Prosecuting the prosecutors

The structure of justice in America, clearly favors the prosecutorial side at the expense of those accused of criminal activities, as well as hindering the defense attorneys of those so accused.   The reason that this is so, is because the prosecutor, in many cases, has taken on in fit, form, and function the mantle of not searching for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and thereby doing honor to that truth; but rather has replaced such with a deep abiding desire, to rack up victories, by prosecutorial actions that result in convictions, rightly or wrongly.  That is to say, many prosecutors are all about winning convictions, and seldom about performing their sworn duty that justice, above all, is served.

In point of fact, the prosecutor has an absolute obligation to provide to the defense all material exculpatory evidence, but when the mindset of that given prosecutor is convictions, above all else, then prosecutors are going to structure what is provided to the defense in a manner, that obfuscates or ignores such, to the detriment of justice and fairness.  Additionally, many prosecutors are wholly unfair in the charges made against defendants as well as the plea bargains so offered, especially for all those that are indigent, and without council or with council that are overburdened by case overload.

While one could appeal to the better angels of these prosecutors and thereby hope to see some sort of material change in their behavior, that probably isn't going to work, for prosecutors hold so much power and are so enthralled to that power, that such power has thoroughly taken control of their psyche. Rather, the only real way to catch a thief is for experienced attorneys, to oversee prosecutorial activities in a manner in which, this oversight committee would have the absolute right to investigate thoroughly questionable prosecutorial actions.

At the present time, each State has a State Bar Association, of which the current responsibilities of that Bar include the regulation and disciple of attorneys, in which within that Association, an offshoot could be created of retired attorneys, specifically structured in a manner to investigate suspected prosecutorial mismanagement.  Further to the point, such an Association should be constructed in which the people would have representation within that Association, so that combined, the people along with retired and experienced attorneys, would have the right to investigate thoroughly suspected prosecutorial material errors for misconduct, and to hold those prosecutors, accountable to such charges.

If such an Association was created, and created with some real bite to it, that in and of itself, would certainly impress upon even those most recalcitrant prosecutors, that their days of being the only sheriff in town, with no one and nobody to hold them accountable, effectively being over.  In other words, prosecutors operate today under the belief that there is no one and nobody that can stand up to them, so that the most egregious prosecutorial errors, mismanagement, and deliberate prejudice are permitted as a matter of course.  Prosecutors are able to conduct their business in that manner, mainly because so much of what they are doing is successfully hidden from public investigation or scrutiny of any kind; in which, when prosecutors are aware, that they are subject to a meaningful review from a superior body, with appropriate penalties so imposed, they very well might change the way that they conduct themselves to align much better with the principles of good law, fairly applied.

The correlation of lynching with economic hardship

Most everyone is aware, of the rather sordid and violent tale of white mobs lynching blacks in the late 19th century and into the 20th century, of which, it was believed that those being lynched, suffered to that fate, because of their being accused, rightly or wrongly, of various nefarious crimes, often involving white women or other social mores purposely violated by the black man.  While this is true, it is not the whole truth, for the fact of the matter is, that as reported by ehs.org.uk, that "…a standard deviation drop in the world cotton price led to a 0.09 to 0.16 standard deviation increase in lynchings in a cotton-growing county."  That is to say, when the price of cotton dropped, more lynchings occurred.

This makes eminent sense, for the business of cotton and of agricultural in general, is to make a profit, and when profits are lacking, somebody is going to have to pay the price, and those that are the planter class, are surely not going to blame themselves, and further they are not going to strike the blow against those that set the prices of cotton in world markets, because they know that doing such is futile; so then, their anger and frustration is almost always going to be taken out against the only real party, that did not have any viable defense to stop them, which pretty much meant, the blacks that worked for them.

Additionally, with the price of cotton down, the need for the continual employment of workers, is also going to be subsequently reduced, and certainly one way to get rid of excess labor is to lynch a few of them, which thereupon scares away the others, while also providing the object lesson to those that remain employed, that they need to do a whole lot better in their productivity or their fate may indeed be something quite similar.

The bottom line is that though lynching is a mob activity, it is always easier to fire up poor whites to do their southern duty, when times are tough, because those that have very little and are themselves on the verge of losing the little that they have, are usually quite eager to perform wanton acts of terror to thereby prove that though they might be seen by others as just being poor white trash, they are still, though, able to stand tall and get some lynching done, thereby proving to their  contemporaries and doubters, that they are most definitely, innately superior to the lowly blacks that they have lynched.

It can be said, that none of us lives inside a vacuum, so that when economic hardship comes, and those that are the master planter class, are suffering, they sure the heck aren't going to take it lying down, but rather they are going to rise up, quite often, in a visceral way; not so much because by doing so, it will successfully resolve their financial troubles and predicaments, but mainly because they do not desire and cannot afford to look impotent to those that typically respect them, and the one thing, that America, above virtually every other nation, proves again and again, is that violence successfully carried out, begets at a minimum, a perverse respect.

When law enforcement is wrongly incentivized

Most people are only vaguely familiar with civil asset forfeiture laws, and how they are currently applied in America.  This is unfortunate, as America's law enforcement agencies in the era of the War on Drugs, have been incentivized to seize property from "suspects" that are alleged to have been involved in criminal activities, of which such a seizure in many jurisdictions is not subject to even a criminal conviction, let alone a criminal charge.  The only legitimate reason why a law such as that has been allowed to be applied -- is apparently under the ostensible logic that criminal enterprises should not be able to utilize their ill-gotten gains in order to have those resources available to them for a defense against legal sanction.

While it does appear unfair for those with ill-gotten gains to use those funds in order to "buy" themselves some justice, the greater problem is really not that, but rather the fact that these civil asset forfeiture laws aren't really being applied against major drug traffickers but rather are being applied rather liberally to those that are least able to defend themselves from such forfeiture.  That is, the police have made it their point to somehow leave untargeted those that are connected to serious and insidious criminal enterprises, but rather, instead, focus on low level criminals, as well as people that are at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Additionally, whether the police even pursue criminal charges or not, apparently matters not, as when a law is constructed in the manner in which cash, cars, homes, and other property can be seized by law enforcement so that they thereby directly or indirectly benefit monetarily from that seizure, then the objective of the exercise, really comes down to seizing from entities that don't have the good wherewithal to effectively fight back.  This thus means that the law enforcement agencies are able to augment their resources at the expense of those so persecuted, wrongly or rightly.

