IPOs and where fools rush in

The stock market in whole, should never be seen as some sort of circus show, in which stocks are hawked to unsuspecting patrons as if these stocks all pretty much represent the next great thing, when that often is not really so.  An Initial Public Offering (IPO) takes place when a company that previously has been privately held, makes it shares available for the general public to purchase at some preselected price point, with a predetermined amount of shares so being offered to the public .  While one might think that there are all sorts of sophisticated formulas that are utilized to select an appropriate IPO price point; rather, it must be said that the pricing of any IPO really is more of an art, as compared to being a distinct science.

The fact of the matter is when an IPO comes to the market, that those on the inside that are the holders of those shares, whether they be employees, executives, venture capitalists, or other institutions, are basically selling their shares for money to the general public.  So then, one question that would logically come to the mind, for anybody that is considering the purchasing of such, is that when the insiders of the company, of which quite obviously these people really know what is actually going on inside that company, are willing to cash out their shares, or at least a portion of them, then perhaps they might be getting the better part of the deal.

In point of fact, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, and as reported by the latimes.com, IPOs are trading 70% above their average IPO price over the past t0 years, whereas the S&P 500 has risen 190% over that same time period.  This thus signifies that IPOs on average have underperformed by a considerable margin, stocks that are already listed on the S&P 500.  The first reason why this is so, is that the IPO price of far too many of those so issued, is set higher than the intrinsic worth of that particular stock, and when "investors" pay a premium for a stock, they are going to have an awful of ground to make up.  The second reason why IPOs underperform is that those stocks that been trading for a number of years, and have therefore a track record of sales, profits, and other pertinent information, available for investors to take a good look at, makes for a more informed decision in the purchase of that stock.

The most important thing to understand for investors, is that the party that benefits the most from an IPO is almost never the buyer of the IPO when it is released to the public, but the individual or institution that is trading their heretofore private stock for money, because they are clearly in the position to know whether or not, such a trade is to their benefit, or they would not typically make that trade, but would simply hold onto to what they already have, or buy even more. 

So then, it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to buy what the insiders are selling, especially when many of those companies going public, have failed to prove their value or to provide a sound forecast for the future; and in recognition that there are plenty of other opportunities that are not only a better play, but a more prudent one.

The fight against firearms

America is a country in which its citizenry, good or bad, right or wrong, has ownership of an incredible amount of firearms.  Not too surprisingly, with so many guns available, in which those firearms are designed in a manner so that they do exceedingly well what firearms do; this country has a crisis in the amount of violence so actuated by those firearms.  Those that make insipid statements such as "guns don't kill people, people kill people," are missing the most salient point, that firearms make the killing of people a whole lot easier than it would be, if they did not exist; but they do exist, and they exist in abundance.

The good people that have fought hard in regards to the passage of laws that would stymie the amount of firearms so readily available in this country, have historically not fared very well, which doesn't mean that the battle has been futile, but indicates it is going to be a battle that necessitates looking seriously at all viable options.  For instance, tobacco and alcohol are subject to excise taxes, of which, firearms are also subject to excise taxes, but the percentage amount of that tax, should be and must be appreciably higher than the current 10-11%.  In other words, the price to purchase a particular firearm is going to be a meaningful factor as to how many or how often or how much a given person will pay for that firearm, and therefore the excise tax for firearms needs to be substantially increased.  Additionally, gun shows, need to be subject to a far more withering oversight and to stricter regulations, by appropriate governmental officials, at the place of that show, so that, the comfort level of those so selling firearms at those shows, will be affected in a manner in which the transactions so being made, will not so easily skirt laws that are structured in a manner to preclude firearms, for instance, being sold via a "straw purchase" and the like.

Further, in regards to just about any legal action, money matters.  Those that truly want to reduce gun sales and thereby gun violence need to concentrate on the institutions that have the money, and that is the gun and ammunition manufacturers, themselves.   No matter what the law has said and no matter what judicial rulings have been made to date, the gun and ammunition manufacturers are neither judgment proof, nor are they perpetually free from lawsuits that will meaningful impact their business profits and their responsibility. 

For instance, for years, the tobacco industry was able to win lawsuit after lawsuit, until such a time, that they did not; and eventually they settled for a Master Settlement Agreement to resolve their ongoing litigation issues.  So too, gun and ammunition manufacturers can most definitely have their feet held to the fire, and should have their feet held to the fire; for unlike tobacco, which harms the user of it, over an extended period of time; firearms to a very large degree, harms primarily not the buyer of the firearm, but specifically, other people, and can do so in less than one second.

The bottom line is that the Second Amendment is probably not going to be overturned or be re-interpreted in a manner that favors those that support gun control.  This signifies that those that want positive change in regards to firearms need to fight such in a relentless manner upon multiple fronts, and that unyielding pressure will ultimately produce a positive result

Civilian deaths due to wars and terrorism

In all candor and transparency, a civilian, is generally considered to be a non-combatant in a time of war or terrorism.  Typical examples of those that would be classified as a civilian would simply be children, mothers, and all other individuals who are basically conducting their lives in a manner in which they are not combatants in a war or participants in terrorist acts.  So then, for the most part, most human beings are by definition, civilians, and therefore the deliberate or wanton targeting of civilians in a time of war or in an act of terrorism, makes such, reprehensible.

Unfortunately, in an age in which terrorists aim to create and make havoc by striking at targets that they are cognizant of as being primarily civilians, because they desire to sow fear into the general public, then it is those civilians that pay the price of such an action.   So too, in an age in which aerial bombing is done at unheard of scales and with incredible force and power, even when such bombing are conducted at known military establishments or institutions, there are often going to be peripheral damage to those that are located nearby, including displacement, disease, and death.

