The coin of the realm

The coin of the realm for the United States of America, is its Federal Reserve note, colloquially known as the dollar bill, of which, this currency has degraded over time into becoming just a fiat currency.  In other words, there isn't anything backing the dollar bills in existence other than the trust that people and institutions place into it, as well as the inherent backing by "the full faith and credit" of the United States government.  Not too surprisingly, fiat currencies, have a very strong tendency to become less valued over time, which is why today's dollar bill does not have even close to the value of its predecessor dollar bill, that was previously part of the gold standard, and was severed from such in 1971. So that as of 2020, it takes as reported by dollartimes.com, $6.46 to equate to what the value of a $1.00 was back in 1971.  This so indicates, that those that hide their money under their mattress, or fall asleep, akin to a Rip Van Winkle with money in their pocket, are not going to be too happy, upon their realization that dollars do not well hold their value over time.

The fact that the United States government essentially monopolizes what is made to be currency in this country puts them in the catbird seat of utilizing that currency for the primary benefit of those that are knowable about future interest rates, the velocity of that money in circulation, and the strength of that currency vis-a-vis other global currencies, of which that knowledge materially benefits those that know of these things, in the sense of being able to profit immensely from it.  Further to the point, those institutions which are aware that a given currency is going to be, for instance, devalued in comparison to a basket of other currencies or to a particular currency, are in the commanding position to profit, handsomely from that knowledge.  This so indicates that when it comes to the coin of the realm, that a given country's currency is far too valuable of a commodity for those that should not know, which are typically considered to be the general public, what those that are the arbiters of that money do know, beforehand.  In other words, those that control or have massive influence upon the issuance and value of money have zero interest in fairly sharing that wealth or being fair with the general public when it comes to that money, because part of the way that they maintain their power, influence, and wealth is by gaming the system, so that they thereby receive unearned riches from their inside access to all that is pertinent in regards to that currency.

So then, in a construct in which the general public must out of necessity utilize the coin of the realm for all of their transactions, they are perpetually in a very vulnerable position to having that which they have so long worked and labored for, becoming devalued, literally overnight, and thereby what would appeared to have been so secure, actually becomes not.  This signifies that fiat currencies are an ever present danger to the general public and to the degree that the general public can mitigate such, by thereby storing their wealth into things that are tangible and have a strong tendency to hold their value, such as land, real estate, equipment, and precious metals, they should prudently consider doing exactly that.

United we stand, divided we fall

Mankind's greatest delusion is to see the world only from an  exclusive self consciousness, and not to take into account, that this world is filled with millions upon millions of other inhabitants that have the very same unalienable rights as each of us does; no more and no less.  So that, the very first lesson to learn is never going to be that each one of us is egotistically special, in the sense, that we are above others; but rather, that each one of us has been created by the very same hand, and are not only equally entitled to the same fruits, but are always forever equal in the eyes of our Creator, without exception.

This thus signifies that the only real race for mankind is for mankind to truly become united as one, for we are all of the same common cause.  The separation that we often perceive in regards to others, is a tragic false construct which has to be overcome if we are to ever have lasting peace, in which those that have the most progress to make, are the ones that stumble over the simplest of differences, such as the color of our skin, or our place of origin, as these most basic of traits have absolutely nothing to do with the character of our person.  Further to the point, those that are quick to judge others are always going to be those that believe that shortcuts and snap decisions are somehow part and parcel of what makes for good discernment, when this can never be so. 

Each one of us is truly a work in progress, of which, the first step in the continuance of good progress, is when interacting with other people to do so in a manner that wishes the betterment and good of that other, for to not be able to see the equal validity and the humanity of the other person, is to misconstrue others into categories, such as superior or inferior, which incorrectly diminishes either our own worth or theirs.  Certainly, this is not an easy mindset to grasp; yet, it is a fundamental truth that must be acknowledged, for mankind has suffered again and again, from misjudging their own selfish importance at the direct expense of their neighbor's importance.

The very motto of the United States is the Latin phrase: e pluribus Unum, which translated means: "out of many, one."  This signifies that the very purpose of these United States, is for all the many people that have come into this country from all over the world, and hence from a multitude of backgrounds and cultures to be recognized as equally valid members of these United States, in which the abiding principle of this country is for all of these people to become united as one people under the same flag, with the same unalienable rights, of which all are equally entitled to the same attributes of  life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

To the degree that we feel oneness with our own family and our very close friends, we must also be more than willing to put forth the same sort of dynamic effort to encompass more and more people into what would thereby become our ever widening circle, for that is what we are called to do, for we all are in the very same world, together.

Getting away with murder

America is a very violent nation, that literally stands alone in comparison to every other western nation, in the amount of its citizens that are murdered each year, of which the proximate cause of all these murders besides the fact that America is filled with enclaves of impoverished people that are in hopeless situations, is to a large extent because of the sheer amount of firearms in the hands of their population, of which firearms are extremely lethal in what they are meant to do.  One might think, as bad as that is, that because the murder rate in America is so high, that at least the sheer amount of practice involved in resolving murders would now be close to the art of perfection; especially in consideration that with all the high-technology advances of law enforcement over recent years and in conjunction with the vast improvements within forensic science over the years, that America, alone amongst all other western nations, would lead in the clearance rate of those being charged with the crime of murder.  Regrettably, that assumption is clearly false, in which as reported by freethink.com, "In 1965, the nationwide clearance rate for homicide was 91%; in 2017, it was just over 61%," which is absolutely appalling, and indicates that those that murder other people have a 39% of not even ever been charged with the crime of murder, let alone convicted of such.

In consideration, that murder is the wrongful taking away of another person's life, one would think that this particular crime would be a very high priority for police departments in conjunction with justice offices to see that such would be resolved at not only a very high rate, but done in an expeditious and thorough manner.  Rather, it would seem that though a whole lot of people are being murdered, that the police and justice departments are so often seemingly clueless about who has done it, and subsequently can't even find a suspect in nearly 40% of the cases of murder.  While the reasons why this is so may be myriad, one would say that the fundamental reason why murder clearance rates are abysmally low in America, comes down to the salient fact that police and justice departments are to a very large extent, not trusted and not seen as being of merit by significant portions of the population and that those police and justice departments to their discredit, often do not know the constituents in many communities that they are sworn to serve and to protect.