In point of fact, when law enforcement is functioning as something akin to performing their duties in a manner in which they are able to effectively get "bounties" upon the citizens of their community, as some sort of perverse adjunct to their sworn duty to serve and protect, then that law enforcement is going to have a very strong tendency to do exactly that, which is what is occurring in America, in the here and now. 

There are already laws in effect to "freeze" certain assets of those that have been formally accused of committing a crime, and then, pending upon the resolution of justice, a determination is made as to the verdict of those assets.  The fact, that law enforcement is able to seize assets from citizens, under the color of these citizens apparently breaking some sort of law, but without a conviction of such, is a grand disservice to those citizens as well as to the community at large; for when permission is granted for law enforcement to seize whatever that it is, that they so desire to seize, of which, by doing so, those assets will be set to be forfeited into their hands, has morphed law enforcement into an agency of premeditated predatory prowling that means to benefit that law enforcement agency at the expense of the people that they are actually suppose to serve and to protect.

Forgiveness v. an apology

Most everyone has done something wrong or has had something done wrong to them, which has basically necessitated the words of "I'm sorry" from the party that has done the wrong.  In consequence of that wrong, for some people, even making an apology is difficult and can even be heart-wrenching as they wrestle with their conscience or perhaps their humility; on the other hand, for the vast majority of people, saying that one is sorry is not only fairly easy, but appears often to be basically a pleasantry that really doesn't mean much of anything, except perhaps as a general acknowledgement of some sort of generic failure or wrong.

In point of fact, an apology, in many cases, whether acknowledged or accepted or not, really doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot, when the words are as simple as "I'm sorry," and nothing else is said.  For the very first question of the party that has been apologized to, might well be, what exactly are they sorry for?  After all, the person declaring that they are sorry, might internally really be saying that they are only sorry that they were caught or found out, or it could be that they are basically being forced or compelled to say that they are sorry because of some perverse power structure, just to keep the peace; so that, in actuality, in many ways, their apology can be quite hollow.

Then there are those that do apologize and also provide an explanation behind the apology, in which typical explanations follow one of these two paths; of which the more common seems to be the pleading that though they are apologetic, there are obvious extenuating circumstances, that created the situation, and only because of those circumstances, justified or not, did they commit the act that necessitated the apology.  The other path, is an abject apology, specific addressing the act that created the need for the apology, and owning up to their responsibility to it, without any "ands", "ifs" or "buts", and placing the blame on no one else, even when some of the blame may, in fact, lay elsewhere.

While a very good and well meaning apology most definitely has its place, the bottom line, is that those that are truly apologetic, without exception, need to go beyond making an apology, but also need to take the next logical step, which is to ask for forgiveness from the party that they let down and hurt.  So that when anyone apologizes but also requests forgiveness, they have gone beyond a mere soliloquy into desiring an actual dialog.  After all, when it comes to apologies, there are at a minimum, at least two parties involved, and the party that has been harmed has the right to not only have their say, but also retains the power as to whether such will or will not be forgiven at that time and place.

That is to say, not every apology is accepted on the spot, nor should every apology be accepted on the spot.  Further, the request for forgiveness is not necessarily something that can be provided at a moment's notice, but usually requires some sort of reflection and contemplation, for not every act, lends itself to forgiveness, for some acts are so heinous and traitorous, that forgiveness is not going to occur at that time and moment.  Yet, the very act of asking for forgiveness, starts the process of healing in motion, for those that will not admit to their error, are the hardest to forgive, for they apparently do not know or will not acknowledge that they have done wrong; and wrongs not acknowledged by those that are the perpetrators of them, are the hardest and deepest wounds to heal, by those so offended.

Fearful residents in problem neighborhoods

In America, neighborhoods run the gamut of being completely crime free to being insidiously crime infested, and those that live in problematic neighborhoods are placed into the unenviable position of determining what is best for them to do in order to maintain the integrity of their person, their property, and their family.  This thus means, that in some neighborhoods, certain houses take on the aura of appearing to be a sort of prison, with bars on their windows, alarms, security cameras, as well as iron bars on their doors.  This may, in fact, make those people that live within those residences, safer; but at a cost of being in danger of not being able to successfully escape from a fire or earthquake hazard in the sense of being trapped inside their home, as well as being isolated within their homes and therefore not actively engaged in their neighborhood, thereby leaving the streets to be effectively controlled by those that are creating the problems of the neighborhood crime or dangers, in the first place.

Whereas, one possible solution would be to have police patrols working more frequently in these neighborhoods, that often is not going to be the go-to solution, for in many of these neighborhoods, the police are not usually perceived as protecting and serving the residents, but rather are often more seen as exacerbating the poor conditions within those neighborhoods.  So that, in effect, the streets are left in control of those that operate upon those streets, even though they are few in number; but because the vast majority of the population as a whole appear content or resigned to living within their homes, and treat thereby the outside as an ever present danger, this becomes the result, for when a vacuum is created, it is going to be filled with something, and in this situation, it is filled with those non-desirable elements.

This essentially means that those that live within those homes of barred windows and barred doors simply exist within that construct, without making any real attempt to ameliorate that situation for the better.  It is a shame that children, as well as the adults, are effectively confined within their homes all of their free time, and have foregone outlets to express themselves as well as to see and to enjoy the world, because of it.  This signifies that such isolation, really does take on the aura of being imprisoned, even though these good people have done nothing to be deserving of any form of imprisonment.

