We the people

The preamble to our Constitution states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…" and further we read in the 9th Amendment, the following words, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  These words are of immense relevancy to all of the people of these United States, for it demonstrates in form as well as in principle that the people are their own sovereign rulers.  Further to the point, it was considered at the Constitutional Convention to originally have the preamble state words to the effect, "We the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, …",  but this was rightly replaced with just we the people, indicating that those that buy into the false belief that State rights triumph over the people, or that State rights triumph over the national state of this union of States, are false to the Constitution, false to the people, and false to those individual States, that propagate such false propaganda.

This is indeed a country created by the people, for the people, and of the people; of which, the people of the individual States united into one body politic in order to as our Constitution preamble states to "…. establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…"  To the extent, that the people are in charge of their destiny, then the people are in harmony with that Constitution; and to the extent that the people are not in charge of their destiny, and are, for instance, subservient to the technology-military-industrial complex, then those people are not only not in charge of their destiny, but the country is in fit, form, and function operating in a non-Constitutional manner.

We now live in a construct, that although the people appear to have representative government, and are able to thereby vote in democratic elections; that the reality of the situation is that those that are in power, primarily have that power not from the people, but often are beholden instead to those that are the ones that provided the necessary monetary finances in order for those candidates to successfully run their campaigns and to win election.  In other words, the most meaningful contributions to candidates significantly often comes from corporations or wealthy elites, directly, indirectly, or through false fronts; and once elected, representatives are obligated to first take care of, not the people, but those that were essentially the means of their successful election. In addition, many representatives are often successfully persuaded by the ubiquitous lobbyists to get legislation passed or decisions reached, that favor their interests, often at the expense of the people.

In so many ways, the people have lost their sovereignty, because in general, they are typically completely out of touch with what is really going on in governmental offices of all stripes, and further are not privy to vital inside information; and in absence of a government that does not provide transparency in all that it says and does on behalf of the people, then the people, as a whole, are left with nothing much more than smoke and mirrors, and the illusion that they have a meaningful voice with their representative government.  This thus means that this government is really a government, favoring the few and the elite, which is the primary reason why all is not well, and why we the people, are not really free.

Make all police officers and district attorneys of color and there will be change

Progressive people of all types want America to transform itself, and to become what it was founded to be -- a nation of liberty, freedom, opportunity, fairness, and opportunity for all.    While each politician of vision and each generation of hope believes that change will come, such change within America, is at best, one step forward, and then invariably another step backwards or to the side; but hardly it seems, is there comprehensive, lasting, and meaningful change.  The main reason why change is so slow in America is that powerful interests do not desire for any change that will threaten that power, and thereby do all in their power to preclude such or to mold such, so that they maintain their status.

The justice and policing arms of the state have always been on the side of those that hold those purse strings, which is indicative as to why the face of the police and the face of justice, is invariably closely connected to those that want to assure that the masses are under their thumb, and thereby not inclined to enacting truly revolutionary actions.  This thus means, that the prevailing direction of police actions and justice support those of the status quo, to the dismay of those that simply want justice, equally applied, to be impartially enforced.

Those that truly want progressive change will continue to be thwarted, despite whatever laws are passed, because the problem with America isn't so much that the laws on the books are unfair, but rather that good law, and especially the spirit of good law, is routinely dismissed in American jurisprudence and through its policing policies.  So then, the only real alternative that would, in and of itself, fundamentally change America for the better, would be for all police officers, except for those that represent office support staff, and for all District Attorneys, to, in a stroke of a new Affirmative Action, be replaced forthwith, and without exception, with only police officers and District Attorneys of color, and specifically, replaced with all those that are non-white.

If America was to literally change overnight to a country in which the policing arm of the state, as well as the legal charging arm of the state, represented by the District Attorney, were all non-white -- then, without a doubt, the operation of those police officers, the arrests by those police officers, the justice so rendered in courts of law as to crimes prosecuted, diverted, or simply ignored, would change, significantly.  In point of fact, police officers, spend an inordinate amount of time arresting good citizens for ticky-tack crimes, of no real substance, such as drug possession, victimless crimes, and low-level offenses of no merit, merely to intimidate, inconvenience, harass, and to bully the people.  A police force of all non-white officers, would minimize such, and concentrate instead on real crimes, such as theft, robbery, rape, murder, and so on.

Further to the point, a world in which the police and justice arm of the state was non-white, would mean for all those citizens that were non-white, that there would be a distinct relaxing and a wholesale change in both their outlook and their overall freedom.  As for those, that are white, knowing that the police and justice arm, no longer looked the same as them, and did not enforce the laws in a manner that invariably favored them, they then, would begin to look far more frequently over their shoulder, and would, as a matter of course, become much more nervous, and perhaps eventually in attitude and outlook, more progressive in understanding that the world is really not all white, and that would be the change to thereby really believe in.

Modern-day cannibalism

Obviously, in America there is no cannibalism.  In a literal sense this is true, but in a figurative sense it very well may not be.  For instance, any person, that is exploited or has their fair liberty curtailed, has in a general sense, lost their sovereignty to another, whether that be an institution, a government, or other people.  Further, once a given person is no longer the captain of their own ship, and are therefore unable to take full advantage of their unalienable liberties so written into the Declaration of Independence, as well as implied or specified as such in the Constitution, then that person, is no longer free, and those that are not free are therefore in a compromised form of servitude.  This thus means that those who are created equally, but are subservient to a construct which has effectively negated such, are in a sense servants to that class of people, or government, or institutions that are effectively their masters.  Thus, in any situation in which one class of people is in perpetual servitude to another class of people, it can fairly be stated, that their vulnerable condition places them into a position into which every chain so forged upon their body transforms what once was a full human being into something more akin to becoming in substance, less than human.

