The Founding Fathers well understood the need of an inheritance tax

Imagine that a country was first created in suspended animation, in which each of the inhabitants from their initial inception, had exactly the same material wealth in the form of the same type of house, the same amount of land, and the same amount of goods within those homes.  In other words, all those people were exactly equal in what they own, of which, no one person had more, and no one person had less.  Thereupon, the suspended animation ended, and time began, of which over a period of seasons it was noticed that some of those inhabitants desired to do little or nothing of labor, while some preferred to spend their time with drink or other vices, then there were others that applied themselves to educating and advancing their mind, as well as there being those that were especially generous and caring of their fellow mankind, and finally there were the clever sort, the sort that knew how to bargain or trade or deal in a manner, that wholly favored them, and never the other.  The upshot of all this activity or lack thereof, was that over a period of time, material possessions of the people were no longer equal, of which some were basically destitute, some had about what they started with, while others had progressed a fair amount, and then there were a very, very few that had grown their assets, hundredfold or even more.

In regards to the civil government of that country, those that had gained the most in material assets, were able to inexorably over a period of time, to assert their authority by the power of that wealth and by their astuteness, to thereby not only buy influence but to also subsequently create dissent and division within the community, thereby increasing their influence all the more.  Further, as time went on and the present generation was replaced by the next generation and then the next, those that had great material wealth, were able to successfully pass their wealth on to their progeny, so that, these progeny need not expend any labor whatsoever to live their lives of ease and luxury, but only had to impress the power of what they had, so as to maintain their station in life, for perpetuity; and so that country that had started with equality for all, became instead a country in which, in substance and in so many ways, the many served the few.

While America has never been in practice a land of material equality for all, it so does recognize that each of its denizens is equally created and thereby equally entitled to opportunity, and further that the law as applied in order to be just, must be fair and equally applied to all those that are its citizens. Further to the point, George Washington recognized that in order for this country to strengthen itself, it needed to provide fair access for each of its people to be land owners along with each of its people having a fair means to good subsistence to such, in recognition that America"… will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property.”  So too, Thomas Jefferson, recognized that the continual inheritance of property from one generation to the next, was fundamentally unfair to those living in the present generation, for "The earth and the fullness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity."

In summary, those that have vast material assets in the present, are able to use such for their purposes in the here and now; but at a minimum, upon their departure from this world, their great estate must be heavily taxed by the government on behalf of the people, to preclude those that would inherit vast amounts of material assets, from being, essentially, the unelected shadow government of this country, that would thereby supersede without a democratic vote, this country of, by, and for the people.

Destruction and criticism

In any endeavor, it is always rather easy, especially for the person that is doing the observing but isn't directly or even indirectly involved in the actions, to criticize others in regards to their output, their being, as well their foresight.  No doubt, there are plenty of people, that need some form of constructive criticism, at least on occasion; and no doubt, there are institutions, even ones of long standing, that have served their dutiful purpose and thereby need to be placed into the dustbin of history.  But, it should also be recognized that to destroy anything of positive value without a plan to replace such with something of equal or improved value is almost always a mistake; and to criticize someone, even justly, without having "skin in the game" to see that such criticism has a positive purpose behind it, so that the one doing the criticizing has also a commensurate plan that will through such criticism help to initiate something of merit, serves no real good purpose.

In today's world with all of its myriad powerful tools and technology, to tear down and destroy a particular edifice that has been in existence, perhaps for eons, is typically something that can be readily done, which should send a very important signal to all the people or institutions contemplating such, as to whether or not, it must be done; for if there is no good overriding purpose behind such, it is probably a mistake, and perhaps a grave one.  So too, there are within governments, institutions that have been of long standing, of which such institutions are typically well deserving of criticisms and other valid complaints, but to dissolve such without having taken into consideration the need for a replacement that is clearly superior to that which is the current governing instrument, is probably a mistake, and perhaps a grave one.  Additionally, all human beings are fallible, of which, therefore to find fault in another, even someone of high esteem, is not especially difficult, as most words and actions, when given enough room, time, and nefarious intent are fairly easy to pick apart, should one be inclined to do so, but if such criticism serves no good purpose or is of no good benefit to the parties so involved, then this is probably a mistake, and perhaps a grave one.

To build anything of merit, be a building, an institution, or the character of a given person, takes not only effort and desire, but also aforethought, consistency, determination, consultation, teamwork, drive, and invariably even with good aid and timely help will still have to address hurdles and unexpected happenings that will thereby need to be overcome to achieve success.  Those that contribute positively to such are invariably not those that are destructive and critical in their nature, but rather are those that are materially positive contributors, as well as all those active aiders and abettors to the cause, for good progress is only made by those that do the building and not by those that do or contribute nothing, or even worse, are destructive and unnecessarily critical in their form.

Resolving conflicts in a mature manner and the contradiction of this government

We are taught in schools to "Pledge our Allegiance" to these United States, of which, the thought behind such a pledge is that these United States and what this country stands for, is something worth pledging our lives and our honor to.  This would presuppose that America, in its institutions and in its governance, does the very things that it is supposed to do for a country that within its founding documents and amendments to such, tells us that it is a nation of equal rights for everyone, and with liberty and justice for all.

So then, it would certainly seem reasonable that when it comes to conflicts that each of us, must at least on occasion, attend to; that a fair and discerning person would look to emulate its own government in the resolution of those conflicts, knowing that by doing so, that they have picked a good and valued mentor to so emulate.  Of course, as in life, there are words, and then there are actions that may or may not be in accordance with those words; signifying that in recognition that many a person doesn't even know the words to the highest law of their land, that is, its Constitution, that an alternative way to be consistent to the country of their residence, is to be in harmony with those governmental actions so taken and in evidence to our own eyes.

For example, one might look at how America resolves its disputes with a foreign land that is sovereign in its own domain, but does not kowtow to America demands.  We find that rather than using an international tribunal to adjudge such, or a non-partial third party to resolve such, that the President of the United States, as in the case with Iraq, demanded that the President of Iraq, along with his sons, vacate their own country within 48 hours or else they would suffer a military attack upon their land.  This would seem to indicate, that in a conflict between two parties in America that the party with the most might and power, should simply demand that the other party, leave town within 48 hours or suffer thereby a physical attack. 