When certain communities are essentially seen as nothing more than areas for the police to make easy arrests for basic victimless crimes, such as prostitution, drug usage, and vagrancy, in which, those officers along with the justice department are interested in nothing more but coerced plea bargains, and easy convictions, in which they have no apparent qualms about disrupting communities, because they have the power to do so, those that make up that community, even when they are suffering from real crimes being committed against them, such as robbery, larceny, and murder, will not readily come forward to the police or justice departments, because they have consciously decided that there is no good upside to doing so, for nothing positive will occur by buying into a system that has essentially criminalized those that are poor, disenfranchised, ill educated, and lacking in good opportunity.

So that, murders in America, have low clearance rates, because there are far and away too many communities that have no legitimate police protection, whatsoever; and view those police officers that enter into their communities as nothing more than a common enemy to all.

As a tree is known by its fruit, so is a system by its results

Each country and every civilization in its own way, wants to be considered to be on the right way and on the correct path for the benefit of their fellow countrymen.  Further to the point, life consists to a certain natural degree of comparisons, one country to another, one thing to another, in which the object of the exercise, apt or not, is to determine as to which country is doing better than another in regards to things that are often measurable, such as income, wealth, incarceration, education, achievements, healthcare, justice, social activities, and so on and so forth.  The point of such an exercise is to compare, fairly, one system to another, and from that comparison to thereby determine the success of a given system, by the fairest possible standard, which typically would consist of the tangible results of a particular system.

Additionally, there is a very valid reason as to why societies should be concerned about the results of the systems that they live under, because only by the careful evaluation of those results, is it possible, to make adjustments to those systems in order to thereby achieve better and subsequently the preferred results.  To not do so, means that the powers to be, don't really care about results, per se; but rather simply care more about maintaining their power, or their position, at the expense of making necessary adjustments to the system by learning from the application of such in the real world, as not everything that appears good on paper or in theory, works out as expected, in reality.

This thus signifies, that any country, that within its founding of such, or the principles that actuate such, which are based around such noble ideals such as freedom, liberty, equality, justice, fairness, tranquility, and the pursuit of happiness, of which these all are desired on the behalf of promoting the general welfare for the people, should be fairly judged by the outcome of those promises made from that government of, by, and for the people.  This then is the true test of any system, for that system which promises great benefits, should be adjudged by whether or not those benefits do occur, as well as by the overall fairness and distribution of those benefits throughout the entire population.  From those results, good or bad, that system should be evaluated, for that is the truest test of such.

So that, any country or civilization, believing it to be a great country or civilization, should be objectively judged by the results of their system and thereby the outcome of that system as propagated throughout its entire population; of which, those systems that are truly successful will only be those systems that have results that faithfully reflect such.  This thus means, that all the noise about the greatness of certain countries and specific civilizations, really comes down to not what those at the very top have to say and show, but rather how those that are the forgotten, the forsaken, and the disenfranchised, are being treated within those countries in the here and now; for that is the true measure of any good system, for these systems that do not fairly aid their weakest members have yet to yield and will not yield the grand bountiful harvest that all are equally entitled to.

Quotas, overtime, and "collars for dollars"

Public servants cost the taxpayer's money, and police officers are public servants; so fiscally concerned citizens should be concerned about how much police officers are costing them in the real world, alongside whether or not the officers are actually conducting themselves in a manner which is in the true interest of the public good.  In point of fact, on a given day, there are all sorts of arrests of citizens for all sorts of alleged crimes, from the arrest of people for the pettiest of crimes, or even worse, trumped up charges of a crime, to crimes of real import.  In the scheme of things, from a public safety standpoint, it would make a lot more sense that arrests be made of people that are actually harming others, or harming property, as compared to arresting people that are essentially committing "crimes" that are victimless.  Unfortunately, though, because of the way the system is structured, we find that the desire for extra pay and the implementation of unofficial quotas can upset the sensibility of even the best of public servants, because police officers and those that manage them are prone to desire to "game" the system, for their own benefit, because as in most things, money matters.

That is to say, in the incarceration facilities and justice departments that are part of the system, they have a constant need for inventory, and those being arrested are the very first process in keeping that inventory, fresh.  Further to the point, police officers are well aware that it behooves them to concentrate their arresting activities upon those that have the least representation in a given community, which thereby signifies that they overly target their arrests upon the poor and disenfranchised.  Additionally, police officers know that if they don't consistently bring in a certain amount of arrests or tickets on a given shift or workweek, that they will not only have to answer for that shortfall in their unofficial quota, but may suffer directly from their lack of doing their part by subsequently having their shift hours changed to something far less desirable, as well as being susceptible to the receipt of a poor evaluation score, negating therefore their opportunity to advance or even to maintain their job.  Also, police officers know that the easiest way to augment their pay is to make arrests, especially near the end of their shift, in order to thereby garner overtime by the process of taking their "collar" through the procedures and paperwork that each arrest so necessitates.  This perverse incentive means that police officers have a strong bias to arrest those that have no voice, not really because these people are a clear and present menace to society, but mainly because there is good money to be had, by that overtime, and a timely arrest makes for easy money.

If, justice departments, actually were more concerned about doing what is right by their community, they would make it their point to concentrate their resources against those criminal activities that actually have an adverse material impact upon their communities, and rather than arresting citizens for drug possession and victimless crimes, would see to it, that it would be of far better service to that community, to address these non-desirable activities through  proactive social services and the like.  Instead, we have police departments that spend far too much time arresting those that by their arrest aren't going to make that community any safer, in which the taxpayer's pay for this, without getting anything that would approach fair value; nor is good justice rendered, for that matter.

