The misapplication of knowledge in regards to the tree of knowledge

To have knowledge and to know the substance of that knowledge is meant for the benefit of mankind, of which, it is never in the knowing that is the substance of error, but rather it is in the misapplication of knowledge that mankind becomes personally responsible for that misuse and thereby must make it right. That is to say, anytime that knowledge is used incorrectly, for example, to benefit someone at the expense of another, or to deceive another, than that person doing such, has taken knowledge and used such for a wrong purpose of having that knowledge.

Another way of putting it, is that the true purpose of knowledge is not to “hold over” on someone else, or to take unfair advantage of another, but rather the purpose is to do good and to be of benefit to others.  So that, when it comes to Adam and Eve, and the tree of knowledge, the warning against eating from that tree, is not that by doing so, Adam and Eve, would by that act, become agents of evil or sin, but rather that when provided with the awesome responsibility of knowledge, Adam and Eve, to their discredit, could not handle that knowledge in a responsible manner and thereby they fell from grace, by their willful lack of that responsibility.

This so indicates that the more knowledge that each of us has acquired, the greater our responsibility is to utilize that knowledge as agents of good deeds and good acts; as opposed to doing those deeds and acts that would be negative or evil.  In addition, those that seek knowledge for knowledge’s sake, will often lose sight of who and what they really are, and having lost that focus to the source of all that is, will not be able to comprehend that the greatest attribute of any one being, is not knowledge, itself, but rather oneness with our Creator, of which, knowledge, improperly handled, separates our being from that unification.

It has been said that knowledge is a form of power, and it most definitely is, so that, ideally such knowledge should be under the control only of a power that is omnipotent, just, and infallible, which ultimately is true; for if that knowledge is held in the hands of an entity that knows not that their responsibility incurs a obligation to all, then the result will be a land of confusion.  So that, when it comes to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the inability of Adam and Eve to thereby become infallible when biting into the awesome insight of true enlightenment is the very reason why earth is not a paradise.

So then, the fall of mankind is not in the eating of that fruit, but rather the fall of mankind is in the fact that so many are keeping their eyes shut and thereby living purposefully in ignorance, rather than recognizing that the die has already been cast, and thereby mankind’s only true mission is to utilize their knowledge in a manner in which all will find their way back to that of which it all originated from.

Government’s just powers come only from the consent of the governed

A government of the people, for the people, and by the people can only be a government in which those that are governed are governed by their explicit consent to that government, which in the scheme of things, is a government which governs well by being fair and beneficial for the people.  Further to the point, that government, and thereby the people that make up that government must be answerable and accountable to the people.  It can be said that all governments that perform this fundamental function well -- are good and legitimate governments, whereas all those that do not, are in all probability, illegitimate and in all likelihood, coercive in their governance.

Each citizen of any country should look at their governance by those that govern them and must recognize the importance of first knowing what good governance is, and further, to comprehend what clearly represents the characteristics of bad governance.  Those that live within a construct in which that government appears to be a law onto itself, in addition to that government being fundamentally unaccountable to the people, as well as being effectively unalterable in its structure as a government by the people, are living in a despotic country, that has wrongfully denied its citizens their inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This signifies that each time that citizens cede power to their government, or consent to do so, or have their liberties curtailed, then those citizens are, by definition, less free and have less choice, because their liberty has been traded or taken from them in order to receive, perhaps, at best, benefits that the government can thereby bestow upon them, which, in theory, is in a manner that is fair and equable to all.  Instead, in most cases, when that government decides, without accountability to its citizens, who the winners are, and who the losers are as implemented and decided by that government -- then that is the very beginning of a government that favors some at the expense of the many, and therefore no longer represents a government of the people, but rather is the personification of a government that uses its powers to aggrandize unto that government, powers that really should be in the hands of the people, especially in consideration that those that govern have a sacred obligation to serve and to protect those people.

So many governments, on local, state, and national levels have fundamentally forgotten that their mission for being is to be an aid for the people, of which those people have gathered together into a compact, in order to form a better society, then if they were to remain separated.  If more people that worked in government, would perform their functions under the condition that their highest duty is to the people that they ostensibly served; and if the people, would more frequently and consistently hold that government accountable to them, then that governance would be more in keeping with its very purpose to begin with, which is to be just, equable, helpful, and fair to all.

Bang, bang

The United States has more guns in private hands than any other nation, in sheer quantity as well as in per capita statistics.  So too, the American military is the most powerful in the world, along with the domestic police force of America  being extremely well armed.  As much as critics may decry all the firearms that America has, or the reason why they have them, or the danger of having all those firearms, ad nauseam, those firearms are not going to go away anytime soon.

One of the main reasons why so many Americans have firearms, is basically the belief that having a firearm is necessary in order to have a weapon that will stop a criminal, or basically to have a weapon for practical self-defense.  Not too surprisingly, when  people believe that they need a weapon to protect themselves, that belief in and of itself, creates it own little arms race, of which until such a time as the mindset changes from the conventional wisdom that firearms are necessary for a good self-defense, than firearms will continue to be seen as a valid choice for that defense.

Lost in all the confusion about firearms, is the fact that people that buy guns, vary considerably in their experience with guns, of which, some people buying guns, have a military or police background, meaning consequently that they are usually quite competent in their knowledge of guns and their usage, thereof.  So too, there are people that while not coming from a military or police background, have utilized guns or rifles in hunting or other sporting endeavors.  Then there are others, that have utilized guns in target practice and finally there are other people that have never fired a gun, of which, some of those people, have barely a working knowledge as to how to properly handle a gun.

It almost goes without saying, that those that have bought a gun, and subsequently never take a course on how to utilize that gun, or just have had a modicum of gun usage training through target practice or similar, but, not on a regular basis, are probably fooling themselves if they believe that in a truly dangerous situation in which the thought is that the usage of a firearm is necessary in order to protect themselves, that they will actually be able to competently defend themselves.

Having said that, all this truly pales in comparison, to the very salient fact, that guns are extremely lethal and that shooting a firearm at a target, or at an animal, is never going to be the same thing as shooting it at another human being.  In point of fact, there isn’t much of a good reason, to own a firearm, if consciously or subconsciously the owner of that gun knows that they do not have the character to actually use it against another human being, with the exception of possibly being able to do so, under the most extraordinary circumstances. 

