FBI and Conviction Rates

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in general, is rated rather favorably by the public.  Perhaps this is due to the fact that the FBI is not the police, and in theory, concentrates on federal crimes of national interest as opposed to local crimes committed within a community.  In addition to that, the FBI is generally treated rather favorably by television and the movies, as well as by the mass media.  For whatever reason, valid or not, the FBI is often perceived to be of a more professional and experienced nature than your typical law enforcement agency.

Not too surprisingly, the reality of the situation is that the FBI pretty much does things about the same way that most every law enforcement type agency does things in America, which is to "game" the system so as to increase their conviction rates and to thereby demonstrate their effectiveness to the credulous public.  For instance, during the endless reign of J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI, Hoover often claimed that there was no such thing as organized crime, even though, he was well aware that this statement was false.  The reason for such a mindset by the FBI, has more to do with not desiring to confront the deep resources of both organized crime as well as the depth of corruption that organized crime reaches into, to which, by investigating such, the FBI was sure to have to confront powerful vested interests that were held in high respect and authority in their given community.  Instead, similar to most law enforcement agencies, the FBI prefers to commit their resources to convicting the poor, the ill-educated, and the powerless, of which the most typical crime conviction for the FBI is drug related.  The next highest category of crime that the FBI achieves convictions of is white-collar crime, often because the criminal is relatively easy to track with a minimum amount of shoe leather being necessitated, because their dirty white-collar transactions leave their digital footprint on computer devices and the FBI loves to concentrate its resources on the lowest lying fruit of criminal enterprises so as to impress the impressionable.

Then there is the list of FBI's ten most wanted, which to the uninitiated, you might think reflects the ten most wanted and most dangerous fugitives in the entire United States, but in fact, is more a reflection of pure propaganda.  In other words, the FBI wants to sell the illusion that they are an effective law enforcement agency, to which, nothing gives them much more pleasure, on the unsuspecting public, than to see the FBI nail the really bad guys, when, in fact, the ten most wanted is carefully constructed so as to provide the FBI with a high percentage of perpetrators that will be brought to justice by the FBI.  The hammillpost.com states that 470 out of the 500, or 94%, of the most wanted have been apprehended or located since the list was created, as compared to the fact that the national "clearance rate" for murder in America as of 2013 was only 64%. 

 In point of fact, the FBI cares much more about constantly burnishing its own image, as opposed to tackling the most dangerous criminal elements in America, mainly because the FBI fears looking bad and rather than risking opprobrium, the FBI concentrates a significant amount of its efforts on bullying the poor underclass.

The Purposeful Life

It is difficult to get to where you are supposed to go, it is difficult to get to a place of real accomplishment, it is difficult to get anywhere of significance, if you do not have a plan, if you do not put forth concerted concentrated effort, and if you do not have a purpose in your life.  This purpose in your life, can be internally programmed in the sense that you are driven to do well, simply because that is the way that you are, then again, for other people, it is not until they unearth the purpose of life on a universal level, that they are able to ascertain clearly the things that they should be focusing on, and become thereby motivated to accomplish them to the best of their ability.

It is not enough in life to be good for something, or even necessarily to do good for others, although both of these things have their rightful place and are worthy both of our respect and approbation.   What a person of any real sense, of any real curiosity, of any real talent, must do in order to put themselves on the pathway of true eternal success, is to first to figure out, why they are even here in the first place.  If you are oblivious to even asking the question, it is questionable that you could conceivably achieve the mastery of the skills necessary to become all that you should and ultimately must be.  If you do ask the question, but give up finding the answer, or accept answers that do not rest upon solid foundation, perhaps you have opened the door for truth a small amount, but a glimpse or distortion of the way, is not the way.  It is not enough to ask the most important question, why are we here, without devoting yourself completely to receiving the answer and thereupon acting on this answer with dedication, devotion, and purpose.

In today's world, too many people of real merit and worth simply don't care to ask the question, perhaps because they are too busy doing and accomplishing things that mean something to them, or at a minimum, at least occupying their time, energy, and space.  It is not enough to stay busy, it is not enough to be successful, and it is not enough to do things that appear to benefit yourself or others, if you do not understand implicitly why you are doing these things in the first place.  If, on the other hand, you know that "…the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all," (Ecclesiastes 9:11), then, this means that you know that a purposeful life can only occur with an acknowledgment that there is something beyond space and time, something far wiser than ourselves and our own thoughts, something that represents truth, justice, peace, and unconditional love, and that something is our Creator.

Those that understand that our earth truly is a testing ground and that our earth truly is a proving ground, will find themselves almost compelled and thereby driven to find their purpose in life, and to subsequently dedicate themselves to fulfilling that purpose, in the conscious recognition that the very first step in our pathway back to God, is to make the world a better place for our having lived upon it.

Homicide Rates and Aggravated Assault

Since, the 1990s the homicide rate in America has come down considerably from the much more violent 1970s through 1990s and while there are a lot of theories about why this is so, it is so.  At the same time, aggravated assault, has followed the same trajectory of peaking in the 1990s and also has steadily declined since then.  The reason that the aggravated assault category of crime is so important, is that because of medical technology, emergency rooms, hospitals  and their medical staff, it is more likely that people suffering from crippling wounds can survive them today than they would have back in the 1990s.  Additionally, murder is the type of category of crime which is fairly straightforward to categorized, since the victim is deceased, and the determination of foul play is usually self-evident.  On the other hand, aggravated assault is far more nebulous, that is to say, prosecutors may easily plea down what appears to be attempted murder to felony aggravated assault just to assure themselves of the conviction, as well as the fact that attempted murder is far trickier to convict a perpetrator of, because it is somewhat problematic depending upon a whole slew of varying circumstances needed to coalesce in order to prove the "intent" of the perpetrator.

In any event, both homicide and aggravated assault have come down at comparable rates over the last 25-odd years, which would imply strongly that there isn't less murder in America, because doctors have all of a sudden, done far more adroit work in keeping victims of violent crime alive, but pretty much is a reflection that less people are being targeted to be killed by criminals in the first place.  That truly is good news, because far too often, statistics can be manipulated in a manner so that one thing is overemphasized or distorted to get across some subjective point.

