The utter waste of America's excessive defense expenditures

On September 11, 2001, suicide missions that originated from the Middle East were surprisingly successful in hitting their targets in New York City as well as upon the Pentagon.  Since that time the United States has insisted time and time again to the public that they ostensibly serve, that the United States needs far more funding for defensive purposes for  homeland security as well as the need to pass legislative surveillance laws that though sold to the public as necessary for their safety, has been also utilized in a manner to aid and augment that government of, by, and for the people to themselves be subject to invasive surveillance at unprecedented levels, heretofore, unknown.

The defense department since 9/11 has thereupon taken upon itself an inordinate amount of self-serving praise that they are well defending this country and thereby protecting our homeland, and without such protection, who knows how many additional terrorist attacks would have successfully occurred.  The thing that is barely ever mentioned is that the United States has no contiguous enemies, along with the salient facts that the Middle East is not only quite a considerable physical distance away, but also that suicide missions, by definition, are a one and done deal.

To properly put things in perspective, we need to take a look at America's historic bogeyman, at least since the conclusion of World War II, which is Russia.  For the years 2002-2019, Russia spent on average $51 billion on its defense, whereas America, a country that is considerably smaller in physical land size, but also considerably bigger in population at about a 2.25 population ratio to Russia, has during those same years, spent on average $588 billion, yearly. Since the whole point of defense spending is to protect not so much the physical country, but the people that make up that nation-- we should thereupon multiple Russia's defense expenditure annual average of $51 billion by a 2.25 population ratio so that this would fairly reflect a population base of about the same amount of peoples, in which, that would thereby give Russia a budget of $115 billion on average for those years.  Thus, we see that the difference in expenditures between what America might spent on defense if it was only willing to match its defense expenditures at the same percentage of monies so spent on a per person basis with Russia, would represent a budget of $115 billion, and this would have saved on average through the years of 2002-2019, a yearly total of $473 billion, of which those monies could have been used for something of lasting value, such as providing the means for each American to be fairly entitled to good healthcare, good education, good lodging, as well as a living wage, instead of sacrificing all of this at the altar of the defense budget.  Further to the point, even at $115 billion a year for defense spending, this would still be on a per annual basis, more monies so spent than any other country in the world, with the sole exception of China, which is a country far behind in the development of their defense industry, as well as being a country with a population of nearly 1.4 billion peoples.

All of the unnecessary billions being spent on defense infrastructure  by this country is one of the most important factors, and possible the most important factor as to why this country has such a high percentage of systemic poverty, unfairness, inequality, suspect health quality, injustice, and why Lady Liberty weeps.

Take the profit out of war

In America, the military-industrial-technology complex is absolutely gargantuan, and continues to grow year-by-year, seemingly without end, even though in actuality there is no country, no terrorist organization, and no consortium of countries that are a real true threat to America sovereignty.   The American government seems to be enthralled to that military-industrial-technology complex in which billions upon billions of monies, could actually be utilized for something of real utility for the people of this nation, and to thereby make this the greatest country on earth, but are squandered instead upon an endless stream of armaments of all types, whose main purpose is not the creation of things of good and worth, but primarily the very opposite of this, which is the destruction of that which has value and worth, in the mistaken belief that somehow war brings peace.

The only possible way to bring the military-industrial-technology complex to heel, is to quite simply, take the profit out of the whole war and armaments business;  for nothing, absolutely nothing, entices and enchants the biggest and the most powerful corporations in America, then their lust for profit and thereby without that profit, or the means to that profit, their interest in the whole armaments industry would wan, for without profit, incentives fade, for America is above all, a country that is all about the money.

Of course, no business desires to lose revenue, or that corresponding profit, but just as industries that are not directly or even indirectly involved in the war effort, have the capacity to be geared up in wartime in order to create war armaments or components of, so too can the armaments industry to a significant extent, be restructured in a manner that they can create things of real lasting value, rather than of destructive power.  After all, those businesses which are unable to reconfigure their skill-sets into something that makes for a better world and thereby provides a real utilitarian value to their society, have no legitimate valid place in a civil society.

There cannot be a truly civilized society, until mankind and societies, no matter their differences and their disputes, are able to resolve such through the auspices of civil discourse that involves fairness, and justice.  The fact that this world is to such a large extent, living in a construct in which it is still considered legitimate or appears to be considered legitimate to kill, destroy, and to attack other countries with armaments and weapons of incredible dehumanizing force, indicates that war is somehow considered to be a lawful and appropriate action.