So too, America has signed many a treaty with many a nation, of which, some of those treaties have been signed with indigenous American Indian tribes, of which a significant amount of those treaties were thereby broken by the United States, in order to fulfill its "Manifest Destiny", or because there were mineral rights that needed to be exploited, or railroads that needed to be built, and so on.  This would seem to indicate, that in a conflict between two parties in America that the party with the superior might or greed, can unilaterally break their commitment or promise to the other party, without having to pay any compensation or penalty for having done so.

Additionally, upon the election of Abraham Lincoln, in which Lincoln was duly elected by the people as the new President of the United States, those of the south that lost that election, decided that they had the right to secede from the union, with the belief that those that lose at the ballot box have the right to overturn a legitimate democratic result by revolt.   This would seem to indicate, that in a conflict between two parties in which one party loses the vote of the people, that the loser of such, can simply invalidate that vote by opting out of an inviolable contract, because they are not happy with the result.

Unfortunately, though we are told to resolve our conflicts in a mature way, our own government, demonstrates more often than not, that it isn't mature in its own vision and its own implementation of justice, of which a fairer look at America would indicate that it fundamentally believes that might makes right; which thereby effectively supersedes the very words of its own Constitution.  Yet, somehow this country thereby has the nerve to wonder why there is so much conflict and confusion within its own borders. 

Cluster munitions are a crime against humanity

Mankind is extremely good at a lot of things, of which one of those things, quite regrettably, is the design of armaments that are quite effective in the indiscriminate killing of civilians, of which, the usage of cluster munitions, is one of those weapons of war, that has no legitimate part of nation-state actions against any other nation-state or enemy, real or imagined.  Cluster munitions are bombs that are meant to open up mid-air to subsequently violently release a multitude of sub-munitions, thereby disbursing such sub-munitions so as to saturate a very large target area with a whole lot of damaging and very destructive bombing.  Additionally, as in any munition, so created, not all of the sub-munitions are going to actually explode upon impact upon the ground or up in the air, thereby leaving a multitude of these unexploded munitions, embedded in the ground, of which such can subsequently explode, even years afterward, and thereby hurt or kill unaware civilians and children.

Fundamentally, the issue with cluster munitions is that they are specifically designed not to be smart and precise targeting weapons, but rather they are designed to deliberately do physical damage and kill human beings specifically over a vast area so as to wreak bloody havoc and create mayhem. To a very large extent, countries such as Russia, Israel, and the United States, who are not signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions (a treaty that bans the use of cluster munitions), are basically showing their contempt for the value and dignity of human life.  Further to the point, the very countries that one would think that would be the most inclined to desire to use a weapon that is so gross in its targeting and that by design, will cover a lot of killing ground, indiscriminately, while also being quite cost effective, would be those nation-states that are both short on budget as well as being short on personnel to effect military operations, and thereby would see cluster munitions as a desirable weapon to utilize so as to do a lot of damage to perceived enemies, especially when that nation-state does not readily discriminate or overly concern themselves between those that are enemy soldiers and those that are civilians who are known to be in that target area.

The reason that countries such as Russia, Israel, and the United States, do not desire to give up their cluster munitions is that these countries prefer the flexibility of bombing other nation-states into sheer oblivion, and clearly don’t really care about how many civilians are killed, injured, or harmed in the doing of exactly that very thing, because those particular countries, believe strongly that their fellow countrymen are much more concerned about their own country's casualties, as compared to the nation-states that are being bombed by those cluster munitions.  In other words, for example, the bombing of nation-states by the United States via the usage of their cluster munitions, risks a very minute percentage of American soldiers lives, while also being quite effective in the killing and harming of people within the targeted area, regardless of whether or not it strategically accomplishes its given purpose or not.

The bottom line, is that cluster munitions are a crime against humanity, because the design of these weapons are indiscriminate in their nature, and thereby should be seen as nothing more than brute force, that is purposely meant to unnecessarily make people that are simply inhabitants of specific nation-states, unduly suffer.

Sales tax for high-end collectibles such as art and cars

Each year, there are vintage automobiles that sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars; so too, there are art pieces that sell in the millions of dollars in which though there are seller as well as even buyer fees involved in these transactions, in regards to the payment of a percentage of the sales price to the institution conducting and hosting the selling of these products; it is somewhat surprising, though, that the vast amount of these sales conducted in the United States, do not have an associated sales tax attached to these sales.

When it comes to the rich and powerful, they are well gifted at their avoidance at paying their fair share of taxes, mainly because they make sure to see that appropriate legislation is passed for them thereby giving these select elite people, tax set asides, as well as tax preferences; which in the scheme of things does not really make much good sense, since the very people that can most readily pay their fair share of taxes are those people that have the most money. 

Unfairly, the very rich are treated differently from ordinary people, of which, they prove such to everyone else by their wealth of special privileges, available just for them, each and every day.  Consider that when the common man, purchases a piece of art, or an automobile, they are subject to the sales tax of the locality of where they purchase that item from, or occasionally in lieu of that, their own locality. On the other hand, when the price of a given automobile is incredibly high, or when a given piece of artwork is at some astronomical level, the purchaser of these items, when such is conducted through some sort of well respected high-end auction house, the collection of a sales tax in the locality of that sale, almost never happens, and if such sales tax is scheduled to be collected, there are workarounds such as the usage of a Freeport, which as the name implies, means that as long as the item does  not supposedly leave that Freeport, it is not subject to a sales tax.

The bottom line, is that the tax code has all sorts of exceptions and exemptions, of which, it isn't fair that an item such as a car or a painting, is subject to a sales tax for everyone, with the exception of when these are super-expensive items set at an auction, which means that they become in effect, exempt from such.  It would be far better for all those collecting, dealing, and involved in the buying and selling of high-end cars and art, that the appropriate sales tax of that locality be applied to such sales, so that these superrich and privileged people would do their part to pay their fair share to the budget of their counties, cities, and States, as is required for everyone else by tax law.

Ultimately, a sales tax as currently implemented is a regressive form of taxation, since it applies to everyone at the exact same rate, irrespective of income and wealth of that person. So then, the fact that the superrich are able to escape paying sales tax for specific expensive items implicitly signifies that they believe that the common man should duly subsidize them.