In point of fact, with the exception of a very small percentage of Americans, the vast majority of people, while perhaps capable of drawing upon a firearm, just can’t really bring themselves to actually use it against another human being, because their conscience of the gravity of the situation, precludes them from doing so.  This is why, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to own a firearm -- because many owners will simply never use one for the purpose that they bought it for, should that situation occur.  While life can indeed be full of potential dangers and moments of fear, it is truly the exception, and not the rule, when a bad guy is actually shot by a common citizen, for most people when confronted in a fearful situation by someone that is human, will not pull the trigger.

Facial recognition in airports and society

There are now international flights in America, that provide what purports to be a benefit for passengers, which is that before boarding a plane, they provide their passport at the boarding gate, and then stand in front of a camera, for facial recognition, of which, this is said to allow boarding to be faster.  In reality, this isn’t true because stopping and then standing in front of a camera, as opposed to simply providing the documents that have already been vetted by airport security is pretty much going to be a waste of time.  What it is, though, is a simple and convenient way for the purveyors of facial recognition software to verify its veracity.

The thing about facial recognition, which unlike fingerprinting or even DNA testing, is that the government cannot readily tell who someone is when they are walking down a public street, if all they have are a fingerprint file and a DNA database.  Whereas, with facial recognition, alongside a comprehensive fingerprinting database, as well as a DNA database, the government pretty much has everything that they require in order to build up an incredible amount of actionable information on citizens; so that, the watchers see, hear, and know everything, whereas those that are watched know virtually nothing about those that watch them, except for their pronouncements that this is for their own good, as well as for the safety and security of the country.

If the citizens of this country do not have a right to privacy in the public sphere, and further do not have a right to be left alone or to be forgotten, then those citizens in an era of facial recognition, in addition to all the other endless reams of data that is being gathered about them; of which all of this is being correlated, analyzed, processed, and stored, then those citizens cannot possibly consider themselves to be free and liberated citizens but rather must be seen, as pretty much as a cattleman sees his cattle that are branded, which is, as his property, thereby for him to dispose of as appropriate, including the slaughterhouse.

It is one thing for citizens to use facial recognition to unlock their phone, or to unlock their house, or to enter their place of employment; it is an entirely different thing, though, when facial recognition is being used by the government or even private enterprise without some sort of vigorous and meaningful peer oversight.  In addition, it is one thing for any technology to be used for the benefits and security it provides and then have that history, pretty much wiped clean at the end of the day, as compared to the very same thing being done, but forever after being stored and controlled by an entity that answers to no one.

Those that are in either the business of unfairly exploiting people through advertising by virtue of knowing everything about them, or else in the business of having comprehensive actionable information which will allow that entity to compromise virtually anyone at any time for their sins or questionable acts, have aggrandized onto themselves god-like powers, without actually being impartial, just, and wholesome.  This signifies that the more invasion of privacy ceded to private enterprise or government overseers, then the more endangered that citizen’s freedom and liberty will be.

Questions and answers

A lot of times people state that those that give the best answers have to be the most intelligent and astute people, and while that may well be true, a belief such as that, discounts the value of the person that is asking the right quality questions.  For instance, most teachers tell their students that there is no such thing as a stupid question, but in fact, there most certainly is; especially questions that are asked in which clearly the student has not been listening or paying attention to what the teacher has been repeatedly saying on a given subject, for that question asked, is a reflection of their lack of focus.

So too, there are plenty of conversations in regards to matters of real importance, in which a given person's inability to ask the appropriate and salient questions, in order to efficiently receive in turn answers that are of actual value, indicates someone that lacks perception, insight, and preparedness.  Sometimes, indeed, questions are being asked that aren't really germane to the subject matter at hand, representing a true reflection that the person asking the questions doesn't readily understand the subject matter or isn't concentrated upon that matter, and therefore, the answers received are not going to be nearly as much benefit for them because the right question has not been formulated.

Additionally, those that aren't able to come up with good questions, are the very same people, that aren't able to do their part in order to have a meaningful conversation; which perhaps is why so many people spend so much of their time with their heads down, and their thumbs moving, texting back and forth with one another, because they are clueless as to how to actually engage another peer in a consequential conversation.

While it is true that most people that answer questions well, are themselves able to ask questions well, it is not true for everyone, for there are plenty of people, that are quite book smart, but lack street smarts, and that lack of knowledge, means that they don't know the best questions to ask in order to get the information that they really require.  So then, those that may actually have the right answers, may also, at the same time, not really know the right questions to pursue, and in order to progress within a given endeavor it is important to know not only the answers but also the necessary questions; especially since part of any quest, is to ascertain everything that needs to be known, in order for that quest to be successful, and that necessitates formulating the right questions in order to get the right answers.

Additionally, those that do not question things, often enough, are not progressing as far as they could progress, because they are frequently too accepting of the orthodox viewpoint, rather than seeing things as they are, and then having the courage and curiosity to want to question as to whether those things can be better; for it is, more times than not, those that push beyond conventional wisdom, that helps mankind to advance, because progress necessitates taking into account different perspectives, different viewpoints, and different questions, all of which will produce different answers, because only when a given subject matter is thoroughly examined, does the right answer become illuminated.

Social media, scandal, and firestorms

It use to be that in order for a scandal to take off, that it would have to either spread through word of mouth, or be instigated through the main media organs of the time and age, such as newsprint, radio, or television.  Nowadays, a scandal can literally be enflamed within less than a few hours, basically through people's social media accounts which aren't necessarily just local in nature, anymore, but global.  This means, fundamentally, that nearly every day something scandalous has been seen and commented upon by literally thousands upon thousands of people, and sometimes even millions.  While, to a certain degree, this might seem to be fair play, in reality, it almost never really is.  That is to say, those who are secretly recorded by someone or simply recorded without their expressed approval, exposing them thereby to the general public, for example, in embarrassing circumstances, are themselves often not able to stop the dissemination of that video, which usually never really even gives them a chance to weigh in with their side of the story.  So too, things that are said and done in private, can be indiscriminately posted for public consumption, which isn't fair for those that thought what was said and done was private, but now has been disclosed by one of the parties involved.  Additionally, there is just something intoxicating for lots of people about scandal, especially scandal involving things that are engaging to those particular people and their lives, of which, lost within the firestorm of the scandal, is that the real people exposed or involved in that scandal are definitely affected by it, but are unable to effectively countermand it, for like a forest fire that spontaneously begins, there isn't any known beginning and there isn't any easy way to put the fire out, except to let it, hopefully, burn itself out.