So then, for residents of areas in which crime is very prevalent, of which they are too fearful to venture out even onto their front porch, they do suffer, and are fundamentally living reduced lives of existence, without a lot of hope or opportunity for change.  The solution, however, is never going to be more law and order, but rather the only possible answer is to get to the root of the problem, which is that enclaves of poverty, consisting of ill education, lack of living wage employment opportunity, dysfunctional families, and the lack of capital, must be met with a reinvigorated infrastructure that will provide revitalization for these impoverished neighborhoods; for in neighborhoods in which good people fear to tread, no good progress can ever be made until they are able to envision and to experience a bright and a more promising future.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary" James Madison

The above quotation is absolutely true, so that, as much as we might complain about governments and their inefficiencies and errors, in the greater scheme of things, governments are necessary in order to be of assistance to the people as a whole.  The best government is not only wise, just, egalitarian, and fair; but also is a government that must be of the people, for the people, and by the people, for governments are instituted amongst the consent of those so governed to be of a blessing and of a benefit to those people.

Because governments are necessary for the appropriate governing of the people, it is important that those so being governed, are able to have a government that is responsive to their grievances, concerns, and needs; as well as being a government that is not above the people, or acts in a manner that is not accountable to the people, but rather is a government which is open, honest, and transparent to all.  For, any good government, that is not forthcoming as to what it is actually doing as well as what it is contemplating, more than likely means that it has taken upon itself, powers not vested in it.

The type of government that is most respected and most appropriate for the people is a government that applies its laws and governance, fairly and equally to all; of which, special favoritism towards the few, and discriminatory laws against the many, cannot ever be part and parcel of good government.  To the extent that governments are fair-minded to all, while taking into consideration mitigating and individual circumstances, than such a government as that is utilizing good discernment and wisdom.  On the other hand, all governments which are inconsistent, arbitrary, and discriminatory, especially in a manner in which certain segments of the population have no voice, whereas other privileged segments essentially represent the only voice that matters, are not fair-minded governments.

It is a given that human beings are not angels, and when those that are not angels are placed or appointed into the power of being the authorized representatives of the people, in which, those representatives do not behave in a manner consistent with good and fair governance -- and further, effectively ignore or supersede the Constitutional law and good governance of their community or country, than those representatives have aggrandized unto themselves as well as to the beneficiaries of their actions: unauthorized power.

Such unauthorized power is the bane of all good governments, and the only effective remedy for the abusive use of power, is for the people to have the means to negate such, either by the governmental structure so in place, which nullifies such, by, for instance, the separation of those governmental powers, so that not any one power of that government is strong enough to dictate its policies, without any constraints; or by the effective withdrawal of the people's consent of that government, so that a new and appropriate government with its representatives thereby takes its place.

Good governments are created by the consent of those so governed as a means to benefit the people as a whole, and to the extent that government does so, the people will be served; whereas bad governments are those governments good intentioned or not, that answer not to the people, while also exploiting those selfsame people for the benefit of those that run and are the beneficiaries of that government as practiced, and have circumvented the need for consent from the people that they ostensibly serve.

America's new slavery

In theory, the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, along with the Union defeating the Southern rebels, and in addition to the 13th-15th Constitutional Amendments, secured forever, freedom and full citizenship for those previously enslaved.  Of course, as always in America, there is the law as written, and there is the reality of the law, as practiced.  Still, credit must be given where credit is due, and in significant ways, it can be said, that slavery, at least in the form of chattel slavery, does not presently exist in the United States.

However, the fact of the matter is that the power structure of America is a very small subset of the population, of which this small elite of people, are forever afraid that their power and their control could somehow be wrested from them, and most especially are cognizant that since America has such a high percentage of those that own absolutely nothing, with little or no opportunity to become something, that they therefore recognize that those people could at a some point, create real and systemic domestic insurrection, which could thereby possibly upend the power structure of the elite.

This means, in consequence, that the elite have merely borrowed from the past, of what worked so well for the South, of which, had it not been for the hubris of the South, in deliberately provoking war with the North, slavery might even be the law of this land, today.  For the South successfully demonstrated, that a small percentage of plantation owners, few in number, could control a massive amount of slaves, as well as ruling the power structure of their communities, by being the force behind the policing factions, the justice department, and by the copious use of violence by their adherents profitably kept their slaves in their place.

Fast forward, to today's world, and recognize, that the people that are incarcerated and convicted of felonies, are most often, those that are the most indigent, ill-educated, and oppressed; in which such convictions are almost always accomplished without the alleged perpetrator even having their day in court, for seldom are felons actually convicted by a jury of their peers, but rather conviction after conviction is accomplished by "plea bargaining" in which the person so making the plea, is completely out of their element, and susceptible to every bit of pressure to do so, and have not the tools to effectively do any other.

Once a given person is convicted as a felon, irrespective of how long they have been incarcerated for, they are essentially stripped forever of their first-class citizenship rights, which has been replaced instead with something that doesn't even approach even second-class status, and is most appropriately seen as being designated as something less than fully human, and rightly seen as a new form of slavery.  For, felons, have all sorts of rights taken away from them, such as no longer being eligible to vote or to be on a jury, or to work except in the most menial and dead-end jobs, or be eligible for a passport, or to be eligible for student loans or for public housing or for supplemental nutritional assistance or for various other State and Governmental programs and benefits.  While it may be true, that some of these things are still available for felons, such are often amended or reduced to such an extent, that a given felon has little or no hope of ever being a fully functional, autonomous and free human being, again. 

All of the above basically means that in America, while the slavery of old is no longer legal, the workaround is as simple as getting an intended target convicted as a felon, and thereupon that person becomes, for all intents and purposes, enslaved for life.

Big lies and little lies

Most people don't want to readily admit that they do personally lie, mainly because admitting to such, basically reflects poorly upon them.  After all, being a liar is essentially admitting that for whatever reason, good or not, mitigated excuse or not, a person has deliberately told a falsehood, in which, the most obvious reason why this is done, is in order to protect oneself from potential scorn or reprimand, as well as doing so in order to make oneself look better than one actually is.

Lying has an awful lot to do with people, simply not wanting to face the consequences of either what they have done, or who and what they really are.  Additionally, because lying seems in many instances to be effective, in the sense that the other party does not seem to be aware of the falsehood; it thereupon reinforces itself in the liar's mind that this is indeed an effective tool to be utilized, especially when other avenues appear to be far less inviting.

The other thing about lying is that there are definite material degrees of lying, in which "little white lies" are considered to be socially acceptable by most people; whereas a constructed lie which has catastrophic consequences, usually for someone else to suffer from, of which this lie greatly impacts their life for the worse, is considered to be a lie of real ethical import, as well as a lie that once set in motion, is not something that can ever successfully be taken back, for the deed has been done, forevermore.

