Only the Master Controller, has no fear

The fear of lost, of abandonment, of health, of employment, of wealth, of security and so many other things are part and parcel of most people's lives.  We fear these things not only because losing such could seemingly cost us everything, but mainly we fear them greatly because in many instances, we do not have the power or the inherent ability to completely stop or to fully control that which fears us excessively; and lacking that power, means that we are vulnerable, and being vulnerable means that we apparently are not the master controller of our lives or our destiny.

In point of fact, only that which is the Creator of it all, of which that Creator is immutable, invincible, and unassailable, never knows fear; for nothing, not now, and not ever, can ever take what is rightfully in the domain of the Creator from that omnipotent Creator.  On the other hand, we as fallible human beings, should recognize at a very early age, that because we are fallible, and further that within this incarnate experience here on earth, being that we are beholden to the laws and limitations that our physical body presents to us, as well as the complications of integrating with others that have different minds, different priorities, and are free agents, themselves; that we as much as we might try or wish, cannot control others, or even to a certain degree, control our own life as it relates to our desires for our self.

This thus signifies that those that cannot control the outcomes that they so deeply desire, or are ever fearful of what they have at the present time and do greatly value, such as good health, a good family, or a good job, are worried that what they do currently have is something that try as they might, they won't be able to forever hold onto.  To a very large extent, this is true, for everything that relates to this planet and our physical presence upon it, is only ours for a finite amount of time, no matter, how long we battle or how determined that we are that such will be different.

So then, logically, to be fearful or afraid of that which cannot ever be ours on a permanent basis is to worry about something that need not be worried about, for it could never be fully ours, to begin with.  So too, an enormous amount of time and resources are spent in the vain hope that we, at some future point, will be able to control that which is not in our control, and never will be in our control.  Even those, that intuitively recognize this truth, will somehow still believe that if they store up enough goods in their inviolable storehouse, that all will be well, but earthy treasures are susceptible to not only the ravages of time, but to the vagaries of life, which can be quite sudden and very sure.

We fear that which we believe we own, being wrested away from us, but that which we truly own, cannot ever be taken away from us.  So that, only those attributes which are eternal and good such as love, justice, and truth -- only these are eternal, and these are the very building blocks that drive out fear, for fear only lives in that which lacks these very characteristics.

Punishment certainty and punishment severity

According to Wikipedia.org, "In September 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world at 716 per 100,000 of the national population."  This indicates that America is a prime believer that those that commit criminal acts need to be certainly punished.  Or does it?  The reason why there appears to be some legitimate debate about this, is the fact that the American jurisprudence allows, for certain crimes, notorious or not, a multitude of ways to petition the courts, so as to delay judicial actions within courts, so that justice is delayed again and again; or else through negotiation between lawyers and the court, decisions are thereby molded and subsequently rendered; or through plea bargains; so that the effect is that what may appear to be certain as in the law as written, does not nearly appear to be so certain, as the law so exercised.

The reason that this matters is because, those that believe, that the illegal actions that they are taking are subject to being interpreted in a manner in which those lawbreakers will not personally have to suffer, or suffer much because they are, for whatever reason, effectively above the law to the degree that the law will not impact them negatively as it would for someone of lesser stature or position, then there clearly is no punishment certainty in that case, which therefore makes the punishment severity of the law so written, pretty much irrelevant.   Further to the point, when those that have a lot of influence and/or money, are able to buy time by that influence and money, so as to delay justice, in which, while such justice is pending, they are able to thereby live their lives as if they weren't even charge of a crime, then any punishment certainty or punishment severity have taken a backseat to the fact that the wheels of justice are not even in motion, and those that are able to buy time in the justice world, are often those that are able to buy an acceptable result to that justice, when such is eventually rendered.  Finally, there are those that are protected in regards to their illegal actions by virtue of such being done through the means of a corporate entity, so that that whatever punishment is finally determined, will not hold anyone personally accountable, but rather will be a decision that will involve a corporate, but not a personal, penalty.

So too, when it comes to punishment and the severity of such, those that suffer the most from this severity are those that are the poorest and least able to vigorously and competently defend themselves in a court of law.  The fact that so many are incarcerated for so long in America, indicates that severity does not stop criminal activity, although it does do a very good job, of severely punishing those that have no influence, no status, and no hope.

If, American concentrated far less on punishment severity and far more on punishment certainty, in which, connections, money, influence, and the protection of corporate entities were not permitted to play a part in American jurisprudence then this could very well impact the amount of crimes so committed in this country, for when people that commit crimes, know for a certainty, that should they be caught, that justice for them would be sure, swift, equal, just and fair; of which no appeals would be permitted, then that certainty would make them far more guarded in what they do, or contemplate so doing, for when criminals know that there is no legitimate way out for what they have committed, the price that they pay has become appreciably higher.

The sin we create

The sin and wrong that we do in our lives, happen for a lot of various reasons, of which, some of those sins and wrongs are done by ignorance, though, in truth, not many; and most of those sins and wrongs are done through our own volition, though many often blame others or circumstances for such occurring, as if that blame, will somehow make each of us, less culpable, individually. 

The far better perspective to take about sin and wrong deeds, is to first recognize the truth that we are each responsible for what we do, say, and become.  To believe, that somehow that we are not, presupposes that we do not have free will, and while there very well may be circumstances in which our free will is circumscribed, there are always choices to be made, and by our subsequent actions, this is what we must answer for in life.

It must be fairly recognized, that how we are brought up, how we are taught, and the people that we congregate with, are all absolutely germane in our understanding of society and of life; of which, those that are deceived, such as being taught that wrong is right, are going to have to make up quite some distance in order to get back onto the right side of seeing and doing things, correctly.  That is why it is of critical importance to everyone, to understand that their thoughts and their mind are their own property, and none else; so that therefore they need to take responsibility and thereby own that awesome personal power, as soon as they are able, in recognition that they are sovereign agents, and hence responsible, for what they say and do.