While those that live in America, rightly mourn the death of their own civilians that have died in a war, or through terrorist attacks; what seems to be occurring far too often, is that civilians are apparently classified into specific national categories, of which it then follows that American civilians that have died through war or terrorism, are definitely considered to be tragic; whereas the deaths of those that are not American, and in particular, living in countries that America is at war at,  are often times, systematically ignored, marginalized, unreported, or valued as a lesser type of civilian death, and thereby never to be placed on the same dedicated level as an American civilian death.

In point of fact, a civilian is a civilian is a civilian.  When any nation, does not wish to own up to their responsibility in the death of civilians caused directly by their actions taken in a time of war, then that country is shirking their humanitarian responsibilities.  Further to the point, when countries dismiss civilian deaths of all those countries that are not their own, or are not their allies, as basically being unfortunate, and nothing more; then the means to correct the sheer amount of civilians negatively impacted, hurt, injured, or killed is not accorded the proper amount of respect and necessary actions so needed that should be provided.

As it has been said, war is hell, but what makes it even more hellish, is all those that are not combatants to that war, that must unnecessarily suffer, for simply being born into a particular country or by just living in a particular country in which apparently these civilians are considered to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Those that are civilians should be treated by any foreign power in a manner, in which, their safety and their livelihood, is accorded the respect that they inherently deserve.   To not do so, basically stipulates that we are not born equally, and that we are not all accorded unalienable rights; but rather we are clearly unequal, of which only some are eligible for those unalienable rights, and only those few that have those unalienable rights, are those that we mourn for when their lives are lost through war or terror.

Profits, wars, and taxes

While wars typically necessitate some sort of sacrifice from the people, in regards to the cost of soldiers needed to fight such a war, or taxes raised to support such a war, or in absence of taxes being raised, national deficits so created in order to sustain such a war, infrastructure damaged or destroyed, and so on, all of that essentially addresses the monetary cost of war.  Besides that cost in money there is also the cost in the human harm, through injuries and hospitalizations, along with trauma and psychological scars, as well as deaths that war encompasses.  None of these things are good things, but if such is necessary in the defense of our republic or in the defense of our allies -- then many people basically buy into the justification for that war.

What many people do not seem to recognize is that wars, while being bad for certain businesses and quite harmful to certain people, can on the other hand, be very beneficial for certain businesses and quite beneficent to certain people.  Those people and businesses that are the beneficiaries of war are typically those that are employed peripherally or directly within the defense industry, and thereby through their wages, benefit; and those defense companies, through their additional revenues and profits, also benefit.

The question that needs to be raised within any war, and within any specific war effort, is whether or not, those institutions involved directly or indirectly in that war effort, should profit from it?  The only reasonable answer to that question is an unequivocal, no.  This signifies, that corporations that are part of the war effort, should be doing so, not for the profit that so ensues, but rather are committing their resources to such an effort, because it is the right thing to do on behalf of their country's needs.  Those that would argue, that without such a profit, corporations would therefore not perform their needful functions, make for a very interesting response, which is, if the salient reason why corporations do their part in the defense of their nation that actuates them, is profit -- and when called to be of service to their nation, they willingly refuse to do so, then such a corporation as that, is inimical to the values of that nation, and should be placed into the proper receivership of that nation.

Further to the point, all war profits, without exception, should never be permitted to reside in the private hands of corporations or other legal entities, but are by rights, profits that must be fairly returned as rightful compensation to the people of the nation, as a whole.  This signifies, that each year, all corporations that have conducted business with the defense department should be fully audited, and profits, so made directly or indirectly via war efforts of that defense department, must be forfeited in a timely manner to that government, of, by and for the people.

To, on the other hand, stipulate that corporations should be permitted to make money from the human misery of war, would signify that our soldiers don't fight and die for their country, but rather our soldiers fight and die so that some can profit upon the human sacrifice of others.

Homogenous and heterogeneous societies

Homogenous societies are defined as those societies in which the people making up such are united together amongst the lines of their common traits such as skin color, or creed, or language, or various other attributes that are typically based on relatively straightforward visual recognition and/or such members having touchstones or symbols that are commonly used by or acknowledged by those members of that homogenous society. 

While it is generally true that a homogenous society appears to get along well with one another, that isn't always the case, as there are always going to be those typical human foibles of trouble and disputes that stir up anger, wrath, and jealousy.  However, it should be noted, that homogenous societies, even those that are not functioning very well together, are often quite gifted at coming together when they are attacked by some outside force, for then, as the truism states, blood truly is thicker than water.

One might think, giving the advantage that homogenous societies have in often according respect and therefore helpfulness to their fellow members, that heterogeneous societies would be at a massive disadvantage, and not only that, but that heterogeneous societies would always be susceptible to being subdivided into cliques, that would run along such divisive lines as race, creed, income, status, location and so on and so forth.  In fact, to a large extent this is true, as far too many people have a tendency to align with others based on visual similarities or other surface traits that are easily discernible. 

There are, however, distinct advantages to being part of a heterogeneous society, of which the biggest advantage is that diversity, or new blood, if you will, makes for a society that will often go further, discover more, and be motivated to accomplish and achieve many things, that the complacency of a homogenous society might not be inclined to do.  After all, the friction that a heterogeneous society entails, can be the very means, to make change where there needs to be change, and additionally teaches the salient value, that diverse elements that are united together are far harder to break apart, than that which is made of the very same elements.

So then, the true test of a vibrant heterogeneous society is when it is threatened internally or externally, as to whether it will honor that which has brought them together, or whether it will devolve or revert to that which it once was and thereby become rife with sectional differences and discriminations, to its own destruction.  The answer to that question, really comes down to how people see themselves in relation to the society that they are an integral part of--in which, the very best heterogeneous societies see themselves not as a certain race, or creed, or define themselves by their country of origin, but rather have enlightened themselves to take into their heart, that they each are created equally, and that each of them are entitled to fair opportunity, equality under the law, as well as to freedom of conscience; and in recognition of those unalienable rights, they will voluntarily stand united against all forces that would take from them, what is their universal human right, in which all of mankind, without exception, is entitled to.