The cannibalism so practiced today in America, is part and parcel of the American psyche, which too often sees its fellow human beings, not as those that have been created equally, and therefore are entitled to their Constitutional rights as well as to fair opportunity of the wealth that America offers; but rather they are predominantly perceived as non-people and therefore looked upon as objects to be mined, exploited, used, and ultimately discarded to the degree that these perceived non-humans are able to provide value to those that extract what resources that they are able to extract from them, until ultimately their life force has been completely drained from their body, for they have been fully consumed by those that have made what use they could make of them, as product.

The cannibalism in America, is mankind's inhumanity to mankind, exacerbated by the lust and desire of so many that are in power, or have the thirst for that power, to do whatever that it takes to get what they want, in which, often the path so taken involves the deliberate taking from others, of their birthright, so as to benefit the selfish interlopers of such.  When the success of a given country, or a given individual, is built upon the unjustified taking of that which is not fairly theirs, under false pretences of any sort, then the foundation so built is built upon having fed upon the bodies of those that are treated as de facto beasts of burden.

Those that are cannibals are all those that take from others, what is not rightfully theirs to take, and having depleted such from other people; have, in effect, nourished and gnawed upon those others, in order to fill their own greedy hunger, and to weaken and to consume, unto death, those others

National murder clearance rate is tragically low

When it comes to murder, the term "clearance rate" refers to those murder cases that have had a murder charge filed against a given individual, as compared to the total number of murders recorded in that jurisdiction in a given year.  What muddies the water about clearance rates though, is that some jurisdictions, manipulate their clearance rate, by counting in the current year, people that are arrested for a murder that occurred in some previous year, as well as by "exceptional clearances" in which the prime suspect for the murder is no longer alive, or when necessary witnesses for successful prosecution of murder, aren't apparently available; then these are considered by those jurisdictions using such, as exceptional clearances, and hence count as murders that have been cleared.  In any event, the national murder clearance rate as reported by the FBI in 1965, was just over 90%, whereas in 2015, that national rate as reported by the FBI had plummeted to just 61.5%.  Further to the point, just because a given individual has been charged with the crime of murder, does not necessarily mean that they will ever be convicted of that murder, let alone tried for murder, so that, clearance rates are not the same thing as conviction rates, therefore signifying that the national clearance rate of 61.5% for murder, indicates that in all probability, perhaps 50% of those crimes classified as murder, have somebody actually convicted, ever, of that murder.

While there are all sorts of crimes that are odious, disturbing, and upsetting, it must be stated, that murder is probably the most heinous of all crimes, because a life has been wrongly taken from another person, without justification or lawful excuse.  This would signify, that police departments, specifically have homicide departments for the salient reason that murder is a crime so abhorrent, that for the public safety and for its protection, that the policing arm of the state, must do all that they can do, to see that the perpetrator of any murder is caught, tried, and duly convicted.  Further, every day that a given murderer is at large, is in and of itself, a menace to society, and a disgrace to justice.

One might think that with all the modern tools of this age, in regards to DNA, forensics, and the wealth of databases that can be drawn upon, that all of this would be of great aid, in increasing the murder clearance rate over time; but, in fact, the United States has regressed tremendously from the 1960s.  Why is this?  While there are probably a multitude of answers of various relevancy as to why this is so, the primary reason why Americas' murder clearance rate has declined precipitously, is a reflection that there are numerous enclaves within cities and communities, in which the police do not have any credibility within that area of the community, whatsoever; in which the police simply do not have either effective boots on the ground, or reliable intelligence, that allows the police to have a basic understanding of the ins and outs of that community.  This reflects, in part, that the police, are seen in those communities more as agents of oppression and injustice; in addition to the rather sad fact, that police aren't terribly motivated in due diligence for murders that involve people that they don't really respect, relate to, or care about.

The colonists' reaction to the Tea Act and why such is still relevant

Before the success of the American Revolution, the colonists were under the domain of Great Britain.  Not too surprisingly, in an era in which communication between the two countries could take months, and in view of the distance between Great Britain and America, decisions that were made in Great Britain would not necessarily be well and thoroughly considered, especially since the colonists had no representation, in regards to being able to express in Parliament what was most appropriate for those colonists.  Further to the point, decisions that might make sense, financially or on paper, could find that their implementation of, would ensure unexpected consequences.

In point of fact, the Tea Act, by Great Britain, would on the surface, appear to be beneficial to the consumers of tea in America, for the British East India Company Tea would now, with the new law and being the sole authorized provider of, have their imported tea priced below the market price of such tea currently being distributed in America.  However, the error so made by British governance was that by deliberately and unexpectedly undercutting colonial merchants of tea, who themselves had acquired a great deal of their tea through illegal shipments and through non-authorized means -- this would effectively negate the value of their inventory, and therefore harm their businesses, irreparably.

So then, in knowledge that the sheer amount of tea at the Boston harbor, would materially damage domestic vendors and merchants, should such be unloaded onto the docks of Boston, the concerned and well placed influential denizens of Boston, made a conscious decision to preclude such unloading of tea, and further, under the disguise of being American Indians, forcefully took such tea and dumped it into the ocean, in order to destroy it.

So that, in effect, the colonists united to protect their domestic businesses at the expense of the country that was its governing hand.  In other words, the colonists would not countenance their domestic industries being materially damaged, so that their mother country, could thereby benefit at the expense of those colonists, for they recognized that if the colonists were seen as something for Great Britain to tax and to milk for the benefit of Great Britain, directly -- while the colonists suffered to be exploited by them, then the colonists did not have effective liberty, but instead were subservient to a country, on an  entirely different continent.