So then, the sin and wrongs that we do, often comes down to not comprehending correctly who and what we really are; of which, those that are taught at a very young age, the truth of who and what they truly are, are quite fortunate for being gifted with this profound knowledge, for those that know the truth, are more inclined to be adherents to that truth, because they are cognizant that to not do so, is detrimental to them as well as to society, at large.

This signifies that fundamentally there must be an acknowledgment within each one of us, that we are gifted by our Creator with free will, and by that gift, this thereby signifies that we are individually responsible for all that we say and do; of which, unlike justice in this world, which can often be bought, or circumvented for some, or suffered unjustly by many; the only justice that truly matters is the one that each one of us will face, which is always fairly and equally applied. 

So then, sin is created, every time that we do something wrong; of which, in short, we knew better, but we did not do better.  This means, that within each one of us, is the power to sin, or to not sin, and that our choices do so matter.  So that, our society, and the world that we live in, represents the sin and wrongs that collectively we are; of which, the change that so many people talk about or desire to have, is now and always has been, collectively in our hands, indicative of those free will acts that we make each and every day; of which, those that know the truth of who and what they are, should not only lead by example, but need to do more to help and to show others the way.

The streaming of commercial TV should be free

Before there was cable, fiber optics, and the internet, in order for the general population to watch television, they utilized an outdoor antenna to thus bring into their living rooms, television programs.  This meant that back in the day, people watched television for free, and since it obviously cost money for the broadcasters of those television programs, to not only setup the infrastructure in order to provide those programs to the population, but also for the costs so associated with the content of those programs; they then, in order to make their profit, meant that those broadcasters needed the revenue that they could collect from commercial advertisers, which were delighted for the opportunity to advertise their wares to a captive audience as well as on a large scale.  Such a business model, worked out quite well for the likes of ABC, CBS, and NBC, of which, these three major networks still are quite strong and are still relevant in the 21st century.

To be clear, even today, those that have modern day antennas or their equivalency can still access the commercial broadcast content for free, as opposed to having to get such from the cable providers or via streaming.  However, there are a multitude of people that prefer the convenience of accessing television programs via streaming such onto their smart phones or tablets.  Some of the content so streamed, costs the consumer of such, money; and some of what is streamed, is free.  It would seem, especially in consideration that commercial broadcasters have the economies of scale in their favor, that as long as they are receiving the bulk of their revenue through commercial advertising, that it would be in their best interests, to the degree possible, to concentrate more on increasing their viewership, in lieu of charging for such content accessed through streaming devices, which very well might decrease viewership, especially of those of the younger generation.

When it comes to commercial advertisers, the more actionable information that a given market can provide to them and the more specificity about that information so obtained, the more that this is of interest to them, for advertisers are in the business of soliciting in particular those that match the demographics that they find to be most desirable.  So that, when those that stream commercial television onto their smart device, are required to register with that commercial television broadcaster, in which, that broadcaster, knows the gender of, the age of, the location of, along with all sorts of other data points, and in particular, what content this person is watching, then this would seem to be of immense value for those that are advertisers. 

Commercial television has been around since 1941, and those that first staring watching television, do not watch commercial television in the same way as our present day youth.  This signifies that in an age in which it never has been cheaper or easier to accumulate very specific information about individuals and their viewing habits, that those that are commercial broadcasters, should want to, as much as they have in their control, to increase their viewership in every way possible, and therefore, should be far less inclined to desire to actual charge for their content.

To truly honor truth, you must thereby live up to truth in all that you do

The highest aspiration of a good life, is to seek truth, above all else; for if that is not a person's given goal, then they for a certainty are living a life of deceit, of which, the only concern would then be whether that life of deceit is solely their own personal cross to bear, or rather whether it is something, that they, more than likely, have also passed onto others of its baleful influence, directly or indirectly.  This thus signifies that anyone that deliberately and knowingly espouses information that purports to be true, but that is actually false, has done a great disservice to themselves as well as to others.

So too, there are many a person that desires to know the truth, or aspires to live their lives in a truthful manner, until such a time, as they are tested by trying circumstances in which, if they continue to faithfully stand by the truth, they believe that this will surely cost them something of real value; which may be their status, or their livelihood, or something else of immense significance. If then, when put to the test, and thereby given the opportunity to testify and to uphold the truth, a given person, fails in that task, then surely it must be stated, that they have dishonored truth, by that failure.

Those that know the truth, but in their actions and by their words, deny that same truth, are obviously divided in their being, and that which is at war within itself, cannot ever find lasting peace.  So that, the more that any person or any community or any country, for that matter, fails to live up to honoring truth in all that they do and say, the more division and disharmony there will be.  Those that believe, that somehow it's okay to not be truthful, or to not acknowledge truth, from time-to-time, because of a particular circumstance or a special condition, believe therefore that fixed ethical and moral rules, aren't actually fixed, but are actually flexible and thereby changeable in regards to those particular circumstances and special conditions.  To really believe such, is to believe that there are times when truth must thereby take a back seat to expediency and to actually believe such, is an exceedingly dangerous slippery slope.

Know this; you cannot properly honor that which you dishonor, by not living up to the standards that are required to demonstrate that honor.  This means that to honor truth, you must live up to the truth, in all circumstances and in all conditions, for those that do not, desire only a cheap truth, that bends and conforms to whatever one's ego so demands.  Rather, to demonstrate real honor, you must be willing to do whatever that it takes to maintain that honor, no matter how arduous and how difficult that road may be, for anything that is of immense value, demands that sacrifices be made, and those that will not pay homage to the price that truth demands, are dishonoring truth, by their self-serving deceit.