"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth"

The above quotation comes from the inestimable, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter he wrote to James Madison, considered to be the author of the Constitution, of which this letter was written to James Madison, before the Constitution was submitted and subsequently ratified by the necessary amount of States.  Clearly, as the Constitution does contain the Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson's viewpoint was not only considered, but implemented, which was and still is a great gift to the people of this republic.

The Constitution was written to specifically enumerate the delegated rights that are provided by the consent of the people to that government of, by, and for the people of the United States of America.  The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, is to enumerate specifically the rights of the people in regards to that government, as well as to stipulate clearly that rights not explicitly delegated by that Constitution to that government are reserved to the people of the United States of America.

So then, the purpose and importance of the Bill of Rights is so that the people, are not subsumed by a government that becomes a law and a force itself; for if and when that happens, than surely this is not a government operating any longer under the consent of the governed, but rather would appear to be a government that is operating outside the need of that consent, and therefore it is up to the people to see that such a government as that, be recognized as being in violation of that highest law of the land, its Constitution.

It is the Bill or Rights that makes it clear that the Constitution was not written to set up a government, apart from the people, or a government that would be above the people, but rather it was created so as to prevent that government from aggrandizing unto itself powers that would make it a law of its own, and effectively thereof, separate from the people, so that the people thereby would become inferior to and hence subservient to that government.  After all, the very purpose of a people banding together into one civil government, is for that government to be of service to that people, and to the degree that it is not, that government is not a legitimate government of, for, and by the people.

A government that is not accountable to the people, is not the government that the Constitution, with its incumbent Bill of Rights, was created to be.  The Bill of Rights is necessary to remind that government, that all of the people have been created with unalienable rights, and that these rights are not given by that Constitution, but rather by their Creator, of which these people are forever entitled to their free will, their free conscience, their freedom of movement, their freedom of assembly, their freedom of the press, their freedom to worship, and their liberty to be about their business, without having to give notice to that government, or to receive permission by that government to do so.

The Bill of Rights makes it clear that the legitimate function of our national government is to establish justice for all, and to promote the general welfare for the people, and by doing so, that government serves well its people.

Public income tax returns

In the scheme of things, most people are only able to view their own personal income tax returns and do not have the legal right to view another person's income tax return.  Perhaps that is a good thing, but in actuality, the more private and the more secretive, important things such as taxes are, the more such is susceptible to being abused or taken advantage of, in which, some are able to benefit greatly by convoluted tax laws, tax privileges, as well as tax set asides, whereas other people suffer through simply paying what they believe to be what their fair obligation requires of them in order for us to thereby have a civil society.

At an absolute minimum, all public corporations that have gross sales of $100 million or more should be required to, by law, to disclose publically their complete tax return, available online, for anyone, or any organization to look at and to study at their leisure.  This would in itself, be a great step forward in allowing Americans to truly begin to understand and to comprehend exactly how much real tax burden these behemoth corporations are actually taking upon their shoulders so as to thereby fairly bear their share of the tax burden on behalf of the society that actuates them, as compared to how much in taxes that they are able to circumvent through various machinations.

By making corporate income taxes public, this would be the first necessary step to take in order for the tax code to be modified in a manner in which certain loopholes and advantages that far too many corporations have had the audacity to deliberately take advantage of, be shutdown and eliminated.  That is to say, public corporations often talk a really good game, but far too many of these institutions, don't back up their talk with paying their fair share of taxes, but rather, through their sheer size, and with their top of the line legal and accounting teams, do everything within their power, to not pay their appropriate share of taxes.

As for individual tax returns,  those with income above $500,000, should be required by law to have their tax returns disclosed in an online form to the public, with their real name so identified, but with all identifying aspects of account numbers, social security numbers, and other pertinent information that could compromise their fair privacy, redacted.  It must be said, that It is absolutely vital that the actual names of the taxpayers be disclosed, and thereby how much or how little these high earning citizens are paying in taxes, so that fellow Americans could thereby determine as to whether or not, the tax code as implemented, is truly progressive, or merely takes on the guise of being so.

For an absolute certainty, the more that income tax returns become public knowledge, the more that the general public will know as to how fair and how well the current progressive income tax actually works.  So then, in recognition that the whole point of the progressive income tax is to provide for the necessary and good welfare of the nation, it is important for the public to really know as to whether those that profess that they are doing their part -- actually are.

President Samuel Tilden

School children are taught to learn the names of all the Presidents of the United States, of which, honestly, President Samuel Tilden is not one of them.  In fact, he did run for President, and somehow despite receiving the popular vote of nearly 51% of those Americans that voted in 1876, as well as receiving 184 electoral votes, in an election in which 185 electoral votes would be good enough to become President, somehow Tilden lost; as the four States that had disputed election returns, ended up having all of their electoral votes going to the eventual winner, Rutherford B. Hayes.  To believe, somehow that this result was a fair reflection of the votes so made during that Presidential election, would be false, for truly the victory that should been Tilden's was not.

This reflects, rather sadly, that quite frankly, national politics is a very dirty game and has been for a very long time.  The most probable reason why candidate Hayes, became President Hayes, unfairly over Tilden, is so that the Reconstruction would be terminated in the South and therefore the South would be run, essentially by the very same people, or type of people, that ran the south before the Civil War, that cost the lives of over 620,000 soldiers, and destroyed families, and businesses, all under the misguided notion that somehow it was right for certain privileged people to own other unfortunate people, as if they were their own personal property.