"For civilization to survive, the human race has to remain civilized”

The above quotation comes from the inestimable Rod Serling, from his ground breaking TV series, The Twilight Zone. That statement is apropos of today's society as it was just as applicable when it was first aired in 1961.  It would behoove mankind to recognize that civilization cannot ever be successfully built upon lies, bombs, discrimination, hate, and all things of this same ilk, for each of these bad traits has in common, that they are destructive in nature.  Rather, for civilization to really take hold, the people that make up those communities must behave in a manner which demonstrates that they are first and foremost, sensible, as well as caring, empathetic, considerate, and desiring from their heart, the good for the other, which are all traits that are constructive in nature. 

We then find, that those communities that lack the tangible beliefs and assets of a constructive nature, are not really civilized societies, though they may well have some of the civilized components that are necessary to create that civilized society.  Nobody ever said that it would be easy to become civilized, for mankind has proven to have a rather nasty tendency to impulsively or to rashly strike out against others, and in particular against others, that thwart their particular desires and unbending will.  The very first way to correct something such as that, is to recognize the truth of the statement, that we all are in this together; and thereby come to the sensible recognition that civilizations in order to be civilized must learn better how to compromise, to be more accommodating, to listen, and to truly put themselves in the shoes of the other, in which by doing such, the sooner that community will transform itself into being civilized.

Each of us learns from example, and too often examples place in front of virtually all of us, especially in the way that we interact with one another, demonstrates that to a depressingly high degree, that what we see or claim as being civilized, really is not; but rather has a lot more to do, with submission by one party to another, and thereby the use of power by  the prevailing party to get their way, in which this injustice, writ large, is not right, and is not a component of how a vibrant civilized society comes into existence.

In point of fact, to become civilized is something that requires all parties to that society, being meaningful members of it; in which those members of that society have a specific doctrine in place, that is sound and liberating in its principle, and is applicable equally to each member of that society.  Further, that society must be of the people, for the people, and by the people, in which the highest law of that land is natural law, as contrasted to corrupt law.  These conditions are necessary in order to build the foundation that great civilizations are created from, and from that sound foundation, there will be built by the words, deeds, and hands of those people, justice and peace on earth, along with good will to all of mankind.

He who has the capital, has the power

Each one of us, has an abiding desire, to pull their own weight and to earn income, of which for most Americans, this is accomplished through labor.  There are exceptions to this of which, for instance, some that are handicapped are unable to work, in addition to there being some people that perform work that they do not receive direct monetary compensation from, such as housewives or those that do charitable work without compensation; and then there are those that because of their economic privilege in life, do not need to work, because they either have inherited money, or have enough money to make even more money from that money, through things such as passive investments, such as stocks or bonds, or by virtue of more active investments, such as having equity in a company that employs people that work for them.

To the degree that those that employ that capital, fairly negotiate with their workers so that there is a fair sharing of the profits so generated, this then is good.  To the degree that workers are outright exploited, and the finances of a given company are opaque as well as being skewed to provide the lion's share of the benefits and monies to those in the highest management positions, this is not good.  Also, anytime that those that provide capital, such as banks, or people, or a consortium of stockholders that create a given company, in which those providing the capital, lift nary a finger to actually produce anything of value, but basically stipulate that the value of what they are providing is that capital, alone; of which a significant portion of the value and worth of that company becomes the domain of these investors of capital, then there is something fundamentally wrong about that.

In other words, too many of those that bring capital to the table, appear to, more often than not, to benefit from simply putting that capital to use, and thereby to reap the easy rewards from simply having money, to make more money.  Further, because money is necessary in order to purchase items and goods that are required for people to function and to live, those that are able to dictate the terms of how much compensation, and the conditions of such employment, to those that have little or no money but a need to be gainfully employed, are utilizing their capital as a form of economic power to benefit primarily themselves.  While, it is true that those seeking employment are free to look at a multitude of places for that employment, in reality, beggars are not in a real good position, to be choosers. 

Further to the point, there are many good people, that have specific talents and a good work ethic, but lack the necessary capital to create their own business or workplace, in which in order to get that capital, they must thereby seek a loan, of which the parties so loaning that money, are in essence, piggybacking their payback from the sweat of the brow of the person, so diligently working.   This doesn't mean that those providing capital deserve no compensation, for they are risking money; but rather what this so indicates is that the price for that money so being loaned, should never be predatory, but should rather be reasonable, and that he who earnestly labors, is certainly entitled to have a reserved seat at the table of success.

There is a time to fight

To believe that in this world that there are moral absolutes, that never changed, because those absolutes need not ever take into consideration the circumstances, the intricacies, or the reality of a given situation, is to simplify life in such a manner and to such a degree, that human beings with souls apparently are really no more than basic binary machines, meant to simply select either yes or no, and do so without any nuance, whatsoever.  This should be seen as a false construct, in which, those that always take the letter of the law, somehow believing that by doing so, that they are honoring the true embodiment of that law, should realize, instead, that this is a tragic error, in reality.

Unfortunately, there is way too much violence and fighting in this world, of which, much of that violence and a lot of that fighting is not for social justice or for anything of positive merit, but often has a lot more to do with satisfying the selfish or wrong desires of the other in a manner in which one party is imposing their will upon another.  This type of violence and blood-thirsty fighting serves no good purpose, yet, despite all of mankind's great leaps in progress, seems to be systemic throughout the world, and it is especially disappointing, that western nations, and in particular, the United States of America, are so often bellicose in their attitude as well as in their lust for violence, thereby setting a poor example on a nationwide level, but also serving to set a bad example for the very people that make up that nation.

Yet, it must be said, that there is a time to fight, of which fighting has its place.  For instance, when the southern confederacy unjustly fired upon Fort Sumter, and insisted by their actions and by their words that the south had the right to secede from that Union, and further that therefore all that was owned by the federal government for the consortium of people that made up these United States, that were located upon southern confederacy soil would be duly confiscated by that confederacy; this was a position that was materially wrong and in violation of the highest law of this land, its Constitution.  