This means that for many people that they now live within a construct in which they cannot necessarily control their reputation, for there often isn't any one responsible party to hold accountable for a reputation destroyed.  Further, video and pictures, almost never tell the entire story, but only a prejudiced portion of the story; in addition to the fact, that editing tools are ubiquitous so that what is being displayed as true and accurate, may not actually be either of those things.  In the world before social media, newsrooms could and were held responsible for the content that they disseminated, in addition to the salient fact that discussions would ensue about whether to release a particular piece involving national security or personal foible to the public.  This has been replaced, instead, by people that post, re-post, and comment on things that perhaps would previously have never seen the light of day, or would not have picked up enough traction to really grievously harm a given individual. 

As it stands, the structure of social media makes it a medium which is perfect for the real-time transaction of data, of which, some of this is actually good and vital, in the sense that more people can be reached in a highly efficient way that can provide those people with information of relevancy and worth.  On the other hand, it is the same medium that can be extraordinarily destructive towards certain people, of which some of these affected people are either very young or very vulnerable or both.  This means that those that utilize social media accounts need to be more responsible about their posts, and in particular, those posts that are scandalous in nature, because what goes around, comes around -- all at a velocity and impact, previously unknown.

The land of the free and the home of the brave

The star-spangled banner, which is the national anthem of the United States of America, declares proudly that America is "…the land of the free and the home of the brave."  But, seriously, where can we truly find this mythical land of the free and the home of the brave, because surely it cannot be America.  At least, it cannot be the America as it behaves in the present day.

For instance, no country incarcerates more of its own people, than the United States of America.  In fact, in comparison to all other western nations, the United States is an outlier to an extreme measure in regards to incarceration, in which, the sheer numbers of those incarcerated in America are so large, that as Hillary Clinton stated the United States, "… is home to 25 percent of the world’s prison population."  By definition, those that are locked up are not free, and further to the point, the fact that so many are locked up, does not make those that are not incarcerated, somehow, more free.  Rather, it must be said, that the more people that are locked up, or are trapped within the criminal justice system, the more endangered the general public is to the very same sort of thing possibly happening to them, because when it comes to incarceration, truly America carries a very big stick that they will apparently wield with impunity, for they know that even the world at large, are fearful of even insinuating that America treats its own people in an inhumane and unjust manner, though it does exactly that.

Additionally, no land can truly be considered to be free, if the structure within that country favors certain elite people and classes of people at the expense of those that lack primarily income, stable family structure, and opportunity; for those that are born within a construct in which the schools that they attend are fundamentally disadvantaged, and in addition are denied fair access to meaningful employment that will  help catapult them out of their cycle of poverty, than those people are surely not free.

No nation, has every used the atomic bomb to kill civilians, but America, which did so not just once, but twice, when it dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in which the dropping of atomic bombs upon civilians to kill them indiscriminately, is not brave and never can be defined as brave.  Since then, America has continued to bomb country after country, so that, a country as tiny as Laos, which as reported by legaciesofwar.org, suffers from being "… the most heavily bombed country in history."   The bombing of countries continues until the present age, in which Afghanistan, a country that America has been at war with since 2001, had more bombs dropped on it in 2018, then any other year, since that war commenced.  So too, America loves to utilize drones to target and to strike "enemy combatants" with the inevitable collateral damage of civilians that are killed, alongside the so-called "bad guys."

No matter how you slice it, and what words are used, the bombing and drone killing of enemy combatants is not brave, because those that are doing the bombing and drone strikes are virtually never physically at risk, and a reasonable definition of bravery includes the expectation that in order to be brave, one must actually be risking something of material consequence, or be in actual danger.  

It can be said, that those that insist upon wearing a crown that they do not deserve, will find that there will come a time when those that have the rightful claim for that crown, will seize it for themselves.

War, media, truth, and the press

The United States is the world's policeman, and insists upon fighting and engaging in armed conflict with nations, nation-states, and terrorists throughout the entire world; so that it is fair to say that since the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack on United States soil, the United States has been involved in armed conflict with at least one nation or nation-state continuously.   Despite all the current armed conflict, which involves killing enemies, killing enemy combatants, destroying infrastructure, along with the quite regrettable attendant civilian deaths and injuries from such warfare; we have, unlike the Vietnam War which truly was brought into the living rooms of all Americans, instead have armed conflicts that are almost never front page news.

It would seem that when it comes to warfare, that most Americans should want to know about it, but for the most part, it seems that what is going on overseas is just a sideshow, and disappointingly ignored by the public as well as the mass media; though there is coverage, but that coverage would appear to be managed in a way that seems to stipulate that continuous war and warfare really isn't a sort of hell.  While, this could be chalked up to general indifference, it would be fairer to state, that those that control the narrative, are able to also control what is or is not disseminated to the public at large. 

So that, in point of fact, while the killing of anybody, enemy or not, is an especially nasty bit of business, one might think that in an era of hi-resolution cameras, along with drones that are quite capable of providing excellent footage of the devastation and destruction of war, that there would be far more images of disturbing content that would be readily available, from those wars and armed conflicts, but surprisingly there really is not.

Unlike, domestic insurrections, in which citizens and news crews do a commendable job of recording incidents; when it comes to the warfare that we conduct overseas, independent journalists as well as mass media journalists, are often shackled as to what they can or cannot see and record, by being essentially chaperoned by US military personnel.   That is to say, to get to an authorized area of conflict, a given reporter needs transportation, and that transportation is going to come from the military.  So too, when interviewing soldiers out in the field of action, a military escort must be present, which quite obviously impacts what a given soldier will say in response to a question.  Also, often times, the actual proposed dispatches of reporters are first reviewed by military personnel, in order to amend, delete, or edit any dispatches which purport to contain military sensitive information.  Additionally, those reporters that are unable to consistently conform to military desires are simply subject to being removed as being authorized military reporters with their appropriate credentials revoked, pending any appeal.

