different thing to take out innocent civilians or to take out scientists just because they are utilizing and applying knowledge, that America or its proxies, believes should not be used or applied.

America acts far too often as judge, jury, and executioner, never once recognizing that there will come a day when the chickens will surely come home to roost; to which, so too, America seems incapable of acknowledging that an assassin's bullet never can and never will lead to lasting justice or an honorable peace.

So Arab-Americans are White?

In America, until very recent times, there were generally considered to be five basic race categories labeled as: American Indian, Asian, Black, Other (typically Latino), and White; and each of these categories, used examples of their respective countries of origin to help pigeonhole people into marking correctly their proper racial classification.  It seems like every decade the census bureau adds and amends racial classifications, so that we now have Asians broken into more distinct categories such as Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese; as well as Latinos being separated into Cuban, Mexican, and Puerto Rican and so forth.  There are, however, areas on the census for race, which still don't seem to have an appropriate category for certain races, of which, a prominent example is Arab-Americans.

As it stands, Arab-Americans, to whose skin color can range from a very swarthy look to a blue-eye pale skin look, to which, traditionally, whether wrongly or right, Arab-Americans have been considered to be white, is being re-considered, especially since that racial classification seems to be out of step with reality.  Yet, one of the racial definitions by the State of Iowa, for instance, states that you are white if you are: "…original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa," which signifies that Arab-Americans are white, it also signifies that Jesus by this definition was also white, which is probably the real reason behind this racial classification being this way, in the first place.

The whole thing about race seems rather problematic, especially in an era in which a larger and larger percentage of people classify themselves as being a mixture of races, or don't really self-identify with any one particular race.  Another problem with racial classifications is that race, is primarily based on one's country or historic country of origin, but also typically takes into serious consideration the color of one's skin, as well as your basic facial characteristics. Additionally, the world is almost always in conflict, with nations conquering and being conquered, and consequently the inevitable intermingling of different races so that with the exception of peoples completed isolated from the outside world, it is a rather common occurrence, to have those different cultures and races collide and intermingle, so that the upshot is that a substantial portion of people aren't really 100% one race, anyway.

It just seems no matter how many racial categories are added, subtracted, modified, or re-arranged, that the whole process of tracking people on the basis of their race doesn't actually accomplished anything of real substance, and, to a large extent as long as America insists that in certain instances that people should be identified as a certain race, its concentration is misguided, as the real substance that America represents should be the substance of a man's character and not of his country of origin, or color of his skin, or his eyes, or his nose, or anything physical. 

At some point, America must answer the question, are we all Americans and united under the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or are we all different races, different colors, different people, separated by origin, separated in principle, and unequal?

Random Seat Assignment on Airlines--Really?

Merriam-Webster defines random as: "without definite aim, direction, rule, or method," which based on the way airlines appear to actually assign non-premium seats on an airplane, is at best, disingenuous; yet airlines such as Spirit Air and others advertise that they provide "randomly assign" seating.  The prime example of why previously non-assigned seats can't truly be random is that to treat a family of five, of which three of those passengers are under the age of eighteen and simply, randomly disperse these children throughout the plane, would not be a business model that any parent, or society, in general, would approve of.  While, I am unaware of how the seating algorithm is setup to handle families, or adults, for that matter, that have booked an airplane ticket as co-passengers at the same time is actually handled, there isn't any doubt, that the airlines are well aware of those that have booked solo as compared to those that have booked as a couple and as to those that booked their flight as a family.  This means, de facto, airplane seat assignments to which certain consumers such as families with children, for a savings of money, or for whatever reason, in which they didn't pay any further fee to get an assigned seat will not be randomly assigned seats, and I challenge the airlines to prove otherwise.

In point of fact, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, random seat assignments aren't actually random by the airlines; for another very obvious reason, which is some of the airlines have tier pricing on their assigned seats, which typically means that seats at the front of the plane, or an exit row, or an aisle or window seat, are sold at a premium price than seats that are in the middle and/or are at the back of the plane.  This means, that the airline has a vested interest, very much so, that  upon the 24-hour window commencing for passengers to check-in, that the very best open seats, especially those that a discriminating passenger would be willing to pay for, would probably not initially be included in the algorithm of random seats that a passenger could win.  Further to the point, since the airlines know for a certainty whether you have or have not paid for baggage or any other extra fees which aren't mandatory, it certainly seems reasonable to assume, that passengers that have spent more on their ticket, for their baggage, or are frequent flyers of that airline, or whatever features that the airline finds most cogent, will receive a more pleasing selection of previously unassigned seats than someone that doesn't fall within that given demographic.