These United States could have permitted the southern states to secede from the Union, and thereby to simply let them go about their business, but having done nothing to interfere with that peculiar institution, slavery, and in recognition that Lincoln's highest duty was to honor that Constitution, the Union did so fight.  The whole point of that fighting, was never to completely vanquished the south, or to seek revenge upon the south, but rather to conclusively defeat that which was the prevailing reason for that rebellion, that which put the lie to the Declaration of Independence, and was untrue to the Christian spirit that all are equal in God's law, and thereby it was determined that slavery would be eradicated from this land, forever; so that a new birth of freedom would arise from the ashes of this war.

There is a time to fight, physically, morally, and righteously; of which our very objective should be first and foremost to demonstrate by our words and by our deeds that we are willing to cooperate and to do our part to see that we become united in conscious recognition that we are all in this world together, and that therefore we are all interconnected, without exception; in which our overarching harmonious goal should be worthy of the faith and freedom so graciously provided to us by our Creator.

Black and white, justice and injustice

America has made significant strides against overt racism, in which, with the exception of small enclaves of racists who typically are not part of any meaningful power structure, we find that in today's society racism in any of its myriad forms, is frown upon by most good people, as at a minimum, for being in bad style, and out of touch with the enlightened standards of the day.  This doesn't mean that there still isn't racism, as of course there very well is, it just signifies that conspicuous racism is not tolerated in normal society; whereas, racism done by indirect, deceptive, and underhanded means, is still quite prevalent.

However, in consideration that major corporations of all types have taken into their highest executive offices, more and more frequently, people that are non-white; as well as in the halls of our highest governmental offices, we find that even there, people that are non-white have had significant positions, even including the President of the United States; all of this combined does indicate the validity of the point, that America is far more racially inclusive than it previously once was, which not only sets a meaningful good example for its citizens, but also helps to demonstrate that America is progressive in the way that it carries itself.

Yet, despite this progress, there is an incredible amount of debilitating stress within America, which indicates that not all is right.  The reason that this is so is that while America has become far more open in accepting people that are non-white as equally entitled to the benefits and opportunities of this country, what has not really changed, is that this country, so often in its implementation of justice, is fundamentally, unjust.  In other words, while there will continue to be racial tensions within America for the foreseeable future, what is actually occurring has less to do with black vs. white, and a lot more to do with the tension of justice vs. injustice.

That is to say, just about any civil protest, really comes down to the protest, being about the wrong things which are permitted to occur by those that are the governing bodies, as well as those administrating justice, all in conjunction with the boots on the ground of the policing done by this country in distinct contrast to those that are living within a construct in which quite obviously they are being dealt with in a manner which is fundamentally unjust, unequal, and inimical to the very liberating principles of the founding documents of this great nation. So that, the reality of the situation is that because there is so much systemic injustice in this the land of what is supposed to be fair and equal, and of justice, equally applicable to all; is that the people that are on the wrong end of injustice, are not forever going to tolerate being denied that which is rightfully theirs as a citizen of this country, especially one that has been defined as being of, by and for the people.

As it has been said, where there is no true justice, there will be no abiding peace, no matter the chains and punishments so meted out upon those that merely point out the inconvenient truth of the matter.  All of this signifies that till this country learns to be just in all that it says and does, that there will be no lasting peace, for a land without justice, is land that is not free. 

The cheat of "too big to fail"

The most basic premise of capitalism is that those that participate in it recognize that the risking of capital, in order to have the chance of making a profit, implicitly means the corresponding risk of that capital being lost or damaged, significantly.  The very first thing that should be part of the capitalistic system is that it should be fair to all those participating in it; in which no one party or parties are accorded more respect, or materially different rules, and none should be provided with an ironclad guarantee by the government, that no matter their fiscal irresponsibility, or mistakes so made, that they will not be permitted to fail.  Yet, in looking at the recent history of the biggest banks in America we find that as reported by forbes.com, that "The Special Inspector General for TARP summary of the bailout says that the total commitment of government is $16.8 trillion dollars…"  Clearly, this is demonstrative proof that if a particular institution is large enough and considered to be important enough, while also apparently having an undue and unseemly influence upon government policies, for whatever reasons, than these banking institutions thereby are permitted to run their businesses in an unsound manner, demonstrated by their overleveraging of their balance sheets in their drive to make that easy money, while ignoring the risks thereof, only to thereby get bailed out by that government; of which, that government can't even successfully negotiate fair terms that would benefit the taxpayers to that government, but rather kowtows to those banking institutions so that the top executive offices are still grossly overcompensated, as well as favoring those common stockholders that did not divest from an institution that was tottering on the very brink of insolvency, if not so saved by that government.

It isn't fair, that some are saved by governmental bailouts while others, are ignored and thereby subsequently fail.  This inconsistency is proof positive that this government clearly plays favorites.  Further to the point, any institution, no matter whether or not it is vital to this country or not, should never see itself permitted to get to the point that is considered to be so large or so important of an institution that its failure would thereby result in catastrophic circumstances to the people at large.  After all, we are taught at a very early age, not to place all of our eggs into one basket, so that, one would think, that this government would understand the importance of following that same sort of sensible wisdom, but plainly does not.

In point of fact, anytime that any government of, for, and by the people, behaves in a manner in which some of those people and some of those institutions as authorized by the representatives of the people, are immune to the "creative destruction" that capitalism invariably entails, than that country will thereby suffer the ill effects of having favored certain people and specific institutions to make those few effectively above economic law, which is a bastardization of what capitalism is supposed to represent.  So then, the further that this country goes down the road of unfairly picking out economic winners and losers, and bailing out some as compared to others; the further it strays from comprehending that those that cheat the system, for the benefit of a select few, are corrupting the integrity of this great nation, and thereby sowing the seeds to thereby reap the coming whirlwind of its horrible humbling correction.