In short, when the military is permitted to subvert the freedom of the press, by invoking national security or things of that nature, and thereby the filming and pictures produced, are essentially edited by that military, then the resulting picture for the public at large is not a true picture, but instead has been replaced by a managed picture per military dictates.  When the press is managed by the military, then that military is going to be in control of the narrative, and a country that does not allow its press to have fair freedom of movement to report upon the military excursions of their country, and further are not allowed to report unobstructed what they see, hear, and record, then you are going to inevitably have some very bad things happen because evil and wrong doing fear the illuminating light of truth, and prefer the darkness and shadows which allows such to ply well their trade.

Pay student athletes through boosters

College football and college basketball are big, big business, in which the primary beneficiaries of successful programs, are the colleges themselves as well as the coaching staff.  For instance, collegiate football coaches, frequently make millions, and the budget for the biggest collegiate football programs can exceed fifty million dollars, with at the end of the day, often a very meaningful profit going to the bottom line of these colleges.  As for the athletes, of which, there would not even be a game without their participation, they may receive full scholarships, or partial scholarships, or even some receive no scholarship whatsoever, and in any event, are never wage compensated for their actual play in the stadiums and arenas, despite often sold out venues and the millions that watch the games on television.

The reason why athletes are not compensated has little or nothing really to do with these student athletes being amateurs and therefore for the purity of the sport that they must not be paid; for apparently the thought is that money that reaches the hands of athletes would dirty the image and integrity of the sport, whereas that very same money that reaches the hands of colleges, along with their entire infrastructure, and the coaching staff, apparently is somehow not dirty.  While it is true that student athletes do reap some benefits from playing sports, such as receiving full scholarships, and the education that that the college provides, they are, in no uncertain terms, being exploited by those very same colleges.

In the scheme of things, if a given person wants to give money to another person, there isn't any law that precludes such.  This would seem to signify, that someone that is already classified as a "booster" to a given college, should be given the very reasonable option to direct some of their money into an account earmarked just for the student athletes of that program, and that monies received into it, would then be allocated to those athletes, of which, as long as a full accounting is provided to the appropriate tax authorities, as well as the money being divvied up to the athletes in some sort of fair and structured manner, that this would be a reasonable alternative to paying student athletes directly, as the money from boosters would simply be seen as a voluntary gift to student athletes, in which those athletes could, per their discretion, opt in or opt out in receiving such.

Perhaps having boosters essentially paying athletes would end up setting up even more of a divide between those schools with generous boosters and those schools without, but the structure of America already has that great divide to begin with; and reality of the situation is that anything that would help these student athletes to receive some sort of reasonable and well deserved compensation for their hard work and the sacrificing of their bodies in the field of sports, would be a vast improvement over the current outright exploitation of them, which basically is permitted because these non-profit colleges, are trying to disguise their true intent, which is that exploitation of those athletes for their exclusive benefit.    

Pets in cages

Most people are quite okay with hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, and birds being confined almost exclusively to a cage for their entire lives.  This is probably so, because none of those animals are typically considered to be mankind's best friend.  On the other hand, pet ownership of dogs and cats has never been higher and while a well-adjusted cat typically does their personal business into a litter box, a dog does not.  There is also the additional advantage that most cats have over dogs which is that they are physically smaller than most dog breeds; so that, in short, cats therefore are not often caged, though some are restricted to only certain parts of the house or restricted into entering into certain areas of the house.  Whereas, for dogs, with very few exceptions, they are naturally going to have to take care of their personal business outside, though there are, regrettably, alternatives to that, with potty training pads being available for dogs.  So too, while it is not unusual for someone to describe their cat as an "indoor cat", it seems to be an oxymoron to state that one's dog is an "indoor dog," yet, many dogs are treated as if that is the case.

Nowadays, more and more people have cages or crates inside their homes, typically used to cage their dog during their absence during the day, of which, many of these cages are so small that a dog doesn't have much choice except to lie down and not all that much room to turn around and move.  These are, quite frankly, very confining to a dog, with some people, even experts stating that cages for dogs are a good training tool as well as being acceptable, for dogs are "den animals" and confining a dog for hours during the day is fine, considering that dogs do an awful lot of sleeping.

The biggest problem for those that are proponents of dog cages, or for those that believe that dog cages are an acceptable solution for a dog that will possibly chew up and be destructive while alone, or will poop or pee all over the house, and so on and so forth, is the solution to the "problem" doesn't seem to have properly taken into account the responsibility that the dog owner has to the dog, to begin with.  That is to say, dogs are social animals, and they do require walks with their owner or a responsible party, in addition to just having social time with their owner, and therefore long periods of separation are not beneficial to dogs, so that, being confined to a cage which offers none of the accouterments or space that might help to settle that dog down is cruel.

There are some people that are not in the right place or maturity or responsibility in their life, to be a good dog owner, yet, they own dogs.  The least that large conglomerate pet stores could do would be to educate dog owners and to provide viable alternatives to cages, of which, a reasonable alternative would be to have an enclosed space, such as the family room, that has a gate attached to it, that keeps the dog confined within that area but still allows the dog to actually sniff, look, and move about; as well as all other devices or alternatives that are more humane than a very confining cage, including a fenced back yard.

Those that currently cage their dogs, need to see such caging, as a very poor choice, and should endeavor to find something that is more natural and fairer to the dog, along with making it a priority that when they are at home, that they will socialize with as well as walk their dog, because a best friend surely deserves so much better than just being caged.

Towards voting in the 21st century

While most Americans use the internet and hi-technology in one form or another, virtually every day, somehow when it comes to voting, of which, we have been told repeatedly that it is our civic duty to vote, the United States, has refused the golden opportunity to update and to modernize its voting practices.  For instance, paying bills online, paying taxes online, and communicating online, are all done routinely, yet, for the vast majority of Americans that even bother to vote, they must actually drive, or walk to their polling booth, stand in a line, and then when it is their turn, they are finally able to vote. 