Again, rather than having to see that the most powerful countries on this earth are subject to modern day Nuremberg trials, as they should rightfully be, it would be far better to recognize that the Nuremberg trials already have determined that present day war pretty much will initiate either directly or indirectly crimes against peace, or war crimes, or crimes against humanity.   The best way to resolve these issues of war is to take the all of the profit out of it, for once the money is gone, those shouting the loudest about the need and justification of war, will find themselves enraptured instead by whatever they have found to replaced such, with their greedy need for profit.

The rise of the imperial presidency

The United States is comprised of three branches, the executive, the judicial, and the legislative, in which these three branches provide the necessary checks and balances to assure the American people, that no one branch will run roughshod over the others, and thereby circumventing or ignoring the will of the people.  Unfortunately, what has evolved since the United States has come into existence, is that the only branch of that government, that has but a sole member to it, the executive branch, which by virtue of not having anyone else inside that branch to contradict or to preclude their desires, has in those situations, in which their will is not being enforced, or recognized, or appreciated, too often demonstrated a strong impetus to increase their power by the usage of executive orders, which are thereby treated, for the most part, as legitimate federal law; in addition to using their executive powers through the gift of patronage.

The federal government has, for instance, a budget of $4.79 trillion for FY2020, which is an astonishing amount of money and obviously has within it, plenty of areas that are susceptible to undue influence, outright corruption, deceit, and flexibility when it comes to how those monies will be allocated, where so allocated, how so allocated, and commitments so made.  This indicates that to the degree that the executive branch can impact the allocation of monies budgeted for various defense contracts, allocations for civil structure and outlays, and so on and so forth; in which whether or not these funds go to a specific congressional district, or even to a given State, is most definitely going to affect those legislative representatives in a manner in which they are effectively placed in a position to be compromised by that executive branch.

So then, the more power that is held in executive hands, in which that president, directly or indirectly, controls the outlay of federal funds, expenditures, and programs within certain areas of the United States, the more that presidency represents something akin to an imperial presidency, and becomes then a return back to that which the colonies revolted against in 1776.  While there may even be some advantages to having an imperial presidency in the sense that things so ordered by decree, will get done; that doesn't correctly represent the Constitutional structure of this government of, by, and for the people, and it isn't what this country represents or is supposed to represent.  Instead, the people's voice, which is already muted enough via poor legislative representation and lack of rectitude, will become even more of an afterthought, and thereby this country will no longer have a representative government, but an imperial one.

That said, there are still two branches of this government that can do a lot more to stop or to stymie the rise of an imperial presidency, as well as the fact that presidents, are elected, and not appointed, so that the people at the ballot box, have the opportunity every four years, to select only a candidate that represents and respects the highest law of the land, its Constitution.  If then, those people of that country will not hold accountable the president to those laws of that Constitution, their sovereignty will ultimately be subsumed into that which counts them for virtually nothing.

Effective corporate tax rates are way too low

It is a basic truism, that just about nobody likes to pay taxes, be they corporate or individual, but governments are instituted upon the consent of the people for the benefit of those people, of which, it is the appropriate duty of those people and those corporations as authorized by the people to pay taxes.  Of course, it is one thing, to pay taxes, reluctantly or not, and it is an entirely different thing, when it comes to tax fairness, of which, clearly the tax system in America, seems deliberately set up in a manner in which some are able to circumvent their appropriate tax payments, by questionable legislation, legal maneuvers, and deals that those that have money or connections with are able to exclusively avail themselves of.

A case in point, is as reported by americanfortaxfairness.org, the "Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013," which is an truly astonishing fact, and clearly reflective that corporations are able to successfully work the angles to avert the paying of their fair share of taxes at an extremely skilled level.  What is so disappointing to the general public is that taxes that are not being fairly paid by corporations are thereupon placed upon the citizens of the United States, who are typically already overburdened with paying their share of those taxes, to begin with. 