So that, who wins and who loses national elections, most definitely makes a real difference and when those that have the temerity and are traitorous enough to rise up against their own country, in order to protect their peculiar institution, at all costs, so as to make their profit off of the blood, sweat, and tears of those who owed them absolutely nothing, not even an honest day's work, is unequivocally wrong.

The upshot of President Hayes victory was essentially the final nail in the coffin of Reconstruction, and thereby the resurrection of the Southern white cause to run the south as if it was the personal domain of the white slave-owning ruling class, which is indeed what subsequently, happened.  This essentially meant that the side that caused the Civil War, and the same side that lost the Civil War, did not really lose the war, but merely lost the battle of a war that continues perhaps even until this very day; for they ended up back in the seat of southern power with all of the money, all of the property, and all of the justice, in their unjustified control.

Far too many good men gave their lives so that this nation would have a new birth of liberty, justice, and equality for all, based not upon the color of a given man's skin, nor based upon whether a person was born into privilege or not, but based solely upon the character of that man.  Whether that country exists in actuality in the here and now, is something that is in evidence by all that surrounds us, day-by day.

"For my friends, anything; for my enemies, the law!"

This above quotation is attributed to Oscar R. Benavides, President of Peru from 1933-1939.  While on the surface, this quote seems rather pithy and very much to the point, it also should be seen, for all those that believe in equality and in particular, equality under the law, as absolute anathema.  Unfortunately, this quote appears to represent the thinking of far too many repressive leaders around this world, in which, those that are well connected with that leader, receive not only favorable treatment from that ruler, but to a large extent, pretty much, anything that they so desire, as long as they do their part in being that good and loyal friend specifically to that leader. 

On the other hand, those that aren't tight with the leader of their nation, and to a large extent, make it their point to be a real constant thorn in their ruler's side, are going to be susceptible to a really rough ride; especially when the legal arm of the country, and the foot soldiers that support such, owe their allegiance not to their fellow citizens or to the people, in whole, but instead are beholden only to that which is the master of their domain.  Therefore, laws are propagated by these repressive nations, in which, these laws cover just about ever contingency, and area of human interaction, under the guise that these laws are for the protection and benefit of the people, but in actuality, these laws are created specifically so that anyone and any organization at any time, is vulnerable to being arrested, harassed, ostracized, or convicted.

So then, it is fair to say, that any country in which those that rule that nation, have the inherent power which seemingly cannot be balanced by any other comparable power through its legislature branch or judicial branch or even social protest, is a country in which the person or persons so leading that nation, has the type of power that is corruptible; so that, those that are friendly and useful to that regime get everything, and those that are not friendly, suffer dearly.  In other words, when there is anyone within a nation, or an organization within a nation, that is effectively above the law, or interprets the law in only the form that supports that most important person or organization, exclusively; so as to subsequently harm the public, at large, those citizens within that nation are not free.

A nation that is truly of, by, and for the people is defined as a nation in which the laws are equally applied to everyone, without exception to anyone.  This signifies that no nation, in which certain individuals or certain organizations are accorded special privileges, that take thereby from the people their unalienable rights cannot possibly be a nation that is of, by, and for the people, but is instead, that sort of nation, in which the very few are accorded the lion's share of benefits, whereas the masses are sold a real bogus bag of goods, while being constantly subjected to arbitrary laws, selectively enforced against them.

All those select few that have the formidable power to make or break people or organizations, in which further they are protected in their actions, by the law, are those that will never voluntarily do the right thing, because it is far too easy and tempting for them to do the wrong thing.

Don't call it a voluntary tax payment system

For some unfathomable reason there are various people that propagate the misinformation to others that our tax system is voluntary.  In fact, as one might imagine, it isn't voluntary, and the Internal Revenue Code, makes it explicitly clear that the paying of taxes is actually compulsory, for all those generating income at a level in which the payment of taxes is required.  Further to the point, if taxes were somehow voluntary, then those that are employed and being paid wages, would not have appropriate taxes withheld from each of their paychecks for various taxing categories, but rather would have a strong inclination to consider opting-out, per their volition.  Additionally, people that are self-employed, in which their compensation is based upon an agreed amount between those parties to the contract, are legally subject to having a 1099 form issued to them, stipulating the amount so paid during that year; of which, the recipient of that 1099, has the full responsibility of paying the appropriate amount of taxes on such, in which the IRS is cognizant of the issuance of that 1099.

In a lot of ways, in a society in which most everyone has a Social Security number or a Tax ID number, any labor that is done, that is considered to be income, is subject to taxation, and it is far easier to track that labor and work, because of that identification having been recorded.  However, in those jobs, in which cash passes from one hand to another, though it might well be labor, subject to taxation, the fact that the transaction was done in cash, truly does then make it "voluntary" as to whether such is properly recorded to the governmental tax authorities as  income or not.

So then, perhaps when people state that  we have a voluntary tax system, they mean that transactions that are accomplished, in the underground economy or similar, in which those transactions are done with cash or cash-like instruments,  ends up being essentially voluntary as to whether or not someone reports that income and hence pays their appropriate taxes on such.  This is most definitely true, and a very strong reason why governments all over the world are trying to reduce or eliminate cash transactions, for not only does the taxman want their fair share of the money, but this is also the means for the government to keep their finger upon the pulse of their population. 

While it is true to state that the government does not dictate to its population how much that a given citizen owes in taxes, it is that same government that thereby determines as to whether or not tax returns so filed are considered to be accurate or not.  So that, citizens voluntarily fill out their tax forms and therefore have control over what is thereby submitted to those authorities, in which, to a certain degree, those taxpayers determine the amount of monies to be paid to their government, but such is subject to the auditing power of that government, of which, that government is in essence, the ultimate authority as to whether such taxes have been fully and properly paid, as mandated by law.