When we subsequently fast forward to today's America, recognize that when products that are imported to America with cheap labor, often with suspect environment and working conditions within those foreign nations, of which, these products have no tariffs or other restrictions placed upon them, so that these foreign companies are able to successfully compete  and quite often dominate against domestically manufactured American products, then domestic manufacturers are not going to be able to hold a candle to those imported goods.  This, in effect, enriches those foreign nations and the international companies that aid or are conjoined with them, at the expense of the domestic working citizens of this nation, who are now unemployed, or employed at a lower paying job, of which, today's America, gladly unloads and thereby sells this new Boston Tea.

You are the product in for-profit hospitals

Any hospital that is run for a profit is a hospital that has a dilemma, and most probably a moral dilemma, between profits and patients.  That is to say, a for-profit hospital is ostensibly in the business of providing good health care to human beings, of which, those human beings are the product that is being utilized in order to make that profit.  In other words, without patients, for-profit hospitals would be bankrupt, so patients are, most definitely, the product.  Further to the point, when the given treatment and expense so made on a patient, is in any way, influenced by the expenses so involved from a profit or financial reimbursement perspective, that hospital is compromised, and the patient's right thereby to good healthcare has been damaged.

While, no doubt, there are all sorts of rules, regulations, and oversights when it comes to procedures, billing, and patients within for-profit hospitals -- the fact of the matter is that almost no amount of investigation and examination is going to be able to fully come to a fair accounting of all that has occurred, and whether such is right, wrong, or somewhere in-between.  So that, it is fair to state, that for-profit hospitals, by their very existence and within their structure, are always going to be at odds with weighing the most appropriate healthcare that should be provided to patients under their care, because of their conflicting drive to make a profit; whether that is fully in the control of the medical staff, or with its management, or some sort of combination of both, thereof.

Additionally, the admission of those to for-profit hospitals, in which those hospitals are not required by law to admit all patients, is essentially the relevant door that often separates the poor, indigent, and those of chronic bad health, from those that have the right insurance and ready means to pay their bills, in which these for-profit hospitals therefore accept into their facility, those that are profitable for them, and reject all those that would hurt their bottom line.

So too, medical doctors often have a multitude of choices that they can make in regards to both healthcare treatment and healthcare medicine that they believe are the most effective for their patients, of which, as long as those decisions are structured within a reasonable range of what other medical doctors have done or would have recommended, this affords those medical doctors or their superiors above them, to select those medications and procedures that are most conducive to profit making, all other things being equal.

Also, it must be said that in the scheme of things, most people are typically readily compliant with authority; and to a very large extent have an incredible amount of respect for medical doctors and their recommendations, especially within a hospital setting, of which this is obviously quite heightened when they are sick, and therefore are in real need of medical care.  So that, patients in for-profit hospitals, to a very large extent, are primarily there to receive good healthcare, and are under the impression that is what they are going to receive; but in reality, though they might receive good healthcare, the motives of the for-profit hospital is, reflect, that they are at the end of the day, about making money and profits upon their patients, come what may.

Proprietary information

Proprietary information, in regards to corporations, is basically any information that the company wishes to control the dissemination of; in addition to the fact that the company often has duties and obligations to their management and their shareholders to protect, defend, and to secure that propriety information, which is considered to be the property of that company, and often has specific penalties attached for all those that divulge proprietary information without proper permission.

So, basically proprietary information is essentially information that is secretive in nature, and often involves the restriction of a specific need to know, for those that have a desire to know.  Additionally, those that have been intimately involved in the creation of, or the process of that proprietary information, even in those situations in which they as an individual basically are the ones that thought of, conceived of, and created that information, they do not own that information as individuals, whatsoever; and when there comes that time when they resign or have been excused from the company, that proprietary information remains with the corporation, and not with the original author of it.

For corporations, who are of course, the biggest defenders of proprietary information, all of the former seems to make eminent sense -- but proprietary information, while having a logical purpose behind it, is in many instances, misused.  That is to say, the more information, that is secretive or proprietary in nature, but does not really need to be classified as such, and therefore fails to be publically disseminated, thus means the more information, that other companies are going to have to create on their own, and thereby often entails the duplication of efforts and expense of such, as opposed to being able to take advantage of such by working off of what has already been created, and building upon that.  Further, employees that have worked with and created proprietary information, that have thereby parted ways with that company, are because of legal considerations, somewhat handcuffed in being able to take such knowledge elsewhere and therefore have to divert themselves from the pathway that they were once on.

So too, because this is a country that believes in the power of intimidation, through litigation as well as by other means, this means that information that really need not and should not be proprietary in form, are often protected as such for longer periods of time, which isn't beneficial to the public at large, though it probably is quite beneficial for that company, by precluding such.  In short, as knowledge is a form of power, then quite obviously creating knowledge, and then simultaneously controlling who and what gets access to that knowledge as well as creating business models which allows corporations to exclusively benefit from that proprietary knowledge, skews things in such a manner, that often the few benefit from that knowledge, at the expense of the many.

The greatest good of mankind is never going to be served, by the creation of more and more proprietary information, in which a meaningful portion of that information has been wrongly classified as proprietary, but rather more of that information needs to be in the hands of mankind; for the concentration of more and more proprietary information into the hands of corporations, that are artificial creations, and thereby are never subject to physical death, signifies that mankind is ceding more of its knowledge to that which is not human in its structure.

Learn the value of listening well

In a person-to-person world, the way that we communicate is through talking, but for everyone that talks, there must be at least one person that listens to what has been spoken, or we are essentially just talking to our own self.  Not too surprisingly, most people that speak believe that what they are saying has some sort of merit or worth, or else they probably wouldn't be speaking, though there are exceptions to this rule, in which some people like to talk and talk, mainly because they can't seem to handle silence or solitude, but in any event, those that speak to others, are expecting and anticipating that those others that are hearing their words are actually listening, though not all that is spoken is ever actually listened to.