Unprincipled politicians

The politicians that represent us and thereupon have influence upon public policy and the like are democratically elected by the people and subsequently take their place in the public square as representatives of the people, with the commitment to faithfully do right by those people.  To the degree that these elected representatives are transparent, open, in conformance to, and honest with the people in all that they do and say in regards to politics so made and the corresponding decisions so reached, they thereby represent the interests of the people quite well, and consequently these politicians are almost surely being of benefit to the people.  On the other hand, to the degree that these politicians are evasive, opaque, in non-conformance to, and  dishonest with the people, in which what they are really doing, thinking, saying, and accomplishing is often or primarily done behind closed doors and such is done in a manner in which if the people were aware of what was really going on, this would change their perceptions thereof; than these politicians are almost surely selling short the people that they represent, and often are doing so, in order for them or certain well positioned people or institutions, to benefit, at the expense of those people.

First and foremost, politicians are the representatives of the people, and thereby their highest duty is to serve those people, as if they, our representatives, were the very embodiment of the people, to the extent that such is possible.  No doubt, in the world of politics, compromises will have to be made, and deals will have be struck, but none of this should ever be done in a manner in which the people are somehow left always with the short end of the stick.

Those that run for office and thereupon win that office, have a moral and ethical duty to serve those that have elected them in a responsible and competent manner, by utilizing their political power and influence in a way that benefits the people; in contrast to doing such, in a manner in which a few are benefited, or even just that one being benefited.  It is one thing to make an honest mistake, or to be outmaneuvered or even outplayed, for this happens to even the best of us; but, it is an entirely different thing for politicians to deliberately and with aforethought strike deals that are inimical to the public at large, and especially loathsome, when done to benefit that politician, personally.

When our politicians are dishonest, greedy, two-faced, and the like; it is then no wonder why the public follows thereby in suit, by cheating on their taxes, by failing to volunteer for civic duties, and by turning their back upon the legitimate needs of their own community.  A politician that is principled and dedicated to the proposition that all of mankind is equal, and thereby deserving of fair opportunity, fair justice, and fair dealings, embodies in spirit, the greatness of what these United States was created to be.  Whereas, a politician that is unprincipled, represents an instigator and perpetrator of the force that would divide this very house, to such an extent, that it will not stand, and mighty will be its fall.

Economic warfare v. conventional warfare

The United States is an empire, and for whatever reasons, good or bad, insists upon having its imprint upon just about every facet of significance where it can do so, throughout the world.  Not too surprisingly, and very disappointedly, America far too often reaches for the military option, and therefore has military engagements in far too many conflicts throughout the world, of which, whatever its objectives may be, or reasons thereof, seems in recent times to hardly ever get it right. 

When it comes to disagreements, there isn't any doubt, that considering that America is the preeminent military power in the world, of which there is no single country, or even consortium of countries that could ever hope to stand up against that American power; still leaves us with the rather puzzling result that the majority of those military entanglements clearly indicates that such adventures or misadventures haven't been satisfactory in the outcome so obtained.  This would strongly imply that rather than continuing to demonstrate its misguided quick trigger response to different hot spots throughout the world, that America would be far better served, if it would more often consider that there is more than one way to deal with conflict, other than that straight military muscle.

For instance, the world has become considerably smaller over the last few decades, in which, one would be hard pressed to list any major country that doesn't have some sort of major involvement in regards to the economic necessity of the importing and exporting of certain goods, of which, those goods have not only a material effect upon that country, but are often of utmost importance to that country.  Further to the point, the transfer of monies from buyer to seller, or vice versa, is typically done via electronic means, so that, funds of nation-states aren't typically held interior to that country in some sort of lock safe which contains gold bullion or similar, but rather assets of countries are held electronically within banks or banking like instruments, that are often international in scale.

So then, for recalcitrant countries, a means to bring them to heel, so to speak, is to impact both their importing and exporting, as well as to freeze or to divert funds that are earmarked for those nations.  None of this should be done without first giving fair warning to those countries, of which, the conditions to be met, should have previously been discussed on an international scale, and the decisions so reached should be an agreement between a confederacy of countries, as opposed to it simply being the unilateral action of one country, for if a country such as America, cannot convince its allies and other respected countries, that its proposed actions are both right and proper, then America needs to rethink or reargue as to whether its proposed actions are actually justified.

While it must be said that economic sanctions take more time to have impact than direct military action, they will, given enough time, be effective.  For, when a country does not have the ready means to buy or no longer has the credit to import the items so needed; as well as having their export markets suddenly dry up, they will feel that economic envelopment in the most uncomfortable way, and thereby as their lifeblood slowly drains out of their body, often find a way to come to a reasonable agreement, sooner or later.

Population matters: Europe v. China

The amount of square miles of land occupied by all of Europe in comparison to China is about the same, with Europe having about 6% more land than China in square miles.  In regards to the population between China and Europe, in 1950, the population of both areas was also about the same with China having a small edge in population of 554,419,268 peoples in comparison to Europe's 549,328,858.  It is estimated that in 2020, China's population as reported by worldometers.info is 1,439,323,776; whereas Europe's population is 747,636,026, or a near doubling of peoples in China as in comparison to Europe. 

When it comes to the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China in 1950, this was just a paltry $614; whereas France's GDP in 1950 was $5,221 or more than eight times the amount of China.  However, in 2018, China's per capita GDP had increased to $9,580, in comparison to France, which though much higher at $42,953 was now just four and a half times the amount of China.  In aggregate, however, all of Europe has a GDP as of 2018 of $18.7 billion, in comparison to China, which is at$13.4 billion, in which the GDP of Europe is approximately 40% bigger than China, though the gap is projected to continue to decrease over the ensuing years.

All of this surely indicates that China is on course to soon match and to thereby surpass all of Europe in its GDP, which indicates that China in many important respects will thereby carry far more weight and influence upon world affairs then it did back in 1950, when the populations of Europe and China were about the same.  This clearly is indicative that the world is changing and that western civilization and especially Europe must now recognize, if it has not already done so, that the powers to be, cannot be solely western but must be shared with other nations, such as China, Japan, India, Russia, and others.