Food stamps should be allocated bi-weekly

Food stamps, which are officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are issued to those that qualify for such once a month on a specific day each month, in which the recipient of such thereby uses the debit card provided to them to purchase groceries at stores that accept food stamps as a form of payment for those groceries that qualify to be purchased under this program.   The food stamp program is of immense importance for all those receiving food stamps, because physical bodies obviously need physical food. 

Not too surprisingly, most of the people that qualify for food stamps in the first place, aren't necessarily known as the most discerning, or the least impulsive, or the best decision makers.  Rather, those that qualify for food stamps are people that typically aren't in a good financial position, and thereby when they find themselves in a position in which they now have plenty of what is the equivalency of money to get food, they oftentimes are going to get busy and utilize those food stamps at a rate in which, those food stamps will be spent so quickly that they will find that soon enough, those food stamps are fully depleted, and subsequently they are now without food in their refrigerator, before their thirty days are up.

So then, it would make eminent sense if the abiding purpose of food stamps was clearly recognized as having been created to be of specific benefit to the recipients of such.  This signifies, that it would probably be more beneficial for food stamp recipients that rather than being provided with all of their food stamp money upfront to them for an entire month, that they would be better off, if such was modified to provide benefits for them in two week increments.   

After all, many people have been told at some point when they have sat down for a big meal, and subsequently have failed to eat all of it, that "their eyes were bigger than their stomach," which is exactly the type of similar situation that occurs, when people that often don't have enough of what they really want in life, suddenly get all of their food stamp allocation for an entire month, all at once. Indeed, it would not be that difficult for the government to amend the current food stamp program, to make the payments bi-weekly, and the recipients of such, would clearly be the beneficiaries of this; because it is a lot easier to wait a week to get some groceries, if it comes to that, then having to wait two or even three weeks.

The amount of governmental funding for the food stamp program was reported by cbpp.org to be $68 billion in 2018, which indicates that the amount of governmental monies devoted to feeding our population is quite significant.  This so indicates that anything that would improve not only the efficiency of the program but would be of material benefit to the recipients of this program should be seriously considered.  This essentially means that something as vital as food, which is a daily necessity, should thereby take into account that those receiving food stamps, not be placed into the unenviable position of first having a veritable feast, followed unfortunately, by a subsequent famine.

"There is no religion higher than truth"

The above quote is the motto of the Theosophical Society, and it is indeed a very profound truth, of which all sensible people should take such, dearly to heart.  After all, think about it, anything that you do or read or learn, that is not the truth or coming forth from the basis of truth, is going to be of suspect benefit at best, and may well be the very substance or the pathway of all sorts of ills, wrongs, and evils. This thus signifies that the greatest search for mankind is ever the search for Truth, for in that search, you will find the ending of all previous sorrows, for that Truth will surely set you free from the delusions that have held you back from previously seeing that which is and has always been the Truth, of which that Truth never has been or ever will be false.

The very first principle in the learning of any good subject, is learning the truth of that subject, above all else.  Further to the point, if there is no objective truth in anything that we learn, study, and apply, in which, instead, everything is some sort of subjective truth, then the world as we know it, is always going to be a world of chaos and confusion for that which is built upon a foundation of ever shifting sands, and goes wherever the prevailing winds shall blow, will never rightly stand the test of time.  So that, it is a cardinal error of epic proportions, when any institution, even those institutions of long standing, and especially those held in the highest respect, are internally aware of their doctrinal error, but, in fact, do nothing to alleviate or to ameliorate such, but rather prefer to compound matters, by consciously and deliberately hiding the truth.

The time to tell the truth does not ever change, for that time is the ever present now.  So that, those that are aware of the truth but insist upon hiding behind a façade created to obfuscate the truth are doing a grand disservice to all that are affected by such.  So too, no religion, and no established practice should ever subsume truth to their own canonical preferences, out of a sense of convenience, or embarrassment, or monetary reasons, or out of fear of repercussions, as if somehow it makes more sense to embrace that which is false, over that which is true.

Now, while each of us has an inherent responsibility to search for truth, in all that we do and all that we propagate, that does not mean that such a search will not have its own twists, turns, and uncertainties, that necessitate not only an open mind, but an acknowledgement that as flawed human beings, we are not always going to get it right in our beliefs or subsequent actions, because we won't.  What this does indicate is that our search for truth, must not only be sincere, consistent, and determined, but that we must take into account, that Truth, itself, never does change, for it is immutable, and unalterable.  So then, that search for Truth, is also the only way that we can find complete liberty, for those that do not know that Truth, and live to that Truth, are by mainly their own volition, in chains of their own making.

Unemployment benefits and non full-time workers

In order to make a living wage, two factors are absolutely paramount; the first being that the wage so being paid per hour is high enough to actually be a living wage, and the second is the amount of hours so being worked has got to be the same as the basis of what is commonly considered to be a full-time work week, which is currently, forty hours.  That is to say, even when employees are making a living wage of, for instance, $15/hour, if they are not also achieving forty hours of work hours, on a consistent weekly basis, week in and week out, then they are essentially not making a living wage, though the wage itself, is high enough, were they to actually work a forty hour work week, they could indeed get by.

This thus signifies, that current unemployment benefits must be corrected to take into account, those individuals that through no fault of their own are unable to secure forty hours of work each week.  So that, for example, all laborers that are working at least twenty hours in a given week, should be eligible to receive a like amount of hours being paid to them through unemployment on a one-to-one basis, but not more than the equivalency of forty hours in a week.  In other words, if someone works thirty-two hours in a week, they should be eligible to receive their missing eight hours in unemployment compensation.  If, someone works twenty-hour hours in a week, they should be eligible to receive their missing sixteen hours in unemployment compensation.  If, someone works sixteen hours in a week, they should be eligible to receive a matching sixteen hours in unemployment compensation, and so on and so forth.