When it comes to peer nations, the amount of eligible voters in America that vote, is significantly below the OECD average, with an estimated 55.7% of the American voting age population, actually voting in a given election.  If, the United States, wants to see that number rise substantially they should first implement a condition, that no high school graduate, may obtain their diploma, unless they first register to vote, and if they are under the age of eighteen, the registration, would not come into effect, until such time that they turned eighteen. The second step to get more people to vote, is to allow people to vote from the convenience of their electronic devices, so that, by federal fiat, all federal elections, would have in place within a short period of time, such as one or two years, the infrastructure to accept online voting.  It would then be hoped, that State elections, would soon follow suit, though not all would initially, since States are entitled to their own peculiar voting structures, as long as it is non-discriminatory and does not prejudicially disenfranchise eligible voters.

An appropriate way to structure online voting, would first be to not to limit it to just being on the day of the election, but in general, to be in conformance with early voting procedures as currently allowed.  Additionally, the access to online voting should basically be through any smart electronic device, and while some critics might argue that online voting would be discriminatory against the poor and internet disadvantaged people, this would probably be mitigated by volunteers within the community providing mobile electronic devices which would thereby allow citizens to vote that do not have ready access to the internet.

All those that complain that internet voting might be or would be subjected to tampering from rogue nation-states or other malefactors, are using that as a convenient excuse, when, in fact, the very business and the running of government, could not in this present age, survive without reliable and secure internet activity.  This would strongly suggest that the United States has the wherewithal to produce a robust and secure voting apparatus that will not be tampered with.

Presently, there are millions upon millions of Americans that don't vote, and by far the best way to encourage more Americans to vote is to provide them with easy access to register and to vote, of which the internet infrastructure is well constructed to do just that.  After all, the 15th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th Constitutional Amendments all deal with the right to vote, in one form of another, in addition to the Voting Right Act of 1965; so that, voting appears to be something that the people and its representatives believe to be vitally important, of which, getting more people to get engaged with voting and their responsibility and duty to vote, would reflect more fairly a population vested in its governance.

How about a class entitled: Life Skills

The American educational system is an abysmal failure, though it is true, that there is a subset of students that do amazingly well on academic tests and scores.  However, it is also true that the scores for American students in aggregate is absolutely pathetic, especially in comparison to other countries, so that, American students barely beat the OECD average in science and reading, and are below the OECD average in mathematics.  That might even be fine, if instead on concentrating on tests, test scores, homework, and grades, American students spent time actually taking the most important class, that apparently is never taught: which is life skills.

While there is a lot to be said about doing well academically and absorbing information in a way that students can test well and to learn their subjects well so as to be able to appear competent for a given job; it is a monumental mistake not to take into account that students need to learn other valuable life skills -- such as being highly competent in their communications skills as well as knowing how to cooperate well with others, as well as being competent with numbers/mathematics and their application in the real world, while also understanding the value and importance of establishing good credit, along with establishing a sound moral code, in addition to  understanding the basics of home economics, as well as  a good understanding of the pro and con of social media accounts, and finally a real good understanding of how justice, law, and policing works in the real world.

While some may say that experience is the best teacher in life, one of the main points of going to school in the first place is recognizing theoretically that electricity can kill you, without having to experience it in reality.  This means, that students need to be prepared for the real world, In a manner, in which they are thoroughly prepared, especially because in the richest nation that the world has ever known, there are all sorts of hustles being done each and every day, and those that do not understand the game, are often going to lose in that sort of game, because they are at a severe disadvantage.

Additionally, while there may well be value in being book smart, there is much more value in someone that is both book smart as well as life skills smart, and to concentrate exclusively on the former, is not good enough, for life skills are absolutely necessary to successfully navigate the strong and dangerous currents of a life in which being a smart sheep, isn't going to get someone all that far, especially when facing a pack of wolves. 

The sooner that any student recognizes that ultimately they are sovereign and that they are responsible for the decisions that they make, the sooner that they will recognize that thinking, perception, communication, and responsibility most definitely have a very valued place in their life.  These are the very attributes that should be developed and encouraged within our student body, so that, it must be noted, that good adults, that are a credit to their family, to their community, and to their country, more readily come about from those that have developed good life skills and have been prepared for such by sound public school education that emphasizes such.

Our Constitution and true allegiance

The Supreme Law of this land is its Constitution.  That does not mean that the Supreme Court has the exclusive right to interpret that Constitution, though in modern times, that appears to be how it is interpreted; granting those of the Supreme Court essentially judicial supremacy and thereby seemingly exclusive rights to enact and interpret laws per their decisions so made. In point of fact, the Supreme Court is not now, nor has it ever been, the supreme arbiter of Constitutional law in this land, but rather, it is the upmost duty of all political office holders as well as the people themselves, to see that the Constitution remains the Supreme Law of this country, and the only way that this can be is if the people, hold all those that are in its legislative, judiciary and executive branches accountable to that Constitution and that none should be above it.

The people of this country do not owe their allegiance and loyalty to the judiciary, nor to the legislative branch, and neither to the executive branch, but rather, such allegiance and loyalty must be given to the Supreme Law of this land, which is its Constitution.  This would seem to imply, that Constitutional law should be taught and emphasized to students throughout this country, so that they will implicitly understand, that an executive branch that aggregates to it executive orders and fiat decisions, is in almost every case, acting against that Constitution.  So too, judicial decisions, that clearly have nothing to do with the Constitution as it is, but are rendered by that Supreme Court as if that is so, should be seen for what they really are: judicial overreach and bad law without sanction by that Constitution.  Finally, those in the legislative branch that agree to pass laws, which are inimical to the Constitution, have violated that Constitution.

Our Civil War was the war that cost the most to this country in terms of the uncommon amount of those that died on behalf of that war, of which, at its conclusion, the United States ultimately became united again.  All those States on the southern side that seceded from the Union were subsequently required to swear allegiance to that union, represented by the Constitution, and further to acknowledge the abolishment of slavery.  Further to the point, the 13th-15th Amendments to the Constitution are collectively known as the Civil War Amendments, of which, those States that seceded, in particular, must be in accordance with those Amendments.  For instance, the 13th amendment abolishes slavery; the 14th Amendment provides all with due process and equal protection of the law; and the 15th Amendment prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race.