Return on Net Assets (RONA)

Businesses are evaluated through a lot of different methodologies, of which, those that are the executives of those businesses, as well as the stockholders and analysts of such, are forever looking at the efficiency, profit, and growth of a given company.  The simplest definition of RONA is the amount of profit that a given company generates in its fiscal year, divided by the fixed assets plus net working capital of that company, to thereby come up with the RONA ratio for that company.  The higher that ratio is, and the better that ratio is in comparison to like companies, the more efficient it is believed that subject company is in using its capital and assets to generate profits. On the surface, RONA seems like a good and fair test, of exactly what it is meant to represent, which is how much profit management can generate from the given capital and fixed assets that they so utilize.  However, in an era in which a significant amount of executive officers, are so often dependent upon the underlying stock performance of the company that they are a part of, to thereby earn lucrative bonuses, and/or to reap the benefits of their vested stock options, there is always going to be a strong tendency for a meaningful percentage of those executives to want to "game" the system, so as to benefit primarily themselves, at the expense of the long term interests of the company, or for society, at large.

That is to say, one way to increase a company's RONA is quite obviously, to generate more sales from the fixed assets and net working capital of that company, of which, by those additional sales, typically, the overall profit amount of that company will increase.  Not too surprisingly, to achieve the increase of sales along with the increase of corresponding profit is something that necessitates real effort, planning, and throughput, and may well require some time to successfully achieve.  On the other hand, since RONA represents a ratio of profit, divided by the fixed assets and net working capital of that company, the other straightforward way to increase a given company's RONA is, for example, to reduce the amount of fixed assets that a company is the owner of, by the selling of such, and subsequently the replacement of those fixed assets with the successful outsourcing of what those assets use to perform --thereby still capturing those profits through that successful outsourcing.  Not only does outsourcing reduce the fix assets of a company, it typically also reduces the amount of those so directly employed by that company; yet, via that successful outsourcing the profit of the company is not only maintained, but the RONA ratio subsequently rises, proving that the management of the company is astute because of its improved efficiency in the utilization of its company's assets and capital.

So then, in the hunt for efficiencies in which executives are judged on their competency by formulas such as RONA and the profit ratio so produced, management in recent years has outsourced more and more domestic jobs, and purchased directly for their company less capital equipment than they would normally have a need for, by virtue of that outsourcing; so that, while corresponding profits and ratios look quite good for those companies, the reverberations of this outcome is part and parcel of why the once vibrant middle class of America continues to get hollowed out.

Murder and suicide have commonality in their disrespect

As reported by worldhealthexpectancy.com, in 2017, there were 19,510 homicides in the United States; yet, incredibly that was far exceeded by the amount of suicides which was 47,173.  So then, whether murder is committed by an outside agent, or is turn inward as in self-murder, the bottom line is that a discouraging amount of Americans die via murder, or self-murder each year.  Why so many people are murdered or commit suicide each year, undoubtedly has a lot of underlying causes, of which certainly one of the them is that those countries that are prone to violence as witnessed by their governmental actions, are going to be countries in which, unsurprisingly, that violence is invariably also turned outward as well as inward against fellow denizens.  Further to the point, those countries that believe that an appropriate way to resolve conflict and disappointment, is to utilize violence, more often than not, are also going be those countries in which those people that are extremely angry at themselves or others will more readily look to commit violent acts against their own person or another person.

The bottom line is that no matter how it is committed, murder and suicide are violent acts, of which, because the United States is such a strong believer that its citizens have the right to arm themselves with weapons that are both effective and lethal in what they are designed to be, that some of those people are obviously going to desire to use such specifically for that purpose. In addition, the fact that no other country prescribes more pharmaceutical substances than the United States contributes to all sorts of tragic decisions; especially, because these drugs are prone to both being abused as well as being over utilized, thereby leading to a strong tendency from that abuse or over usage to unnecessarily addle a given person's brain, so that these vulnerable people are thereby less capable of making rational decisions, because their sensibility and their reading of situations is both off and distorted.

There is something sad in the noting, that far too many people devalue their own life, as well as others, and from that devaluation, it thereupon makes it easier for them to make decisions that result in the taking of another person's life or their own.  After all, that which you value highly, will be accorded the respect due to that valuation; whereas that which is considered to be something that is lightly valued, or devalued from what it once was, or even worse, reclassified in a manner in which that which is human and thereby the inviolable holder of unalienable rights, has been erroneously replaced with a redefinition that somehow supplants that real person to now being perceived as just an object, or perhaps as an animal of no real worth, thereby leads to a very real human tragedy.

While there are lot of ways to deal with the current rather sad state of affairs in regards to murder and suicide, such as more stringent gun control laws, and far more effective drug prescription overview and enforcement rules; these reforms in and of themselves are not nearly enough to stem the tide.  Rather, what is needed is the conscious recognition that all of human life has unalienable rights, and that it is our highest duty to see that these rights are first and foremost, respected and upheld by all, so that each human life is rightly valued for the priceless worth that makes the liberty of life worth living.

Safety and the fear of losing

In this life, there are those seemingly few that are willing to dare greatly and take upon themselves real risks with real consequences, pro or con; and then there rests the majority of us, that either carefully weigh their risk -to-reward ratio before acting, or if especially conservative or especially risk averse, concern themselves mainly about what they might well lose, if they risk even just a little bit.  For all those people that are especially risk averse, they don't seem to apparently recognize that in avoiding risks at all costs, this thereby often compromises them in their good ability to subsequently achieve something of real merit, personally or on a professional level, just so they can remain safe.  In other words, for them, it's never about winning, but rather it is a lot more about not losing what they already have, so that, for better or worse, for them, they settle with what they have.

Of course, not everything that we have a fear about is a reasonable fear to begin with; so that, for instance, those that won't step into the ocean, for fear that some creature might hurt them or that they could drown are in most instances, being far more dramatic than an honest appraisal of the situation so warrants.  So too, those that consistently see the bogeyman time and time again, in which a reasonable person does not, are going to live lives in which they are not going to achieve what they could possibly achieve because of those unreasonable fears.  Further to the point, those that are too risk adverse, while living in a country that prides itself on being egalitarian, fair, and civil, are thereby placing more weight upon the shoulders of all those other people that will have to step up in their absence to test the system to see whether, in actuality, that construct is true; and thereby it is those other people that take those risks, which are the ones that help to make or maintain progress, for all.