Of course, the other consideration to take account of, is why have those homicide and aggravated assault rates come down substantially over the last two decades, in which conservatives often want to point out it must be because of our police and prosecution forces combining together to punish and thereby take dangerous criminals off of the streets and incarcerate them, which America has performed at the highest levels in the western world.  There is though, a very strong case that in recognition that the demographics have changed in America over recent decades, in which statista.com shows that it is the age group of 20-24 which represents the highest murder offender percentage rate in America that has brought down violent crime statistics, because the median age in America has increased from 32.9 in 1990 to 37.8 in 2015, signifying that an aging population will have less homicide and aggravated assault crime.  In short, probably the combination of favorable demographics along with more sophisticated and dedicated policing tools have together combined to reduce violent crime, with contributions from a better managed social safety net helping to lead to less violent crime.     

In any event, there is indeed less violent crime in America, probably not because crime doesn't pay, and probably not because people overall are more considerate and caring than they were before, but probably because higher incarceration rates in conjunction with favorable demographics as well as effective social services have reduced violent crime.

The average price of a new vehicle sold is way too high

According to usatoday.com the average price of a new vehicle sold in America was $33,560 in April of 2015, yet according to the Census ACS survey, the median household income in the United States was only $55,775 in 2015.  As you might imagine, households often own more than one vehicle, and depending upon the location of the residence, city, quantity of license drivers, amongst many other factors, governing.com estimated that in 2013 the average household had 1.8 vehicles.  On the surface, this would seem to indicate that average Americans probably spend way too much money on new vehicle purchases.

First off, as in any major purchase, the consumer should take into account their income, their current budget, the length of such a commitment, insurance, and other pertinent factors.  For instance, as written on the fool.com, it is recommended that a good rule of thumb for vehicle purchases should consist of: "A down payment of at least 20%, financing lasting no more than four years, and total cost -- principal, interest, and insurance -- adding up to no more than 10% of a household's gross income." These above principals often abbreviated to "20/4/10 rule" are basically ignored by a substantial portion of the vehicle buying segment of Americans.  Instead, the consumer has been roped into his purchase by two very important things, of which, the first is the consumer is properly taking advantage of historically low loan rates, to which, consumers can get auto loans at under 2%, depending upon credit score, length of loan, amount of loan, income, and so forth.  In any event, consumers with stellar credit are receiving auto loan rates at historic lows and those low rates translate into lower monthly payments.  On the other hand, and by far the biggest elephant in the room, is the fact that auto loans that use to be no longer than five years for a new vehicle, about a decade or so ago, have instead morphed into loans of 72 months (6 years) and even 84 months (7 years), so that now 62 percent of auto loans as estimated by Edmunds in 2014 were for terms greater than 60 months.

What consumers don't seem to comprehend, is that they are often way too focused on trying to get their auto loan monthly payment down to a reasonable level that they believe that they will be able to budget for, so that consequently they often lose focus of the bigger picture, which is the amount of time that they are committing to a vehicle, that they then will have to keep paying on and keep paying on, for a substantially greater length of time.  There is not a valid reason why any consumer should want to sign their name to a vehicle contract that is greater than 60 months, to begin with, because if the numbers aren't right for 60 months, the correct analysis should be therefore to find a vehicle that is cheaper.

Instead of consumers actually doing their homework, before they walk into the auto dealership by realistically adhering to a sensible budget, or adhering to the "20/4/10 rule", they seem to decide way too often, that such and such a price on a monthly basis, seems to be about right, then they way too frequently give up that price to the dealer, who manipulates it up "just a couple dollars" further, extends the loan out another 24 months, and the consumer subsequently ends up signing the deal, in which, they have made a financial commitment for seven long years, making them often upside-down on their loan, and basically playing catch-up on trying to get their equity positive on their new purchase, from day one.

Unfortunately, way too many Americans purchase way more vehicle than they can rightly afford, sacrificing their hard-earn money for something that truth be told, pleasures them little, and pains their financial rear-ends a lot.

Microsoft Office: Buy or subscribe?

Microsoft Office is pretty much ubiquitous in offices and homes all over America, and is the de facto standard for word processing, Excel, and other features of Microsoft Office.  Microsoft is one of the most profitable enterprises ever created, especially profitable, because a lot of what they sell is software as compared to hardware in any of its many forms.  In fiscal year 2015, Microsoft did 93.5 billion dollars in Revenue, and had a staggering 60.5 billion dollar Gross Margin, with an Operating Income of 18.1 billion dollars. When a company of the size, profitability, and market share that Microsoft represents, makes a conscious decision to take their flagship product and begin offering it for rent, lease, or subscription, believe this statement: that they are making this transition to increase their revenue and to increase their gross margin despite how they dress it up as a service or as a consideration for their massive consumer base.

The fact of the matter is to own software means exactly what it implies to mean, which is that you have bought it, you own it, you install it, and the manufacturer of it, will maintain it and support it for a reasonable period of time.  On the other hand, if you subscribe or rent software, you won't own it, although you will be entitled to all of its bells and whistles, all of its improvements, all of its support, all of its many future features, until such a time as your subscription lapses, in which case, you won't be able to utilize it at all or if so, under vastly reduced functionality.  This means that one way of dealing with software is to buy it, know exactly what your cost will be and be done with it, whereas the other method is to lease it, and keep paying and paying and paying.

Of course, Microsoft likes to argue that by purchasing their software outright, that you will over a period of time, have software that as it becomes outdated, will mean that you thereby won't be entitled to having the newest, sweetest, and cutest features of Microsoft Office and other assorted accouterments, but in actuality, most users hardly use all of the many features to their maximum effect in the first place, so they aren't sacrificing much, if anything, and they most certainly will be saving themselves money if they plan to keep the software for any reasonable length of time, especially, if their license agreement, clearly provides them with the option of transferring their software to a new machine.  

There may be valid reasons why a given consumer might want to subscribe to Microsoft Office as opposed to buying the product, but, not too surprisingly, Microsoft knows it isn't going to be able to convince a significant amount of people of those reasons all at once, so it has made it their policy to preinstall Microsoft Office365  on new computers, to which, as this is their subscription product, and not their buy-alone product, the hope is that by easing consumers into the direction of leasing the Office product, or defaulting into a lease, they will increase the consumer percentage of leases of Microsoft Office, and thereby make even more money on a product line that has already accumulated a staggering lifetime of profitability, on the backs of everyday loyal consumers.