So too, the productivity of any nation rests upon many factors and facets, of which one of the most salient has to be, the sheer number of peoples contained with a given nation.  So that, population matters and if Europe which is slightly bigger in land mass than China in aggregate, had been able to keep their population growth on or around the same trajectory as China achieved over the last seventy odd years, then undoubtedly, the world stage, would be leaning far more to Europe then it does at the present time, of which this path will not easily change in the years to come.

So then, countries that do a poor job in growing their population must surely recognize that nations that do not replace their productive members with additional productive members, no matter their country of origin -- are societies which will inevitably decline.  This signifies that those that insist upon closed borders and thereby the exclusion of motivated peoples that wish to immigrate into their countries are in imminent danger of increasing their decline at a more precipitous rate, because the numbers of people contained with a given country, are part and parcel of whether such a nation or confederation of nations, will continue to be relevant or will instead cede their historic place and value to those that are the up and comers.

The right credit and the wrong credit

The United States economy, and so much of the world today runs on credit, rather than just the cash or assets that a given company, banking institution, or country has at their ready disposal, in which some of that credit provided is secured against assets, and some of that credit provided, is simply provided based on the perceived credit worthiness and stability of that institution, so that having the ready access to monetary credit, allows such the opportunity to maintain, sustain, and to expand their economic growth.  To the degree that credit is provided to institutions, in which that credit is thereby utilized to employ people as well as to expand businesses and the products so produced, such is more than likely to be good, and a contributing factor to the expansion and growth of a given country's gross national product. 

So too, through student loans, credit card loans, mortgages, car loans, and the like, credit is extended to individuals, based on their credit worthiness as well as their income.  Those loans so provided to consumers, allows those consumers to purchase in the here and now, items that they have a need of, or a desire for, as opposed to having to wait until their monetary assets equals exactly those things that they desire to purchase.  When that credit is provided to consumers in which they have the prudent means or the projected prudent means to pay such back in a timely and reliable manner, such is beneficial for the consumption of items so produced in a given country; whereas, on the other hand, when that credit is provided to those that are suspect in their capacity to maintain their credit standing, or the price of that credit is too high or too onerous, that credit so extended, perpetuates a greater and greater divide between those that have and those that have not.

Specifically, in regards to credit being extended to corporations, it must be noted, that corporations that thereupon utilize credit obtained merely to take such monies and thereby purchase their own stock, in stock buybacks, or thereby to park their money into treasury bonds, or the stock market, or things that do not directly grow the business, nor add to the employment of people, nor increase the growth of that company or the gross national product, is credit that has been provided, which does not serve the people, in whole, well.

So too, credit provided to institutions as well as to individuals, which rather than being spent or utilized in the creation of things and objects that are of material worth to the general public or to the infrastructure, when utilized instead for endless speculation of financial instruments, or for chicanery to make or to extract money from others, is surely a zero-sum game, which does not benefit the country or its people, in whole.  So that, the right credit so issued should be defined as credit that is utilized in a manner in which economies expand through the production of goods of value, and that consumers of such, willingly purchase or utilize, for it brings value to them or to the infrastructure that they are an integral part of.  This stands in contrast to the wrong credit so issued in which those institutions and individuals utilized such, mainly for the purpose of selfishly making money from money, primarily for their own aggrandizement, however that they can do so, without creating anything of value, and caring not for their fellow citizens, which typically have been the ones so exploited, or taken advantage of.

Ethics and science

As mankind becomes more advanced, in many ways, it is recognized that science, has the capacity to change not just those things that we deal with on an everyday basis, so that these things will be beneficial for our desires and needs, but that science at this stage, has the very ability to change some fundamental aspects of life, itself.  For instance, without modern science, procedures such as in vitro fertilization would not exist, and those human babies coming forth thereby from in vitro fertilization would not be in existence.

This awesome power signifies, that scientific mankind, has an absolute obligation, to never in the scientific world, to simply have the attitude of "full speed ahead", but must on the contrary, understand that science has an absolute ethical obligation to be subservient to that which defines us as humanity, or else science has devolved into the error of the belief that science has the absolute right to create, without restraint, things such as Dr. Frankenstein's monster.

At this point, science is truly on the razor's edge, for in many aspects of life and the pursuit of what life is, science has the power to make quite meaningful change; but just because that power and that choice exists, does not mean that science should pursue such, without being bounded by a higher duty to do right by mankind, itself.  So then, the highest duty that all aspects of science has in their scientific pursuits is the recognition that the field of science was created, for the sole benefit of mankind, and not therefore to make mankind subservient to science, but for science to be of noble service to mankind, always.

This means that those that believe that man's natural curiosity and pursuit of all things, scientific, need not and should not be constrained by its higher duty to mankind and to ethics in general, is wrong-headed, and such a belief in and of itself, can be a clear and present danger to society and its good future. Again and again, far too many people of uncommon brilliance aggrandize onto themselves, that such supreme intelligence that they thereby have developed and utilized, in conjunction with the fact that they are accorded free will and freedom, indicates that they, alone, or with like-minded constituents, should not be stopped by anyone or anything in regards to the apparent progression or path that they are on.

As it has been said, those that make haste, in which a sound and prudent mind, considers instead the ramifications of their discoveries and their implications, are the very people that can upset the balance of what makes life and humanity, sustainable and ethical.  It must be wholly and fully acknowledged that while any subject matter can be abused or wrongly used, that it is science, above all, that pushes the envelope of the progress of mankind in a manner in which something that may appear to be on the surface of benefit and of aid to mankind, has behind its façade, quite horrifying implications, that have not been properly vetted.  So then, science, in order for it to be of good service to mankind, must always recognized that it must ever be the servant to, but never the master of, mankind.