The point of this unemployment labor compensation is for the Federal government, in conjunction with some contribution from the relevant State government, to see that all eligible laborers are accorded, to the degree that such is possible, forty hours of work each week; so that, these gainfully employed citizens are thereby able to actually earn a living wage.  After all, the whole point of wages to begin with, and why the common man actually labors day-by-day, is to earn, at a minimum, the amount of money so necessary to live a decent life.  So then, it is the responsibility of governmental services to promote the general welfare and thereby to see that those that are part of the labor force, are provided with enough compensation; and when not, such will be augmented by governmental programs, when necessary, for this to be accomplished.

To the degree that governmental rules and regulations in regards to those that are being employed can be applied proactively against employers, to see that more employees are provided with a full forty hour work week, such has its place, because employers that knowingly short their employees' needed hours on a weekly basis, are basically asserting that they are not responsible to those employees in providing them with what is necessary for them to make a living wage.  In short, it cannot be emphasized enough, that all those that are diligent and responsible in their job duties, and are willing and able to work full-time, should be provided with those mandatory hours, through governmental assistance, if necessary, so that they are thereby able to fairly earn their keep.

"Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time"

It has been said: "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time," which on the surface, at best, appears sensible, but underneath the surface is one of those inane quotes and sentiments that demonstrates total hypocrisy, and is in its entirety, of no value to society, and certainly of no real value to those considering committing crimes.  The very first problem with this sentiment is the fact that, unless a given individual has a law degree and thereupon knows all of the law in their particular field, as well as somehow knows all of the law in all the other fields that are not germane to that individual's particular course of study, as well as also having the experience and knowhow to well understand how the law is actually applied in the real world, is the fact that in a significant amount of cases, many people do not know that they are actually committing a crime, even when there are statues on the books, dusty or not, that reflect this.

While it is true, that people intuitively know that it is wrong to steal, to hurt another person, as well as other commonplace crimes, most of those people committing such, really have little idea of what the real consequences of doing this particular crime actually involves, the charges that will be brought, or how the wheels of justice actually work, in addition to the most salient fact that in the heat of the moment, none of that has a lot of relevancy to them, as their lack of self-control or impulsiveness in general, was bound to get them in some sort of trouble, at some point, anyway.

If, anyone believes that the above mentioned quote is sensible in some way, then this government, needs to make it their point to teach specific courses in all of their public schools, that address the criminal and civil codes in as much detail and with as much comprehension as possible in order to provide to those students, the living maxim that those that are properly forewarned are properly forearmed.  In other words, if the reasonable knowledge of our criminal code somehow will reduce crime, because all sensible people that cannot do the time will thereupon commit no criminal acts, then go to it.  To not do so, would signify the truth of the matter, which is that the criminal code in America is selectively and unfairly enforced, and is in almost every aspect, never just, though such is conducted in a court of justice.

Rather, the reason that there is so much crime in America comes down to a lot of very visible reasons, of which inequality, injustice, ill-education, unfairness, discrimination, hypocrisy, and greed are the main contributors to such.  What is a real shame, though, is that the biggest criminals aren't really those that commit street crimes; but rather those that under the sanction and auspices of government approval, poison our environment, grossly cheat the system, and wantonly muscle their way into the affairs of sovereign foreign governments, and will harm, hurt, and kill all those that get in their way, without compunction, and do so, all under the flag of the red, white, and blue.

The cosmetic fragrance non-disclosure exception

One might think, and for a good reason, that when cosmetics are sold to consumers that the list of chemicals used in regards to those beauty products would be fully listed upon the container of that product; but in actuality that isn't the case, for manufacturers are permitted to utilize a loophole that allows them to group a bunch of chemicals under the general category of "fragrance" that are thereby not specifically listed as being used on the product.  It would be one thing, if this was simply done by manufacturers in order to hide proprietary information from competitors, and to a degree, no doubt that is true; but to a very large extent, manufacturers hide behind the benign title of fragrance in order to specifically not inform consumers of the chemicals, for some of these chemicals so used, are dangerous and can be cancerous to consumers.

In order to correct this situation, it would be convenient if the government had a robust federal mandated law that addressed this very issue in a comprehensive and complete manner, but in a society that is all about money and profit, those that utilize that money and profit in effective ways, have precluded such a federal mandated law being presently put into place.  While one avenue for consumers would be to rail against the unfairness and the harm of such to those that purchase these goods with chemicals that are hidden behind the veneer of "fragrance"; another avenue to consider is to address the issue in a proactive manner.  So that, organizations such as the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP) has made it a point to test products that do not willingly disclose their full fragrance ingredients, in order to determine the safety of, or danger to consumers.  Organizations such as BCPP, do matter, because cosmetic companies are in the business of making money and do not willingly desire to become pariahs to the very consumers that they are trying to sell their products to.

This indicates, that an independent chemical testing laboratory, should be developed in a manner in which cosmetic products that are fully and completed disclosed and have been thoroughly tested in a comprehensive way, thereby are provided with a seal of approval from that independent chemical testing laboratory, when they have been certified safe, which by virtue of that good rating, would provide a meaningful amount of assurance to consumers of such.  So that, cosmetic products with such a seal would thereby be seen as a product that has been tested and proven safe, and hence a more prudent buying decision over those other cosmetics that lack such an approval and/or have failed to provide a fully disclosed list of chemicals so utilized on the product.