Auto Insurance Billing

State governments have made it mandatory for drivers of vehicles, to have auto insurance, which, not too surprisingly, is an added expense that is difficult or problematic for some people to come up with every month, let alone, to make the entire payment in full.  Nowadays, auto insurance policies cover either six months or a full year, to which virtually every auto insurance company gives you the option of paying in full, or paying for your auto insurance, monthly.  For some people, no matter what, the option of paying in full just isn't a viable option for them, which is quite unfortunate, because the difference in how much you pay in a year for auto insurance, depending upon whether you opt for monthly or for yearly, is often highly significant.

Even though auto insurance companies do provide the consumer with a choice as to how they can make their payment, and clearly disclose those options, it is amazing how few people that really need to save money, pay attention to these numbers.  For instance, depending upon the State that you live in and the auto insurance company that you deal with, the savings for the consumer in paying in full can easily exceed a 20% differential in pricing, or even higher.  This amount of money that could be saved is significant, and there simply isn't any investment that would be able to recover those extra monies lost by not paying in full.

This then leads to the real question, which is, because auto insurance is mandatory and by virtue of the fact that you have a vehicle which you drive, demonstrating its material worth to your life, you would think with the potential savings of $200, $300, $500 or even more, depending upon who and what is covered by your auto insurance, that it would behoove you to come up with the money to pay the auto insurance in full, yet so many people do not, because they claim, rightly or not, that they simply do not have the money to do so.  Yet, massive monetary discounts turned down, turn into extra expenses that will hurt the bankroll of people that are struggling thereby month to month.

From an auto insurance perspective, they prefer consumers that pay monthly, because they quite obviously are more profitable consumers for the auto insurer, signifying that when a consumer is given financial options, almost always, one option is clearly more beneficial for the auto insurance company, and therefore these offers are definitely not equal or equivalent to one another, so a consumer should at least, at a minimum, recognize this, and try, if possible to make the better choice.

While commercials try to sell the illusion that your auto insurance company is "like a good neighbor", quite frankly, you should not lose focus on the fact that the auto insurance people, neighborly or not, are in the business of making money, and that, no matter how they dress it up, means that you and they sit on opposite sides of the table.  Consumers that are on tight budgets need to make sure that they aren't paying for extra coverage that they don't really need in the first place, and should endeavor in cases where the monetary differential is large, pay their insurance in full, so as to free up their hard-earned money for other things needed or desired.

"If you want to test a man’s character, give him power"

The above quotation has been attributed to Abraham Lincoln, but probably comes from the hand of Robert Ingersoll, a gifted orator, but no matter its origin, the sentiment of this proverbial wisdom rings very true.  For instance, there are loads of people that speak of injustice, unfairness, and similar ilk, to which through unanticipated and unparalleled events, become persons of power, thereby placing themselves in the very position of being true to their character and often thereby falling far short.  So too, there are men born into a structure which gifts to them power, to which, to those that are given great powers, great things are expected from such a responsibility and they too fall short.

Another way, though, to test this phrase, is to replace the word "power" with "wealth", and although power alongside wealth are often entwined with one another, there are in the scheme of things, many more men with enormous wealth, than those that have enormous power, and while wealth is of itself, a form of power, it isn't the same as having the power to create or destroy others at a moment's whim.

Many people with power or wealth are inclined to believe that they are fair minded, but even within their everyday activities that is belied by the very things and actions that they demonstrate.  However, of far more intrigue, are those that actually are men of good character; caring, selfless, devoted, and moral, to which, something changes within them upon the receiving of power, perhaps previously dormant, but now sufficiently awakened, that quickly evolves into what appears to be a completely different man, gone power mad.  It is this man, who as with a flick of the switch, turns into something that he is not, or perhaps turns into something that he has always been, that fascinates.

The fact that power can change a man, or bring out the worst elements in a man, are very good reasons why governments, personal relationships, businesses, and so forth, should always have checks and balances within them, for it is those checks and balances that help to prevent the evil that one man can do to another, or what one government can do to its people, and instead helps to ensure that the better angels of our nature are not sacrificed at the altar of greed and power.

There are a significant amount of people that enjoy a great orator or a man with a forceful and charismatic personality, to which these great personages seem to resonate within us, because often we seek sense in a senseless world, or order in a world of chaos, but alas that isn't typically what we get in reality, as power when it gets into the wrong hands affects the good sensibilities of too many men. So that, if we are too afraid to confront, or to contradict, or to question, a man that has power, because we fear the consequences of doing so, than that man has too much power in his hands to begin with.

The reason why power tests a man's character is because power has the capacity to get you things without you having to consciously worry about the consequences, but it is those consequences, that truly do reflect your character.

Learning and Vision

America's school kids do quite poorly when compared against other countries in regards to their level of intelligence demonstrated by standardized tests, even though, America spends an incredible amount of money per pupil and is by far the richest country in the world by aggregate GDP.  While there are numerous reasons and theories why America does so poorly, perhaps one of the most compelling reasons comes down to good or corrective vision.

The bottom line is that if you are unable to discern what is written on the blackboard, are unable to read clearly what is it in front of you, you as a student, are dealing with a handicap, especially in comparison to children that have good vision and/or corrective lenses to achieve good vision.  While different States have different directives when it comes to vision, this is an area of healthcare, that if necessary, the Federal government has a compelling interest to step in and rectify.  While it is one thing to verify the health and inoculations of students, there aren't very many things more important though in regards to a child's potential for engagement and success, than good vision.

For instance, a study as reported by the book "Think Like a Freak" which was done in a poor province of China, in Gansu, in which fourth though six graders were tested for the need for eyeglasses and thereby half of those students who needed eyeglasses were given them and other half continued along without them, to which, the result was that "their test scores showed they’d learned 25 to 50 percent more than their uncorrected peers."  According to cbs.nl, the percentage of Americans wearing eyeglasses in 2012 aged 4-12 years was approximately 10%, however, for ages 20-30, that percentage was approximately 40%.  This enormous increase in the need for eyeglasses would strongly imply either one or two things: that as we age our vision gets worse and worse, or that children, because primarily they are children, are typically prescribed glasses well after the time that they actually need them, because adults don't feel that children being so young should need them.

There are many theories and things that are considered each and every year to help improve test scores and learning for our K-12th grade students, but could it be that one of the very best things, fairly easy to accomplish, is to thoroughly check the vision of each student and for those students needing corrective lenses, providing eyeglasses free of charge or heavily subsidized to them, based on the income levels of their parents.  The sheer amount and masses of money that is already thrown at trying to fix test scores that have been stagnant or regressed over the last few decades, needs just about every valid idea, explored and executed.