So too, it is always discomforting, when someone close to you, lies to someone else about something that is relatively small, knowing that you are quite aware that what they just said is indeed a lie.  While some people, might just say, that it was, after all, just a little lie, of no real meaning; that is probably not the right way to think about it.  Far better is to think that if someone is willing to lie about something so small, and feel not a tinge of regret or shame, than probably that so signifies that they will obviously lie about something of real importance, for those that construct little lies, are invariably those that tell rather large lies, as well.

In point of fact, in virtually anything involving deception, such as stealing or cheating, whether large or small, it does not really matter, that person should be seen as a thief or as a cheat, no matter the size of the action, or excuses so made.  For, the line drawn in the sand is absolutely distinct, and that line stipulates that on this side, for instance, there will be no lies, and the other side, there is.  So that, there is, never, some sort of neutral territory between the two, thereby considered to be neither lying nor truth telling, but something in-between. That is to say, there aren't any small liars, just as there aren't any small thieves, and there aren't any small cheats for each is cut out of the very same cloth.  The bottom line is that you are either one or the other, for a house divided will not stand.

Real progress and real wisdom

Orthodox mankind wants so badly for its constituents to believe that the progress of mankind is linear in its development, of life ever improving, and of mankind ever evolving.  It thus follows from this kind of reasoning that the mankind of today is far superior to mankind of yesterday, and that the mankind of tomorrow will be even more advanced.  Such thinking as that is absolute rubbish, for the progress of mankind has never been linear, but rather has its inevitable ebbs and flows, and to therefore believe that mankind has never been as brilliant and as superior as mankind is today, is a falsehood; for it conveniently casts aside any and all evidence that mankind has previously been quite knowledgeable and wise before and instead dismisses all ancient civilizations as grossly inferior.

While there is something to be said and to be appreciated about mankind's great progress in its recent mastery of this world, through its technological, medicinal and industrial advances, of which, such has brought forth to a significant swath of mankind, previously unknown luxuries and pleasures; to say that this therefore means that mankind has never been wiser or smarter or more industrious then every before, is fallacious.  In point of fact, extreme poverty exists at an exceedingly high level, even though mankind has the means to provide the resources as well as the governance to eliminate such.  Additionally, mankind has suffered through eons of war, of which, this too, has not even been close to being eradicated, even with such organizations as the United Nations, which apparently is proof positive that the world's nations aren't so united.  So too, mankind has proven it is the master of its domain, but environment disasters and continuing environmental troubles indicates that mankind still has a lot to learn as well as to comprehend.

All of the above is the counterpoint to those that pay endless homage to mankind's supposed brilliance.  In short, it must be recognized that those that believe so strongly that the mankind of today supersedes, hands down, all that has come before, typically display also the unmitigated gall and gumption to thereupon believe that mankind's wisdom has never collectively been higher.  This is a great fallacy, for knowledge is not wisdom, and if it can be said that never have so many known so much; it does not necessarily follow that never have so many been so wise, because not one of mankind's historic troubles in regards to war, famine, and pestilence has been fully and successfully resolved, proving that modern mankind in the scheme of things, thinks too highly of themselves, and do not fairly evaluate who and what they really are.

In truth, the real progress of mankind is not measured by the tools and toys it so produces, but by the great virtue and impressive wisdom that it so imparts and utilizes.  Today's mankind is in so many ways, absolutely petty, petulant, and perpetually problematic in the way that our society deals with one another, which is why all the troubles that have historically waylaid mankind, are still so prevalent, today.  This is indicative that the hubris of today will be the destruction of tomorrow; for when virtue is discarded as an unnecessary anachronism, and knowledge thereby trumps wisdom, the end result can only be catastrophic.

Fiat currency

In 1971, the United States through President Nixon, officially decoupled its Federal Reserve Note (aka USA dollar) from gold, and therefore made its currency, a fiat currency.  In short, a fiat currency is any currency which is back by nothing, other than the confidence and faith that entities that utilize such believe that it has worth.  Further to the point, all fiat currencies will over time, trend towards becoming of less and less value in what they are able to purchase, for it is well known, that "bad money drives out good," which is why you do not see anybody utilizing coins that contain silver such as United States quarter coinage made previous to 1965, which were 90 percent silver, being used for their stated value of twenty-five cents, but are instead are no longer circulated because their meltdown value is over $3.00.

To drive home further the point of the weakness of fiat currency, recognized that as reported by census.gov, the median price of a new home sold in the United States in August of 1971, was $25,300; and additionally as reported by davemanual.com, the nominal median household income for 1971 was just $7,626.  If those numbers seems astonishingly low, recognize that inflation is an insidious thing that erodes the value of fiat currency over a period of time. So that, such proves the point, that fiat currencies do not maintain their value, because fundamentally fiat currencies are merely transaction devices to more easily pay, procure and to execute business and personal affairs.

There are many that decry the absurdity of backing currency with gold or silver, though, in truth, this has been done for millenniums. Still, it is important to note that fiat currencies that are backed by nothing, other than specious words such as the full faith and confidence of the government are always intrinsically unsound.  In a modern world, though, there isn't any reason why currencies can't be back by other things of value such as land, oil, coal, natural gas, and so on and so forth.  The main problem with these other sorts of commodities is that they lack the ease of being physically transferrable and hence would necessitate almost always, some sort of physical or electronic scrip being passed back and forth, while also being susceptible to manipulations of all sorts.  Still, to have a currency backed by a basket of commodities would invariably help to stabilize that currency.

The fact that the United States dollar has become worth less and less over time, creates a scenario in which savers and investors have to find avenues of investment and saving vehicles that help to alleviate or that will exceed the value of what their currency has depreciated to.  This so indicates, that for the most part, even widows and orphans, must take on some sort of risk, for to merely sit on their dollars, is a losing game, of which all of this risk, is yet another factor in the instability of the dollar, and further increases the volatility of the value of the dollar as well as threatening its continued existence as a quasi-reliable fiat currency.