Yet, more than 150 years since the conclusion of the Civil War, and nearly 150 years since the passage of these Civil War Amendments, a persuasive argument can be made, that this country has effectively ignored Constitutional law, and in particular, those Civil War Amendments, time and time again.  The relentless discrimination, the injustice, and the misapplication of law, specifically spearheaded against the poor, the disadvantaged, and minorities, is so ingrained within American jurisprudence, that rather than this land having a "new birth of freedom," it has, in many respects, proven that those that gave their last best devotion for freedom, did so, in vain.

Did you remember to thank the person that first turned you on to drugs or alcohol?

We are told to be polite to people, and one of the ways that we demonstrate that politeness is to thank the person that provided us with a gift, especially those gifts that we still are utilizing until this very day.  One of those "gifts," which seems to be one of those things that seldom gets the thanks that so many other gifts do, is forgetting to thank the person that first turned us on to drugs or to alcohol.  How could we be so forgetful?

In point of fact, while there are some newborn babies that are born addicted to drugs, because their mother was still abusing drugs, despite being pregnant; most of the time, those that end up taking their first smoke, or their first drink, or their first illicit drug, did so, not so much because they just woke up one day, desiring to do those various things, but rather because of peer pressure, or poor role models, or bad parental influence.  That is to say, individuals become aware of drugs and alcohol, primarily through other people, and some of those that end up experimenting with them do so, because their inspiration comes from being around those that are a bad influence or they are stuck within a very bad environment.  Then there are certain others, that are put or placed into a predicament, in which a good "friend" or someone that has influence or respect with them, introduces them to a drug, or smoke, or alcohol, in which that peer pressure or similar, encourages acquiescence to that solicitation.

In any event, most people that first attempt to smoke, or drink, or to do drugs do so because they have been influenced by someone directly or indirectly to do so.  While the amount of defense, that a given person puts up to say "no," varies upon individual to individual, even those that put up a pretty good fight, will often, if they are in the same situation again and again and again, are going to be very susceptible to giving in to that proposition, eventually.  For some of those "newbie's," their first taste of alcohol, or drugs, or smoking, will be one that does not appeal to them, and this may, in fact, give them the courage to say "no," more convincingly to others, especially if they are able to add that they have done it, and found it unappealing.  On the other hand, for those first ingesting these substances, even when the overall experience is not very good, the peer pressure behind that solicitation and follow through may well encourage them to try it again and again, until they become acclimated to it and thereby become one of the regular participants.  Still there are others, that once introduced to it, take a real liking to it, and need no further persuasion to keep with it.

In all of these cases, the question must be asked, as to whether all those that have first taken these substances, have, in fact, thanked the person that first turned them on to drugs, or alcohol.  In all probability, there hasn’t been a lot of thanking, and rather, instead, there probably has been a lot of cursing and regret for many of those having first started and discovering to their dismay, later, that their habit has gotten a real hold over them.  Take solace in this, however, the person that first turned you onto drugs or alcohol, will definitely get their thanks; though, probably not in the manner that they may be welcoming.

Our sin exiles us from God

People complain all of the time that they can't feel God or that they can't see God, or this or that about God, of which, the very absence of God in their lives, is proof positive that their search for God, has been, at best, meandering, unfocused, and lacking in desire.  In point of fact, God is omnipresent, so that, the inability to find God is our own inability to do our part in making a concerted and unrelenting search for God.  So too, mankind's desire to hold onto things that are evil, wrong, and sinful, are the very things that keeps us apart from God, for either we will be all one thing, or we will be all the other thing, of which, those that will not relinquish their sin, cannot conceivably be one with God.

It isn't easy to get rid of sin, evil, and wrong behavior, but certainly it must be admitted that if a given person has no interest in giving those things up, then, those things won't be given up. So then, the very first step in improving anybody's character, and thereby anybody's actual being is to actually desire to do so.  The second step would be to take the steps to accomplish those goals, and the third step is to consistently keep one's eye on the prize of accomplishing such; of which, these things combined together should indeed bear good fruit.

Of course, human nature has a tendency, especially those that are somewhat lazy and lackadaisical, to desire shortcuts, of which, some orthodox religions, misquoted or not, seem to provide such shortcuts in order to demonstrate that there is a direct pathway to God and His forgiveness.  While it is true that God is both loving and forgiving, that which is not perfect cannot merge with that that is.

So then, it is true that it is our sin that exiles us from God.  It then follows that since each of us is gifted by our Creator with free will, that it is our own free will, misapplied, that exiles us from the be-all and the end-all of all existence.  Further, it follows that this earth represents our proving ground, and therefore this represents an opportunity for each of us to prove to God by our behavior and by our actions, that we are not only good stewards of our abilities and gifts here on earth, but that we, without fail, are good neighbors to all.

Our quest should always be to do right and to be good for something, for every step taken in that direction is a step made to God and Light; and every step taken in the wrong direction is a step away from God and into the darkness of purposeful ignorance.  The sin that we make and the sin that we create, is the sin that keeps us from re-uniting with God, for from God we were created, and our return to God is our ultimate destination, for all else that exists or ever could exist are mere shadows, mirages, and mirrors, that may bemuse us, but cannot forever sustain us.

So then, the end of our sin is the end of our exile from God.

Slouching towards serfdom

Civilizations and countries rise and fall, and the falling of any particular civilization and country are not always obvious, until such is seen in hindsight.  America is the largest economy in the world, and is currently the most influential country as well as the nation that truly has a massive global footprint that reaches nearly every country throughout this world.  To a certain extent, all seems just fine, but a peak underneath the surface indicates that not all is necessarily well.

For instance, there is the monstrous national debt that America carries which is nearly $22 trillion, of which this staggering load continues to increase yearly.  Additionally, while America has always had an underclass that has served as a source of embarrassment as well as being an inconvenient truth, the 21st century has seen, the divide between what was once arguably the greatest middle class the world has ever known, beginning to disintegrate piece by piece, as America, which advertises itself as the land of meritocracy and egalitarian roots, has become more and more exposed as a country of the very rich, for the very rich, and by the very rich.