While there are myriad reasons why students lose interest in a given subject, most of that lost can be attributed to a form of giving up by that student, to which, if you can't see things correctly or easily, this would be a distinct reason why some students do lose their focus at school.

You will Never Know the cost of your Freedom

In 1777, John Adams wrote to his wife the following lamentation on the current status of the fight for our freedom:  "You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom!"  He wrote this because a mere proclamation of Independence from Great Britain, was not the same as actual independence from Great Britain because to accomplish this massive mission, required stealth, courage, bravery, dedication, outside aid, persistence, and God's grace.

The Founding Fathers along with fellow colonists of this nation, made true their vow and commitment to fight for our freedom, and literally did pledge their lives, their honor, and their fortunes on behalf of this fight for our freedom and consequently for a government that would derive its just powers from the consent of the governed, as opposed to the tyranny and oppression of the British crown. 

The war between the colonists and the British Empire cost the lives and fortunes of many brave men and women, to which, some of those that lost their lives and their fortunes were signatories of our Declaration of Independence.  Some of these signatories lost all of their private fortunes through the confiscation and destruction of their private property by the British, while others suffered imprisonment by the British, yet none of the fifty-six signatories to the Declaration ever brought dishonor to their sacred cause of freedom.

America's Declaration of Independence while signed in 1776, did not mean that all of a sudden the colonists were free, but instead meant that the colonists were willing to fight for that freedom, and this freedom meant the sacrifice of time, money, material, and blood, of which, some paid for the pursuit of that freedom by giving their lives for that cause and by their devotion to that cause.

Once engaged, the battles between the colonists and the British, raged up and down our States, to which, the British had no intention of not bring the States to heel, and the States would not disengage from their fight against the British, despite privations, despite their repeated injuries, despite their repeated injustices, yet continually sacrificed, because they believed wholeheartedly in their cause, which was that each man was born with unalienable rights, and that thereby no legitimate government had the right to counteract or to take these rights from any man.

The freedom that the colonists desired was the freedom of self-determination, and the colonists did not see the validity of paying tribute to those despotic interests that laid across the great Atlantic ocean, no matter for whatever reasons, valid or not.  The colonists had become united in their cause, united in their common defense, united in the belief that they had the right to steer and to guide their own ship, and to thereby make their own place in this world.

These brave colonists took on the greatest naval power of that age, and with pluck, tenacity, outside assistance, some good fortune, and courage were able to break free from the bonds of Great Britain, and thereby establish a republic and a Constitution that we live under until this very day.  The costs that these valiant men and women made on behalf of the United States of America were enormous, and we owe them our eternal tribute, properly paid by living by the true principles of America: of which that we are all created equal, that we are all are entitled to equal justice, that our government is one of checks and balances, and that this government is and shall ever be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, to which when such a government becomes destructive of those things it is the right of the people to abolish or to alter it.

The Concentration of Wealth leads to the Concentration of Power

America likes to talk about how it's a democracy, one person, one vote, no matter how rich or how poor you are and while it's true that some people, typically poor, typically of color, often find it more difficult to actually even register to vote, there aren't prohibited by law from registering or thereby voting.  This would seem to mean, that just based on sheer numbers, in which in America, according to the dailykos.com the bottom 50% of Americans own just 1.1% of the total wealth in America, that those people, more than any other people, would want policies in place in which their democratically elected representatives would help to ease such a wide discrepancy in income, but in fact, over the last two decades, the bottom 50% have seen their wealth eroded from just 3% of total wealth to that 1.1%  as of 2010.

In America, according to thenation.com, "20 People Now Own As Much Wealth as Half of All Americans", as well as "the 400 richest Americans now have more wealth than the bottom 61 percent of the population."  This demonstrates without any doubt whatsoever, that America is a country with a very high concentration of wealth, which still for many Americans, seems to be something that they are okay with, as in theory, America is a capitalistic and meritorious country.  However, something is rotten in the state of America, because with wealth in so few hands, this would indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt that this country is in actuality, unfair, unjust, underhanded, unprincipled, uneven, and fundamentally un-American.

The thing about wealth, for most people that have wealth, is that they often have little or no interest in sacrificing any of the wealth, to the greater good, or even if they set up foundations to, in theory, benefit the masses, these foundations are still whether literally or by proxy, controlled by the wealthy and/or surely in lockstep with what the wealthy desire.  In addition, governments need money to effect their policies and wealthy people have the most money, to which, wealthy people prefer to be able to disburse their funds to as few hands as possible so as to concentrate their wealth only into the pockets of those that can directly or indirectly benefit them and the policies desired.  So too, for governmental employees and policy makers, they prefer not to have to deal with all sorts of intangibles, so instead, the laws are written or interpreted in such a way so as to favor a few at the expense of the many, so that these governmental servants will serve their wealthy benefactors, and, of course, keep the revolving door activated, so that no matter which side they currently reside at, each side benefits in their symbiotic relationship.

Those that have a lot of money aren't interested in a democracy or even a republican form of government, they are interested only in seeing that their wealth is both protected as well as benefiting specifically from governmental policies, which often is accomplished in situations in which government and the wealthy, are essentially combined into a plutocracy, disguised as a democracy.  Those that are employed on the governmental side recognize that in order to remain in power, they must satisfy their constituency, which rather than being the people as a whole, are those that directly or indirectly place them and reward them in their current positions.

Wealth only leaves the hands of the wealthy, when it is disrupted or dissipated, and that only occurs thru losing favor with others of their ilk or supervision, unwanted war, incredible incompetency, or through taxation.  By virtue of concentrating power in the hands of the few and well placed, the wealthy maintain control of their collective taxation fate as well as industry practices, thereby maintaining and sustaining their wealth, at the expense of the people, while making sure to provide to their loyal and dedicated governmental enablers the tributes of money, praise, and respect.

Compare at pricing and Shopping

This is America, and Americans love bargains, love to shop, aren't particularly good at math, and retailers of all various stripes know this.  You might think that the fact that discount stores are ubiquitous, such as TJ Maxx, Marshalls, as well as many others, that people wouldn't need to see a price tag with the words: "compare at" or "retailed at" on the clothing merchandise to understand that the price that they were seeing more often than not represented a fair price, but there is something about "saving" money, there is something about "bargains", there is something about "discounts", that makes certain shoppers salivate at their projected savings and thereby buy more stuff.