While it is true that nobody wants to be a loser, and that few people wish to lose anything of value; the fact of the matter is that in order to get ahead in life, people typically have to risk something of themselves in order to get something of value, in return; and perhaps just as important, it should be recognized that typically risks must also be taken just to hold on to what we already have.  In other words, life is not static, so that, each day we are either progressing or we are regressing in what we have, so that those that are intent that they will not ever lose something of value, are in actuality going to have to be proactive in order to hold on to even just that.

All of this basically means that for all those that have a great fear of losing something of real value, that they should probably not follow the strategy of trying to build some unbreakable fortress and thereby actually expect that such will never be breached.  Rather, they should concentrate more upon the knowledge that there is strength in numbers, so that the more people that are joined together, believing in the same values and the same ideas that they hold dear and do not desire to relinquish, often leads to the discovery that by being more proactive in defending as well as propagating that which they as a group value so highly, that they will not lose such.

The superrich don't work harder

Life is really, really good for the superrich.  For instance, as reported by cnbc.com, "Since 1978, and adjusted for inflation, American workers have seen an 11.2 percent increase in compensation. During that same period, CEO’s have seen a 937 percent increase in earnings."  Whether a superrich person is a CEO, or the inheritor of boatloads of money, or an entrepreneur, or whatever it may be, the superrich have seen their income and wealth swell immensely in recent decades, in which during that same time period, the common man has unfortunately been left further and further behind.

When we look at how much the superrich have in comparison to those of the middle class, as well as those that are impoverished, no rational person can reasonably state that the superrich work 50 times harder, or as much as 200 times harder than the common man; and no rational personal can reasonably state that the superrich are 50 times more educated, or as much as 200 times more educated than the impoverished man; yet, the amount of wealth that the superrich control in what is supposed to be an egalitarian society, seems to indicate that the superrich are apparently super people, of uncommon brilliance and envious connections, that ostensibly are almost like gods upon this earth.

The true bottom line is that the superrich are not more talented than everyone else, though, undoubtedly they do have talent; nor are they smarter or better than everyone else, though, undoubtedly they do have their smarts; but rather primarily the greatest skill set of the superrich is how clever that they are in gaming and mastering the system, in a manner that super-favors them at the expense of virtually everyone else.   That is to say, the superrich never play fair, of which their real talent lies in exploiting others and exploiting the system in a manner in which they and those that they need to implement such stratagems, are the masters at richly getting what they so desire.

Those that are executives of publically owned companies, are clearly grossly overcompensated, of which, there should be meaningful legislation passed that addresses the obscene amount of money earned by many of these executives in comparison to the median compensation paid to the balance of their employees, of which that legislation would thereby reduce such supersized compensation of those executives to no more than a fairer ratio, perhaps of 20-to-1 of what the median non-executive  worker earns in their employment.  For those, that believe that this would be meddling in the private affairs and decisions of a public company, recognize that such public companies are subject to the regulation of governmental authorities for the privilege of being able to secure massive capital funding from private investors.  Further to the point, companies that are able to consistently earn money with very high gross margins, should be investigated thoroughly as to whether or not they have monopoly or duopoly positions in the products and services that they are selling, of which, those companies that are found to be in such a position, need to be dissolved or divided so as to create true competing companies.   After all, companies that consistently have high gross margins in a capitalistic society, at a minimum implies, and in all probability signifies, that the business enterprise that they are part of, has no effective competition, or involves collusion.

The superrich have a lion's grip of the wealth in this nation, of which, by virtue of that wealth, they have immense power that is far in excess of the minute amount of people that are actually superrich.  That power, should not rightly be in the hands of the superrich, for they are certainly not gods, and whether they are extraordinarily smart, or work extraordinarily hard, too much concentrated wealth in too few hands, eviscerates democracies, and serves no good purpose for the people and never will.

Did I do enough?

Each one of us should want to thoroughly examine our own lives, especially in regard to our purposes, our goals, our achievements, and the foundation that we are building upon in order to successfully get to where we desire to be.  Further to the point, none of us is an island, for we are not meant to be alone; but rather mankind is of necessity, a social creature, thereby created to socialize, to interact, and to be of service to others.  So too, in recognition that on any given day, there are plenty of decisions to make, as well as there being plenty of things which are thought to be necessary to do or to attend to, each one of us needs to reflect upon whether or not on that day, or series of days, they have or have not done enough of what they really ought to do.

The question "Did I do enough?"  is not only not an easy question to fairly answer, but it could also be seen as a question that cannot be readily answered by the person thinking that thought; but yet that question should be answered by each one of us or at least pondered upon, for a lot of what we would consider to be satisfying in this world, is going to ultimately come down to whether or not we believe that we have done enough. After all, the desire for a good family, good friends, and a good society that we wish to be a part of, necessitates us doing our part to make that come to fruition; for free rides are only really free to the extent that someone else carries that load on behalf of us, which typically should really be ours to fairly bear our share, and perhaps indeed a bit more.

We should be cognizant that nearly every day we are going to come across situations in which we can play a positive part to do something of substance for someone other than our self -- for there are always an abundance of people that are hurting, or suffering, or are in some difficulty, in which we can have a contributing role to play, if we choose to be that helping hand for someone else.  That someone else does not need to be a stranger, for friends, family, and community members are all part of the greater whole, that we should typically wish to contribute to; yet, there is something of real value for all those that do good deeds for others, in which there is no reciprocation asked, nor is any expected, for that thereby represents the epitome of someone who is a true doer.

None of us wants to come to that place, where we second guess ourselves in regards to what we could have done, should have done, or might have done, for it would seem that all those that are really doing their part to make their communities a better place are positive contributors, who intuitively recognize that the change that we want to see in this world, always begins with our selves doing what we can to actuate this. 

It is well to remember that there are going to be those certain questions in life that will haunt us for we will feel our own disappointment and guilt; so too, there are going to be those questions that we will face that we will feel good about and subsequently are quite comfortable in so answering. And then there will be that question, perhaps haunting, perhaps not, of which it will be asked, did you do enough? 