Additionally, successful corporations, of which America has the worldwide lion's share of the biggest and the most profitable, are the very vehicles that have an abundance of monies that could readily lend them to doing their fair share, but many of these corporations prefer instead, to pay as little as they can "legally" pay.  Further to the point, the unfairness of corporations continues in respect to the fact that human beings not only have a finite life, but typically have a finite amount of life that is spent gainfully employed, and ultimately when human beings die, their estate is subject to taxes, if large enough.  Whereas, corporations are artificial constructs authorized by the government, of which, some of these corporations have been in existence for over 125 years and that have not yet faced, and apparently will never face some sort of estate tax upon their company, for they are for all practical purposes, perpetual.

Also, though there are individuals that are multi-billionaires, in point of fact, the worth of corporations as defined by their market capitalization, absolutely dwarfs all those individual multi-billionaires; for corporations are behemoths, that are not only seemingly endless in their duration, but also gargantuan in their size, of which they can exceed even one trillion dollars in market capitalization, that thereupon allows them to use their capital assets as well as their implied threats of employment opportunities or continuance of, as an absolute cudgel against outmanned and outmaneuvered, or possibly compromised government officials that get in their way.

The bottom line is that those with the deepest pockets and those with the most money as well as the most influence are in fact, corporations that have seen their fair share of the federal tax revenue plummet over the last sixty years, thereby leaving the American public to handle not only their own share, but the corporate share as well.  Not too surprisingly, during this period of time, the disparity of income and assets between those that are the richest of the rich, including corporations, as compared to those of the middle class, has grown further apart at unhealthy levels, signifying that there are two ways to grow one's assets, one is by making more money and the other is by paying less in taxes.

That which is changeless and eternal is the only ultimate reality

Anybody that believes in a god that changes, evolves, or is affected somehow by anything that occurs at anytime or at anywhere, fundamentally are believing in either a lesser god, or do not understand the true nature of the only God.  This is but one true God, and that God is timeless, eternal, changeless, omnipotent, omniscience, and immutable.  While the concept of a perfect changeless God that has always been in existence and always will be in existence may seem like a difficult concept for some people to grasp as well as to comprehend, that does not invalidate the inviolable truth that this is indeed so.

Far too many people want to desperately believe that which is real, is only those things or sights that can be seen or touched; yet, all around us, we find that we deal with everyday things that are unseen and are untouchable such as gravity or the wind, of these we cannot see or hold, yet they are very real.  Still, as interesting, as enchanting, or as frustrating, that our earthly experience can be, the end result for all those that born into this world, is that the physical body being finite in its creation, will ultimately pass away, for our physical bodies and even this planet, are impermanent.

In fact, there is nothing tangible that any of us interact with daily that is not, ultimately, impermanent.  This doesn't mean that we are not real, but rather what it means is that just as we are subject to change, all that we deal with, are also subject to change.  This signifies that the world that we currently exist in, is transitory in nature, and always will be transitory, for that which is created into existence, has both a beginning as well as an end.

On the other hand, all that which is changeless, immutable, and eternal, by definition, has no beginning and has no end; and hence only this substance can be the ultimate reality, because its constitution can never be amended or changed.  So then, to the degree that we concentrate our efforts on transitory things is the degree that we often get out of sync with what really matters.  That which is eternal is never going to be physical, but instead has to be beyond physicality, as well as being beyond time and space.  So that, it behooves us not to limit our thinking and our mindset, by defining ourselves as just some physical body, but rather the better viewpoint is to see ourselves as spiritual beings temporarily housed within a physical body, which thus allows us to know that we are all part of a greater whole.

There is, in the scheme of things, just that one ultimate reality, and all that which is transitory, should be seen for what it really is, which is no more than space and time created for us as a proving ground, that all must ultimately answer to, for false gods lead to false paths, whereas the one true reality is that which never changes, and is forever lasting and enduring.

A life without purpose is seldom going to be a good life to live

In modern society, and especially in western nations, things such as food, shelter, education, and healthcare are to a large extent, taken care of, for those that need such assistance, in a competent manner by governmental and charitable organizations. The fact that in western societies that food, shelter, air, and water are typically abundantly available for most everyone, signifies that one of the driving forces of life, that is, survival, is for the most part, handled well by the modern welfare state.