The fundamental problem with a person talking, is the preconceived notion that they often have, that they other person is prepared and desires to hear what they are saying, in which this is not always the case.  In fact, many people that seem to appear to be listening are really only listening for their opportunity to have their own say, perhaps which ensues, during a pregnant pause or similar.  Further to the point, some people listen only in the generic sense of showing a basic sort of courtesy, but aren't really taking in the words, except to acknowledge a general affirmation or consent, that they have heard the words so spoken, but really haven't taken in the words.   Additionally, those that are ostensibly listening, might actually have a desire to really listen, but are at the present time overwhelmed with their own troubles and problems and therefore their mind is not properly prepared to listen to what is being said.  All these, are examples of people that aren't really listening, of which, the speaker of the words, may or may not, be aware of their lack of attention.

While there are many reasons why people do not listen well, of which some of those reasons, have justification; there are those other reasons which really aren't justified at all.  For instance, some people do not listen well, because they dismiss what the other person is saying because they have no respect for that person, or don't care for that person, or don't value that person, or simply because they don't believe that anyone could ever possibly tell them anything of importance or value.  Anytime, that we marginalize another person, especially when that is done, under the perception that we are more important than they are; then any possibility of good communication from one person to another is not possible.  Further, a lot of what appears to be communication isn't communication at all, but basically each party, taking their respective turn, to talk past the other person, and hence no common ground is ever achieved.

The reason that listening well is so important, is that the very point of communication is to impart information, and while some of that information may be of marginal value, some of it also may be of immense value, and therefore, those that believe that experience is always the best teacher, seemed not to have understood that learning well, encompasses listening well, so that those that go furthest in life, aren't necessarily the smartest or the brightest, but rather are those that are able to focus their attention upon those words spoken, and by their attentive listening as well as their astute discernment to do right with them.

Rights and privileges

It is important for people to know the fundamental different between natural rights, which by definition, are unalienable; that is to say, that each one of us is created with these specific attributes of natural rights, that cannot legitimately be taken away; as opposed to privileges which are alienable, and can both be given as well as taken away.   So then, as per our Declaration of Independence, our Creator has granted to us the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, amongst additional other natural rights, though these other rights are not specifically enumerated within that Declaration.

 This thus means that the highest form of any legitimate government, without exception, is to form a body politic, in order to protect, defend, and to augment the unalienable rights of the people, so formed.  Further, this so indicates that all other laws, rules, regulations, and so on and so forth, are legitimately structured only in a manner in which first and foremost, those unalienable rights of the people remain inviolable, and that all other subsequent laws, rules, and regulations are created only as a benefit for the people as a whole, as well as to judge correctly when our rights have been misapplied or misused, typically in a manner in which another person's rights has been violated.

The trouble that most governments get into is their assertion that they have the right to take away the unalienable rights of the people, without appropriate and fair application of due process of the law, properly applied, and to the extent, that this is done, the people do suffer.  In point of fact, legitimate governments are created by, for, and of the people, for the express benefit of the people and to protect the unalienable rights of those people.  Further, it must be stated, that governments are instituted amongst mankind, in order to effect the safety and the happiness of the people, of which, those people that misuse their unalienable rights in a manner which such is detrimental to their fellow mankind and their unalienable rights, are thereby subject to governmental laws that will fairly decide such matters by the application of the law, equally and properly applied, for the greater good of the people. 

So too, it is important that the structure of any body politic, takes into account that all governmental agencies as well as artificial creations, such as corporations, are servants to the people as a whole, and are granted their powers, only as privileges, but never as rights, by the people.  That is to say, only human beings created by God have unalienable rights, and that all entities subsequently created by those human beings, including all governments, are not only servants to those people, but act only at the legitimate behest of the people. 

So then, the highest good of any government, or any other institution, are those governments and institutions that specifically aid, defend, and augment the people and their unalienable rights in a manner that is consistent, fair, and equally applied to all peoples within their domain.  This thus means that the best government is ever the government that is the friend of the people, by virtue of its defense of the people's unalienable rights.

Freedom of speech in the private workspace

Most everyone in the United States is familiar that this country supports the right of the people to freedom of speech, but courts have ruled, that such freedom of speech, is situational dependent, so that those that are direct employees of the federal government, are afforded far more freedom of speech, since the First Amendment is interpreted to mean that the federal government is precluded from abridging one's freedom of speech; whereas, those corporations which are not public entities, are considered to have the right to limit their employee's freedom of speech, subject to other pertinent rules, laws, and regulations.

It is a rather sad state of affairs, when a person by virtue of seeking employment, and thereby gaining such employment, consequently, must have their freedom of speech subjected to being abridged, or face lawful termination for not being compliant with such, upon the entering into their place of employment.  That, on the face of it, seems un-American, and unless such speech is in violation of confidential information or trade secrets, then employees should rather have full freedom of speech, subject to the very same additional rules, laws, and regulations that apply to all Americans, that abridge freedom of speech for the greater good  of mankind and civil discourse, such as in laws that preclude discrimination in the workplace, and hence do not countenance overt racial or religious discrimination in speech or conduct.

When it comes to how the law is applied and interpreted, this does not mean that such laws and interpretations are correct, and when citizens are dealing with the consequences of something as fundamental as being able to voice their opinions and viewpoints within the workplace without fear of retaliation, then such needs to be looked at very carefully and thoroughly.   After all, in today's world, the vast majority of those that are employed, are not self-employed, but work for companies, of which, those companies often have control of the hours so worked, the tasks that must be worked upon, and the compensation that is provided for each of their employees.  To therefore give those companies, the control of the speech of their employees allowed, effectively makes the employer's task much easier in being able to stifle not only internal dissent and discussion, but to preclude the uniting of employees into a viable union, or to discuss the conditions of such employment in a manner that is beneficial for those employees.