In America, there are so many lawyers and so many lawsuits, that it just seems as if airlines that advertise their seating as being random, will, sooner or later, have to disclose in detail and transparently, exactly how "random" those seats actually are that get assigned to passengers based on the time stamp of their check-in.  The strong impression that I have is that these seats are gamed by the airlines, and they are gamed for a reason, to which that reason is to reward those that pay for extra things and/or are valued consumers, as well as to penalize those that don't.  The other objective of the airlines is the hope that people notpreviously willing to "pony up" the money to buy pre-assigned seats will after consistently receiving a poor seat selections be "encouraged" to change their ways.

Heroin v. Methadone v. Opiates

Heroin is illegal in America, while methadone and opiates such as oxycodone and hydrocone along with pharmaceutical names as in codeine or oxycontin, are opiates that are legal in America, if prescribed by an attending physician.  It is important to realize, that despite heroin being typically vilified as a dangerous street drug, that substitutes to heroin as in methadone and oxycontin all have as their primary basis the opium poppy, and while it is true that heroin as a street drug is almost never pure, as it is often cut with other substances, along with the fact that the purity of heroin or the quality of the heroin dosage, will vary considerably because it is not manufactured inside pharmaceutical labs with stringent quality control, that heroin is, in essence, basically the same in its effect as the other legally prescribed opiates.

While, government officials are quick to point out that methadone and other opiates that are legal do not provide the intense euphoric rush of a typical heroin dosage, the overall effect of legal opiates in their acting upon the receptors of the subject's brain are quite similar.  Additionally, all opiates prescribed or not, are quite addictive, so essentially, the demonization of heroin as contrasted to other legal prescribed opiates is that the later are regulated by government bureaucrats whereas the former are not.  This, then leads to the somewhat cynical conclusion that in America, it's OK to be addicted to opiates for pain management or whatever, as long as your addiction is sanctioned by medical authorities in conjunction with governmental oversight.

As might be expected, because heroin is illegal, there are penalties for both possession of heroin, for the usage of heroin, and significant penalties for the selling of heroin, whereas for those that have an authorized prescription, they are permitted legally to use their opiods as long as they have a valid prescription.  While, no doubt, there are times when opiod usage is a prudent medical decision to make on behalf of a patient suffering pain, the thing about pain is that it is very difficult for a doctor to know for an absolute certainty in many cases as to whether a given patient is really suffering from debilitating pain or instead craves opiate use because they simply like the feeling.

To put things in proper perspective, as reported by allgov.com: "Studies have shown that the United States, with less than 5% of the world’s population, uses 80% of the global supply of opioid drugs."  This statistic, clearly and unequivocally points to the fact, that in America it's just fine to be addicted to opiates, just as long as you play the game by the rules, which means, that you as a patient, must convince the prescribing physician that you are suffering pain perhaps from a car collision, or a fall, or whatever, and by answering the pertinent questions correctly you will be rewarded with your well deserved prescription; whereas for those that want to feel more warmth, peace, and feelings of blissfulness, overcoming whatever chaos is going around them or in their life, via a street drug such as heroin, or illegally taking a prescription drug which is not prescribed for them,  this is highly illegal, and is punishable by jail time and fines.

In America, it is simple, opiate usage is just fine, as long as the governmental authorities, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies are paid proper homage to and most importantly are able to make easy money from servicing a steady clientele, but opiate usage is not OK, when you try to subvert these entities and bypass their rules and regulations, in those cases, you are a criminal.

Drone Street Patrol

In military operations, the USA relies on drones to gather photographic and video intelligence knowing that if the drone is targeted for destruction, suffers malfunctions, or fails in service, that no military personnel will be lost with the drone.  This means that there are massive advantages to deploying drones out in the field, especially with the drones' ability to gather intelligence 24/7 without sacrificing or endangering soldiers in the line of duty.  Not too surprisingly, devices that can gather intelligence and monitor activities, are strongly desired for police and other law enforcement agencies to which the usage of drones by these departments are currently in process and/or have already occurred.

Another big factor favoring the increasing usage of drones now and in the future, is that the more sales, and the more buying activity by the general public as well as governmental agencies, means, that not only will the pricing of drones have a downward trajectory, but the features and capabilities of the drones will get more and more sophisticated, with greater reliability and effectiveness. 