Stealing from the future to prosper in the present

The given intent for any individual, company, or government, when they borrow money in the present, is through their future earnings to pay that borrowed money back.  While there are myriad reasons why any entity borrows money, the most proximate cause is that they believe that the importance of getting the money now and thereby having the ability to use such in a way that makes sense to them, is going to exceed the pain, if any, of paying it back with appropriate interest and/or penalties when due.  So, in short, those that borrow money are leveraging their future for the present, because if they are unable to pay back those funds so borrowed, they will individually suffer for that, or as in the case of present day governments, there is a very good chance it will be those of a future generation that will be stuck with the paying of the bill.

In other words, while it can be said that individuals that borrow money and fail to timely pay such back will have to individually deal with the consequences of this, the nuances of what happens to a particular company or government is typically different when they so default on their debts.  For instance, many a publically owned company has borrowed boatloads of money, only to become at some point, insolvent; in which the upshot of this is that the assets of that company do not match up with the debts so produced, signifying that the money so borrowed has already been spent or utilized, and thereby cannot be successfully recovered except at a discounted rate to the debt so created.  This can mean that certain company individuals, in particular, senior executives, may easily have been the beneficiaries of very lucrative compensation packages, and will not have to pay a dime of it back to those creditors, making those that are creditors to that corporation, and the investors of that debt, the biggest losers.  So too, governments can borrow billions upon billions of dollars, and do such for an exceedingly long time, as long as those that are issuing the credit, believe that government is ultimately good for paying back that debt; but thereupon there comes a time, when those issuing such credit, either lose their faith in such or demand more stringent terms for the risk involved, in which, if that government, subsequently fails to uphold their part of the bargain, the edifice collapses, hurting most everyone of that nation, and in particular, hurting those that are just commencing their lives and livelihood, for they are the ones that will suffer most dearly from the reparations and credit restrictions for the failure of their government to be solvent as well as to be prudent.

Those that do the borrowing are in effect, taking or utilizing what they have not fairly earned, yet; as if they have already earned it, though they have not, but instead have merely made a promise or a commitment to make good on such.  In life, not every good intention comes to fruition, and for a certainty, those with a devious intention often fare far worse; but good or bad, there always is an eventual reckoning, and for those governments that have been fiscally irresponsible, as well as those representatives of the people that have been using their power to buy prosperity for the present generation, by charging that bill to the future generation, leaves those of that future generation stuck with that bill, and thereby being unfairly burdened with a debt that they did not so create.

Processed food and chemicals

We live in a time in which food is not only inexpensive to purchase but also readily available, which in consideration that each of our bodies needs food and water to sustain itself as well as to maintain good health, having the ready availability of food at our beck and call is incredibly important and of immense value.  Further to the point, there use to be a time in which the majority of a given community's exertions was spent in either the harvesting of or of the hunting of food; whereas nowadays, the vast majority of Americans, simply go to their local grocery store to get whatever food that they have need of, or to any of the vast variety of restaurants thereby serving food.  Of course, different families have different budgets for food which is often dependent upon their income and wealth, of which, those that are on reduced budgets are subject to reduced choices; in which, they are far more frequently, going to have to avail themselves in the selection of some percentage of processed foods to eat, which typically means foods that have been changed, combined, or "enhanced" via chemical processes that thereby transforms that food into something different or new.

While there are all sorts of combinations of substances that can thereby add to the shelf life of food, without substantially changing the foundation of that food, such as in salt or brine; in modern times, the food industry has recognized the value brought to them via chemical engineering and thereby have deliberately made chemical add-ons to foods in order to better control the process of the creation of that food item, such as in common food items as in cereals, chips, and cookies.  Not too surprisingly, since packaging makes up a significant expense of processed products so being sold, those selling such products, are always going to be interested in those chemical compositions that will allow their products to have a greater shelf life of which ii is mainly through those chemicals that thereby keeps processed foods, stable for longer periods of time, while still maintaining their look and taste.  Additionally, the food business, is most definitely a competitive business, so that those that are the manufacturers and developers of processed food are always looking at ways to save money, via such things as a longer shelf life, or via cheaper product constitutions in which products thereby have both chemicals and minerals added or subtracted, depending upon numerous factors, or the substitution of one food item with another food item or a chemical composition that serves the same sort of purpose, as well as through the adulteration, deliberate or not, or through the dilution of a food in order to lower the unit cost of such, and so on and so forth.

So then, the upshot of the substitution of food items, or chemical additions made to processed foods, is that typically a lot of this is done for the salient reason of reducing the costs of providing that product to the consumer, so as to remain competitive, or simply to make more profit, typically at some expense to the safety, quality, and healthiness of the product.   That is to say, the processed food business is often really about trying to maximize profit, in a way in which such is done so that product through its chemical processing will still look good, and will still taste good, but because of those added chemicals and often the lesser food items added to that processed food, is probably not good for the overall health of the consumer.

Correcting the Constitution

The founding document of this great nation is its Declaration of Independence, of which the signers of that Declaration, representing each of the thirteen colonies, through the testimony of those signatures, formerly recognized that all men are created equal, and further held that we all have unalienable rights.  It was this Declaration, that dissolve the bands formerly held with Great Britain and was the rallying point for that successful revolution.  Upon the success of that seminal fight, and in recognition that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate in order to sustain a new nation, another convention was called, in which a Constitution was thereby created and subsequently ratified by each of the thirteen States.  As in most things, of which various people with various agendas get together, there were compromises made in order to form that union of those States.  One of those compromises had to do with the continuing enslavement of those other persons, left to the domain of each individual State, of which those other persons, though considered by that Declaration to be created equally and to have unalienable rights, were wrongly denied those very attributes by that Constitution.  However, there was a belief that in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of that Constitution that the banning of the importation of slaves in the year 1808 and thereafter, would thereby by its passage, slowly eradicate slavery as an institution. History, tells us, that this slow eradication did not subsequently occur.  