After all, the very reason why there is any disclosure of the chemicals used on the cosmetics that are routinely used by human beings, is for the benefit and the protection of the consumer; so that, when consumers are hoodwinked into believing that a generic label such as fragrance, is nothing to be concerned about, but in reality is something that in many instances, is something consumers should be very concerned about, the consumer is placed into the position of being possibly harmed by their use of that cosmetic, when their intent would never have been for that to occur.

An activist court and the rule of law

The three branches of government in the United States are the Executive, Legislative, and the Judicial.  The Legislative branch is the branch that makes the laws in accordance with the highest law of this land, which is its Constitution.  The Executive branch is the branch that sees that the laws as propagated are executed faithfully throughout this land.  And the Judicial branch is that which interprets the laws so passed and propagated throughout this country.

While the Constitution itself, is a document that can be easily read within one hour, the laws so passed and enforced within this nation, including local, county, State, and Federal laws are typically so lengthy and so convoluted, that all of these laws so written probably could not be read within a ten year period, or perhaps even within a given person's lifetime.  Yet, in recognition that all laws passed must be in conformance with the Constitution of this land, and that this is the controlling document of this nation, it would seem to imply that judicial decisions should always take into fair consideration as to whether a particular law is actually Constitutional or not, to begin with.

Further to the point, since the Judicial branch is responsible for the interpretation of the laws so propagated within this nation, that Judicial branch must take their responsibility to be the bastion that more than any other branch, should stand up to those that are trying to add to or have accomplished adding on to their power, at the expense of the people.  In other words, power, is something that never seems to satiate certain people as well as certain organizations to the extent that they will not relent until they have all the power that they so desire, and that desire seems to be well-nigh insatiable.  If, then, the Judicial branch of this country will not take a principled stance against overwhelming power, especially when that power is held in the hands of the few and the privileged for the very benefit of the few and the privileged, then this country, despite its many laws, and despite its Constitution, will not stand for the very principles upon which it was founded.

This signifies that an activist court in all judicial affairs has its place, rather than the courts and judicial decisions being solely reactionary in their decisions.  In other words, time and time again, it is the judicial branch, that has risen up to the occasion, to make that principled stand that certain specific laws as enacted and enforced at the present time are wrong, and that there is a fair remedy to correct such.  After all, it is human tendency, even when unintentional, for well placed people to push and to augment their power, without necessarily consciously acknowledging such; especially when they have not taken into proper consideration that power that is concentrated into the hands of the few, is going to be highly susceptible to being abused, if it hasn't already been designed to be exactly that.

So then it must be acknowledged that the highest power in this land that stands against concentrated and arbitrary power is the Constitution, and the very people that understand that Constitution best, are primarily judicial, in which it is that judicial branch, that must thereby do its patriotic duty to preserve, to protect, and to defend that Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic

Keeping the people down by the strategy of "divide and conquer"

In order for any country to be ruled by a special elite group of select people, that are not held accountable to all the relevant laws that are propagated to the people in whole, and to get away with such, necessitates strategic initiatives to protect and to augment the power of those elite people, against the population in whole.  First, quite obviously, those in power, are quick to make sure that the guns and policing force of the state are under their sure hands; for those with the guns at their beck and call, need not be overly worry about certain upsetting legislative acts so passed, or inconvenient judicial decisions so reached, if the implementation of any of these, are effectively stymied by the strength of the policing arm of the state.

So too, before it even gets to the point, where the people rise up in unity, to assert their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; those repressive governments, make it their point to infiltrate into the people's business by placing agents within their groups, to monitor and then report all actionable information back to those corrupt rulers, as well as to threaten or to compromise such as is possible, or to provide bribes or their equivalency to those that lust for money, or, on the other hand, to assert immense pressure to fire those that are especially annoying from their jobs; while also, again and again, using every psychological strategy proven to be effective, to negate, to raise suspicions of, and to seed dissent within the ranks of those that are trying to unite under one grand purpose for the betterment of the people, as a whole.

That is to say, no group that is uniting for the betterment of the people is a group that has not already been infiltrated by dastardly agents of the state to do everything within their power to see that the group ends up not being effective in its stated mission.  Such an attack upon groups is done on a multi-front basis, of which one of the objectives is to successfully foment controversy and argument between the top leaders of these groups, so that, they effectively undercut one another; while another effective strategy, is to make sure that disparate elements that do not normally unite, become aware of that salient fact, by appealing to known historic racial stereotypes, to each person's country of origin, to their difference in language, or creed, or economic status, or their historical place in the pecking order.

All of this is of vital importance for those that are the rulers of the country, because being outnumbered, they know that they can never maintain their status in a country that is truly open and democratic, unless they fix the system to serve their purposes and divide those that can be divided, while bribing those that can be bribed, and compromising all those that can be compromised, so that each person sees themselves as individuals, and never as a group united under the flag of a noble purpose. 

This thus signifies that the only way that the people can truly have a government of, by, and for the people is for those people to be truthful and transparent one with another, in which, they stay focused upon their overriding objective and further that they have the courage to maintain the course, no matter the cost, because doing what is right, can never be bought, for it is above all, priceless.

Is there anything else that you would like to really say or talk about?

There are all sorts of conversations in this world, of which the most basic point of any good conversation is for each party to connect with the other, and thereby to impart information that is of meaning one to another.  While many conversations are relatively routine, it is important to note that just about any conversation, does have a purpose, and therefore it is important for that person initiating such, if not for both people, to see that the under-riding purpose of that conversation is actually attended to.

Somewhat surprisingly, people can have conversations that last a considerable amount of time, but within that conversation, never actually does it get around to the real issue at hand.  The reason that this is so, depends upon the personalities and circumstances of that conversation, but a lot of times this has a lot to do with the comfort level of one person to another, of which people, even people that know each other very well, are afraid of bringing up the real agenda or what is really on their mind, because they essentially fear the judgment of the other, or feel they might be exposed to looking stupid or even of being embarrassed.