In short, all fiat currency is a confidence game, of which, all confidence games come to an end, when the deception is fully and completely exposed.

Discernment and privacy

In the social media age as well as in the age in which seemingly everything that we do, can be recorded, analyzed, evaluated, and saved; this so signifies that never has it been easier for friends and family, or private enterprise, or governmental agencies to know an awful lot about our habits, patterns, actions, and behaviors.  The bottom line is that in a society in which every social media posting is available for any "friend" to see, copy and view; as well as people's smart phones, effectively being a very detailed diary of every location that one travels to on a given day, that never have so many provided so much information to those that definitely do not have their best interests in mind.

For instance, when it comes to private enterprise and all the information that they siphon up from smart phones, internet activities, credit card activity, social friends and networks, including likes so posted; is that this information is really being evaluated not necessarily as a means to control or to compromise a given individual, but primarily is done so in order to specifically market to a given individual, as a way and means to increase business and profit.  After all, the reason that these social media sites and apps are free, aren't because they are created as some sort of public good; but rather are created as a means to monetize individuals for companies that are permitted to access them.

However, when it comes to government agencies, their motivation behind the accumulation of reams upon reams of information and data on individuals is to not only to monitor individuals but also to mold individuals in ways that are favorable to those that control that government.  After all, people are creatures of habits, as well as often having established patterns, in which those that know these things are best able to then utilize that information for their benefit, as well as manipulation.

In this modern area, we live within a construct in which entities that we do not control, and primarily do not have our best interests in mind, know us in a manner in which, what we believe to be of our private concern, is often, actually knowable and actionable information.  This thus means, that unlike a good friend or family member, that knows us, and in a mature way, utilizes their discernment and discretion to be of benefit to us; we are caught instead, almost unawares by private enterprise as well as by governmental institutions that are able to discern who and what we really are, for their benefit and for their exploitation of us.

To live a life in a fishbowl is a massive error, for unless those that look in upon that fishbowl are actually there to be of aid and of help to us, then we have provided to those intrusive entities, everything that they need to take advantage of us, to our own detriment.  It is vital to understand that the only people deserving of truly knowing us are only those that are our true friends as well as good family members, for these people have our best interests in mind, and further are able to discern what is necessary to do in order to improve us so we are better able to accomplish meaningful and good things.    Therefore, recognize that we should not willingly abandon our own watchtower, but instead be forever vigilant.

Motivation, aspiration, and parental involvement

When it comes to schools and the education that is received by the children that attend those schools, there are a multitude of factors that are relevant to the success or non-success of those students. For instance, the quality of the school and the teachers of that school, are absolutely of import, for if the teachers and the curriculum are not up to standard, it is hard to produce students that are going to excel.  So too, while there are many children that are self-motivated and diligent, having an environment that encourages and augments such motivations and diligence most definitely is of aid; as well as having a safety net in place for those students that lose their focus, to thereupon have available for them, one-on-one counseling that helps in keeping them on course and engaged.  Additionally, parents that are truly involved in regards to their child's education, are going to as a matter of course, make sure to provide their children with all the educational materials that are necessary, such as extra help as in tutoring, as well as positive feedback, in order to help keep their children on task and focused on the greater goal; which is the creation of good learning habits now, in their formative years, that will do them well in getting into the appropriate higher educational institutions and thereby obtaining the necessary accouterments for a very good opportunity of employment success.

The bottom line is that quite obviously, not every job is a good and fulfilling job, and the key to having a better opportunity towards that good job, comes more easily from those that have demonstrated through their educational achievements that they have the right stuff.  All those children that are backed up by parents that take an active concern in the progress of their education, as well as having teachers and a curriculum that challenge and make students think and therefore learn; in addition to those students that actually study and apply themselves diligently are going to have -- far more often than not, success in obtaining not only their educational goals, but also their career goals.

As for all those other students, that do not have the same sort of advantages or structure, it goes almost without saying, that the less that parents are positively involved with their children in regards to their education, and the less that teachers and curriculum are up-to-speed, and the less children do to apply themselves to thinking and to learning, the far bigger handicap that they will have, in accomplishing their educational goals, as well as fulfilling their potential in the greater scheme of things.  It is an extremely hard challenge for any child with a great mind -- to live within a construct in which their family is dysfunctional as well as low income, along with living in a non-desirable part of town, while also going to a school that hardly bothers to educate any of the students, but serves more as a glorified place of babysitting, if even that.

From good schools you can expect good students, and from involved parents you can expect better achievements from their children; whereas all those children that have various economic, discriminatory, and dysfunctional disadvantages are basically reduced to the hope that within their domain, there is the sanctuary of a really good school, that challenges them and thereby gets the best out of them, for without that, in conjunction with their own good efforts and concentration, they will surely be left way, way behind.

Solitary imprisonment should only be utilized, sparingly

America certainly knows how to build prisons.  It should, mainly because it incarcerates inmates at embarrassingly high levels and seems to delight in treating fellow human beings as something akin to a beast of burden, or worse.  The prison experience for all those involved is almost always dehumanizing, because the purposeful construction and conduct within America's incarceration facilities are done typically in a manner of not only of an "us v. them" mentality, but also pretty much conducted in a manner in which the best inmate is always going to be the compliant inmate, and none other.

Not too surprisingly, for those that are incarcerated, rightly or wrongly, and are invariably not profitably engaged in worthwhile activities, they are going to come up against situations in which a fellow inmate or inmates are perceived to be behaving in an inappropriate fashion, and subsequently is considered to be of danger to others or to their own self, or both.  Because there are a limited amount of guards within a facility, the go-to solution, is often to separate the alleged troublemaker(s) from the inmate population at large, allegedly for the protection of that inmate(s), and often done as a form of punishment.

That punishment for recalcitrant inmates is solitary confinement, in which social contact with any other inmate is drastically reduced to a bare minimum, and with the exception of a brief break here and there, those inmates in solitary confinement are truly and literally confined within a very narrow space for typically twenty-three hours of each day, with nothing really to do.  The fact that some inmates suffer solitary confinement from time-to-time, might be okay, if solitary confinement was somewhat similar to the "timeout" that a child is given at home or within a school system, of which that child's isolation is relatively brief and to the point.  However, solitary confinement in prison facilities, don't typically last for part of a day, or even days, or even weeks, but instead, can be and is quite often for months or even years.