The primary reason why private employers do not desire freedom of speech within their facilities, has nothing to do at all with their employees voicing opinions that are just weird and unorthodox but ultimately are of no relevance; but rather these free speech abridgments are primarily enforced in order to strike down those that are in consideration of talking about the big picture of employee compensation, health benefits, profit sharing, and all things that are favorable to those that labor; in which, employers are not interested in a vibrant democracy within their facility, but rather prefer to be, at best, a benign autocracy, and at worse, one that rules with an iron fist.  To the extent that courts support the abridging of freedom of speech within corporate facilities, this so indicates that those courts believe, that those that enter into the facilities of private employment, leave thereby their freedom outside those doors, and are thereby mandated by law to put on their chains when so entering.

Misunderstanding the Constitution

The founding document of this republic is its Declaration of Independence, for it is this Declaration that the people of that seminal time, rose up and thereby fought for their independence from Great Britain.  This thus means that when that independence was fairly won and thereby a treaty was signed by both parties, this truly signified that the people within that nation were thereby able to rightly claim their unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Those rights, are not governmental rights, but are endowed to each one of us, by our Creator.

The Constitution as written and ratified, which is the highest law of this land, was written for the express purpose to not only join the colonies together into one body politic, but also to affirm that our unalienable rights, would be not only protected by that Constitution, but to affirm that this authorized government would not ever take those rights away from the people.  To the extent that this country protects and upholds the preeminent rights of the people, such is in harmony with the Constitution, and to the extent that this country takes away the unalienable rights of the people, such is inimical to that Constitution and to the intent and purpose of that Constitution and our founding.

This thus means, that rather than the purpose of governance being to pass more and more laws, dubious or not, and to interpret and reinterpret law, necessary or not; that the real purpose of that governance is to be the defender, the protector, and the upholder of the unalienable rights of those that are its citizens, above all else.  Further to the point, the law as applied should always be equally applied to all, with no person, and no corporation, and no entity, and no governmental representative, ever to be above that law.

This Constitution is not now, nor has it ever been, the grantor of rights to those that live within this nation, but rather its prevailing purpose is to uphold the unalienable rights that each of its citizens of this nation, are born with, and can never properly have taken from them, without due process of the law,  properly applied.  That is to say, our Constitutional rights are not arbitrary, in the sense that what the government grants on one given day, can thereby subsequently be taken away or amended on some other given day, in which case, living within that construct would mean that the Constitution could thereby mean whatever that those that are the ruling or judicial party desires it to mean, but rather that this Constitution is first and foremost for the express purpose to recognize that this government can never take away the unalienable rights of its citizens, but rather it was created to defend and to protect those rights, for that is very reason why the people came together, into one body politic.

The highest law of this land, is now and always has been, created and ratified, for the people, by the people, and of the people -- in which any party, or any person, or any entity that believes that this Constitution is the great giver of our rights, misunderstands such, for rather the Constitution is structured to affirm, defend, and protect our unalienable rights, from being unjustly wrested away from us.

Social suffering

For many people in many societies, they suffer at their lack of good and stable employment, good and affordable healthcare, good and affordable education, good and safe environments, and so many other basic things, which are often taken for granted by those that have those very things.  In point of fact, the vast majority of mankind is either outright exploited and/or suffers the ill effects of living within a construct in which they have little real hope of being masters of their own fate, but instead, are dependent upon governmental largesse as well as other institutions to sustain their lives for themselves as well as for their family members, with little real hope of ever generating the escape velocity to become truly their own sovereign and independent people.

That which is social suffering is the misuse of political and economic conditions in which one's position in that society, is often dependent more upon who that they know and what they are connected to, as opposed to their given capabilities, potential and opportunity.  That is to say, there are millions upon millions of people that are born within a structure in which, their fate has already been predetermined, and that fate is one that will never allow them to lift their head up, for they are born without power, without influence, and without self-determination.

While today's society, offers creature comforts, at a level that could only be imagined upon in years gone by; there is a fundamental error in believing that creature comforts in and of themselves, bring happiness and satisfaction to those that have it, for life has a lot more to do with the satisfaction that one gets from a purpose sought for and lived to, then that which at its core, is provided as a matter of course, to keep the masses somewhat pacified, and therefore non-revolutionary.

This world as a whole, has never had more material wealth, than it holds forth today, and never has the global knowledge been greater than it is currently; yet, despite all of this wealth and all of this knowledge, the greater amount of peoples are oppressed, dissatisfied, emasculated, and exploited, to the degree that indicates that mankind's inhumanity to mankind is something that no degree of wealth, and that no degree of knowledge, has been able to effectively change or to transform.

In any society, in which the very, very few in number, effectively control the great masses of its fellow members, so that these few, essentially rule in the manner and way that not only perpetuates their power but insists that the greater part of that population was created to serve them, then such a society as that is inherently unequal and inherently unjust.  This, in and of itself, creates social suffering, for when the masses are left with just table scraps, yet, are cognizant that they should be afforded far more, then the frustration of their lack, breeds discontent, incivility, and resentment.

All social suffering is the offshoot of societies that are unjust in their structure, unequal in their form, and illiberal in their policies, and that social suffering in those societies will continue until the end of time, until such is addressed in a fundamental way that rectifies it, by the governance that is specifically structured to do exactly that.

The slippery slope of euthanasia

In some States of this union, euthanasia is legal and is administered to patients, in order, to kill them.  Though, euthanasia proponents prefer to spin their viewpoint in a manner in which the deliberate and premeditated killing of specific and targeted patients is done only upon the behest of the patient and to relieve that patient of their pain and suffering, so that they will be able to die therefore on their own terms and with dignity, the bottom line is that euthanasia is the State-sanctioned administration of death.