So then, this country continued to be a republic of both free people as well as enslaved people, in which, in absence of a Constitutional Amendment specifically banning slavery throughout this land, the decision as to whether or not to permit slavery within a given State, was left to each individual State to decide, and the federal government thereby had no Constitutional power to interfere in such.  In addition, in consideration that it was the Constitution that was the highest law of the land, this, in effect, made the Declaration of Independence, a Declaration, that was merely historical and therefore of no import to legislative, judicial, and executive decisions so made by those representatives.

Many a revolution has had the noblest goals for their constituents, only to find themselves after successfully overcoming their adversary, betraying those very same noble goals for their constituents, by their ignoring or vacating of such; for power, for greed, for control, and so on.  The United States, in its construction of that Constitution, is no different; for in reality, those owning slaves, and signing that Declaration of Independence, most definitely had their time and place to defend that despicable institution and therefore to amend that Declaration to conform to their belief that those so enslaved, were really the property of those slave owners, and thereby not people.  Instead, that Constitution, so created after that Declaration of Independence, never directly addresses slavery, though it also never concedes that other persons are property; yet, somehow finds a way to discount other persons to be three-fifths of a regular person, and with no rights that a white man was bound to respect.

It would take a great civil war and then the passage of the 13th-15th Amendments, for this country to recognize in its Constitution, what it had already recognized in its Declaration of Independence, that each of us is created equally, and equally of unalienable rights.  So now, we do find that the highest law of this land is in conformance with its Declaration of Independence; yet, still the abolition of slavery does not mean the same thing as equality under the law or of opportunity, for even a cursory look around the institutions and the justice so rendered in the present day United States indicates that this is still not so.

Kryptonite, war crimes, and the USA

In today's world, the United States is the preeminent superpower and has no rival, or series of rivals, whatsoever.  Further to the point, the United States, alone amongst all the civilized nations of this world, places itself consistently above international law and thereby above international treaties and agreements that apparently do not ever apply adversely against the United States, but are so applied to other nations.  Imagine though, an alternate universe or perhaps a parallel world, in which some sort of substance such as kryptonite is utilized against the United States, in which thereby none of its mighty weapons of war are capable of being fired or utilized, whatsoever; and subsequently the United States as a sovereign nation, must surrender to those forces that have the use of that kryptonite.

So then, inside this power vacuum, a consortium of countries get together to decide what to do about this situation in regards to the United States.  These countries, consisting of China, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Venezuela, and Cuba recognize that there is very little value in destroying the United States, but rather are cognizant of its great worth, and thereby decide that the best and fairest policy is to have a trial, specifically, dealing with the war crimes of the United States since World War II, addressing in particular, those individuals that are the alleged war criminal perpetrators.

The trial is thereupon known as the Washington DC War Crimes Trial and it is held within the Supreme Court building of that city.  Warrants for the arrest of specific military personnel of the highest level, are issued, as well as being issued for the heads of various governmental departments, such as the CIA, Homeland Security, National Security Agency and the like; in addition, warrants for the Secretary of the Defense, and the Secretary of the State, former and active are issued, and finally warrants are issued for the President, former and active.  The sheer amount of names so charged, is enormous, and the consortium of countries, prosecuting such, are diligent in the adding or subtracting of such names as actionable or mitigating information comes to their attention.  Additionally, in the knowledge that justice delayed is justice denied, this consortium of countries eventually reaches the point, in which the trial must begin.  And in fairness to those so accused, each is entitled to legal counsel in order to fairly answer the charges each is accused of.

The theme of the Washington DC War Crimes Trial becomes obvious from the very start, which is that certain specific people within the United States must be held accountable for their war crimes as well as crimes against humanity.  Those crimes cover such areas as the deliberate and premeditated bombing of civilian populations, the extraordinary rendition of persons from their native country, the torture of prisoners, the rape of civilians, the murder of civilians under the guise of combat, and so and so forth. In fact, the opening statement by the lead prosecution attorney, hauntingly echoes the exact same words used by the lead prosecutor Robert H. Jackson at the Nuremberg trial,  of which Jackson said "The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish, have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated;" in which the lead prosecutor at the Washington DC War Crimes Trial adds to those words, "Yet, they have been repeated, and repeated by a great nation, that knew what was right but deliberately did that which was wrong, because it believed it would never be held accountable; of which it is our sacred duty to thereby hold those bad actors accountable, so that all of humanity can progress to becoming fully civilized, fair, and with  the sure knowledge that mankind's good laws apply equally to all."

At the conclusion of that trial, most were convicted, though some were acquitted; and of those that were found guilty, most were hung, though some were not.

When the community becomes a company town

The United States has many small communities in which the good functioning of some of those small communities is very dependent on just one primary employer, or just one primary business type.  In other words in some communities, there is one primary business type or main employer that provides the bulk of the good paying and stable jobs to that community, and on the basis of that primary business type or main employer, everything else that makes up that community basically falls into place.  That is, the income that is generated through those paychecks of those directly employed by that primary business type or main employer, has ripple effects, felt throughout the community in the sense of the infrastructure thereby created in order to support those that are making that income and spending such on housing, vehicles, food, education, roads, parks, and so on and so forth.  This thus signifies that as long as that primary business type or main employer is doing well, then the community as a whole is also doing well, and while no community should turn down a good business enterprise desiring to locate within that community, it is vital to recognize that when the foundation of a given community is based solely upon that primary business type or main employer, that if that particular dynamic does change for the worse, it will often be devastating for that community.  Further to the point, those that are in the catbird's seat will have, undoubtedly a lot of power in regards to the seminal decisions made in that community of which those decisions are going to be far more often than not, supportive of that which holds the power, and thereby have very little to do with any sort of true democratic process.

The very first thing that any small community should do when they are successful in having a major employer locate in their community, is to try to leverage up that success, by soliciting other companies to come into their town, so that the community thereby is not wholly dependent upon or mainly dependent upon just that one employer type or business.   Additionally, the more viable companies that are located within a smaller community, not only presents more opportunities for those that are denizens of such, but helps to disperse the power that these companies have, by virtue of the fact, that there is more than one company in town.

The demise of many a small community, has come about when a given industry has, for instance, maxed out the natural resources within that town, or has made the decision to outsource jobs that use to be domestic to overseas facilities, or has simply made bad business decisions that did not keep that company competitive -- as well as all those things that are similar to these.  Once that primary employer is gone from a community, the entire infrastructure within that community is in play, as to whether or not it is sustainable -- for without that steady stream of good income, the game has surely changed, and virtually always for the worse.