So then, it must be recognized that one of the most motivating forces that creates purpose in a given person's life, mankind's survival, is to a large extent, not really the driving force that it once was, because the structure of modern society has done a good job of addressing that in a manner in which, the fight for survival, has already been fought and has been won on behalf of the people.  However, as in most everything, there is a good and bad side to such an equation, in which the good is that it frees each of us up to have therefore the fair opportunity to pursue something of merit or of interest; whereas, on the other hand, for those that are not motivated, or come from poor circumstances, the choices are not only a lot worse, but the purpose often needed to create a positive life, can be sorely lacking.

This thus creates a real dichotomy in which some people are going to have a life with a real purpose and by having that purpose and pursuing it, often find fruitful satisfaction; but, others are going to lack direction, lack focus, and ultimately lack the life skills so needed, that their life lacks a good purpose, in which often that life doesn't have much of a purpose or even direction at all.  If, those without purpose, were simply passive people that sort of faded into the background, that would be one thing; but rather, in many cases, those without a good purpose, gravitate strongly to antisocial and misanthropic behavior that breeds retribution and violence directed against some of those that they come across.

After all, in a material society, in which some have a heck of a lot, and others have just barely enough; and of which some are on a pathway to material success and others know for a certainty that they are not on such a pathway, this is going to create some serious conflict, especially when one party, can't think of a real good reason why they shouldn't get what they want by any means, necessary.

A life without purpose, or a dead-end life, often signifies a mindset that is going to want to strike out against the futility of life, and thereby at what that life so represents to them.  That is to say, when life offers little or nothing to live for, then the value of another person's life or their property is going to be valued at a very discounted rate, and bad things are consequently going to occur at a stubbornly high frequency, in which the only viable solution to such, is by fundamentally addressing that mindset so as to find a good purpose or direction in that life, and then maintain good accordance to that good purpose.

Who benefits from massive governmental deficits?

The United States government can't seem to manage a balance budget, and quite frankly, doesn't seem to care, or to even make an honest effort to do so.  This thus makes one think, that perhaps there are powerful forces that purposely do not want the United States to balance its budget, and would prefer that it continue its indebtedness.  So then, the best way to ponder this question is to determine, what parties most greatly benefit from this current state of affairs.

First, the United States government, in order to create money, must sell treasury instruments, bonds, and other financial instruments to outside entities, such as foreign entities, as well as to domestic investors.  Additionally, the United States government receives monetary funding from the Federal Reserve System, which is a consortium of banks that are actually independent of the federal government.   All of these are necessary in order for the government to print money and to take care of its fiduciary duties, but as in all debts so created, that debt must be paid back and there is a time cost to that money so borrowed, of which that cost is expressed by the interest rate so charged, of which, as reported by thebalance.com, for fiscal year 2020, "The interest on the debt is $479 billion."  To understand this better, recognize that the United States government, on behalf of its citizens, is so indebted that it must pay $479 billion just in interest on that debt; or in other words, this is the cost of purchasing things without having the ready money to pay for it at the time of that purchase, of which a fiscally sound government would not therefore have to budget $479 billion just to service the debt, without actually receiving any material goods or services in return.

So then, those that lend money to the United States government, benefit greatly from essentially following the very basic principle, that those that have money and then loan out that money at a particular interest rate, are essentially making money from money, without having to do anything of merit, to earn such. Further to the point, in principle, that which is the borrower is in hock to that which is the lender; signifying that the entity with the money, has an immense amount of influence over the other party that needs that money or access to money in order to sustain itself, and therefore can thereby exert a great deal of influence over governmental policies.

There are two basic ways for the government to balance its budget, of which these are not mutually exclusive; of which one is to raise the taxes upon the population, its corporations, as well as upon the duties of imports and the like, and the second is to reduce governmental expenditures for the military and other assorted budget items that are funded by the government.  What is occurring at the present time is neither the budget is being reduced, nor are taxes being raised, but instead, powerful vested interests see that these are unaffected.  This thus means that the richest of the rich, and the most powerful of the powerful, are beneficiaries on both sides of the equation, in which by virtue of the government having to borrow from them directly, or indirectly, they make that easy money; in addition, by not being fairly and appropriately taxed via our progressive tax system or through higher corporate taxes, or through higher capital gains taxes, they not only keep more of their money but are able to continue to augment and to grow that money.

So then, the primary beneficiaries of governmental deficits are the richest and most powerful, and the losers are the general population that are stuck carrying the weight of that debt, not only for the present generation, but of generations still to come.