The power of life and death upon patients

Modern medicine and modern facilities, has permitted those that are in seriously ill health often to continue to live; in which these very ill patients because they are receiving good quality medical care, along with the medical equipment that helps to deliver such, as well as certain necessary pharmaceuticals, are able to nowadays stay alive, whereas in absence of any or most of these very things, their ability to live, previously to such, would have been very problematic.  This thus signifies that modern medicine, is able to extend the lives of many individuals, though the quality of that life, for these extended lives, will vary from those that seemingly will never be able to sustain their own lives without the active assistance of medical equipment and thereby the necessary corresponding medical attention, to those that will, given enough time, with recovery and rehabilitation, in all probability, be able to be eventually self-sufficient, at some future point.

Further to the point, the medical profession, unlike those that just have a personal interest in the person so suffering from that ill health, are often able to determine to a reasonable degree, because of their expertise as well as their experience, those that are never going to be able to be self-sustainable, those that they are somewhat unsure of, and those that they are convinced have a very good chance of recovery. This signifies that the medical profession clearly is more knowledgeable about the reality of each specific situation in regards to ill patients, as opposed to those that are simply concerned family members and the like.  So then, it clearly is the medical profession that truly has the knowledge as well as the means to the prudent utilization of the power of life and death in regards to very ill patients, in which that power consists of such things as the treatments and medicines provided to patients, as well as the mixture of ministrations so provided or not, and additionally the drugs so provided and the dosages thereof.

Whether the administration of treatment or lack thereof, and whether the administration of drugs, especially in regards to the dosages of those drugs and the purpose of those drugs, is classified as appropriate or not, really comes down to the salient intent of those that are making those medical decisions in regards to those treatments and drug dosages.  This means, that it is critical that the medical profession does not have conflicting interests in regards to the patients that they treat, because interests that are conflicted or not clearly delineated, make for decisions that may not be, and probably will not be, in the best interests to those patients and those that are there with them.

All of this really signifies that when it comes to very ill patients, that each of those patients, must be the captain of their own fate, to the degree that this is possible.  That is to say, the primary purpose of the medical profession, is to, to the extent that it is reasonably possible, facilitate the return to good health to their patients, and when that is not possible, to provide then the care and treatment that minimizes unnecessary pain and suffering, thereby maintaining for each patient, their inherent dignity.  So then, it is thereby hoped that the decisions so made, for these ill patients, are always done with the intent to do right by those patients, by those that are experts within the medical profession. 

All who suffer from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

A significant portion of our soldiers will suffer from PTSD at some point, and the fact that this posttraumatic stress is being both taken seriously and thereby being medically treated is a testimony to its real existence and its debilitating affect upon those suffering from it.  It must be said, though, that PTSD, is not just something that only those that are veterans of western nations suffer from, but quite obviously the other side's combatants and enemy soldiers also are susceptible to.  Further to the point, and somehow seemingly ignored, is the quite obvious fact, that civilians caught in the middle of battles, engagements, civil wars, strife, violence, bombing, and the like are quite clearly going to also suffer from PTSD, and by virtue of the fact that these civilians consist of all people and of all ages, including in particular, women and children, in which all of these people are non-combatants and are not soldiers, than it is more than likely that their personal traumatic stress is unmistakenly going to be something that would be especially pernicious to them.

The above would signify that to the degree that it can be controlled, that nations and soldiers engaging in warfare have an absolute obligation to engage in such away from civilian populations, as much as possible; and that any battles being considered that will consist of soldiers engaging with or surrounded by civilians as well as the infrastructure of that civilian population, should be avoided, to the degree that it can be avoided.  This signifies that in fairness to all non-combatants and civilians, alike, that those that are considering engaging or pursuing the enemy, have an absolute obligation to take into real consideration, that the pursuit of the enemy, wherever it may be, must be seriously weighed against the harm or potential damage needlessly done to civilian infrastructure and the population of it.

Again, in recognition that PTSD is real and debilitating, nations need to take into more consideration, that the engagement of the enemy, in areas in which there is a high likelihood that the civilian population will suffer death, injury, and the accompanying trauma that comes with it, must be a salient factor so weighed by those decision makers.  So too, part of the suffering of PTSD, has also to do with the guilt that certain soldiers will feel when those of the opposing side that have been harmed or killed, are in fact, women and children, as well as those others that are truly non-combatants.

So then, the pursuit of the enemy to the ends of the earth must be mitigated by the conscious consideration, that all those that are not directly part of the battle, and are in fact, civilians --should be, to the reasonable extent possible, protected from harm to their physical bodies as well as to their psyche, by the avoidance of having to see or to be part of the injuries, death, destruction, and trauma of battlefield engagements.  This signifies, that any nation with a real conscience, will recognize that those that are born on the other side of conflicts, but are not enemy combatants, do not deserve to suffer from that which they are not an active participant of. 

Controlling the Word of God



Most people, at some point, feel something on the inside, that gives them a desire to believe that who and what they really are, is something beyond just their physical form.  Societies understand this need, and creeds, religions, and faith-based services in communities and countries have been built specifically to fulfill those desires of the people and often embrace such, for the proposed betterment of the people.  Even, in those communities and countries, in which God has been eradicated, via law, or through ignorance, people, still have that inkling.

The thing about communities and countries, is that those that are in power, often desire to control and manipulate their population, in order to maintain their position, authority, and status;  because those that are in power, are the beneficiaries of all sorts of wonderful material things, properties, privileges, and are the recipients of overall favoritism, in which, anything that purports to show that mankind is inherently equal, and that all are equal in the eyes of God, are not necessarily the type of things that these privileged elites desire to have preached or proselytized.  

This therefore is one of the most significant reasons why the Bible was in previous ages, not translated into the vernacular of the people, but remained instead in  Latin, Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew, of which, most people were not familiar with those languages, and therefore would not be able to read or to comprehend the Bible, if they even saw such in print, and further, were placed into the position of thereby learning what wisdom that the Bible presented via those that disseminated such, which in most cases, were orthodox representatives of the governmental power.