Multinational corporations and their exploitive drive for profit

America is home to a significant amount of gargantuan multinational corporations, in which, some of these behemoths, actually get the majority of their profits not from domestic consumption and by those accompanying sales, but rather from foreign markets and foreign lands.  That shouldn't be all that surprising, as the population of America is only about 4.4 percent of the world's population, and even though America is the wealthiest individual nation; in aggregate, the world has much more money than Americans do in total.  So too, when it comes to labor, multinational corporations have made the conscious decision and, in fact, have set up legislation of all types that permits them to utilize overseas labor as well as to create overseas facilities, not because there is an absolute necessity that they do so; but for the most basic of reasons, which is to increase their profit, by lowering both their labor costs as well as their infrastructure costs, and thereby seamlessly increasing their profit.

As might be expected, the battle between those that have capital, who are often also those that are doing the employment of people that thereby involves the usage of that capital, is not ever a fair battle; especially when those that need employment are non-unionized, and without a lot of viable options, while also suffering from their fundamental need for employment of some sort in order to try to make some semblance of a living.  That is the most salient reason, why labor is so cheap overseas, because those without capital and without the utilization or even the availability of the unionization of labor, are going to have to, more times than not, accept what is being offered by those that dictate those terms to them.

The attitude of so many multinationals is almost never to try to make a fair deal and to thereby pay a living wage to their overseas workers, especially in third world countries, whether they are directly employed or subcontracted to those multinationals; nor are these multinationals overly concerned about taking care of the environment in a responsible way; but rather these multinationals look at their overseas operations, as simply a numbers game, and wherever they can cut costs, or cut a favorable deal, and thereby add to their profit, that is what they often do.

Quite clearly, multinationals exploit overseas labor and legislative laws in a manner that favors them, so that they can thereby reap their profitable rewards for having done so.  While it is true, that multinationals do provide employment; the typical conditions of that employment, overseas, including safety, work hours, healthcare, as well as compensation, are in comparison to what is required from them for those that perform similar work in the United States, rather paltry.

So then, quite simply, multinationals utilize foreign labor and foreign facilities, mainly because they can pay those workers a heck of a lot less money, and further often do not have to overly worry about labor laws, environmental laws, or pretty much any law of substance, because their power within those foreign lands is supreme; for they have capital, and the promise of employment, though the end result for the average foreign worker is pretty much sheer drudgery while also having their dreams of meaningful success, crushed.

Exclusive enclaves of the rich

The United States is broken into three major wealth classes, which are known as the lower, middle, and upper classes.  Further, America is divided into other factions based upon race, creed, education, politics and other associated factors and characteristics that are of importance to people.  One might think that despite all the inherent differences between categories such as black and white, rich and poor, crime and safety, that for the most part there is just that one United States of liberty, justice and freedom; and thereby that each member of this country, is for better or worse, accorded their due respect for being a civil member of it.

In actuality, the people that make up the United States are not united, and really can't be united, because the very rich members of this country live exclusively separate lives to such an extent from all others, that the rich are really a separate category of a citizen, to the degree that all other citizens are really people of a different and distinct country.  So that, for instance, those that are poor and impoverished are limited in where they can live, the opportunities that they have, along with having to deal daily with the prejudices and obstructions that keep them stuck in their place, so that they aren't really all that free to appreciate the niceties of this country, not because it is illegal for them to avail themselves of such, but mainly because they have not the means or knowhow to get to those more desirable places. On the other hand, those that have vast riches, obviously can do just about whatever that they want to do, and therefore if they so desire they can live anywhere; but the rich deliberately congregate amongst themselves so as to protect what they have and to increase their concentration of power.

What the rich really don't want to ever have happen to them, besides losing their money, is to have feelings of guilt, for being, rich.  This thus signifies that the rich in order to feel comfortable have to place themselves into specific positions in which they are essentially surrounded either by open space or only by like-minded people and institutions that are also equally well endowed.    This is why the richest areas of any city, do not have any of the inconvenient accouterments of what plagues lower income areas and also why the rich will not tolerate anything that has the aura of poverty or decay to be in their environment.  That way, when the rich look around, they can pretend that this really is a wonderful country, of meritocracy, and justness, because what they see and congregate with, seems to fairly reflect exactly that.

After all, for the rich, everything that they don't see, because it doesn't exist in their social environment, allows them to believe that it must either not really exist, or if it does exist, it exists at some tolerable low level, which of course, can be overcome by those that exert themselves, and thereby pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.  So that, what this really means, is that the world for the rich, is very, very good; so that anything that could conceivably upset this, must be put down by strong law and order, for the barbarians always must be kept outside the gates, and better yet, kept, far, far, away.

The government has an inherent obligation to spend the people's money, wisely

Each year, the federal government puts forth a budget, of which an outrageous sum of monies is dedicated to the "defense" of this great nation.  While there is something to be said about being prepared militarily for adverse events and therefore the protection of this nation, it must be unequivocally stated that the United States is absolutely in no imminent danger of being attacked by any other nation, or consortium of nations, or even terrorists in which it or its people are truly endangered to any meaningful extent.  In fact, it would appear that a whole lot of money dedicated to defense spending, is actually directed to areas of the world which are not United States territory, of which the necessity of the United States having to be the world's policeman is not written into any document, whatsoever.  Further to the point, by definition, wars and the planning of wars, are destructive in nature, not just of infrastructure but of people, and should be avoided to the degree that they can be avoided, as an impractical and immoral way to resolve differences and disputes.

How this country spends its money most definitely matters, in which brown.edu reports via the Cost of Wars Project that it "…finds that federal spending on domestic programs creates far more American jobs and yields more broad-based benefits than military spending."  In particular, this study states that "$1 million spent on defense creates 6.9 direct and indirect jobs, the same amount spent on elementary and secondary education creates 19.2 jobs."  Additionally, out of the ten categories studied by the Cost of Wars Project, monies spent on defense spending, finished dead last in its ability to create direct and indirect jobs.  That really shouldn't be all that surprising since the defense industry is far too often, non-transparent, non-competitive, and crippled with notorious cost overruns, in which, a lot of what is being manufactured serves no useful purpose other than to kill, harm, or to destroy people and infrastructures.