The Freedom of Information Act and private contractors engaged in military actions

The United States Freedom of Information Act, is applicable against public authorities, in which that government of, by, and for the people, has the right to access such pertinent information as held by those authorities on behalf of the people, so that the people will have appropriate knowledge of that which it government does, good or bad, right or wrong.  One of those things, that the people have the rightful need to know, is information about military engagements that this country engages in with a myriad of opponents, all over the globe.  The problem that occurs at the present time, in regards to that needful information, is that despite the fact that the military personnel of America has an abundance of both soldiers and military resources of all sorts, it also, far more often then it should, outsources a great deal of its military adventures or misadventures to private contractors and even more chilling, subcontractors to those private contractors.

The reason that private contractors engaging in military adventures is especially of concern to these citizens of the United States, is that unlike federal actions and federal activities, those that are private contractors to those federal departments, are not susceptible to the Freedom of Information Act by the public, through the subterfuge of availing themselves of the excuse that such that they are doing is proprietary information or other questionable excuses.  While there may well be legitimate reasons why private contractors would not want to release information in regards to what they are doing overseas in support of our military affairs; it must be said that military activities that are hidden from the public view, of which the military-industrial-technology complex for a certainty knows that they cannot be compelled by law to release this information about those private contractors are going to be prone to abuses of all sorts, and lend itself to activities that the military-industrial-technology complex would not want to directly participate in -- which thereby really says it all.

There should not be two different military-industrial-technology complexes within America; of which one is ultimately held accountable to the people, whereas the other, lead by private contractors and subcontractors to those private contractors, is not.  What has occurred in the present situation is that the dirtiest deeds, the deeds that those in the know do not wish to voluntarily divulge are outsourced to those private contractors, so that all sorts of questionable activities are done in the shadows, never to be fully disclosed to American citizens.

The Freedom of Information Act was passed in order to provide more transparency to the American public, for the government of this country is not set above the people, but is part and parcel of the people.  Not too surprisingly, governmental institutions, and especially military ones, find it much easier to conduct activities of questionable nature, or even an illegal nature, when they are able to find an avenue in which what they are doing is controlled by that institution and what is known, is only provided on a "need to know" basis.  The bottom line is that because private contractors are the way for the military-industrial-technology complex to avert transparency, then the law either needs to be amended to preclude this, or private contractors should be eliminated from the military-industrial-technology complex; especially in consideration that each year, more and more "work" gets outsourced, to those private contractors, of which American citizens are not provided a fair vetting of what they are actually doing in their name, while representing the red, white, and blue.

College costs are way, way too high

As reported by forbes.com, "There are 45 million borrowers who collectively owe nearly $1.6 trillion in student loan debt in the U.S," which is an absolutely staggering figure and incredibly debilitating to those that are indebted to those higher educational institutions.  In a time in which, colleges are able to be more virtual in providing learning as a viable option to its students, and of which, the cost of computing power, networking, and communicating has never been more cost efficient; rather than the costs of college becoming lower  as well as more competitive in aggregate, or at least providing more bang for the buck in total, we have seen the costs of college education skyrocket at rates far exceeding the inflation rate, and placing thereupon this extra burden upon the students'  shoulders and their wallets, instead.

Further to the point, in this new world, in which achieving a college degree seems to be a prerequisite in order to have a fair opportunity to earn a good salary; that educational requirement essentially places what has to be looked upon as a huge tax burden upon those that haven't even begun to earn their own keep, as of yet.  Additionally, colleges of all types, but especially those pernicious online "for profit" colleges of questionable merit, have high percentages of dropouts that therefore do not earn that college degree but are unfortunately stuck with the burden of paying for something that was never completed.  Also, there are those that go through the whole rigmarole in getting their college degree only to find out that in the real world, their degree accounts them nothing, except some begrudging credit that they at least, stayed the course, and got a graduate degree, but apparently not one of any real value in finding gainful employment of fair compensation in their study subject of choice.