The fact that somehow it is legal to incarcerate certain individuals via the cruel and inhumane treatment of being solitarily confined, while doing so for long or seemingly endless periods of time, reflects poorly on American jurisprudence as well as the rules and regulations of what is permitted in incarceration facilities.  The bottom line is that solitary imprisonment, first and foremost, should be done only as necessary for the protection of those working within the facility, as well as the inmates so incarcerated, and the inmate so designated as deserving of solitary confinement.  That said, solitary confinement, should only be done for a very short period of time, such as a maximum of seventy-two hours, before that inmate is entitled to be released from solitary confinement, or to at least having a hearing in front of some neutral party.

It is absolute insanity, to confine anyone for lengthy periods of time in solitary confinement, and somehow believe, that by doing so, that person will be better off for it.  Further to the point, if our incarceration facilities are unable to keep order in their facilities without having to incarcerate into solitary confinement, certain inmates for lengthy periods of time, then however are those inmates that have suffered from such long periods of isolation, going to be able to function in an open and free society when they are eventually released? 

The bottom line is if you want inmates to fail, or if your desire is to see a high rate of recidivism, then definitely treat human beings as animals of little worth, and especially isolate indefinitely, those that appear most troubling, and in return, you will do your part in helping to fully raise Cain.

Towards a true quantum leap in transportation

Pages and pages have been written about driverless vehicles, as if this is the quantum leap forward in transportation, but when you whittle it down to the core, driverless vehicles or self-automated driving vehicles, are not set to accomplish much of anything of real material progress; because firstly there is a gargantuan  amount of added capital required in aggregate to equip these vehicles with the ability to safely navigate the roadways, and secondly these vehicles are fundamentally the same as they were, in the sense of still needing some sort of fuel, as in oil or electricity to transport themselves from here to there, as well as needing some sort of wheels in order to ride the road. 

The point is that transportation with wheels utilizing an axle predate the time of Christ, with basically the only real changes being that the roads nowadays are smoother and more prevalent, and the horse has been replaced by the horseless carriage.  In fact, the car today is not all that much different in its fundamental purpose and structure than the Model T was back when Henry Ford was the instigator and the leader of manufacturing vehicles at a price-point, which eventually led to cars becoming ubiquitous around the world.

If the smartest people in the world truly believe that driverless vehicles are the wave of the future, they aren't all that smart, because the quantum leap forward can only come from transportation that is deliberately envisioned and structured in a way in which wheels, and therefore the friction that wheels create upon a road is completely eradicated.  One way, to do so, is to look at what Japan has accomplished with its maglev train, which uses electromagnets, to produce levitation upon the train, and hence that train is able to travel at, as reported by phys.org, "…at speeds over 310 mph." 

There was a time when to cross the oceans and the seas, necessitated travel by ship or by boat, of which this still does occur, but such has being superseded at a fair price, by travelers that are all about getting to the destination sooner, as compared to later, and hence do so via airplane.  So too, vehicles with wheels is a form of transportation that has its advantages as well as its disadvantages, but to believe that eliminating drivers, or providing drivers with the option of self-driving, will somehow make for a giant leap forward for mankind and society, is misguided and mistaken.

Rather, it is high time to recognize that true progress can only come about from those that are outside the massive industry as it is, and hence are not limited by that industry and are thereby clearly thinking freely outside of the box. The future of ground transportation in this world, does not involve wheels, but rather involves levitation, done through an electromagnetic field or similar, and the sooner that governments or institutions with very big pockets recognize this, the sooner mankind will benefit from a form of transportation, which will take us out of our current Luddite thinking, and into a bright and brave new world.

"Law and Order" is just another insidious form of racism and discrimination

The very people that cry the loudest for law and order are always those that either already hold all the power, or are the lackeys to those that hold that power, and there is no in-between.   In point of fact, when your position is secure within society, the efforts of many of those people will over time transfer seamlessly to being devoted to simply wanting to keep all that they have, and in consequence they will often spend a considerable amount of their resources to see that exactly this is accomplished. 

The law and order mindset comes into play, because in order to better and more safely protect property and assets it most definitely helps to have the police force, that is the "order", in conjunction with the application of justice, that is the "law" structured in a way that those judicial decisions made, as well as those police actions taken, are always done in conformance with protecting those institutions that are already well established, and wish to remain that way.

So then, though the law and order is really meant as a protection racket for the most powerful and elite, it helps to have a significant portion of the general public on board, as it never is a good position for the very, very few, to appear to be reaping all the benefits, especially at the expense, of the greater public, at large.  This so signifies, that law and order is typically structured in a manner in which the silent majority, so to speak, are led to believe that there is a very thin line between anarchy, revolution, chaos, and rioting, all overcoming good civilization, and that line is held in place only by those brave men and women wearing blue, and upheld by those good justices in black.

The reality though is that today's law and order is really just the evolution of the still respected southern way of life, in which, in order to keep down the mass of the population, which is far more numerous, and often suffers from a fair degree of frustration and need; that it is critical to have both the firepower as well as the personnel to take care of business in a manner in which those that dare to stand against law and order, will most definitely regret it.  That is the main reason why the biggest proponents of law and order, believe that no quarter can ever be given to those that threaten the status quo, and further it is the prevailing reason why meaningful change in this country is a long, arduous, and perhaps futile one, because those in power have the money, the law, and the order all on their side.

Remember this always, while it may be so, that the law and the order may sometimes be progressive, that is only because such is necessary from time-to-time, in order to keep the public at large, at bay. The reality is that no western nation comes close to even approaching the amount of people incarcerated in America, of which, those of color, and those that are poor, are almost exclusively targeted, for none in power, see the utility or value of those particular people, and having no value, they must be summarily dismissed from society.

So it can be said, back in the day the owner of the plantation had his overseer do the whipping of his slaves; nowadays, the powers to be aren't so obvious and aren't so physically brutal, believing it makes for better form, to have the order find the malcontents, and then have the law, put them away.  So it was back then, so it is today.