That is why it is important in the art of conversation, to be open-minded and receptive to actually hearing and listening to the other person.  Additionally, there is the need to acknowledge the understanding that most people do not really need to be judged, more than they feel that they are already judged by others to begin with, but rather need and desire to have more support, empathy, and compassion from the other.  That is to say, those having characteristics that are non-judgmental or are not prone to little putdowns and other negative responses, are going to be, more times than not, a better person to communicate with, because most people are more comfortable with those that are more nurturing than those that are unnecessarily critical.

So too, people that have something to confess or wish to get something of importance off of their chest, are going to be more inclined to speak with someone that they trust and that have won their confidence in the fair belief that such a conversation will not be divulged to anyone else.  After all, those things that make us feel especially vulnerable are difficult to discuss with others, unless we are safely assured that such a conversation will remain confidential and discreet.

So then, there are those times, even between very close friends or family members, when a conversation is happening, in which, one party to the other, must ask of the other, as to whether there is anything else that they might like to say or talk about; and when asking that question, they must also give the responder an appropriate amount of time to actually think about such, because a significant amount of people, that have something really on their mind, debate internally, as to whether or not, it is really the time to bring that real subject matter up.  Those that ask that question, though, at the appropriate time, may well find, that the real conversation does thus start, and from there, the opportunity to be of real assistance thereby occurs.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

The above Latin phrase when translated says:  "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."  While, this maxim is found in various courts of law, as well as upon the frame of paintings of various famous jurists, and the like, seldom are these words actually taken to heart, and even less so, seldom are they practiced in an actual court of law.

In life as in court, the true test of any genuine belief is whether or not the person expressing such or having the power to implement such has the integrity to actually do what should be done, especially when they are aware that in so doing, they may indeed make a real material impact upon a matter of real material importance.  Even more telling, are those times when people are prominently positioned, such as in a court of law, in which decisions so made, will directly or indirectly, make impact upon powerful people of powerful societies that will most certainly displease those powerful people.

Yet, the very reason why it appears that life is circular for mankind is fundamentally because when provided the opportunity again and again, to change what needs to be changed, mankind fails to do what needs to be done, because mankind lacks the courage and follow through to do exactly that.  There are very few people and very few societies that are willing to keep the faith, and to do what should be done, when their own safety, or their family's safety, or their nation's safety, or their reputation is put to the test in which they do not desire to risk that which means everything to them, even at the cost of compromising their own integrity.

To be just, when everyone around is unjust, is a very difficult thing to do.  To do the right thing, when everyone else is doing the wrong thing, is a very difficult thing to do.  Yet, when we are unjust and when we are wrong, we are not progressing mankind, rather we are hindering mankind, for that which is unjust and wrong, is not just and is not right. This signifies that all those that ought to know better but still insist upon doing that which is not right, for expediency purposes, or in the false belief, that just this one injustice, won't a habit make, are false to their own self.

When we find that a given country, or a given society, or a given person, consciously chooses not to be just, the end result will never be justice, but rather it will always be even more injustice.  The very choices that each of us make, day by day, define who and what we really are, and every time we turn our back upon justice, in order, for example, to benefit our own self, or to cheat the system, or because we fear this or that, we have written in stone as to what we truly are.

If it must be so, then let the heavens fall, for we can never possibly hope to break through what needs to be broken through, until we actually face squarely what needs to be faced.  In doing so, we might just find that rather than the heavens so falling, a great and illimitable light will shine upon us, for that which separates us from that Light is ever only our own personal darkness.

Non-lead bullets

Firearms are extremely lethal at what they are designed to do, but what many people are not quite aware of, is that the ammunition of the bullets used in a lot of firearms as well as other armaments, contains within its core, lead.  No doubt, lead is utilized because of its density and hardness which makes it quite effective in its power and why it is the inner core of most bullets; however, lead in the environment is very toxic to humans, and lead when used in armament ranges or the like, will over a period of time, begin to leak out and into the surrounding environment, in which such lead getting into wetlands and waterways is inimical to the health of humans.  So too, game that is killed with lead-based bullets can be detrimental to the health of humans that consume such because of this leakage, as well as lead debris in the wild, is a present danger for scavenger wildlife.

In consideration of all the armaments that currently utilize lead based bullets, and the sheer number of bullets as well as other armaments fired each and every day, the amount of unnecessary lead in the environment is not beneficial to that environment or to humans.  So too, a novel attorney, might be able to bring forth a successful lawsuit, even in a case in which a shooting of another human being was justified, by successfully arguing that the shooter did not have the inherent right to "poison" the victim by shooting into the body of another a substance that is extremely toxic to the body.

In any event, the construction of bullets without lead has been successfully done in other countries, and even States such as California, have banned leaded bullets in regards to the hunting of wildlife.  Further to the point, while there once was a time when the gasoline of choice was lead, this was completed phased out for on-road vehicles by 1996, with no ill effects upon the usage of vehicles, and a quite obvious benefit to the environment and to the health of humans.

While there are many that decry the sheer amount of firearms in America, and additionally, wish to see some sort of robust gun control so passed, what has not been considered so much is the ammunition that is being discharged as being seen as a dangerous pollutant and therefore the necessity of regulating such as a pollutant for being a menace to society at large. So then, this signifies that civil society should desire to see the regulation of ammunition handled proactively by and thereby regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Again, it cannot be emphasized highly enough, that lead is a very toxic and a very dangerous substance to humans as well as to animals and to the environment, whether we are exposed to it directly or indirectly, and the fact that today's bullets as well as other munitions still have at their core, this dangerous element, should not be; and therefore it must be phased out, for the safety and for the good of our society, of which, ready alternatives to lead-based ammunition and armaments are freely available.