The very first thing to really recognize about governmental euthanasia is that euthanasia is at best, a State-actuated assisted suicide.  Further to the point, suicide in itself is most appropriately defined as self-murder.  This thus signifies that any individual that kills their own self, without the aid of anybody else, has succeeded in murdering their own self, and hence the perpetrator and the victim are one and the same.  On the other hand, euthanasia involves often not just one party, but usually several parties that assist in the killing of the patient when so done under medical supervision, typically aided by the administration of drugs that will induce death, so that in the scheme of things, those involved in such, are a material part of the killing of that person, and without State laws authorizing euthanasia, would be clearly susceptible to being charged with some degree of murder, or accessory to murder, depending upon the actions taken by those individuals, involved.

So too, it must be noted, that those that are the most vulnerable are the very ill, and especially the terminally ill, who may legitimately feel that their lives and their living are a burden to other people, as well as to their loved ones, and even to society itself, therefore making them much more susceptible to being persuaded or even encouraged to look upon their life as it currently is, as a burden, and that therefore since their utility to society is perceived as being minimal or non-existent, can be induced to believing that their life is no longer worth living. 

All of the above, would signify, that the euthanasia of any patient, at any time, necessitates the taking of the time to fully evaluate the situation in a manner in which a conscientious decision as well as a consensus of such can be reasonably reached.  This would indicate that though a patient may be entitled to request euthanasia, in those States permitting such, that the agreement to do so, should be something that reflects and only reflects a unanimous consensus of not only a medical physician, but also a psychiatric doctor, as well as a doctor of theology, in addition to the agreement to such by the closest next of kin, in which the patient has clearly, unequivocally, and voluntarily requested, euthanasia.  Even then, there should be a "cooling off" period so that all parties can properly reflect upon such action, because the enactment of euthanasia once commenced is terminal.

Societies and communities may be judged on many levels, of which, one of the most pertinent, is how that society deals with those that are its most vulnerable, and are thereby least able to defend themselves; upon this, civilizations are rightly judged.

The consent of the governed

The just powers of any government, be it local or national, comes forth only from the informed consent of those so governed, of which that government is one of both enumerated and limited authority, with obligations by that government, both expressed and implied to those that are part and parcel of that society.   That is to say, the primary reason why any legitimate government is instituted is for the benefit of the people that are contained within the aegis of that government, so as for that government to be of material aid to the people; for a people and society united, is of far more strength and wisdom, than of a people, that is both separated and at odds or competition one with another.

This signifies, that the closer that the government is to the people that it represents, such as in local civic councils, the better enactment the people will have that their desires and viewpoints are not only being heard and considered by those governmental representatives, but that they are also, more often than not, having those desires and viewpoints, implemented, for the greater good of that society. On the other hand, when it comes to national governments, it is of vital importance, that the national government does not ever come to the point in which it is so intrusive, powerful, overbearing, and beyond the people's voice, that the people are merely treated as a sideshow, while that national government does what the desires are of the privileged and connected elite as well as those well-placed institutions that utilize such for their benefit, and thereby at the expense of the people, as a whole.

Again, the only legitimate governments, no matter the size, are governments that have the informed consent of those so governed, because authorized governments are created by the people for the specific purpose to be of benefit to the people, and not for the purpose to benefit elitist elements of government, or in particular, entitled people, or favored institutions.  This is of vital importance, for each person is endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, and that when those rights are subsumed by governmental officials, the only legitimate reason why this would ever be so, would be because of the most extreme exigent circumstances, such as war, that necessitates the sacrifice of the people at that time, to thereby protect and to defend their nation, for the express purpose to maintain ultimately their unalienable rights, of freedom, liberty, life, and their pursuit of happiness.

When any government, have taken from the people any or all of their unalienable rights, under circumstances that are not exigent and are not transient, and especially when they are done so that the government can control and exploit the people for the benefit of that government or those that are the hidden powers of that government, than such a government as that is not legitimate, and it is thereby the  right of the people to see that it be dissolved; for the only legitimate government is a government that is of, for, and by the people, and that the people have given their informed consent to.

A free and independent press is that inconvenient truth

Our First Amendment to the Constitution tells us that "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…", of which it is this law that allows the people and the press to report and to disseminate information that represents the truth so that the people are fairly informed of what all is occurring in their communities and in their country, at large.  To the degree that the press reports the news, without thought as to conforming to the norms of the day, or to the prevailing viewpoint of those powers in charge, but rather holds itself responsible to be in accordance with the highest law, which is truth, than the people surely are well served.

Unfortunately, many governments and communities often don’t have a real desire to see the whole truth and nothing but the truth being printed and disseminated to their constituents, because their mission is often not one of being fully upfront and honest with the people, but rather has a lot more to do with creating a construct in which the news is mainly reported in a manner that supports the powers to be, while suppressing those that are the dissenting voices to that power. 

One might think that in today's world, with the internet, blogs, and social media of all types, that never has it been easier for people to get a hold of information that is outside the orthodox mainstream. While this is true to a certain extent, it does not take into account, all of the distractions and the "noise" of the internet, blogs, and social media, and fails to recognize that alternative media voices are no match to how pervasive and how powerful mass media has become, so that, to a very large extent, the mass media has an iron grip upon what is and isn't reported, as well as what is and isn't talked about. 

The most basic reason with why the public is not fully informed about the issues of the day has an awful lot to do with money and the influence that money has upon what the press so writes.  That is, most media companies, be it radio, television, or print, have a need to take in revenue, and a significant portion of that revenue comes from advertisers, as opposed to individual subscribers, and those advertisers have thereby an outsized influence over what is or isn't going to be reported, so that the press is quite obviously compromised in what and how it subsequently reports news.  So too, governments have an outsized influence upon the press because governments can exert pressure of all sorts upon those institutions that are not reporting the news in general conformance with that government's desires, as well as governmental institutions are also able to setup quid pro quo deals that further muddies the whole truth from coming forth, and finally governments can simply provide favors only to those that the government approves of.