The non-independence of Latin America

The present countries that are part of Latin America were formerly under the dominion of the European powers of Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, and France.  However, as the United States began to increase its might, it made it known to the European powers, through its Monroe doctrine -- that it would not broker European meddling in the affairs of Latin America, for Latin America to the United States, was considered to be solely in the domain of the United States.  To a very large extent, the United States got exactly what it wanted, for all the Latin American countries, ultimately became sovereign essentially during the 19th Century, and therefore as independent nations were no longer beholden to European powers.

However, though these Latin American countries were successful in throwing off the chains of European oppression, they were to a very large extent, susceptible to a new master, which not too surprisingly, was and is the United States of America.  The United States, while it has claimed some foreign territories as its own, such as Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin islands; has nevertheless, in most instances, preferred to be involved with Latin American countries in a way that is not so explicit, yet, still has massive repercussions for those countries, involved.

To wit, these Latin American countries have both natural resources as well as industries that those that are the ostensible leaders or power brokers of those nations, wish to see be successful and productive; of which, the United States, has the expertise to help provide and to accelerate that success; but often the fruits of that success are structured in a manner in which specifically the applicable United States institutions benefit, as well as the elite few of those Latin American countries -- whereas the mass of the population, does not.  When the best expertise and most modern equipment to extract natural resources of a given Latin American country is readily available from the United States, than such when provided to those Latin American countries, invariably comes with strings and contracts that are attached, that are usually quite favorable to those American consortiums that provide that equipment for the extraction of those natural resources.  Further to the point, countries that have natural resources as well as other practical assets are most definitely in need of capital in order to build both the infrastructure as well as to create the necessary means to export goods and other materials, in which that capital often comes from western nations, of which, the terms and conditions of those contractual obligations are structured in a manner in which those Latin American countries which become indebted, typically are not ever able to develop the necessary means to successfully pay off that debt, and further seemingly inevitably negotiate from a position of weakness, against those that have all or most of the cards.

While the governments of the Latin American countries are independent by Constitutional law, most of them are in one way or another materially and structurally indebted to the United States of America, and further, those that are Latin America's industry and political leaders are usually quite content to work closely with the United States of America, because it is personally beneficial for them to do so.  The United States of America is an empire, and as in most empires, those countries that are in close proximity to the United States of America, are also those countries that most often dance to the tune that the United States of America desires to play.

Civil disobedience and the American Revolution

A very strong argument could be made, and should be made, that when the representatives of the colonies got together and affixed their signatures upon the Declaration of Independence; of which they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, to express to the world at large, the salient reasons for the breaking of their political bonds with Great Britain, that those causes so expressed, were an obvious form of civil disobedience.  That is to say, the Declaration of Independence by those colonies, was the defining act of the civil disobedience that led directly to the ultimate creation of this free republic, which the United States of America, so represents.

This indicates that civil disobedience is part and parcel of being an American, and that therefore every citizen within America, has an absolute duty to disobey and/or to protest those laws that are not in harmony with that Declaration of Independence, in conjunction with the highest law of this law, which is its written Constitution.  In point of fact, if the citizens of this great nation, will not show their mettle when their civil rights and freedoms are being taken or siphoned away from them by state apparatus or wrongful court decisions, then those citizens do not deserve those rights or those freedoms, for nothing in this world, is static, and everything of value in this world, comes at a real cost and concerted effort.

The problem that any government has, especially a national government that has been in existence for well over two hundred years, is that, the powers to be of that government and by those representatives, often lose sight of exactly their purpose of being; of which, that purpose is fundamentally to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, with the abiding consent of those people.  This so indicates that a government that favors the few at the expense of the many; or that is unjust in the application of the law being equally applied, is primarily a government of those that it favors or are well placed, which is quite obviously counter to it being of good purpose and of benefit for the people, as a whole.

All governments must be held accountable for what they do and for what they accomplish, and the less transparent and forthcoming that governments are about what they are really doing, the less the people are being served, for those governments that are not open books, are undoubtedly up to no good, despite whatever words or reasons are expressed to assure the public that they need not worry.

The duty of any good citizen is to hold that government that was created to serve them, accountable, for all that they do with the powers so vested in that governance.  To the extent that the government serves well the people, the greater that nation and the security of the people will be; and to the extent that government is inimical to their governing documents and to the people, then the people will be the ones to suffer for it, for the failure of their representatives and of their government to properly do right by them.  It must be said, and it should be said that all those that express civil disobedience are on the vanguard of what the American Revolution was all about, and they are truly the good conscience of their nation, for which it was founded upon.

Being disadvantaged is quite obviously a real disadvantage

America likes to pride itself as being an egalitarian society, of which if it really was, than there would not nearly be the wide chasm of disparities that we see in regards to income, education, wealth, crime, neighborhoods, and just about anything of real merit within this country.  What exacerbates the problem of ever achieving true equality of income and opportunity within America is the fact that how a given child starts off in their life, makes a profound material difference in that outcome of their life.  That is to say, those that are born within families that do not own a home, that are single-income, have someone blood related that is currently or has been incarcerated, live within neighborhoods that are classified as low-income and crime infested, and go to schools, that aren't worthy of even being classified as a school of education, do not, in many cases, fare well in life in regards to positive or meaningful achievements.

Certain pundits are fond of stating that America is the land of opportunity, and that those that pull themselves up by their bootstraps are the very ones that go from the outhouse to the penthouse.  Sure, there are always going to be situations in which good people are able to somehow overcome incredible disadvantages; but, alas, in a significantly high percentage of those cases, those people that were able to overcome such, were able to do so by having within their structure the good force of a great soul within their milieu, that provided them with the stability, encouragement and the wherewithal to stride forward and to become something of consequence, despite being surrounded by a turbulent sea of trouble.

The bottom line is that those that are born disadvantaged are in a seemingly hopeless situation, for when a child's potential is effectively snuffed out before they have even entered a school of learning -- their potential to be someone of merit, is severely damaged.  Further to the point, all those children that are living in disadvantaged circumstances, rely to a very large degree, on those institutions that are independent of their immediate environment, such as schools, social clubs, and medical care; so that, if those schools, for instance, are far below par in educating those students, then each year, those children will as a consequence fall further and further behind their peers in other communities, so that the end result is that these children will be unprepared for anything other than substandard lives of reduced opportunity and listless hope.