The fact that college costs have soared over the last few decades is a clear reflection that at the highest levels of those involved in the cost structure of these colleges, that there is an implicit collusion between these institutions to drive those costs ever higher and to burden therefore students as well as those guaranteeing those loans to the students; of which those doing the guaranteeing, ultimately remains the taxpayers in whole.  That is to say, many college institutions are all about extracting as much money as possible from the students attending their college, in the recognition that they will be fully paid by the government in a timely manner, or its equivalency, and thereby are blithely unconcerned how those students personally deal with that debt.  This thus makes colleges, very motivated, as a collective unit, to simply push up their prices, year by year, because, quite obviously, the higher the price, the better the reward and the better the growth for those colleges, which clearly benefits the vested interests behind those colleges, at the direct expense of those students so attending, as well as those taxpayers guaranteeing the payment of.

The only possible solution to this current conundrum is really as straightforward, as it being mandated by law, that each State of this union, be required to provide a reasonably price college of higher learning to all those students meeting a certain certified standard, of which those college tuition costs would be forever tied to inflation, so as to remain a direct benefit to those students and for the express benefit of this country.

Employment, unemployment, and self-worth

Everybody has the innate need to have something to do or work upon in their lives that provides them with some sort of satisfaction in the accomplishing of those given things.  For many of us, we work, not just because it is a means to procure income, but because we get the satisfaction of accomplishing something of real merit, each and every day that we work.  For others, that may not have or desire a paying job, there is satisfaction, for example, in taking care of household tasks and the bringing up and mentoring of children, or in volunteer work, or in various hobbies and activities, that fulfill us.  In all of this, the general commonality is that our self-worth is caught up in the positive activities that we engage in day-by-day.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people, that are unemployed, or apparently unemployable because they lack the right skill set or have mental or physical limitations, or job opportunities are not readily available in their area, or the pay is too paltry, or the conditions of the work are denigrating or dangerous, so that the end result is that they have little hope of gainful employment and thus remain unemployed.  So too, there are people, though being employed, are employed in dead end jobs that they get little or no satisfaction from in the work so being done, which is often coupled with remunerative pay which is insultingly low and thereby not enough to make a sustainable living from.

In those cases, of people who are unemployed, or are frustrated within their employment or the conditions of that employment; that disappointment, as well as often having extra time on their hands, without much of value to accomplish, often lends itself to ill advised or destructive behavior, typically directed against one's own self with things such as substance abuse or pernicious addictions, while also having a strong tendency to strike out against society, at large, in some way.  Those that have nothing, and do not believe that they will ever have anything, are prone to antisocial behavior of all sorts, because their perception of who and what they are, is very low, and without a belief that they are of any real worth, will often deal with such by striking back against that which they perceive has taken their self-worth from them.

So then, there is a strong correlation between crime and unemployment, as well as crime so caused by perceived unfairness.  After all, those that have nothing much to do, and nothing of intrinsic value in their possession, and do not have the ready means to change such are going to have a strong tendency to take what they can take, not only because they have a need for such, but because their anger overrules any innate sensibility that they might have.

One of the things about employment is that those employed devote a meaningful amount of time each day in the accomplishment of their work duties; of which, on the other hand, those that are not employed and are not going to school, and have little home responsibility, do not.  This signifies that idle hands, and idle minds, need to fill the vacuum that the lack of employment leaves them, and those that believe that they have little or no value to society because they are not contributing to that society, are going to, more times than not, engage in behavior that is destructive to themselves as well as to that society.

Charging convicts for the cost of their conviction

The United States makes it their point, to lock up a high percentage of those that have been convicted inside their incarceration facilities, and has the audacity to further believe that they have the Constitutional right to charge convicts money for all sorts of things, such as, incredibly under certain circumstances, for the cost of their daily incarceration accrued over their time imprisoned, as well as for as reported by brennancenter.org, for "…case filing, felony surcharges, electronic monitoring, drug testing, and sex offender registration," amongst other various things.  To believe, that this is fair to the person so incarcerated, is clearly misguided, since the person serving the time does not have the option of opting-out from these unjust fees.

When the justice arm of the government, rightly or wrongly, takes away the freedom of a given individual, then it should not have the indecency to then charge them for costs or alleged costs of their incarceration or parts of their incarceration.  If, on the other hand, the justice choice of a particular case, allows the option for those convicted of certain crimes, to decide as to whether their preference would be to do the time and not be charged additional incarceration fees, or to sign up to pay these fees in order to remain free, that would be an acceptable form of justice, but that is seldom the case.