For certain people, when looking at tags which state, "compare at" or "retails at", they don't pay any attention to such nonsense, knowing that it's a game played by the retailers to "anchor in" a price within your mind, so that you wrongly believe that you are receiving some sort of privileged discount, instead, they see it as essentially misinformation and misdirection, and thereby decide whether to buy a particular item based on its merits and their view of its intrinsic worth.  However, there is a rather large subset of Americans, that take words such as "compare at" and "retails at" as if these really mean what they believe that they purport to mean, which is, that somebody, somewhere, is purchasing or has purchased this very good or something similar to it at that price, and therefore they are "getting over" on the retailer by purchasing this item from them, at such a massive discount.  Really?

As might be expected, consumers have rights, and retailers have to conform to such rights, so that when posting prices which state "compare at" or "retails at" there are specific rules and regulations that retailers must adhere to.  However, the law is somewhat nebulous, and in a country that offers an attorney at every corner, that isn't too surprising.  Each store seems to have its own set of rules as to what constitutes a sale in regards to regularly priced merchandise and what "compare at" or "retails at" means, to which the retailer as a matter of course posts a sign dealing specifically with this issue; of course, virtually nobody reads the sign, if they even take notice of it.  So too, the Federal Trade Commission weighed in as to what regular pricing should represent which essentially boils down to a good being offered by a given retailer at a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time.   However, missing from this equation is whether the given item at any time, was ever sold at that retail price, or what percentage of that item was sold at that retail price, which is something that the retail store probably knows but obviously doesn't divulge.

If all of this fake discounting or illusions of fantastic bargains was done tongue in cheek, it would be one thing, but in fact, it is part and parcel of the business model of many of these retail stores.  While it is true that bargains and discounts do exist on many items, it is also true, that the percentage of those items and the percentage of true discounts are skewed in such a manner so as to display to the consumer compelling significant savings that aren't truly there.  The fact of the matter is, these stores are profitable, indicating for a certainty that the stores selling the products are well aware of the underlying cost of the products being sold, whereas the consumer dupes herself or is duped into believing far too often that all that glitters is gold.

The 40-Hour Workweek

Most people take it for granted, that a normal work week of full pay without overtime is 40 hours, and thereby conclude that it always has been 40 hours and so forth, but that is a long, long way from the truth.  The truth of the matter is, as society gravitated from being an agricultural-based economy into the industrial revolution and service industry, the rules of the hours necessitated for those laborers working for management were not established at eight hours a day, but were considerably longer, often necessitating 12 hours per day, six days a week.  Not only were the hours long, but the pay for those hours, often was sufficient only for the basic necessities of life, and nothing much more.

Not too surprisingly, those working the long hours, recognized that although each individual was in of himself, essentially powerless to effect change for their labor, recognized though that groups of individuals united in the purpose of achieving both better pay as well as shorter hours, could achieve change.  This meant that even in the late 18th century, in cities such as Philadelphia, then the second biggest city in America, labor strikes by carpenters, for instance, occurred, demanding that the standard day should be reduced from 12 hours a day to just 10 hours a day.  This agitation by labor for reduced working hours was to continue for decades, in which, through starts and stops, through strikes and violence, through voluntary cooperation and court order, the tide slowly began to turn so as to provide more fairness to the common laborer, who seemed entitled in a free nation to appropriate leisure as well as rest time.

In the aftermath, of the devastating civil war, President Grant issued a proclamation in 1868, declaring that for federal workers, eight hour workdays would become the norm, but despite this proclamation, the workaround for this new charge, was to reduce wages to reflect the less hours worked, and the courts while recognizing the validity of the new law, essentially declare it not "obligatory", since wages and hours worked must be "…determined by the inexorable laws of business."  Nevertheless, this proclamation gave new impetus for the labor movement at large to work harder at achieving their goals of “8 hours for work, 8 hours for rest, and 8 hours for what we will.”

In 1914, Henry Ford, Founder of the Ford Motor Company, determined that not only was 48 hours a week, too long for workers to labor diligently, but that reducing the work week to 40 hours a week along with actually increasing pay would be good for both the company as well as the worker.  Ford reasoned that if his laborers made more money that they would thereby spend that money buying the very products that they created, increasing profits, as well as being able to enjoy thereby the fruits of their labor, something that historically had been seen as a "class privilege".  Ford's foresight was instrumental in the continuous push for universal eight hour work days.

In 1938, Roosevelt signed into law the Fair Labor Standards Act, which established both a federally mandated minimum wage as well as setting 44 hours as the standard work week, to which, this was phased out to both a higher minimum wage as well as lowering the standard work week to 40 hours over a period of seven years.  The Fair Labor Standards Act, though amended, is still applicable today, to which, both eight hour days as well as 40-hour work weeks are the baseline standard for American workers.

Don't Call This a Revolution

Most children are taught in school that America fought a revolutionary war to free itself from Great Britain and while on the surface that might seem correct, it wasn't the correct perspective at that time, as we can discern from the reading of our Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration of Independence is America's seminal document, as it was this document that our Founding Fathers risked their lives, their honor, and their fortunes upon, to which, defeat for any or all of these men, would mean ruin, or death.  At the time of our declaration, Great Britain was the superpower, the sole empire of the world, to which the sun never set upon its vast territories, and it was this country that the colonists had the audacity to rise up against.

Jefferson's appeal in our declaration to the opinions of mankind was absolutely sincere, and this appeal was not for revolution, but for the dissolving of our political bands as well as a formal separation from this great empire.  Further to this point, Jefferson went above the divine right of the king, a right which presupposed that the king's right to rule his subjects came via the will of God, to turn that on its head by stating that all men are first created equal, and are subsequently equally endowed with unalienable rights gifted to us by Nature's God, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Jefferson went on to say that to secure these rights; governments are instituted amongst men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that when such a form of government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.  Jefferson then went on to list the usurpations and injuries suffered by the people by the tyranny of the present king, unjustly ruling over the colonists. Jefferson wanted the world to know that the colonists were the ones' wronged and further to the point, Jefferson wanted the world to know that our unalienable rights came not from kings or government, but by our Creator, and those that would subvert or take away such rights had no legitimacy or right to rule.  This meant that our declaration of independence, set forth to the world at large, was a carefully crafted instrument that laid out the unalienable rights of men in which their natural state was life, liberty, and happiness to which governments are instituted amongst men by the consent of these same men to secure those basic civil rights.