Those that are born in impoverished circumstances, of which, everything that surrounds and is part of them, is of very little worth, are, within a very short matter of time, at risk of becoming part and parcel of the very same, sinkhole.  In truth, every child born into disadvantage circumstances is at risk, from their very first breath, and the only possible way to materially improve their circumstances of success, besides their own good efforts as well as the value of having good people actively involved with them, is for institutions such as governments and charities to actively make it their point, to do all that is possible to see that these children are given a fair chance to succeed, which means equal access to all institutions and programs that are of quality and of merit, without limitation or restriction.

True apportionment representation

The United States Congress and the members of it, is determined by the rules of the Constitution, in conjunction with judicial decisions applicable to such, of which the current interpretation basically comes down to the apportionment of the representatives of that Congress, being the census count of all citizens and non-citizens, as well as all armed forces personnel and federal civilian employees that are currently stationed outside the United States, but are able to be allocated to a specific home State.  Some people believe that by counting non-citizens into the population of a given State, that those States that have an abundance of non-citizens, which are by definition, denied the enfranchisement of the vote, does not make a whole lot of sense; for after all, why should they be favored with representation?  Further to the point and probably of even more relevance, there are those that are citizens of the United States, but have had their voting rights, disenfranchised, for whatever reason, which are also counted for the apportionment of Congressional seats, even though they are unable to vote. 

All of the above, basically comes down to a rather big divide, which is that currently, anyone that lives within a given State, is counted for purposes of the apportionment of Congressional seats, citizens and non-citizens alike; with no differentiation between those that are enfranchised to vote or disenfranchised.  Not too surprisingly, those States, that have an abundance of non-citizens within their State borders, such as California, in particular, get more seats in the House of Congress, as opposed to a State, such as Pennsylvania, which gets less; because more of the residents of Pennsylvania, actually are citizens, as compared to the great abundance of non-citizen immigrants in California.  On the other hand, a strong argument could be made, that the apportionment of Congressional seats, should not be done by the population within a State of citizens and non-citizens, including disenfranchised voters, but rather would more fairly be done by counting only those that are enfranchised to vote, since these are the very people that actually select their Congressional representative at the polling booth.

If, the amount of representatives in each respective State, was actually done by the amount of those registered to vote within those States, as compared to the national population of citizens and non-citizens throughout the United States, and then apportioned, mathematically to each one of those States -- what would happen in all likelihood, is that the States in general, would be much more motivated to see that their citizens within their respective States, were registered to vote, and further that those that have been disenfranchised from voting, would probably find that their State would be far more accommodating towards permitting them to re-qualify to vote.

Of course, some critics of this plan, might rightly complain that such would disenfranchise the value and impact of all those that are under the voting age of eighteen; though this would be true, it could somewhat be mitigated by each State tabulating their enfranchised voters every two years, which matches the Congressional elections which are always biennial, thereupon providing an updated enfranchised voting roll for each one of those States.  After all, the apportionment of the Congressional representatives of each State should reflect, the proportional amount per State, of those that are enfranchised to vote, for these are the very people that are the arbiters of who represents the people, and the people should be only those that are enfranchised to vote, no more and no less.

The complete failure of America's criminal justice program

America is the industry leader in so many notable categories, that such a country as this, which believes that it is the greatest nation in the world, should feel deep shame that such a high percentage of its citizens are either incarcerated or on some sort of parole or probation or monitoring.  In fact, as bbc.co.uk reports the United States prison population rate of 724 per 100,000 citizens, is substantially higher than any other western nation, nearly five times higher than England/Wales which is at a rate of just 148 per 100,000.  It would be one thing if all this incarceration and imprisonment, combined with our criminal justice system was the very basis for some sort of peaceful paradise, producing a land without civil discord and equal justice for all, but America is a country that still has crime rates that are substantially higher in virtually any crime category of meaning vs. other western nations despite its high incarceration rates.  This is demonstrative proof that the criminal justice system in America is not only broken, but is fundamentally and deeply flawed.

For whatever reason, America believes that the most appropriate way to deal with inappropriate behavior, inconvenient behavior, undesirable behavior, and actions that have been deemed to be criminal, is to incarcerate its own population at a very high rate.  This doesn't work, and is never going to work, because if this was working, we would see that by the virtue of how many that currently are locked up, and in consideration that America has locked up so many of its population for so long, that therefore the balance of this country, if incarceration was actually performing a good and valued duty, would be free of crime and conflict, which it is not. 

All of the above, means that the criminal justice system in the United States, is quite clearly, not a system that has much of anything to do with fair justice and penitence, but everything to do instead with deliberately discriminating against certain segments of society; typically those that are ill educated, impoverished, and non-white, and believing that by taking these people off of the streets, so that they are no longer visible, that therefore the societal problem that creates all of these criminals, would thereupon be resolved, but it most definitely has not been.

To change America's criminal justice system overnight, is well-nigh impossible, however, real changes could be made, if America had the courage and desire to actually do so.  The first change that should be implemented posthaste, is to eliminate once and for all, all mandatory minimum sentences in the stroke of a judicial decision, that stipulates that this is a violation of the Eight Amendment, because such is both cruel and unusual, for the supposition that each person somehow should be categorized within an unbending box, of not taking into account fully all pertinent and actionable information, and thereby predetermining that all categorized as such, are always subject to a specified minimum amount of incarceration.  The second change that could readily be implemented immediately, is the recognition that the vast majority of criminals are not violent and are not a clear and present danger to their community, and that therefore should be released via some form of electronic monitoring or similar, that allows them the opportunity to thereby continue with their employment, or schooling, and/or family duties, without undue and unnecessary mandatory interruption.

Enough time has been spent living in the amoral world of "law and order" as exercised in the United States of America.  This has not work, so that, those that believe that somehow future history will be diametrically different from the past, are condemned to see it repeated, ad nauseam; and such continued failure of its justice system in a country of the vast resources and wealth of America, is demonstrative proof that America is no beacon of liberty, but instead would be more fairly represented by having in its hands the whip of the slave master.