As it stands today, many police departments like to avail themselves of analytics, in order to make valid crime predictions and to interdict crime, by virtue of seeing patterns in certain neighborhoods at certain times, and consequently being able to devote more resources to those areas to combat crime or civil unrest before matters get out of hand.  While there is something to be said about having patrol cars, feet on the ground, and so forth, the fact of the matter is, police patrols cannot be everywhere at every time, so that having a drone street patrol systematically monitoring public streets, public parks, and public places, could and should be a valuable tool for law enforcement agencies.

When it comes to drones and their recording or streaming of video and still photography, the public has a reasonable right to know, what is being recorded, analyzed, and evaluated, to which as a matter of course, law enforcement and citizen support groups should work together, meaning that, for drone recordings, that vetted citizens, should be able to view what the police are viewing in real time.  If, on the other hand, citizens are knocked out of the loop and aren't allowed to work in conjunction with law enforcement agencies, from a viewing perspective of drones recording public activities in public spaces, than, unfortunately law enforcement has been essentially handed carte blanche the ability to be "big brother" with no citizen feedback or input, to which, the upshot, is that the public space, will fast become, a venue to which there is no respite from the police eye in the sky.

Properly used, drones can be a very valid aid for the public safety, as, for instance, the recording of a crash scene from the air, monitoring natural disasters, recording crime scenes information, traffic and crowd flow, and as a better way to provide security and information gathering because the viewpoint of a drone gives a perspective that cannot be achieved at ground level and at a much lower cost point than a manned helicopter.  On the other hand, what the general public doesn't really need or want, is more hi-technology tracking and recording of their every move in public, which is why drone usage should be carefully monitored by a citizen watch group so that the privacy of individuals will not be subsumed by lawful authorities who feel that they are not answerable to the public that they ostensibly serve.

Colonial Pennsylvania and Religious Tolerance

The majority of the thirteen colonies had established State religions as part of their State Charter, to which these established religions, often made it a matter of policy that the residents of their State had to pay forth taxes to support the established Church of their State, regardless of whether they as an individual or family were members of the State established Church, or whether their personal religious beliefs were sympathetic with the State established Church.  Further, in order to hold public office, if you were not a member and subscription paying supporter of the State established Church, you were typically ineligible to hold office.  All of the foregoing was a primary reason that when our Constitution was written it spelt out in our 1st Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." 

There were in colonial times some States that did not have an established religion, to which the prime example of a State that embraced true religious freedom, was Pennsylvania, led by the Quaker William Penn, who was granted by the King of England, sovereign rule over Pennsylvania, and true to his conscience, this was a State that stipulated in its charter: "That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their Own consciences and understanding."  To put this into its proper perspective, this State Charter was written in 1681, at an age in which true religious toleration was unusual, the exception, and rarely sanctioned by any Governmental authority.

The upshot is that we have a lot to be thankful for in regards to the foresight and liberality of Pennsylvania when it came to their freedom of worship, something that is perhaps taken for granted today, but was revolutionary in its time, and truth be told, there are a multitude of countries that exist even today, that harbor no other religion, other than the State sanctioned religion of that respective country, and often treat others that do not follow the State sanctioned religion, in a manner, not limited to their banishment or even their death. William Penn, on the other hand, recognized that “force makes hypocrites; ’tis persuasion only that makes converts” and lived this principle in practice and by law in Pennsylvania.

The fact of the matter is, if a citizen cannot avail themselves of their freedom of conscience, than all other freedoms that they are purported to have are on the shakiest of grounds.  While it can be said that for the good of the community, peoples need to band together for example, In the need of the common defense, bartering, trade, schooling, education, communication, aid, and in the general effectiveness that a peoples that work together as a team with a common and meaningful purpose is far more effective than a peoples that do not, than it can also be said that respect comes from granting that others are entitled to their own viewpoints, opinions, and thoughts, as opposed to a groupthink that brokers no opposition as to their preferred or authorized behavior.

In point of fact, the beginning of wisdom is the recognition that each of us is sovereign unto ourselves, and that therefore,   that our Creator has granted each one of us, free will, to make of life what we so desire, and thereby by our voluntary alliances with others of like mind we, as a people, become one body, indivisible, expressing liberty and justice for all.