The fact that that it costs real money to incarcerate individuals is something that everybody is already quite aware of.  If, that society does not wish to expend unwarranted monies on the incarceration industrial complex, it should not have to.  To, on the other hand, take those that are typically without money, without their freedom, and without good resources and then expect them to somehow be able to successfully fight the system that has effectively used the people's resources to oppress them, and thereby somehow to overcome these repressing fees, as well, is never going to happen.

The easiest people in the world to deal with in a controlling, overbearing and cruel manner are those that have had their freedom curtailed, who are often ill educated, and are fundamentally poor in virtually every aspect of life.  To somehow believe that burdening these people with monetary fines, over and above everything else that they have to deal with, is wrong.  Again, it must be said, incarceration for anyone is punishment enough, and anything in addition to that, is unacceptable.

The rub of the situation really comes down to the salient fact, that the costs of incarcerating all the people that America so incarcerates, is prohibitively expensive and legislators are often therefore reluctant to implement additional taxes upon the people to pay for all that incarceration.  So then, instead we have the current state of affairs, which puts an unfair burden of incarceration upon those that have little or no means to pay for such. 

What America really needs to address, is to understand that in order to correct systemic problems, such as the high amount of people incarcerated and the cost thereof, necessitates fundamental changes that thereupon will provide real opportunity and fairness to those that have been forever denied such.  The wrong answer is to lock up more and more people, seeing them in essence as a collective lost cause, when in fact, what has really occurred, is the non-recognition that a significant amount of these people, have never been given a fair chance to begin with.

European immigration to America, wars and conscription

While the rules, laws, and regulations that are currently in place in regards to immigration to America, makes it a real process for a lot of people to legally immigrate to America, including refugees that would like to reside here, that has not always been the historical case.  In fact, for the most part, immigration of Europeans to America, especially during the 19th and early 20th century, was typically as straightforward as having the means to pay for that transportation to the United States, and upon arrival to America, answering the questions so being asked by immigration authorities which were typically perfunctory and thereby an easy hurdle to overcome, along with the briefest of medical exams.

America, was fortunate that so many believed that America was that land of opportunity, for America has an awful lot of land, that necessitated a motivated and dedicated effort to be accomplished by a whole lot of immigrants, in order to turn the potential of the richness that America has in its soil and environment into something of real merit and worth, which thereupon proved beyond a doubt, that immigrants, given a fair chance, truly do know how to get it done.

While many people rightly believe that some of the biggest factors appealing to immigrants in coming to America, were the economic opportunity and freedom that America represents, as well as the free exercise of religion, there was yet another very important factor, somewhat overlooked by history, which was that able body men in virtually every European country, were clearly susceptible when of age to military conscription by their government, of which, those with money, connections, and the right jobs did not need to overly worry about being troubled with such; whereas the poor, the landless, the luckless, and the common laborer, most certainly feared such conscription.

Not only did conscription, fundamentally mean that one's life was literally held in the state's hands, but it could essentially mean, that those subject to that conscription could easily not ever be heard from again.  So that, all those that were knowledgeable that a foreign land existed in which there was land available for settlers, and especially to those settlers that would work that land; as well as the perceived fair economic opportunity available for those willing to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, certainly took on the guise of being a country of sanctuary, and truly flowing with that proverbial milk and honey.

The problem with European wars, back then, as well as the problem of wars that occur in the present time, is that most common denizens of countries that suffer through endless wars, truly do suffer; especially when it is their progeny that does all of the fighting, all of the sacrificing, and all of the dying.  This thus signifies that common sense people are willing to take inordinate risks, necessitating the crossing of great oceans or great barriers, if they believe that by doing so, that they will be able to live in a country in which they control their own fate, and what they earn by the sweat of their brow will be fairly theirs.

This so indicates, that countries that are forever at war, as well as having some form of unfair and unequal conscription, are the type of countries that sensible people do not wish to live in; and rather, not too surprisingly strongly desire to emigrate from, so as to immigrate to where the conditions and circumstances are perceived to be far more favorable for them and their family.

Sanctioned killing and unsanctioned killing

Most civilized people, the world over, do not sanction the murder of another human being. However, as in many things, there are exceptions as to whether or not the taking of another human being's life is duly classified as murder, depending upon, for instance, whether it was accidental, premeditated, in the line of defense, and so on and so forth.  The very biggest dividing line, though, between that which is classified as murder and that which is not, often comes down to whether that taking of another human being's life has been officially sanctioned by the state, such as is done in wars or those engagements that are basically defined as war; as compared to an individual or a group of individuals, that take the life of another, just as deliberately, but have not done so under authorized state sanctioned circumstances.