To be overly dependent upon any one person, or any one company, or any one business enterprise, is never going to be prudent; and those in small communities, need to better understand, that the diversification of their employment base is necessary in order to better position their community to be both vibrant as well as to be sustainable.

Saying and doing should be in harmony

As it has been said, "Actions speak louder than words," and further to the point, it is those actions, that determine the integrity of those words so spoken.  This signifies that when corporations, governments, and people speak about matters of importance, we should hold those very entities accountable for those words so spoken in regards to whether or not their subsequent actions are found to have been in conformance to those words and those sentiments.

Unfortunately, there are far too many occurrences in which the subsequent actions to commitments previously made are wholly inadequate, in which the probable two main reasons why this is so, is firstly because some of those making those promises while having good intentions to do so, end up not staying the course for whatever reason, as well as possibly having an anemic follow through; and the second most common reason is that those making that commitment to begin with, had absolutely no intent of following through on it, so that their statement of what they were going to accomplish, was deceptively made in the prior knowledge that they weren't going to do such a thing, and in far too many cases, nobody holds them accountable to it.

Whether it is lack of follow through, or whether it is those that are disingenuous in their words, it is important for the general public and individuals to do their part to hold those that promise one thing but don't deliver, accountable.  After all, misdirection and deception is part and parcel of wars and governments, as well as quite frankly, far too many human relationships.  We would see far less of this, if each of us was more attentive to what is really being said by others in the first place, and secondly if we then took the time to determine whether or not those words were coming into fruition or not, and if not, call those pertinent institutions to account.

It would be nice if people and institutions were more often true to their word, and, in particular, those words of positive intent and good, for that would be beneficial for society.  On the other hand, when those people and institutions are not true to their word, then they should be seen for what they really are, and thereby exposed as to what their character really is; for those that say one thing, but end up doing another thing of which that other thing is of lesser value, or of no value, or is detrimental in its design, are hypocrites; made worse by the fact that their intent in their original declaration was probably deliberately false so as to disguise what they really are and what they truly represent.

The truth of the matter is that our character is primarily based upon our actual actions and deeds, of which, those actions and deeds should be consistent to those declarations previously made.  To the degree that this is true, we are in harmony between what we say and what we do; and to the degree that this is not true, this is at best, a display of our lack of comprehension of the degree of difficulty to accomplish such, as well as our apparent lack of successful drive and determination to overcome such; or it is a deliberate deception made for our personal benefit to take advantage of those that we can fool, or hope by our words to fool.

The white and black doll test

Back in 1947, two psychologists ran a test on black children ages thee to seven, utilizing four dolls, of various degrees of gradations of color, in which, as reported by naacpldf.org, "A majority of the children preferred the white doll and assigned positive characteristics to it."  This amazing result from this study was utilized in the epic argument in the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education, which undoubtedly contributed to that Supreme Court seminal decision that racial segregation was in and of itself, prejudicial and damaging to those subject to that segregation.

One might think that in this more enlightened time that a white and black doll test would clearly not still show prejudice and favoritism from white and black children, taking such a test.  In fact, in 2010, CNN ran such a test, with conditions in harmony with that original white and black doll test, in which, as reported by cnn.com, "white children have an overwhelming white bias, and black children also have a bias toward white."

The fact, that after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, in 1868, with additionally the landmark federally sponsored Civil Rights laws subsequently passed, which specifically were enacted to forbid racial discrimination, along with all persons that have any real sensibility already being cognizant that skin color has not ever, and cannot ever be what determines the character of a person, but rather is irrelevant to such; that children, who are far less inclined to hide their true feelings behind false fronts, are shown to have in the 21st century more positive feelings towards those that are white, in comparison to those that are not, regardless of their own race, must be seen to be: wholly disappointing.

The above is proof positive that America is still the white man's land, of which just being born white is an inborn advantage over those that are not white, irrespective of any other conditions.   This thus signifies that in every enterprise of merit, be it housing, education, justice, or opportunity, that the white man is in the superior position, simply based on the salient fact that they are white.  So that, the egalitarian promise that America is supposed to represent, does not exist; nor does any of its other promises of being integrated, fair and equal, or of meritorious opportunity, and so on, exist.  

The bottom line is that until America is able to demonstrate through its non-biased tests, that every vestige of the superiority of the white man has been erased from the minds and thoughts of its people, of all colors, and of all backgrounds, then the white man will continue to reap the awards and the benefits that the white man has not fairly sowed.  This would surely indicate that all programs, such as the Affirmative Action program, and the like, that are constructed so as to make good on promissory notes yet unfilled, must be part and parcel of the American way of being, in order to appropriately rectify not only previous wrongs, but wrongs that are integral to American life as it is still being experienced, today.  

It is not ever good enough, to espouse noble thoughts and to have noble goals, if the structure within that nation, is corrupt to begin with; especially when such is further compounded when that nation never establishes thoroughly the comprehensive effort needed to properly correct those foundational faults.  While one may give America credit for becoming a melting pot of so many different peoples, it still sees life far too frequently through the distorted prism of the white man, which is the very reason why the United States of America, is in reality, a country divided, and not united.

Doctrine of Discovery

As in most everything, it is the victors that write the history.  So then, when the western hemisphere of the Americas, was discovered and thereupon developed by those Europeans that crossed the vast Atlantic ocean, beginning in the late 15th century, they so discovered that this was a vast continent, consisting of North, Central, and South America, previously unknown by that European people.  This American continent was populated by the indigenous people that made up that continent, but since it was not those indigenous people that sailed that Atlantic Ocean to Europe, and thereupon "discovered" Europe, but rather it was the other way around, this thus made those Europeans the "discoverers" of that continent.  Further to the point, while the Europeans that sailed across that ocean were vastly outnumbered by those indigenous people, they brought with them powerful instruments of war, in addition to their superior overall knowledge and learning in regards to mathematics, language, reading, writing, science, and jurisprudence.  This thus meant that the indigenous people, rightly or wrongly, for the most part, recognize these Europeans as being in significant ways, more advanced than them.