So then, when William Tyndale, for instance, translated the Latin version of the Bible into English, for the English speaking people of England, such was seen as something akin to heresy or treason to the state. This meant that for Tyndale, his dedicated work in creating this seminal translation, would not mean that he would be knighted, but rather instead, he would be eventually tortured and executed by the state, for his unauthorized translation of the Bible; for the King of England, and the Roman Catholic clergy, would not countenance any potential breach in their control of the Word of God.

Yet, it was Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English that ultimately prevailed, for the very act of suppression of that which the people desired to know of, could not now be stopped and thereby would subsequently overturn the religious authority of that day, for the contradictions between Catholic clergy of that time, and the Word of God, demonstrated in principle that the Word of God, as taught and exercised by those authorities, was not consistent with the actual Word of God.

This thus signifies, that any governing authority that is master both of the secular as well as the spiritual, is the type of authority, that desires to control the whole person, and in all probability, not for their betterment, but rather in order to exploit and to manipulate them.  So that, an educated public, a public that questions authority, a public that recognizes a Higher Law that all most equally answer to, and a public that thinks independently, are the very basis for a good life, fair liberty, and the lively pursuit of happiness.

Stock market capitalization to GDP ratio

It has been said, that the ultra-billionaire and esteemed investor/businessman Warren Buffet, considers the stock market capitalization to GDP ratio to be a favorite indicator as to whether or not the stock market is overvalued, fairly valued or undervalued.  That said it is therefore necessary to understand that stock market capitalization is defined as the total dollar market value of the outstanding shares of stocks publically traded on the United States stock exchanges.  In regards to GDP, this is the acronym for Gross Domestic Product, and reflects the estimated total market value of all goods manufactured as well as services produced in the United States.   As it stands in February, 2020, that ratio of stock market capitalization to GDP is at 158.4% which is considered to be extremely overvalued.  After all, when the stock market goes up on an annual basis, of 8% or even more, whereas the GDP of the American economy does not even exceed 3% on an annual basis, than the ratio of that stock market capitalization to the GDP is going to, over time, increase dramatically in ratio, which it has.  Further to the point, it doesn't appear logical that the stock market capitalization can or should be decoupled from the GDP of the country that stock market represents, in which, a fair conclusion can be reached that when such a ratio is overvalued, this demonstrates in principle, over speculation in securities; no doubt, aided by "cheap" money and overleveraging of those investments in order to gain outsized returns in an economy that has been hovering at lukewarm for years.

All of the above should serve as a warning to those that believe that market capitalizations only always go up, and that they need not have to have any relationship with important indicators such as GDP, because apparently stock market capitalizations are entitled to have a mind of its own.  The problem with this type of thinking is to a very large degree, we now find that the price of a given stock on a given day, has less to do with the fundamentals of that stock, or even the future expectations of that stock, and far more to do with people and institutions "investing" in stocks under the premise that they need not worry about much of anything, because if the stocks so bought, goes up, they make money, or at least they seem to make money, that is, on paper.

What has been forgotten is that when any underlying asset is overvalued, and the stock market capitalization to GDP ratio clearly indicates that this is true, that the way down, is far quicker and far more precarious then most pundits imagine or admit to; for when the buyers of a stock, are far outweighed by those that desire to get out of that stock, at any cost, then stock market crashes, are especially dramatic, and the adage that stocks go down a heck of a lot faster than they go up, becomes chillingly true.

Clearly, investing in stocks has fundamentally changed over recent years, so that those that buy and hold a given equity for a long period of time, are seriously outnumbered by those that maneuver in and out of the market, and therefore care a lot less about the fundamentals of a given stock, or even care to know such; and a lot more follow their own belief that they know how to speculate wisely, but they may just find, sooner or later, that speculation with equities that are overvalued, will come back to haunt them.

Smart devils and knowledge without good character

Most definitely, knowledge is a form of power, so that those that are born into little or nothing from a material or status standpoint but have a mind that is capable of learning, have within their domain the ability to utilize that mind to become knowledgeable.  That knowledge however, can thereby be utilized for the selfish advancement of a given individual or can be utilized for the greater benefit of mankind, of which, society as a whole, should be very interested in seeing that those that are knowledgeable use such knowledge for the advancement of mankind, as opposed to using such knowledge for its harm or strictly for individual gratification.  This, thus means that as good as some schools and educational systems can be, it isn't good enough to simply provide the means for students to know and thereby to apply such knowledge in the real world, without taking into consideration and correspondingly spending a good amount of time, in recognition, that learning and the application of that learning must ultimately be held accountable to a higher standard.

In point of fact, those that are savvy, smart, and ambitious, do not always use their knowledge in a manner in which their objective is to be of material aid to their fellow societal members, but often find that their personality desires through misguided enticements or thought processes -- makes them far more inclined to utilize their smarts for the express benefit of their own self and those that they relate to, and typically when this is accomplished in a zero-sum construct, signifies that other people suffer for that decision.  Further to the point, those that are well informed as well as being influential can cause considerably more damage than those that have ill intentions but aren't all that smart or ambitious, or well placed to do all of the harm that they intend or may desire to do. 

While it is true that all people, should be taught the importance of having and maintaining good character, it is especially true that those that are quite bright, need to really take such to heart, for those that are in the position of which their acuity of mind allows them to read situations in a manner in which they thereby have an advantage upon most everyone, have within their power, the opportunity to be quite impactful for good or for bad.  So that those without good character may find it relatively easy to thereby take the low road, because they see the personal rewards from doing so as being of far greater worth to their mindset, then doing the right thing, and especially are prone to making that decision, when they are able to convince themselves that they have the personal right to do so.

As in many things, knowledge as applied can be applied for either good or for bad, so that those that teach subjects but never find the time to address directly to their audience the dangers of the misuse of their subject matter, are making the cardinal error of teaching within a vacuum, without taking into full account that knowledge so learned, being eventually applied, must be entwined with good character, or the end result could not only be quite undesirable, but tragic in its subsequent consequences.