Your Computer and Your Rights

Computers are the equivalent of diaries of old, but with incredibly more detail and access to information that will often record the most intimate minutia of your everyday life, from photos, to financial details, to documents, to emails, to websites visited, and so forth.  The common person might thing that with a basic password for user access or perhaps password protected folders or documents that he has done a fairly decent job of protecting his privacy.  Furthermore, most people believe that their computer is their computer, and not subject to searches or seizure, but when the government has their eyes on you, for whatever reason, fair or foul, your rights quickly begin to shrivel in comparison to the might of the full governmental arsenal against you.

Although some computers are movable devices, such as laptops, a desktop computer that sits inside of your home at your desk is quite common, to which it may contain all of your digital information from the last five years, or even before, if you bothered to transfer digital files from one computer to the next, previously.  For whatever reason, one day, the police come knocking at your place at residence, and wish to search your premises, to which you as the only person at home answer their request with a polite denial, whereupon in absence of exigent circumstances that necessitate their immediate entry, they will then be forced to come up with a search warrant.  The police promised to come back shortly with a search warrant, and sad to say they return with one, which within its terms grants them permission to seize your computer, because that computer may have incriminating evidence of a certain crime.  If that is what the search warrant permits, your protests now will avail you of nothing, and even if that computer, contains information of extreme importance to yourself, private, personal, or whatever, the control of it is now in the government agent's hands. 

Once the government takes control of your computer they may or may not request from you, password information, of which it is your 5th Amendment right, of non self-incrimination to deny them such information, and perhaps by not giving up your encryption information you might keep the dogs at bay for a while, but almost for a certainty, the government will eventually break through.  You would think, though, that after the government takes complete and thorough control of your computer that they would then be limited to searching just for incriminating information that was subject to the initial search warrant terms to begin with, and specifically not be allowed to systematically search any and everything on your computer, but that thought would be incorrect, as the government can pretty much search everything on your computer without limitations or accountability, because there doesn't appear to be any legalor supervisory safeguards thatwould protect your Constitutional rights.

In point of fact, in this computer age, the right of the people to be: "… secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…" is being torn to shreds by the fact that current court law appears to allow the government with a properly executed search warrant unlimited andcomplete intrusive access to everything ever recorded on our personal computers, meaning, in effect, that in America, there are two classes of people, those that are subject to arbitrary and capricious law, and those that are above that law.

Unincorporated Towns and the Company Town

There are many small communities, often isolated, that are not incorporated communities in America, to which the meaning of unincorporated in this context, simply means that there is no municipality for that community, signifying that there is no local government within that community.  This means in most unincorporated towns, that there is no local mayor, no local police or fire protection, no local sewage, no local street lights, and so forth.   In most cases, unincorporated towns have services that would typically be provided by their own municipality, provided instead by the county that they are part of, or a city or town that they are contiguous to, to which their property taxes would pay for these services, so that, in effect, although these towns are without a local voice they would still have police, fire and other protection services available to them.

There are, however, another type of unincorporated town, the type that was more prevalent over a century ago, in which, typically the town was created out of nothing in a remote part of the State, specifically as a consequence of the extraction of minerals or other natural resources contained within that specific region.  In the first place, because these towns were literally created overnight, none of typical township requirements would be in place, and if each of the residents of such a town were almost all either dependent upon or part of the workforce of the industry that was the reason behind the town being formed initially, there were obvious reasons why that company wouldn't readily want to incorporate, to which the very first reason, would be control. 

The problem for any company, that is the main employer of workers in a very small community, is that the sharing of democratic power is not typically something that they have a real interest in doing, because even if the company believes that they have candidates and legislators under their control, this is still an area that can spin out of their control, creating great strife and conflict within that community.  So then, rather than creating a municipality, with a mayor, justice, and legislators, it is far more desirable for that company, to simply, and effectively, run things entirely itself.  That means often control or management of ownership of the entire infrastructure of the community, from housing, to plumbing, to utilities, to stores, to schools, to medicine, and so forth.  This control is even more effective when instead of paying employees with actual USA issued currency; they are paid instead with company scrip, effectively making the employees and residents of such a town--wards of that town.

The people of a company town, without a municipality, effectively have neither a voice, nor local recourse to voice their viewpoint or to effect change.  While, the residents are not prisoners in the sense that they are locked into that town, they will find that should they choose to vacate the township that they will leave with no more than they came to the town with, which means, in effect, that they have labored for the company and received nothing of lasting value in return. 

So, in short, anytime that people within a small community have no voice, because that voice has been compromised effectively by the powers that control that community, liberty dies.