The military-industrial-technological complex wants to get as many contracts as it can from the government in order to increase its power and its corresponding profits, but the spending of all these billions upon armaments and equipment of all sorts isn't often productive, because what people really need is not more sophisticated killing and destroying machines, but rather good healthcare, good education, safe neighborhoods, and good economic opportunity. The United States is the world's richest nation in aggregate, but that money has skewed more and more to those few people and corporations working in select industries, so that those that are impoverished and living in substandard conditions have not been alleviated from their trying conditions.

It must be remembered that every dollar spent to kill another human being in some foreign nation or to bomb such into oblivion, is a dollar taken from the very mouths of those domestic citizens that are trying to uplift themselves into something of merit, but find that their efforts to do so are often futile, because they live in ghettos of poverty, of which their ill education, their poor healthcare, their limited job opportunities, and the police state that they must daily contend with, precludes them from having a fair shot at any semblance of success.

The military budget of the United States absolutely dwarfs any other nation; whereas the systemic poverty in this the greatest and richest nation of the world, should be a source of real embarrassment to it, but apparently is not. It would appear that America has turned out the light of liberty and opportunity for so many of its domestic denizens, in order to, instead, destroy with armaments that which they cannot convince or win over by providing a noble exemplar worth emulating.

The Constitution--simplified

Although the Constitution to the United States is a document that can be easily read within an hour, a lot of people in this great nation have never gotten around to doing even that.  Though that reflects rather poorly about the civic state of affairs in America; all is not lost, for the most important words of that Constitution are contained within its preamble, of which that Constitution begins with these immortal words: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…", which if the representatives of those people of these United States would take these sacred words to heart and thereby keep them in mind for every legislative act so initiated or so contemplated, this country would be closer to being in actuality that land of liberty, tranquility, and of justice for all.

Again, it must be stated, that the whole point of the Constitution of, by, and for the people is to unite those people into one body politic.  Unfortunately, the people of these United States, are seldom really united about much of anything, but rather have separated themselves into feuding factions and divisive parties, to the detriment of this country and what it should properly stand for.  This is especially distressing in consideration that the highest law of this land, its Constitution, is supposed to be preserved, protected and defended, in particular, by those representatives that have this hallowed responsibility in their hands, but they seem too often to consciously ignore such, in order to support agendas that are inimical to those very principles of that Constitution.

Each of us, that are fortunate enough to be citizens of this great land, must recognized that this country is only as good as the people and representatives of this country, and that many a nation, has decayed and fallen from within, rather than being vanquished by some outside entity.  This signifies that this country is in need of a new birth of freedom that recognizes the critical importance that a country united must be built upon a foundation of rock solid principles, and that such a nation so constructed will stand strong, against virtually any adversary, foreign or domestic.  On the other hand, that nation that is at war with itself, as well as having a significant portion of its population, apathetic; is a country that will not stand the test of time, nor will it be able to stand strong against unexpected and sustained violent storms.

Those that are the people of this nation need to be committed to binding themselves together upon the principles of this nation, which are to unite a diverse people of different backgrounds, talents, and creeds into being patriots of this country, so as to achieve domestic tranquility, good welfare, fair opportunity, equal justice, and a nation that sustains its egalitarian principles.  The very point of this Constitution is for that Constitution to form the focus for the expressed benefit of those people, so that each one of us are able to thereby experience liberty as it is meant to be -- as well as our incumbent responsibilities to that liberty, by our willful participation in that which makes for good and healthy societies as well as great and stable nations.

Assault with intent to ravish

The vast majority of citizens in America are not lawyers, and further to this, that vast majority, has never taken a criminal justice course.  The thing about the law is that the pursuit of justice, finds that lawyers often desire to make it their point to purposely obfuscate to the general public what should be straightforward and understandable. The reason that this is so, is probably so that lawyers and judges can be seen to be wiser than they really are, and also as a means for justice to be more arbitrarily enforced against those that allegedly violate those suspect laws.

A case in point is statues which have been written into various State Constitutions, such as "assault with the intent to ravish", which are not only poorly constructed as law, but their actual enforcement, is usually quite selective, as well.  The most common way to define assault is as reported by law.cornell.edu is "…intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact."  That definition of assault, without the incumbent battery of some sort as part of it, such as in assault and battery, makes it fairly subjective in determining whether or not an assault has occurred or not.  This is compounded by "the intent to ravish", of which ravish is an old fashion word for rape, and in order for rape to occur requires definite physical contact.  In regards to the word, "intent," unless a given person expresses themselves in an unequivocal manner, intent is something that an impartial jurisprudent body would have difficultly, fairly asserting that they indeed know a given person's intent; whereas a given action would be far more straightforward to adjudged, correctly.  So then, a statue such as "assault with the intent to ravish" is really one of those statutes set up for the express purpose to take what is probably a very minor incident and blow it up into something significantly more, with subsequently more significant penalties for those found guilty of.

To the point, southern States of the old confederacy, were noted for laws such as this, in which, the implicit point of such a law, was to keep segregated those that were black from those that were white, and especially to keep the now freed black man in his traditional place of obeisance to all that was white, and especially to keep black men fearful of coming into any sort of inappropriate contact, verbally, physically or otherwise, with white women.  Additionally, these laws were thought to be needed in order to keep, in particular, those black soldiers that served in the armed forces, consciously aware, that the southern way, had not changed, before or after their enlistment, and that the southern courts, were consequently no respecter of black men.

So then, it should be noted, that certain State laws are passed by specific legislatures in order to utilize therefore that force of law, to, in essence, circumvent Constitutional law, by having the option of using that law in a manner in which those that cross certain unwritten rules and lines, will thereby know their place; by the specific usage of that law, against even those that somehow believed that by their service to their country, that  they might expect that country to actually live up to its credo, of life, liberty, and justice for all.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves

On January 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all the slaves within the rebellious States.  Of course, it is one thing to make a Proclamation, and a very different thing, in a time of war, in which the south had not yet been vanquished to actually see the effect of that Proclamation.  However, in due time, the north was victorious, and those formerly enslaved were now duly freed. 