Sad to say, not only is the country at large carrying a humongous debt, which is the ultimate responsibility of all Americans in aggregate, but the American public, is getting more and more indebted by the day.   So that, the aggregate mortgage debt and home equity debt for housing as reported by the newyorkfed.org is $9.432 trillion as of the 3rd quarter of 2018, which is the highest total on record.  So too, student loan debt as reported by ycharts.com has exploded from 0.4389 trillion dollars in the 2nd quarter of 2006, to an astonishing 1.442 trillion dollars in the 3rd quarter of 2018.  Additionally, as reported by the newyorkfed.org for the 3rd quarter of 2018, outstanding auto loan debt is at $1.24 trillion, and credit card debt is at $829 billion, of which all of this combined is the highest amount of indebtedness by individuals on record.

Not only are individual Americans in a situation in which they have never been so indebted, but the ownership rate of housing which basically was on a continuous uptrend since the conclusion of WW II, actually peaked in the 2nd quarter of 2004 at 69.2% and as of the 3rd quarter of 2018 rests now at just 64.4%, or a reduction in home ownership of 7%, even though, the amount of money owed on mortgages has increased substantially since the 2nd quarter of 2004.  What this means is that the American consumer, and in particular, the credit worthy middle class of America, is getting stretched further and further, to make their payments on their homes, their payments on their cars, their payments on their education, and their payments on their credit cards; in which it must be kept in mind that those that are in debt, don't legally own the things that they believe that they own, for those assets essentially have obligations or liens attached to them.  Further to the point, more and more Americans, are not only indebted, and not only don't own much of anything, they also do not own a business that they have a vested interest in, of which that personal business produces their income.

All of this means that many Americans, do not truly own their own home, do not truly own their own car, do not truly own a lot of their material possessions, and are paying for an indefinite period of time for their higher education.  Additionally, these Americans are not truly sovereign in being able to make their own income for they don't own their own businesses, but rather are dependent upon being employed by a given institution that determines where, when, and how much they are going to make; of which, many of those Americans will find to their utmost dismay, that there will never come a time that they own much of anything, for the game is now successfully rigged to benefit the superrich to the exclusion of those once qualified to have the accouterments of the middle class, but now are slouching towards serfdom.

Should military generals be held in high regard?

While the popularity and respect that military generals receive by the public, does vary depending upon the times and seasons, in general, though, military generals are accorded a fairly high respect in America, of which twelve of the United States Presidents to date have been generals, such as Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower.  The thing is though, when we take a good look at generals, it must be absolutely recognized, that generals, in times of war, are in the business of killing enemy combatants, as well as regrettably killing people, unintended or not, that are non-combatants but are in the area of conflict; in addition, to all the infrastructure that is destroyed, as well as jobs that are uprooted, and food, schooling, transportation, along with the regular course of common events being seriously disrupted.

As it has been said, "war is hell," but apparently that hell does not seem to be something that has ended, as wars are still being fought as a means of resolving conflict, which seems to be something that educated and highly cultured people should not be doing to one another.  For instance, murder, is frown upon in virtually every culture that could possibly be envisioned, and murder is a crime, that usually mandates a serious amount of incarceration, of which, you will find nearly nobody that is actually sane, being a proponent of murder as being okay, especially when such is defined as the "…the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse."  This implies that when it comes to war, that those that are doing and/or ordering the killing of enemy combatants are, by definition, on a very slippery slope, because at a minimum, every war has collateral damage of property and civilians, in addition to the very salient fact, that probably every war has the unnecessary killing of enemy combatants, which could be justifiably be seen as a form of murder.

Now, perhaps the main reason why so many generals are held in high regard, is that the orthodox narrative has often been carefully constructed to define the war under the aegis as being one of freedom, or of liberty, or of unity, or of justice, or of the defense of the people, of which, many times, there is truth in that, but perhaps not the whole truth.  However, that said, people are entitled to defend themselves, they are also entitled to liberate themselves, seek justice, and to disallow those that have lost at a fair democratic election, to seek to overcome such by going to the sword.  However, there is hypocrisy and a disconnect to actually believe that in order to have a peaceful, liberated and free society, that this can only come about by killing one's enemies; for while the sword is a rather persuasive enforcer, such enforcement carries a heavy price for he who wields it as well as he who succumbs to it.  On the other hand, reasonable people and cultures, should be able to find common ground, in which, if everyone actually had a seat at the table of decision and opportunity, then peace and goodwill should come in a manner in which the swords previously used in war are thereby turned into plowshares, for that is what a civilized culture must become, in order to truly endure the tests of time.

Should military generals be held in high regard?  The answer would appear to be situation specific, for there are those times when a great military general is needed out of necessity in order to sustain or liberate that culture, government, and people; but wars of aggression and of conquest, seldom are, and therein lies the most meaningful difference.

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere" -- Voltaire

There are those that are physically imprisoned and incarcerated within a facility that truly does control their comings and their limited goings; yet, despite the chains that these prisoners wear, some of them are more free than those that live on the outside, of which those "free" people have an abundance of choices that they could avail themselves of, but for whatever reason, instead choose to enchain themselves to things such as domestic misery, job anguish, weight embarrassment, and dreams annihilated.

While many a person, will claim that the chains that they appear to have upon them, are not of their volition, and not of their own choice, their behavior belies that story, for a person that truly wants to escape from their chains to the exclusion of all else, will not leave even the smallest of stones, unturned.  In reality, many people throughout their lives won't even bother to test their chains as to its strength and its possible vulnerabilities, but rather blithely accept such, because those chains represent their crutch which can be utilized again and again as their excuse for accepting their lot in life.

Additionally, there are scores of people that wear the chains that they have forged upon their body, as their own personal badge of honor.  They are the first to proclaim over and over again, but if not for these chains, or disadvantages, the world would be their oyster; and yet despite it all they have gamely soldiered on to do the best that they can do, even with this heavy handicap; never seeming to realize that the key needed to unlock those chains, has actually always been in their own hands to begin with.