Inconsistent work hours are inherently unfair

Far too many employees, especially those that are making wages that are on or below a living wage, suffer through the indignity of having very little control, if any, of the work hour time slots that they will work, as well as the amount of hours that they will work in a given week.  That is to say, as companies have benefited in technology and knowhow, so as to reduce their inventory levels to being able to take advantage of "just in time inventory," they then have segued such into the labor part of their operations, in which their objective is for their employees to essentially be "just in time employees."  This, thus means that those companies, want to and thereby demand that they be able to call in employees at a moment's notice to work, whenever and however long such should be needed, while on the other hand, they also maintain the power to forego employees and those hours that these employees were expecting to work, when they aren't as busy as anticipated.  So then, the employers of such, are able to reduce their labor consumption by treating their employees as moveable objects, to utilize as those companies, best see fit.

All of the above is unfair to the employees, that do not receive consistent hours of weekly work, and further are placed into the unenviable position of knowing that their refusal or inability to work hours as dictated by their management, will lead them to being vulnerable to having either their hours of work being reduced, or less desirable hours to be worked, or both.  As bad as all this may be, it is further unfair to those that are employees by virtue of the salient fact, that those that do not have a consistent and reliable work schedule, as well as a mandatory requirement that their employer pay them for a certain specific amount of hours each week, is that they are thereby stuck in a position of finding it difficult to properly attend to both family and personal affairs, as well as being able to successfully budget the monies that they did receive in compensation in a sustainable manner.

Additionally, those that are struggling with inconvenient work schedules that are inconsistent in both hours to be worked as well as hours scheduled at their company, are placed into a undeserved "catch-22" in which they are handicapped in finding a second job, by virtue of the fact that they don't currently have consistent and knowable hours, to thereupon be able to reliably schedule the hours that they would be available for that second job, which becomes even more problematic when the second job is also a job with inconsistent hours that vary from day to day and week to week. 

This signifies that a construct in which employees suffer from inconsistent work hours in the sense of both hours worked as well as hours scheduled, means that they are being dealt with in an unfair manner that exploits them in a way in which they are essentially treated more as if they are beasts of burden, as compared to being treated as human beings, of merit, value, and real worth.

The superrich trio that owns it all

America should be greatly shamed that just three individuals, as reported by the Institute of Policy Studies, own more collectively in monetary assets than the bottom half of America's population.  This signifies, that 160 million Americans combined, in this the country of egalitarian principles, of equality and fairness for all, are superseded by just three individuals that basically own it all and then some.  This is proof positive that the current tax system as exercised does not accomplish what it is supposed to accomplished, for that tax system is obviously not progressive, and does not appropriate tax wealth effectively from the superrich, and in particular, allows those assets of the superrich to blithely compound upon itself, over and over again.

It would be one thing, if even the poorest of the poor in America, own their own home or at least had safe housing of some sort, as well as had a reliable means or reasonable access to transportation, and were provided with a quality free education, healthy living conditions, a living wage, and additionally had fair access to quality healthcare that did not bankrupt them -- but in reality, this isn't true.    In point of fact, there is an underclass in America, of significant size, that doesn't own much of anything, of which their prospects are bleak and they live lives that are in many respects, insufferable.  Further, the great middle class of America is often stressed, because in order to maintain their status, they have to juggle so many duties and obligations that it seems like they never will be able to ever truly stop running, just to maintain their place.

There isn't any good point in knowing our Declaration of Independence, because a significant mass of Americans, unlike the superrich, aren't actually independent, but are in reality, dependent upon their own government to provide material aid to them, and of this aid, it often isn't enough.  Additionally, too many Americans are far too often overly dependent upon monopolistic institutions that employ them at wages, which are typically unfair, un-negotiated, and unsecure.  Further, there isn't any good point in knowing our Constitution, because this country rather than being of, for, and by the people, is actually of, for and by those that are superrich at the expense of the people.

The pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, cannot truly occur when three individuals own it all, leaving but breadcrumbs for half of the population.  This signifies that despite the fact that the people have the vote, that clearly those that are the representatives of, the members of, and the lawmakers and interpreters of the law, are in fit, form, and function servants of the only class that effectively matters, which is the superrich.

If America was fair, there would not now be, and never would there be, a trio of men, that own more in wealth, than 160 million Americans, combined.  This means that the system is clearly broken, and the dream of America being a beacon of opportunity and hope, for those that have little or nothing is effectively a nightmare and has been negated by those that own it all, of which this government, apparently will not ever assert itself to take what needs to be taken and to thereby prove the self-evident truth that all of mankind is equal, and equally deserving of the right to a fair chance and to a fair opportunity.

Electricity is mandatory, whereas a governmental police force is not

For the average person, that doesn't really think through things as much as they should, when it comes down to the question as to whether something like electricity is more important than having a policing arm of the state, they may well feel that societies would not be civil without that policing force, and therefore policing is of more importance.  In point of fact, hands down, electricity is by its very nature is of far more civilizing influence upon societies and therefore is of far more value than policing, and always will be.

First, it is important to note, that no civilization could be considered to be modern, if it did not have electricity, for we utilize electricity for just about everything of real merit, such as for the power that we need to power up all our devices that run or need to be recharged.  Further to the point, electricity itself is something that can come from a variety of power sources, such as wind, solar, nuclear, coal, and further electricity can thereby be stored so it is available to be utilized at any time of the day or night.  So too, electricity gives us the ability to have light, whenever we desire such, so that we are not limited to just the light that our sun gives out; as well as the salient fact that all the other parts of modern day civilizations, such as the cleanliness of drinking water, sewage, gas, security, food, clothing, buildings, housing, hospitals, communication, computers, phones, transportation, and so on and so forth, rely either directly or indirectly on the need for a reliable means of electricity.  We are so dependent upon electricity that civilizations begin to quickly collapse and erode, when electricity is suddenly gone, such as through a blackout, and thereby every possible means to restore electricity as quickly as possible to the population is generated.