Yet, despite the union having prevailed, there were still some that were being held in bondage, for that Proclamation, freed only those slaves that were within the States that rebelled.  This thus meant that in border States such as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, slavery as an institution was still legal, and although these States had the right to free those so enslaved through appropriate legislation, this still left those that were enslaved before the war, enslaved, in absence of such. While it is true, that many slaves within those States, joined the emigration exodus out of their servitude, there was, as told in the book, “Southern Subversive,” “Nearly 100,000 Americans …still enslaved in Kentucky by the end of the civil war…”

Before, Lincoln became President he was a very accomplished attorney, in which he was quite familiar with the Constitution, of which one of the concerns of Lincoln, was the burning necessity to tie up the loose ends of the freeing of slaves through that Proclamation, with a specific Constitutional Amendment addressing this very issue.  That Amendment, was presented to Congress so as to unequivocally eliminate slavery within the United States, and upon its ratification, this is exactly what it achieved.

So then, for those unfortunate people that were still legally enslaved of which their owners were not willing to free them, probably because of their monetary value and usefulness to those owners, the 13th Amendment, provided these still enslaved persons with their deserved freedom.  As for those wondering why Lincoln simply didn’t free all of the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation to begin with, regardless of their particular location within the United States; he first of all did not believe he had the legitimate power to do so, and secondly did not wish to force the hand of those border States to possibly secede from the union, and therefore was not willing to tamper with this peculiar institution.

At the conclusion of the war, Lincoln knew that his Presidential Proclamation, issued during war time, might easily be construed to no longer be valid, which is why the 13th Amendment had to come into play. This thus meant for those that had been loyal to the union, but still had held onto their slaves, that they had no choice but to adjust to the fact that the world after that civil war, was not the same world, and quite frankly they probably should have known that this day surely was to come, especially in the recognition that the President had made it very clear that he did not see how a house divided could continue to stand, and thereby America would be either all one thing or all the other.

Fortunately, for those previously enslaved, after the 13th Amendment was ratified, America became, at least on paper, all the other thing, and thereby a land of freedom, of which it has a continuing sacred obligation to truly live up to those immortal words of being that sweet land of liberty, for all.

Is this a government of, for, and by the people or something entirely else?

It is a fundamental belief that this country was created by the people, and for the benefit of those people, which is why we have elected representatives that are voted in by the people, in all our various forms of government, with the sole exception of some judicial appointments, that are made by elected officials.  In consideration, then, that those that are elected have been democratically selected by the people, one would have a tendency to believe that it so follows that the policies and laws so passed throughout governmental activities, would be a fair reflection of what the majority of the people desire, and certainly in conformance to our Constitution, with its specific delegation of powers.

In point of fact, everything about America, indicates that what the people want seems to be pretty much irrelevant, and instead, quite often the policies that are put into place, reflect not the desires of those people, but rather clearly are in close harmony with those lobbyists, corporations, and trade organizations, that have specific agendas that they desire to see passed, in which by a combination of money and their influence upon the values of representatives of all types, are able to see that again and again, the legislation that these parties desire to see passed or modified, are done in a manner that favors those elites as well as corporate interests, at the expressed expense of the people.

While, no doubt, part of the blame should be placed upon the people, themselves, in the sense that a significant portion of those people, either don't vote, or are not engaged in educating themselves in the policies of the day; the vast majority of the problem really comes down to money, and the salient fact that those with money, in conjunction with those that are masterfully gifted with the ways to use money to influence media of all types and to therefore influence people in their voting selections, carries a lot more of the blame.

Additionally, there is the motivation factor when it comes to policies of all sorts, of which the vast majority of people that actually do the voting, have other interests that engage them on a given day, so that the amount of time that they can devote to any one issue, or have a concern about with a particular issue is relatively limited, and hence these voters while having preferences on issues, aren't available to devote anything close to an unlimited amount of time or resources upon it.  On the other hand, organizations and lobbyists are specifically created to address issues that they most definitely care about, of which they address such activities in a very serious and businesslike manner, that they well-nigh do anything to see that their particular agenda is passed, because in their mindset, those issues mean everything to them and the only acceptable outcome is their winning.

Quite frankly, it isn't a fair fight between individual voters and special interests, in which the average citizen, might not even be aware of what is really happening, whereas the other side most definitely is quite aware of everything that is happening, and treats what they are trying to accomplish, as the be all and end all of their existence; so it thereby should come as no surprise, that the voters are outgunned, outmaneuvered, and marginalized, so that the end result is that this is not a government, of, for, and by the people but is instead the domain of those that have the money, position, and power, and this is the most significant reason why the rich keep getting richer and ever richer.

The wealth tax

According to the Federal Reserve Board, the richest 1% of Americans own 32% of the wealth of America, which is astonishing amount of wealth in those very few hands.  When it comes to taxation, and in recognition, that the income tax as initially created via the Revenue Act of 1913, that such a tax was only applicable to, as reported by Wikipedia.org "approximately three percent of the population," in 1913, that it should be thereby acknowledged that at the present time, the income tax has morphed into capturing far more people, than was its original intent.  This signifies that America needs to go back to fully recognizing that the most basic reason why an income tax was created, and a progressive income tax in particular, was never to tax the middle class, but rather to apply such taxation upon those people that could well afford to be taxed, that is, the very rich; so that this country would not ever devolve into being controlled by an elite class, that would for all intents and purposes, be separate from the people by virtue of having the money to "boss" and to influence their way via legislation, tax laws, and so on.