The reason that so many people revere their chains, is the same reason why people like to avoid facing the whole truth of the matter, because by hiding behind excuses and stuttering words, they can appear to be helpless victims of an arbitrary world, when, in fact, more times than not, the control and responsibility of what does or does not happen, significantly rests in each person's own hands.  While it is true that some people are born with handicaps and chains upon them, it is also true, that through sheer will power and perseverance, those chains, or at least most of those chains, can be broken or mitigated.

Those that revere their chains, are the same people, that take some sort of comfort in vaguely complaining about the way things are, but without wanting to truly test the waters to effect change; because they do not wish to risk whatever creature comforts that they currently have, no matter, how modest; or their current known situation for something that is either unknown or would require real sweat labor. 

Each person forges or alternatively frees themselves from the chains that they have upon them.  Those that will not make a conscious and concerted effort to free themselves from the chains that bind them -- ultimately are, in their own way, slaves.  Those self-enslaved people do not wish for freedom, they do not wish for liberty, they do not wish for anything much other than whatever peace of mind that they already have.  These then are fools, for they have cheaply sold their souls and their life, for a little bit of something, when they could and should have had, oh, so much more.

"Dare to think for yourself" -- Voltaire

While there are a slew of countries in which it might well seem to be not such a good idea to think for yourself, in most places, and in even in those oppressive countries and oppressive situations, personal or otherwise, all people that have been gifted by their Creator with their own mind, should actually dare to think for his or her self.  After all, if you will not think for yourself, there are plenty of people as well as governments and businesses that will gladly do that thinking for you, but at the end of the day, at the culmination of your life, you, yourself, ultimately must answer for all that you have done and thought, for no one else, can answer for that bell that tolls solely for yourself.

Yet, despite this great and enormous freedom of being able to think our own thoughts, far too many people, live lives in which they apparently don't seem to cogently recognize that they are not only entitled to think for themselves but rather that they really do need to do exactly that.  Obviously, when we are born into this world, it isn't really possible to independently think for ourselves, because we are dependent upon the good graces of others to sustain us physically, emotionally, and mentally. Additionally, when young children begin to exercise their right to think independently, we find that often for their own good, they are shot down, because they do not readily understand the consequences of bad actions, such as playing with fire, crossing a busy street without looking, or getting into an automobile of a stranger.  Nevertheless, there comes a time in any child's life, when that independence of thought is absolutely mandatory or else that child will often live a life in which it is either one of conformity to the prevailing norms of its situation, or a life in which they have let certain others mold them, for better, or for worse.

While governments, businesses, people, and family, may mouth the words of the importance and validity of thinking for your own self, in point of fact, many of those institutions and people, do not welcome truly independent thought, because that often threatens their models and status quo.  That, however, is not your problem, in fact, rather, that is your challenge, so as to step up and to truly dare to think for yourself.    

This world is full of all sorts of people and all sorts of agendas, of which, it must be noted, that those that go with the flow, are the equivalency to all those non-thinking objects of the flowing river that do the very same thing.  Only someone that is alive and independent has the strength of character to go against the flow, and it is by going against the flow that demonstrates that at a minimum, you have thought for yourself.  This doesn't mean that simply being non-conformist is the best thing to do or even the right thing to do; what it does mean, however, is that you have a right to think for yourself, and that you should exercise that right, especially in all things that really matter.

Do you think for yourself?  If you are not so sure, then make it your point to instead of mindlessly agreeing to various things in the first place, to actually dare yourself to truly think about them, as often as you can, and you will find out rather shortly, how often you do actually dare to think for yourself, as compared to being a human automaton, which does not.

Towards the return of extended families

Extended families, that is families of multi-generations, along with cousins and other relatives, were the norm back in the days when farming and agricultural was the primary means of making a living; which especially made sense, because farming and agricultural tasks are very labor intensive, so that with an extended family a fair division of labor could be structured to take advantage of the experience of elders, as well as the youthful energy and  strength of youngsters, and the stabilizing influence of the married couple that helped shepherded all those responsibilities.

In today's modern world, while there are certain cultures that still live and encourage extended families, that appears for the most part to be far from the norm, so that it is not unusual for a given family, for example, of two or three children, to encounter as the children mature into adulthood and employment, that each of those previous nuclear family members ultimately getting their own place of residence, and then only getting together primarily on holidays or other family events, even though, more times than not, everyone lives basically in the same city and vicinity.  While to a certain degree this might seem to make a lot of sense, as well as seeming to be a natural rite of passage, it doesn't necessarily have to be, nor should it necessarily be that way.

For instance, there are massive advantages to living within an extended family, such as, an in-house babysitter being readily available, so too, will be an in-house tutor, as well as an in-house cleaner and organizer, in addition to an in-house elder care person to assist the aged, of which, all of these things being together are not only cost-efficient but very helpful; not to mention the fact that simply living all under the same roof, cuts down significantly on the redundancy of extra vehicles, extra houses, and extra utility bills, while also providing to others, the affection and respect, that money cannot ever buy.

Certainly, when extended families live all under the same roof, there are going to be times of tension and disagreement, but that is going to be the case in any situation, even in a house that houses just two people.  So too, an extended family is going to offer far less private space, but then again, the flip side of this, is that there will be a lot less loneliness and therefore probably less of a tendency to suffer from the ill effects of disaffected personalities, that have not an appropriate social support system that is there for them in their times of upmost need.

So too, it is wise to note, that most everyone that lives a full life, is going to cycle through the stages of that life, of which the inestimable Shakespeare states: "And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages…."  This so indicates, that rather than old people being shuffled away to old people's homes and thereby forgotten; or young children completing their classes each day, only to be stuck with afterschool care of varying quality levels; or even parents, divorced or otherwise, stuck in dead-end jobs, frustrated aspirations, and bleak social prospects; what is really needed is an extended family structure which can help to alleviate that situation, because each person within that structure, brings some good to that structure, so that, rather than so many living lives that are bleak, dark, and piercing cold; more people will find that being around their extended family, provides them with happiness, light, and the warmth of a loving hearth, extended to all.