A robust and independent free press that reports what is really going on, is that inconvenient truth, affecting all those that have their reasons as to why they do not want the whole truth being circulated throughout the public; primarily because those vested interests often maintain their status, position, and power, by manipulating what purports to be the truth in a manner that supports them, at the expense of the whole truth, and to the public's loss.

The informational advantage of those that are our representatives

Many of the people that are selected to be our governmental representatives are voted into public office by the people, of which, the primary purpose of those representatives is to represent the people for the benefit of those people as a whole.  Those that represent the people and the adjutants to them, are often privy to all sorts of information, of which some of that information is rightly proprietary and necessitates some degree of secrecy; whereas, a great deal of that information demands to be and needs to be, transparent and openly discussed with the people.

In regards to information as a whole, and in consideration that our representatives often play an integral role in a significant amount of legislation contemplated and thereby subsequently passed, or in regulations contemplated and thereby subsequently passed, or the rejecting of such legislation or regulations, as well as everything that involves directly or indirectly business, community, and financial decisions of all sorts, than quite obviously those governmental representatives are knowledgeable of a great deal of information that could be used to their own personal advantage, and/or the advantage of well-placed individuals or businesses.

In point of fact, the taking advantage of inside information, before it is disseminated to the public at large, is done time and time again, of which, those that are knowledgeable of that information, are able to benefit from that information, financially as well as in other ways that increase or augment the power of those having such knowledge.  This thus means that, for instance, in regards to specific legislation that directly impacts a given publicly traded company, that those that are aware ahead of time of what the resolution of that legislation will be, and specifically know such before the public as a whole is aware of it, can utilize that knowledge for their gain.  This means that a small subset of well placed people is able to thereby benefit at the expense of the public as a whole, which is neither fair nor right.

Again and again, those that are aware of valuable information, before the general public is aware of this same information, in regards to zoning, or regulations, or specific tax set asides, and so on and so forth, are thereby able to take that information and either monetize it directly, or via a quid pro quo, swap such for future consideration.   The only conceivable workaround to resolve such abuse, is for governmental officials and legislators, from big to small, to be far more transparent and open than they currently are, as well as being subject to far more public oversight by independent citizen councils and press agents, along with having a robust internal affairs department specifically built and conceived to stymie such selfish behavior.

Those that are truly honorable are able to deal responsibly with all the information that they are privy to and though they could take selfish advantage of, they specifically do not, and thereby by holding themselves to that higher standard that they owe to their constituency, they then stay true to the code and honor that they owe their people, for they are the firstly the people's representative.

The middle class is being grounded down

One definition of the middle class is to divide the wealth of America into five quintiles, of which the second through fourth quintiles represent the middle class; whereas the first quintile represents the upper class, and the bottom quintile represents the lower class.  According to brookings.edu, "The top 20 percent held 77 percent of total household wealth in 2016, more than triple what the middle class held…" and further, "… the top one percent alone holds more wealth than the middle class…"  This signifies that in America, the wealth disparity between those that have and those that are the backbone of America is astonishingly high, and that disparity is the prevailing reason why a significant percentage of middle class Americans are uneasy about not only their current position as it is, but are very concern about future generations as well as their fair opportunity to make something further of themselves.

That is to say, when a significant percentage of middle class Americans essentially live paycheck to paycheck, and therefore are susceptible to not being able to keep their bills current, are thereby especially in danger, if one of the members of their family loses their job for whatever reason, or if someone suffers an unexpected health crisis, or if they encounter some other unanticipated major expense; then this, quite obviously, cannot possibly be healthy for the American middle class as a whole.

In consideration, that America is the richest nation in aggregate in the world, one might think and basically one would expect, that the core of America, its middle class, would be secure not only in their employment, but also in their living, but this really isn't the situation whatsoever for many of those that are part of the middle class.  When anyone, is employed at will, but are obligated to make payments, for example, on a mortgage for thirty years, and/or to make payments on their vehicle for five years or even longer, then what has occurred, is that the person that has taken on that long term debt, is trying to pay back and to stay current on that debt, often with a job that is not guaranteed to even be there, over that same period of time.

On the other hand, those that are very rich, have the best of the best of what America has, and more than enough to take care of not only their own self and family, but the ready assets to setup future generations to live just as well.  That type of disparity between those that have, though they might indeed have worked hard, as compared to all those that are struggling mightily to maintain their position, is in its very nature going to create tension and unease within this nation, for the vast majority of Americans are not stupid, but are cognizant that it doesn't seem fair that so few have so much, and that so many, have so little.

There was a time, not so long ago, when unions were both stronger and relevant, when many employees were entitled to pensions from their company jobs, when those jobs were secure, and when taxation in all of its myriad forms, was truly progressive, but those days are now firmly in the past.  Any nation in which the top 1% has more wealth than the 60% that represents the middle class is a nation in which the rich live at the expense of the middle class, and the middle class effectively serves the rich.    That isn't healthy for that nation, it isn't right, and it need not and should not be that way, in what purports to be a free and democratic country.

90 million dogs and an awful lot of dog waste to deal with

Human beings have gotten appreciably better at picking up after their dog has done their personal business, of which, at the present time most of that dog waste is thereupon placed into a plastic bag, in which, ultimately that plastic bag is deposited into the trashcan of that person's property, in which its final resting place is the landfill.  Logically, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense that people utilize a sophisticated sewage system to take care of their human waste, effectively; whereas for dogs, of which, some of these dogs can weigh upwards to 100 pounds, have their waste, untreated, thereupon placed into a plastic bag, and ultimately deposited into a landfill.

For eons of years the waste of animals, and particularly barnyard animals, have often been utilized as a form of manure, and in recent years, as even a form of biogas and fuel producer.  It doesn't take any real stretch of imagination to understand that considering all the dogs and their waste that is produced each and every day, that simply throwing away their waste into a landfill is not the best solution for taking care of this issue in a sustainable and meaningful way, which has taken into proper consideration the possible productive uses of dog waste.