The colonists wished to be independent from Great Britain, because Great Britain had demonstrated repeatedly that they were destructive to the unalienable liberties of the colonists, in addition to the fact that Great Britain had demonstrated over a lengthy period of time that they were intractable in such behavior towards the colonists.  This meant that in order to be free from the chains of such oppression and tyranny, that the colonists would have to unite and to fight against the empire of Great Britain, and our Declaration of Independence as signed by the fifty-six signatories to it, was a commitment that these men would, if necessary, sacrifice all so as to become an independent nation or die trying.

Our Declaration of Independence meant war with Great Britain, and the fundamental purpose of that document, was to declare the legitimacy of the colonists position as opposed to the tyranny represented by Great Britain, and the signatories appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world, was an appeal that justice, liberty, and truth would be the foundational blocks forged in the birth of this great new nation.

The Success of Japan v. the Failure of Iraq

Japan was on the losing end of World War II, and besides suffering from that defeat which entailed the fiery destruction of much of residential Tokyo, it also suffered through two atomic bombs dropped onto its country by the United States of America.  You might think that the above would have created massive resentment within Japan of America, but in actuality, to the credit of the Japanese government and the Japanese people, they accepted their defeat with equanimity, as essentially being defeated by a stronger nation which led to their desire to learn from the best, which Japan aptly accomplished.

There are huge economic advantages to being located in the Far East and subsequently being treated by the greatest economic power in the world as a "favored" nation within that sphere.  Additionally, the dismantling of the Japanese military- industrial complex meant that monies, equipment, personnel, and resources that were previously spent in the upkeep of being an imperial power, were now redirected into becoming an economic power, to which, the United States was the partner that helped to provide the necessary resources and capital to jumpstart the Japanese miracle.  So too Japan represented an insular society, with little or no internal division, hard working people, intelligent, educated, and determined to do better, with a young work force and the resiliency to perform at a highly competent rate.  All of this led to the Japanese economic miracle, to which in the decade of the 1960s Japan averaged GDP growth of a staggering 10% a year, eventually to which this island nation with little natural resources became the second largest economy in the world by 1978.  Japan, today, remains very close to America, and would not be the same country if not for its special relationship with America, in conjunction with its dedicated work ethic and consistently high labor productivity rate.

In 2003, America, decided for whatever dubious reasons that Saddam Hussein, President/Dictator of Iraq, must be forcefully removed from office and thereby America with assistance from other coalition forces attacked Iraq and within 45 days, President Bush declared victory by stating, "Mission accomplished".  Despite the United States calling their military operation: "Iraqi Freedom", thirteen years after this military invasion, nobody would consider Iraq to be a free state, let alone a successful state, but most would consider it to be a failed state.  The GDP per capita (constant LCU) for Iraq in 2002 was $3,716,142, whereas in 2014 it was measured at $4,871,914, and while this is an improvement, it's hardly earth shattering, in fact its rather pedestrian, despite the fact that Iraq's oil production is 50% higher than what it was in 2002, and further to the point that Iraq is one of the largest oil producers in the world.

While there are myriad reasons why Iraq is a failed state, one need not look too far to understand that the artificial borders created out of the Ottoman Empire, created tensions, by virtue of the fact that these borders included within the same nation state factions that historically did not get along well with each other, which in particular were the Sunnis, the Shia, and the Kurds.   Any President of any country having to deal with these divisive interests would be hard pressed to have or to bring lasting peace to such a nation, and in this, Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, was no exception.  So too, when occupied by the United States of America, Iraq fared no better, degenerating into local battles between different factions with America often caught within the crossfire.  

Whether Iraq is ungovernable or not, America now knows that Iraq despite its great natural resource of oil, is no Japan, and never will be, indicating that it is foolish to believe that divisive factions with long standing animosities towards each other will somehow or another, unite under the umbrella of American hegemony.

The Decline of America's Labor Participation Rate

While there are all sorts of charts, statistics, numbers, and so forth, purporting to show the health or lack of health of today's economy, one of the most important numbers and chart, is the labor participation rate.  The labor participation rate basically measures the amount of citizens ages 16 and above that are either employed or actively looking for work, as compared against those not employed or not actively looking for work, which wouldinclude retirees, disabled people, students, and those incarcerated.  The current American labor participation rate is 62.9% as of September of 2016, which on the surface seems okay, but well below countries such as the United Kingdom, Russia, Italy, and Canada, while being higher than Germany, Japan, and Mexico.  However, beneath the surface, those numbers don't look nearly so acceptable.

For instance, at the beginning of this century, the labor participation rate in America was 67.3%, demonstrating that the current labor participation rate of 62.9% is a significant and very distressing reduction of around 6.5% of our labor participation rate, from January of 2000.  This equates to literally millions of people that are no longer part of the labor participation rate, and while critics contend that the reasonable explanation behind this decline can be attributed to an aging work force, that answer isn't completely candid or satisfying.  That is to say, looking specifically at the labor participation rate of those aged 25-54, considered to be the "wheelhouse" of employment and then comparing the labor participation rate for that group against three other mature countries, in this case, Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom, for both male as well as females, the United States has the lowest percentage of labor participation in that group for both male as well as female categories as reported by aei.org for the year 2014.  This signifies in a nutshell that America's labor participation rate once adjusted for demographics ranks behind countries such as Japan and Germany.

As much as America desires to tease the numbers to make it seem that all is well, the truth of the matter is, something is fundamentally wrong, as America's labor participation rate has been in a steady decline for this century, somewhat due to the aging of our population, but also significantly due to the fact that a significant portion of those in their prime earning years of 25-54, have given up on finding work.  So too does this signify that the "puritan work ethic", that Americans have prided themselves on for generations, has effectively been nullified, perhaps, forever.

In point of fact, as less and less Americans are laboring to support in our welfare state more and more Americans that are not, there will come, sooner or later, a reckoning, when the massive deficits that this nation runs must either be paid back or repudiated, which would as a matter of course, demand from the population, significant belt tightening and grit.  For those that do not work, have no desire to work, and won't work, when this event occurs as it surely will, domestic insurrection will occur at unprecedented levels, for idle hands are the devil's workshop.

Dorms didn't use to have their own Phones

Never have so many gone to college as today's students, to which, almost to the person, they have their own cell-phone for their instant communication needs and desires.  This means that for parents, that their access to their collegiate children is as simple as dialing or texting that phone and thereby, "helicopter parents" can easily keep tabs on their children, as much as they so do desire, as well as children being able to easily contact mom and dad for any financial needs or other pressing concerns.  There was a time, however, which would essentially be before the 1970s, in which telephones didn't exist in any of the dorm rooms, whatsoever, and therefore, meant that the usage of a telephone, was reduced to common areas, or at the end of the dormitory hall, or gosh, public pay phones.