At the present time, taxation only applies to income, but does not apply against wealth in and of itself, and in point of fact, because our present day taxation does not tax wealth, directly; the wealth discrepancy between the ultra rich and the middle class of America, is at unprecedented levels, and will not self-correct, unless something of significance is accomplished with our present day tax code, of which, the very best plan, would be to tax the wealth held specifically by the very rich.  Not only would taxing wealth, at a progressive rate, which would be applicable only to those that have $10 million or more in wealth be a sound plan in regards to the government being able to receive much needed revenue in order to balance its budget, it would also not have any real material deleterious effect upon the very rich.  In other words, having a wealth tax that would begin at .5% and would thereby be capped at 2.5% would be more than enough to bring in billions upon billions of dollars into the coffers of American governance, and while, no doubt, would make the superrich, whine and complain, it would not break them, not by a long shot.

In the scheme of things, it is contradictory to have a progressive tax rate, when such a progressive tax rate, ignores the accumulated wealth of an individual or even that of a corporation.  The point of a progressive tax rate is to tax at a higher level those that have more, and it is as simple as that.  Taxation is the price that good citizens pay for good governance and a good society, of which, those that are fortunate enough to have bucket-loads of money have an inherent obligation to do their part to contribute back to that society which provided them with the opportunity to make that money in the first place.  Those that have more than enough need to be reminded, by the tax code, if nothing else, that nobody is an island, but that all are part of a greater whole.

America was formed for the express purpose of capitalism, or was it?

The word capitalism does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, nor does it appear in the United States Constitution. In fact, capitalism as defined in the modern convention is an economic system of which businesses as well as individuals own goods that they produce, manufacture, or create and thereupon sell those goods to other businesses or individuals, at a profitable price point that is agreed upon by the parties to that transaction.  That said, it wasn't until the mid 19th century, that capitalism, as a word was even utilized, and capitalism as a word didn't start to become into somewhat common usage until far into the 20th century, which signifies that clearly America was never formed for the express purpose of capitalism, whatsoever; though most Americans, today, see the United States as a de facto capitalistic society.

Now, of course, some might argue, that words both fall out of favor and into favor, and although capitalism as a word didn't exist back at the inception of this nation; nevertheless, still in principle, this country, has always been about free enterprise, free markets, and about business, above all else.  Yet, the word corporation does not appear in the Constitution, and in fact, the word business appears only just once, and this in the specific sense of the need for a quorum of congressional representatives that have to be available, in order to transact legislative "business".  So then, it appears that America wasn't founded upon capitalism, nor was it founded upon business, yet, somehow, modern day talking heads, are insistent upon the belief that the "business of America is business".

The reason that capitalists and businessmen are so obsessed about business above all, really comes down to the salient fact that they are obsessed about making money, above all; and therefore want the American public to believe that there isn't anything more important than the necessary conducting of business to make money, for money and profit apparently makes everything, better.  While, that might very well appear to be true for those that are capitalists, it isn't what this country was actually founded upon. Instead, it would be more accurate to state that rather than this being a country based primarily about business and the making of money, this country, was in fact, established upon the equality of mankind, freedom, liberty, and unalienable rights for all.

When Abraham Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address, what he did not bother to mention was any word having to do with business; instead, he wished "…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom…" which is exactly what this country was meant to have from its inception.  This freedom of speech, this freedom of the press, this freedom of assembly, this freedom of movement, this freedom of person, this freedom of choice, and this freedom of liberty, is the essence of America at its inestimable best.  To the degree that this country honors those freedoms, it honors what this great nation was founded upon.  So then, to the degree that capitalism contributes to that freedom, so much to the good; and to the degree that capitalism does not contribute to that freedom, this so represents the fundamental problem and enduring error with any system of enterprise that in its implementation comes to the place where it supersedes or compromises that unalienable freedom of the people, by supplanting such with the lust for money and profit, above all else.

The freedom to think and to speak our mind is our unalienable right

Before there was the Constitution of the United States, and before there was even the United States of America, there was the Declaration of Independence, signed by each of the thirteen colonies, representatives.  That Declaration of Independence, made it clear that each one of us has the unalienable right of liberty, and that implicitly part of having that liberty is our freedom to speak our mind as well as to think our thoughts without unwarranted governmental constraints.

We now live in a troubling age, in which so much of what we do in public or through social media, or by our travels, or through our credit cards, or by our phone conversations, are subject to oversight directly or indirectly by governmental forces, as well as by corporations that are able to thereby obtain detailed dossiers of virtually every citizen that is an active participant with the tools of this modern age.  The very fact, that we are now to a very large degree, being watched, and watched not only in the public streets of society, but by virtue of the devices that we utilize within our private space, also being watched there; means that the speaking of our minds, in an age and era, in which words spoken can easily be recorded, unbeknownst to us or not, puts mankind on the pathway of their speech being stymied, silenced, or modified, even without civil or criminal penalties, just by the fact that it can be listened to by outside sources. That is to say, part of the pernicious consequence of being watched, in which people know that they are being watched is that this often serves to modify behavior of those people to thereby conform to expected community standards.

Of even more concern, is that when people are subsequently afraid to think certain thoughts, because those thoughts run outside the given orthodoxy of that time, in which those people doing that thinking believe that logically most actions ultimately committed are preceded by thoughts upon such, are prone to self-censoring themselves in order to conform to the standards of the community that watches over them.   So then, in any situation in which adults are precluded from thinking certain thoughts because they fear the consequences of those thoughts actualized, they are no longer free; and when people are afraid to voice their viewpoint whether verbally or by other means, because they fear the consequences of doing so, then they are no longer free.

When any state or corporations within that state, are able to affect the free thinking, talking, and doing of citizens, what thereby occurs is that those that think outside the box, or are creative, or different, or march to the beat of a different drummer, are to a very large degree, silenced or modified in their subsequent thoughts and deeds.  To somehow believe that the future of mankind is in the conformity of mankind, in which the more conformance, the better that society, is a monstrous error; for mankind was not ever meant to be automatons, but instead have all been equally gifted by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, of which no state or corporate entity has the ethical right to subsume such, and to thereby steal their  fellow citizens' freedom of thought, or of speech, as if that state or corporate entity was their creator, and thereupon their master puppeteer.