All of the above, would seem to indicate that just as it has taken a long period of time to encourage dog owners to deal with their dog waste proactively and responsibility; that the next and necessary step to take thereafter is to be one in which that dog waste once collected is dealt with in a way that will utilize such waste for a purpose that will ultimately put that waste to good use; for it is known that dog waste, properly dealt with, can create good compost as well as biogas.

This would signify that more communities should educate the public about the value of being a good dog owner by their recognition of the need of ultimately depositing dog waste into well located and designated, community dog waste bins that would thereby collect that waste for the very purpose of creating good compost with it, or possibly biogas.

Again, it's a fallacy to believe that the mere picking up of dog waste and then the deposit of it into one's trashcan has somehow made that dog waste, disappear; though, it is true that it is now out of sight, yet, it is also true, that landfills are not the ideal best resting place for dog waste, and therefore a more comprehensive solution is necessary of which, the voluntary participation by dog owners to these community programs addressing such, is of absolute importance.

Those that are pastoral farmers, are experts at not wasting the waste so produced by their animals, of which, this is of benefit not only for those pastoral farmers, but to the society as a whole. Those that own dogs should want to do their part to see that they are also responsible stewards by having the same sort of progressive mindset.

The volatility of stock markets

Just about every investor in the stock market is there as an investor primarily to make money on their investments.  Further to that point, most investors seek and deeply desire to get consistent and reliable returns from that stock market.  This thus means that a consistent, expected, and non-volatile return is the ideal for most investors; but the stock market does not guarantee this, and for a certainty, will not provide this over the long term, though there may be times when the volatility and the market behave in a manner that appears both reliable and predictable.

In point of fact, it is fair to state, that the more volatile the stock market is, the more dangerous such a market is to investors, for when confidence levels are breached for investors, for whatever reason, this increases the volatility, and the more volatile a given market is, the more extreme it will be in its performance, whether it be up or more likely, down.  In general, markets with low volatility have a tendency to be markets that are going up, for the very basic reason, that confident money has a tendency to maintain its status, for it does not fear, and in absence of that fear, it rides along with the prevailing trend.  On the other hand, when markets are volatile, because, for instance, of unexpected and unforeseen events, confidence in any stock, can be breached, and once that confidence is breached, all sorts of havoc may ensue, in which the natural state for investors is to seek safe haven, which thereby takes precedence over greed and at times, basic sensibility.  This signifies, that those that are in a market in which all is well, and are accustom to the general predictability and reliability of that market, that they not only have a tendency to invest more, because of their confidence in such, but also because of their complacency that such will continue for an unspecified period of time, and thereby they essentially lose their fear of that market ever becoming volatile or dangerous to their investments.  So then, when the inevitable happens, and volatility rises considerably for reasons known or unknown, these investors, that have relaxed their normal diligence in their investments, will typically have an overreaction when they come to the newfound belief, that the sky is falling, and this thereby adds to that volatility and helps to accelerate a down market into coming to full fruition.

The bottom line is that markets do rise and fall, and also they are subject to low as well as high volatility; and as to the belief that the market is ever efficient -- this is a belief that is erroneous, because the prices of stocks are forever changing, even when the market is relatively quiescent. So that, a market in which those that are invested in it, do so because of its low volatility and seemingly steady direction, will be very shaken when that future that they have envisioned is upended, for whatever reason, and thereby when the prevailing direction of that market turns down, and the volatility does come roaring back, many of those investors will thereupon add to their own troubles and increase volatility even more, by panicking, in which, suddenly that which appeared to be normal and reasonable, no longer appears that way.

The art of self-distancing

Basically, self-distancing is changing one's perspective on a given traumatic event or situation, in which, instead of living or re-living that event in the here and now, a person through the power of their mind, essentially stands back from their own self, and takes on therefore the guise of a third person perspective, so that the event is no longer seen as being strictly personal, but rather has morphed into something that is perceived as impersonal.  Those that are successful at self-distancing are able to essentially take something that is real and by the virtue of their stepping away from the here and now, are able to distance themselves in a manner in which they are able to achieve perspective, and hence, are less stressed about how a given event unfolded.

Self-distancing does not have anything to do with denying what has occurred, it merely is an aid for the benefit of that person, that makes it far easier to thereby not overreact and therefore to not suffer undue anxiety about a situation that perhaps may be overwhelming, in that moment.  In other words, when people have suffered a mighty blow to their psyche, such a blow can be quite debilitating; whereas, by the usage of self-distancing, a given person is able to take such a blow and is far better at discerning that things are probably not nearly as dire as they might appear to the emotionally overwrought.

In point of fact, far too many people, take themselves far too seriously, in which, for instance, arguments often blow up to insane proportions, simply because neither party, will consider backing off, and thereby self-distancing themselves from the situation -- therefore, continuing to intensify what doesn't need to be intensified. The whole point of self-distancing is to calm things down, which is something that is going to occur at some point, anyway; and the sooner that this is done, the less the damage that will be done, for far more damage is done by those that are too wound up, to recognize that they have lost control of their good mind.

So too, people have a tendency to beat themselves up about things that they regret doing, or have had happen to themselves, in which they re-live these tragic events, over and over again, in which, the re-living, doesn't seem to resolve much of anything or serve to reduce the tension so felt.  A far better way, though, to address regretful and tragic actions, is to practice the art of self-distancing, in order to gain that perspective that will help still the terrible winds of wrongful things so felt; and will aid in the clearing of our minds of the wrong belief that we can never escape a mindset of being trapped forever in a particular place or time. 

Remember this, forgiveness, practiced correctly, is really the art of self-distancing and therefore the obtaining of the proper perspective on that which is being forgiven.  After all, forgiveness is the letting go of former things and self-distancing is akin to the pathway to the very same thing.