In addition, depending upon the physical distance between the parties, the marking of these phone calls was not cheap, it was "long distance" and definitely cost money, which necessitated conversations that stayed on point, rather than meandering, along with the fact that each story of a particular dorm hall had several student rooms in which each student in those rooms was entitled as a courtesy to have equal access to the common hall dorm phone, thereby meaning that conversations, along with being essentially public, could not be conducted forever.

In point of fact, once your child went off to college, most parents except perhaps for the very first week of classes, wouldn't talk to their child any more than once bi-weekly, if even that, and real communication would actually be done utilizing the postal mail, that is actual letter writing, so that pleas for money from parents was often something added to a letter while updating parents on a particular student's progress and as a tax, so to speak, on parents, for receiving information about a student's status.

The upshot of the fact that these young men and women were not available to be hailed by the parents or at the beck and call of their parents, meant, that these young students had to be more adult and more responsible for their behavior.  Not only that, back in the 1960s as well as earlier, the legal drinking age, was eighteen, signifying unlike today, that people that turned eighteen were actually treated as adults rather than being put into some sort of purgatory of neither a juvenile, nor a true adult.  So too this meant in an era in which your best friend could not be your iphone or your tablet and so forth, that students were more likely to make friends by engaging other students in real conversations, and by virtue of the fact that parents were not able to micromanage their children, students became closer with fellow students, as a sensible substitute or replacement for the lack of parental oversight and monitoring.

Therefore, the collegiate students of the 1960s were probably more mature individuals because unlike today's students they actually had to very quickly adapt and learn to stand up on their own two feet; whereas today's collegiate students are too often spoiled to the max, exist in manufactured "safe zones", coddled, and ultimately stuck with the outrageous educational bill for such babying.

An uneven distribution of money creates unnecessary deprivation for others

America is a capitalistic society, although,  actually it's not a true capitalist society as the game has been fixed to favor certain players over others, depending upon their connections with powerful vested and important interests in government, in justice, and in the administration of these things in the real world. This signifies that while the winners may not be predetermined or fixed forever, that there are privileged cliques of people, industry, and governmental authorities that rule over the masses of our society and thereby have accumulated both power as well as money.

Because America is a wealthy nation, many people are okay with this uneven distribution of money, especially so as America's propaganda machine does a stellar job of selling the illusion that just about anyone given the right circumstances can go from the outhouse to the penthouse in one generation, which encompasses what most people consider to be part and parcel of the American dream.  The thing is not everyone can realistically be ridiculously rich, in fact, most people in America at the present time, are distinctly not as reported by the washingtonpost.com, as the bottom 60% of Americans have in aggregate just 3% of the net wealth in America. 

The most significant problem with such a huge percentage of Americans that aren't really worth much, and that struggle day-by-day to make a living can be conceptualized by understanding that the GDP of a given country is based upon the finished goods and services that a country generates in which, there are basic necessities that every family needs such as: shelter, food, clothing, education, sanitation, and healthcare.  If you were to picture someone that is worth one billion dollars, recognize that this family only can eat so much, only can buy so many clothes, take so many vacations, and so forth, and the great bulk of the value of his money would be set aside and either saved or invested, but not consumed.  On the other hand, one billion dollars provided to one million impoverished people, would give each of those people, exactly one thousand dollars, of which they would almost for a certainty use that money to purchase goods that they need or require on an everyday basis.

Those that have way too much money typically aren't spendthrifts, and even when they behave like spendthrifts and purchase extra homes, private jets, yachts and other assorted big-ticketed stuff, most of that stuff sits unused or underutilized almost every day of the year, and consequently provides very little net good for society at large.  On the other hand, those that are barely scraping by will utilize whatever funds that they receive for real purchases of clothes, food, car payments, insurance, and rental payments, with any extra money being spent on other assorted desirable items that catch their fancy.

The truth of the matter is when the lion's share of monetary assets are held in very few hands, the rich aren't going to do much with it because their most urgent needs have already been met, so other than banking it in one of its myriad forms this wealth no longer circulates, leaving those that have little or nothing, high and dry, with little or no opportunity to make money, because that wealth isn't theirs, won't ever be theirs,  isn't accessible to them as theirs, making them very poor players in a rich man's world.

Turn your Back on the Declaration of Independence to your own Peril

While most Americans are familiar with our seminal founding document, the Declaration of Independence, most people do not understand the fundamental and guiding principle behind the document, as the document, is much more than men simply declaring their independence, as a careful reading of it indicates that our Founding Fathers believed that their appeal for independence was as witnessed by the last paragraph of the document an appeal by men to our Creator, "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions…"  Yet, we now live in a country in which day-by-day, a significant part of the most powerful interests of the establishment, the most powerful interests of the military, the most powerful interests of justice, the most powerful interests of industry, together are determined to tear asunder our people's connection to God, and pretend that not only is this presently a secular nation, but it was created at its formation as a secular nation.

In point of fact, whether you wish to call those that push relentlessly for this secular state: treasonous, misguided, ignorant, or whatever, it is they that are in the driver's seat, and it is they that spit in the face of God, to which, our Bible admonishes us:  "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." (Psalm 9:17).  If, we as a people allow those that are the leaders and power brokers of this country to continue along its present course, then this country will as all other countries before it have done, collapse, because its legitimacy has been torn asunder from the very grace of God.

Be that as it may, Abraham Lincoln, our greatest President, recognized that the Declaration of Independence was the essence of America, and stated in 1858 in Lewistown, Illinois, "… come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence."    Lincoln was nobody's fool, gifted with a mind that never could rest in the sea of lies, deceit, hypocrisy, or pretense, for he was instead an unparalleled leader during the most perilous of times, who worked within the Constitution, who worked from the Declaration of Independence, so that America would have a new birth of freedom, and such freedom could only be eternal and forever binding if it was seen as it properly should be seen as both unalienable and gifted to us by our Creator, if only we were able to hold true our course and our purpose.