Additionally, the mindset of the Europeans was that the people that made up the lands of the Americas, were considered to be heathen, pagans, and the like, of which therefore it was the European right as well as its duty to civilized that which was considered to be uncivilized, through whatever means those Europeans best saw fit.  The intent, was never to work in conjunction with the native peoples, but was always about either assimilation, at best, or the conquering of those native peoples.  Further to the point, there was a Papal Decree thereupon issued in 1493, which basically built the template of what became known as the Doctrine of Discovery.  That doctrine, enforced by the European monarchies, signified under the aegis of Christianity, but really under the guise of such, that Europe would be the masters of these newfound lands, of which, the legacy of the American continent, is proof positive that this is indeed what happened.

So then, to the dismay of indigenous peoples throughout the western hemisphere, their land, no longer was their land, and their self-determination was no longer their determination, but they became in most aspects, a conquered peoples, with their lands and livelihood torn asunder from their hands.  This meant that indigenous peoples did not have a meaningful voice in the government foisted upon them, and they were subsequently shunted aside, killed, divided, suffered unduly from European illnesses, or were forcefully removed onto barren reservations, and thereby left with little resources to sustain themselves.

As they say, to the victors go the spoils, of which, many a people have lost their lands and their identity not fully comprehending that a battle once commenced , warranted or not, understood or not, formal or not, will result in there being only one victor.  So too, as the Doctrine of Discovery, led the Europeans to claim the western hemisphere as their own; recognize that the same general principle is applicable to any one nation that conquers another, of which the most basic point of going to war, is to take, usually unjustly, from one people what is theirs, to thereby reap their wealth and riches as your own without having properly paid, earned or labored for such.  All of the above basically signifying, that he who wields the biggest sword in the most effective manner, fair or foul, is he who wins.

Help is always needed, so help

Far too many people find themselves getting overwhelmed from time-to-time in regards to the complexities, disappointments, and tragedies that this world presents, on a seemingly daily basis.  While all of this may seem to be way too much; the secret to addressing these tribulations really comes down to not being overly grandiose but rather dealing with such on a much smaller and personal basis, in which the objective is for each person to do their part to provide needful help, where they can, and as often as they can for others, that are suffering or hurting, unduly.

Too  many people tend to be mistaken in their belief that their seemingly insignificant positive actions don't amount to all that much; but it is in those little positive actions, committed time and time again, that lend itself to making communities and civilizations better, for all.  This signifies that anytime that we can provide a helping hand to someone in need; we should do our part to do exactly that.  After all, anytime that we do our part, we are helping to make things better, and anytime that we fail to do our part; we are not contributing in areas in which our contribution is needed.

Life is almost never about the need for us to do magnificent and generous things on some sort of epic scale, but rather has a lot more to do with doing the little small things that will help ourselves as well as others in the making of our communities, better places to live and to grow in.  Further, more people need to take to heart, their definition of what being a good neighbor really is all about.  For some, they take this in its most literal meaning, which signifies, that they have an obligation to be a good neighbor to their actual physical neighbor, of which, if they do this, at least it can be said they are doing something of merit for someone else.  That said, the real principle of being a good neighbor, is the same principle about being a good Samaritan, which is that when we see someone that is in need, we are provided with the opportunity to be of service to that other; in particular, a person that we don't even individually know, of which those that do so, are true to that which really matters.

But no matter as to whether we do all we can do for others in need or not, it is in the actual doing, that we are able to provide help to others, and every deed done for others, is providing the help that will in its own way, make for better communities and for a better world, and every little bit does help.  While each of us can moan about the upsetting dramas in life that we come across far too often, recognize that those that help in their own way, are being heroic, and those that are heroic are the very people that help to make this world more bearable, more tolerable, more livable, and more loving.

Fiscal stupidity leads to insolvency

The United States government has not had a budget surplus since 2001, and does not project to have a budget surplus, let alone a balanced budget, anytime in the short foreseeable future.  In fact, based upon how massive the deficits are continuing to be, for whatever given reasons, spurious or not, the present government does not appear to have any intention to balance its book, ever.  While having a budget deficit, sometimes is necessary in order to preclude or ameliorate a recession, or in times of war, or other valid reasons; for the most part, most of the deficits so run, come down to feckless and lying politicians that refuse to tax the very entities that can easily afford to pay far more in taxes, as well as this government not being prudent in the allocation of how the people's money is spent.

To the degree that the government, sees their expenditures of money as something that they need not necessarily concern themselves about, is the degree that the way that things are being conducted presently, will not soon change.  The great hypocrisy that this government has foisted upon the public, is the belief that this government, can continue to run deficits, indefinitely; when for a certainty, there will come a time, when that money so being borrowed will have to be borrowed at an appreciably higher interest rate, or that those that are the creditors to such massive deficits, will impress upon these United States, conditions that will force the United States to get its fiscal house in order, in which those that will suffer under those conditions, are the very people that make up this country.   However, what is so unfair about this picture, is that those that will carry most of that fiscal load upon their shoulders are, to a very large extent, not going to be those that are retired, but rather those that are in the prime of their lives, and will have to do all of the heavy lifting, in order to conceivably right this ship.

The great shame of this government is that it lacks the courage to tax those that it should tax at a much higher rate, which are the richest and most powerful people and corporations, within this nation.  Further, it refuses to have the present generation, tighten its belt, so as to live within its means, thereby putting off until tomorrow, what should forthrightly be dealt with today.   After all, spending other people's money is always a pretty darn easy thing to do; whereas, getting people to pay their fair share for that spending, requires consistency, fairness, transparency, and determination. 

It would be one thing if all these deficits so being run at the present time, all had a grand purpose behind such: for instance, in the creation of a nation with good healthcare, good education, good housing, good job opportunity, and good infrastructure for all segments of that population.  That, in and of itself, would be sensible, and would be a prudent decision to make on behalf of the people.  Instead, America, has done virtually none of these things, and appears to have the mindset, that the only real business in America is for the most powerful and richest people and corporations in America, to cheat the tax system, to thereby cheat their government, and for that government to subsequently sell the illusion to the people that all is well, when such systemic fiscal deficits are indicative that all is surely not.