That is to say, under the conditions of war, the taking of another human being's life can be something in which the killer of that person or persons is rewarded with a medal from the state, for performing their duty to that state.  Whereas, on the other hand, those that take the lives of another on a non-state sanctioned level, of which they have no expressed or even implied authorization to do so from those that are the authority figures of that state, are never rewarded with a medal, and are typically seen as a true menace to society and hence are prosecuted by the state with the objective to have them incarcerated for their inhuman actions.

Yet, as much as states wish to differentiate between those that kill as authorized by the state, as compared to those that kill, without such authorization, the difference in the mindset of those that are doing the killing, may not be appreciably different, because in order to take the life of another, or lots of others, there often is a commonality in which the person or persons, that is the enemy target, has been effectively dehumanized, beforehand.  In other words, to convince a soldier to kill the enemy, typically necessitates demonizing the enemy and dehumanizing the enemy by defining that enemy in derogatory terms that effectively takes away their semblance of humanity and replaces such with what makes them appear as something of no more importance than a despised animal or an insentient object.  So too, street thugs of all types, look upon the other, not as a human being, but simply as a target that has to eradicated, eliminated, and silenced, in order for that perpetrator to get their proper respect, or money, or its equivalency.

To kill another person is not a natural act, which is why many that do so, have to take substances to gather the "courage" to do so, or are inclined to use such substances after doing so, in order to quiet and to still their mind.   However, all this killing is always a lot easier, if the state, or the respect of the street, is able to effectively make it appear that certain particular human beings aren't really human, but are instead actually some sort of despised subspecies, that is a pestilence or an ever present danger that must be stopped at all costs. 

While the killing as sanctioned by the state is dealt with in a fundamentally different manner than killing that has not been sanctioned by the state, what most pundits do not readily realize, is that the psyche of those doing the killing is uncomfortably similar in both of these respective actions, in form and in substance.

"Show me who makes a profit from war, and I'll show you how to stop the war"

The above quote comes from one of America's greatest heroes, Henry Ford.  And Mr. Ford makes a very telling point, which is that since so many businesses are almost by definition, actuated by profits, that any business enterprise that makes a profit in a specific area, has a strong tendency to want to continue to make that profit, in perpetuity.  The problem therefore that comes when looking at enterprises that are directly or indirectly involved in the business of war, is that when those businesses are permitted to make a profit, and typically a very good profit, by a payer, that is always good to their word, is that those enterprises are often going to want to do as much business as they possibly can, because they want to continue to profit.

Whether any company should make a profit from war, is essentially an ethical question.  For instance, when sacrifices are being made by the people that populate a particular country, of which, some of that sacrifice involves citizens and institutions of that country being harmed, hurt, damaged, or even losing their life, it doesn't seem right for some other enterprise, to make a monetary profit upon such.  It is known that corporations, and especially publically owned corporations, have an obligation to their shareholders to grow their revenues and to thereby grow their profits, so that, since the business of America appears to be business, corporations that are making money through a given war effort, are going to more times than not, want to keep making that money, and in fact, probably want to make more of it, year-by-year.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people that would like to see a lot less war, and understand implicitly as did Mr. Ford, that if the profit incentive is removed from war and those corresponding war efforts, then it logically follows that there is going to be a lot less war, because business enterprises that have areas of their business in which there is no profit, no longer would concentrate their efforts on the growth of such.  So then, it is fair to say, since the current agenda, permits corporations to make a profit, and often a handsome profit from war and their relevant war efforts, in which, wars, declared or not, seem to be in abundance; that by thereby changing the dynamic in a way in which those profits are repatriated to the government on behalf of the people, as well as being subsequently legislated out of existence, would materially affect how much war there would be.

This signifies that profits and wars have a symbiotic relationship, and this has been true for quite a long time, and this needs to stop, in order to significantly reduce the amount of wars so being fought, and thereby the untold amount of harm done to society and the people that make up those societies.  Again, it is important to well remember that wars necessitate sacrifice by the people, of which some of those people are going to lose everything, and it doesn't seem right, that some gave all, whereas others have profited handsomely from that sacrifice.

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.