Today we live in a country that feels too often that mere lip service to God is good enough, that mere acknowledgement to those that founded this country is good enough, that mere half-hearted thankfulness for Lincoln that kept and solidified this great nation at the time when brother fought against brother, so that all would eventually be truly united as brothers, has too often been negated by today's lust for pleasure, today's selfishness, today's ruthlessness, exploitation, and deception toward other nations and peoples, today's lack of character and rectitude, all in service to today's god, which is mammon in all of its various forms and disguises.

The country that was created at the time of our Declaration of Independence is being eroded not from outside elements, but from the enemy within.  The bloody battles that were fought at our foundation and at our separation were fought so that those that gave their lives for their nation would enable that nation, under God, to live.  These noble dead have done their part, our founding fathers have done their part, great men of our civil war have done their part, those of the greatest generation have done their part, it is to those that are of the living that must so determine to dedicate their lives to the unfinished work of their part so that under God, this nation will have a renewed birth of freedom, in recognition that all are created equal, that all have unalienable rights, and that all are entitled to the golden door of liberty as sanctioned by the light of our Most High and Righteous God.

Police and their Loyalty

The concept of police and their duties, presence, and compensation, are essentially seen in today's society as if this has always been the norm and always will be the norm, but that simply isn't the case whatsoever.  There wasa time, when police, especially in their everyday duties and expectations, didn't really exist, instead communities would handle their law enforcement needs typically through a less formal system, a far less invasive system, involving watchmen, offer voluntary or compulsory as a duty to the community, with a constable or sheriff in charge who answered to the civic leaders of a given community,  and the payment for these men was often based on tasks accomplished, such as the serving of writs, the collecting of taxes, and the apprehending of those accused of crimes.

The advantage of the previous form of policing was the fact that the crimes that the sheriff responded to typically dealt with robbery, property theft or damage, public drunkenness, public fighting, murder, and prostitution, in which often times, the watchmen responded to crimes as perceived by citizens that were directly affected by them.  This also meant that the sheriff would as a matter of course; respond to crimes taking into account the property ownership and social status of the citizen engaging with them. That is to say, sheriffs and their watchmen were in essence, primarily there to protect the status quo from theft, damage, harm, and public nuisances.

Today's police force has a chain of command, and that chain of command doesn't really take into account that the law should be equally and fairly applied, but to the contrary, that the law is purposely opaque, subject to all sorts of interpretation or misinterpretation, arbitrary, endless, contradictory, all for the given purpose so that the police as designated agents of the State, can without much meaningful controversy,  arrest and deal with the common man in a manner that quickly allows the State to keep order, so as to protect the vested interests of those that are important or have significant assets, from outside elements that would destroy wealth or the public order.

When the police designate on their government vehicles that they are here to "protect and serve", that motto isn't fundamentally meant for the people that own nothing, have no real opportunity, and are barely able to make ends meet, but instead all that protecting and serving is in reality designated for the privileged people of the community and really nobody else.

The foremost duty of the police in essence is to protect and to serve the status quo, at all times, for the very reason, that if they fail to do so, they will summarily be replaced by those that will not fail to do so. 

The police answer to their paymasters, and those paymasters are the leaders both civic and private of that community, to which, their primary desire of those leaders is not to have trouble, because trouble is bad for business, and bad business is bad for their pocketbook as well as being  inherently destabilizing, so that, the best way to take care of trouble is to use the domestic policing arm of the community to crush the bad elements, typically by demonstrating overwhelming force, and if necessary, by using that same force until the opposition is put to heel.

Shopping Malls and Curfews

There are two basic types of curfews: of which the most pertinent one is a curfew set for emergency reasons in regards to a real public safety issue because of a natural disaster or rioting or similar, than there is the other type of curfew which is at the convenience of the State, arbitrary, and basically takes those that are under eighteen and imposes a curfew upon them, which based on the day of the week, and the time of the actual curfew, may be perceived as reasonable or not.  The thing about curfews in general is that the Supreme Court had this to say:”the right to walk the streets, or to meet publicly with one's friends for a noble purpose or for no purpose at all—and to do so whenever one pleases—is an integral component of life in a free and ordered society."  However, when it comes to juveniles, the Supreme Court has permitted exceptions to this basic rule that the public is allowed to walk the streets freely, and then when it comes to private property, in particular, certain shopping malls, private property rights muddies the curfew waters even more.

You might think that shopping malls would be interested in as much foot traffic as possible in order to conduct their day-to-day business, but that isn't really true at all.  In fact, a significant amount of shopping malls are particular about who shops their malls, and whereas, you might suspect that the shopping mall philosophy would be that youth must be served, above all, that isn't the case in all shopping malls.  Instead, certain shopping malls have enacted specific rules mandating that juveniles must be escorted by a parental authority after 6PM, for instance, and that those that disobey such authority will be in violation of curfew, and subsequently it is within the rights of the mall to escort such juveniles off of the property.

There are many issues with this type of curfew, of which, one is the fact that juveniles, being juveniles, often wish to congregate amongst themselves, rather than being with their parents at all times, and parents as well, do not want to be with their children at all times.  An additional issue is that certain shopping malls have movie theatres and because the movie theatre is on mall premises, this means, that parents cannot drop their children off to the movie theatre, after 6PM or engage a showing which will end after 6PM, which is hardly beneficial for the movie theatre or for the biggest patrons of movies in general, which is young people.  Further, to the point, and in reality the elephant in the room, is the fact that despite the fact that the mall may already have certain dress codes, behavior codes, along with specific rules that deal with gang paraphernalia and gang colors, the mall, because of fear of lawsuits or whatever, theoretically groups all juveniles under one umbrella, rather than dealing with the element that they believe is disruptive and thereby bad for business.

As bad as that is for juveniles, incredibly, at the present time the Atlantic Station mall of Atlanta, GA, has an even more insidious and quite debatable further curfew for those that are under the age of twenty-one but at least eighteen years old, in which their curfew at the property is 11PM, even though restaurants and the movie theatre are all open later than 11PM.  The above, is a prime example of how someone that is legally an adult, is still treated as if they are something other than an adult, and is ultimately of dubious legality.

For those that believe that private establishments should be allowed to set the rules of their particular establishment and thereby to treat their patrons in the manner that they best see fit, this type of mindset, that the business owner can do whatever that he desires with his property, was essentially nullified by the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, so that private establishments could no longer discriminate against patrons on the basis of their race or similar.  Today, with these shopping mall rules,

juveniles as well as adults less than the age of twenty-one are discriminated against, to which, underneath the surface there is a more than a distinct feeling that these laws are primarily enacted to treat certain specified people, separately and unequally.