On the other hand, as much as some people desire to believe that it is only the active presence of the police that are preventing us from devolving into some sort of dire chaos, the fact of the matter is that police as they currently exist, is a rather modern invention, and that further, for the unenlightened, that the policing arm of the state is primarily there not really to protect and to serve the general population as a whole, but rather to protect and to serve those that are the power brokers within those communities.  In fact, rather than seeing police, as being entities that equally and fairly apply the law against miscreants, it would be far more realistic to see them as being instruments of and beholden to their superior civilian authorities, utilized to keep those that have little or nothing in line, so that the privileged elites are never in harm's way.

Truth be told, police are not now, and never have been mandatory, for those that are in neighborhoods, and communities, are well able to handle their business in a way in which they are able to protect those that make up their community as well as to apply justice as they see fit, and have done exactly that in the past.  In contrast, electricity is absolute mandatory, because without such, neighborhoods and communities would soon revert to far more uncivil and primitive times.

Fat, fatter, fattest

America has a significant weight problem.  According to healthline.com, "In the United States 36.5 percent of adults are obese. Another 32.5 percent of American adults are overweight."  That is a staggering statistic, and one that is readily easy to see, when we simply look around at our fellow Americans.  It would be thing if all of this weight gain was strictly cosmetic, that is to say, that though Americans were heavier, they were still essentially healthy. Unfortunately, that isn't true as those that carry a lot of excess weight most definitely suffer the woes of such, by thereby suffering far more frequently from diabetes and heart disease, which is a major contributing factor to increased healthcare expenditures as well as the shortening of people's lives and in particular, the quality of such. 

What has changed in America is that Americans overall, eat far more sugar based products and highly processed foods then they ever have in the history of America. These particular foods are typically convenient, competitively price, and often taste good.  The fundamental problem with these foods, however, is the fact that the body treats these less dense calories far differently than it does for those that ingest meats, fruits, and vegetables, and the like, so that processed foods, are basically too easily digested and thereby leaves the eater of such, feeling far less satiated, then eating whole foods that contain fiber, and thus slows down the digestion and metabolism of such.

While America could spend a lot of time and effort, trying to educate the public about the dangers of sugars and highly processed food, another way to address this very real problem is to place a national excise tax upon those foods that are highly processed so as to raise their cost to the consumer; while, on the other hand, subsidizing foods that are more wholesome, by providing a tax subsidy to them, thereby making foods that are better for the body, more competitive in price.

Another very important avenue to address this very real problem is the recognition that good habits that are developed at an early age can be beneficial for changing bad eating habits into much better ones.  So that, in consideration that schoolnutrition.org, states that "Nearly 100,000 schools/institutions serve school lunches to 29.8 million students each day," it is thereby incumbent upon the government as the provider of these educational facilities, to not be contributing to the problem of obesity, but rather instead being pro-active and thereby becoming part of making the diet of our American children, better, by not providing highly processed foods as an option for school lunches or for breakfast.

The bodies of Americans are getting fatter, not really because Americans don't walk as much as they use to, or have more sedentary activities, in general, but rather it comes down to the salient fact that Americans consume more calories than their body needs to on a given day, and by doing this day in and day out, they pick up weight.  Not too surprisingly, the food that we eat, good or bad, will be reflected in the bodies and the weight of those bodies that we have, in which, based upon the fact that never have so many been so overweight or obese, America needs to make a concerted effort to right the ship, for in truth, this weight gain, and thereby the poor health that accompanies such, is a very real health crisis.

Corporate taxes and corporate gifts

Obviously, corporate taxes are not the same thing as corporate gifts; so that to the degree that corporations are under taxed, this thus gives them the flexibility to allocate more of their money towards corporate gifts, of which, those that provide gifts to educational institutions and the like, know that those monies well spent can have an enormous positive impact upon not only the perception of the corporation so giving, but can also serve to be quite beneficial for corporate recognition.

When corporations pay taxes, that money is thereupon utilized in basically whatever manner that the taxing authorities are authorized to spend it.  While those taxing authorities do appreciate the value of those taxes so collected, they do not typically bother to send out a thank you note, or a general acknowledge of such appreciation, but see the collection of those taxes as the duty those corporations owe to a good society and good governance.

On the other hand, corporate gifts, especially sizeable ones, often have the recipient of those gifts, not only sending out a thank you card, and not only expressing their appreciation, but in many instances, those institutions, such as educational facilities, will make sure to give appropriate credit to that corporation so providing that gift, by, for instance, acceptance of branding materials donated to those institutions, or even accepting discreet advertisements or propaganda that promotes the vision and worthiness of those corporations.  In addition, as anyone that has ever received a gift knows, the recipient of that gift, and especially of a gift of real monetary worth, will invariably show favoritism towards the gift giver, either directly or indirectly.

This thus signifies, that when the taxing authorities do not appropriately tax large corporations, that those savvy corporations, with their found money, so to speak, will look to take those monies that were not taxed, and thereby use such often in a sophisticated manner, in which, there is either an explicit or implicit quid pro quo, of which, these corporate entities will negotiate the terms and conditions of their gift giving in a manner in which it will not only provide a real service to the recipient of such, but will also provide a real benefit to that corporation.

While some people will argue, that none of this should be seen as a big deal, as to whether these institutions are the beneficiaries of largesse through either taxation or through gifts; it is of importance to recognize that there is a massive chasm between the two.  That is to say, the payment of fair taxation is a duty, and in general, no corporation is singled out as being better than another.  On the other hand, when corporations make gifts of sizeable amounts, those gifts are in many respects, able to be a corrupting influence upon the recipient of such, which may well result in that receiving institution's overall integrity being compromised, especially for those that are anticipating further generosity, and believe therefore that by cuddling up to a particular corporation, that they will be the intended recipient of such future largesse.

The bottom line is that education facilities, and institutions of all types, have a real need for money or its equivalency and when that money comes from individuals or corporations, they will, more times than not, at a minimum, surely not bite the hand that feeds them.