Crime and punishment and social class

In a truly egalitarian society of which laws are created that are fair and equally applied, along with those laws being structured so as to demonstrate in principle that these laws are no respecter of persons, than such a society as that is clearly a just society.  Unfortunately, while many societies profess that their Constitution or their government abides by those very things, or declaim that it does, or that their justice system behaves in that manner; the fact of the matter is, that one's social class and criminal justice as applicable to such are absolutely relevant to the crime and punishment so rendered, and that those of the upper class are clearly differentiated in how they are treated, by laws so instituted amongst men, then any  other social class.

It all starts with the social conditioning of the classes, of which, social mores that are still in usage today, indicates that those that are from the upper class are often people not to be trifled with as well as people that need to be respected, for these are the very people of which the judicial system as well as the legislative representatives, have a significantly higher percentage of.  In other words, the very people that write the laws and then render justice upon those laws are the people that make up the favored class, for those of that upper class, would not ever live or permit to have, a construct in which their voice was diminished by those that are not of the same class as they are.  This signifies that the type of crimes that the upper class would have a tendency to participate in, such as financial fraud of all stripes, corporate malfeasance, tax evasion, and exploitation, are considered to be "white collar crimes" which are more typically dealt with in a manner in which incarceration to such is absolutely minimized, and financial penalties are utilized instead for punishment.  Whereas, those of the "blue collar crime" type, are the typical crimes of the rabble, such as robbery, theft, rape, murder, and all those victimless crimes, which are typically treated rather harshly, with stiff sentencing of the miscreant being the routine result of having committing these crimes.

After all, those of the upper class don't rob anyone, at least not directly face-to-face; nor do they steal anything, at least not by the direct taking of an object from another; nor do they rape anyone, for they can buy whatsoever sex that they so want, deviant or not; nor do they murder anyone, for exploitation of another is far more satisfying; and finally they aren't ever accused of any victimless crimes, for all their illicit activities are done behind closed doors.  On the other hand, the lower class, seldom has the opportunity to commit "white collar crimes" because they are not often in the position to do so; and even when they somehow evolve to be in that position, the justice system thereby finds a way to merge their particular "white collar crime" into something more suitable for one of lesser class, so that they duly suffer for their failure of adhering to their place, by becoming incarcerated with those others that have the audacity to take on the aura of that which they are not.

Who you are most definitely matters and the justice system and the legislative laws so enacted, reflect that those that make and adjudge those laws, do so in a manner that favors their own class, at the expressed expense of all those that are not of that class.

The threat of deterrence is not effective

Far too many nation-stations, that really should know better, have bought into the theory that the threat of deterrence, be it nuclear, economic, or some other military means will consistently get other nation-states to come to heel.  That at least is the theory, but that theory is wanting, as essentially the threat of deterrence especially when it comes from the sole super-power in this world, basically translates to the words that all those that we threaten with deterrence need to obey the United States, or else.  Is that sort of attitude and mindset, that builds resentment, breeds discontent, and ultimately will fail, because fundamentally the most appropriate way to have other nation-states behave in a mature, just, and compassionate manner is to have those very qualities displayed in one's own nation-state.

Nobody likes a bully, and when the United States acts as a bully to the rest of the world, or certain subject nation-states of this world, that is seldom going to resolve issues that need to be addressed in a responsible and mature fashion.  Rather, when a country as powerful as the United States, cannot successfully address recalcitrant nation-states in a manner in which those nation-states might consider listening to that voice, in which the response by the United States is far too often, basically advocating force in so many words, then the United States is not helping to build bridges, but rather is acting as a non-listening domineering dad, that wants to always have its way, without going through the trouble of utilizing common sense reasoning, or a true meeting of minds, to accomplish such or to create a meaningful dialog.

Those countries that are incapable of coming to reasoned decisions at meetings that address these very things, in which there is a give and take by all parties involved, of which, we have instead, one party that irrevocably insists that it must be their way or the highway, then there probably wasn't any point to the conference to begin with.  All those countries, big or small, superpower or not, that reach for the gun, when they cannot come to an agreement with their own people, or their neighbors, or their fellow countries, have sold their legitimacy to the barrel of that gun.  All those that insist upon using the threat of deterrence to resolve differences, have aggrandized onto themselves, the type of power, that is abusive, and thereby serves to negate democracies, and to consider irrelevant the voice of the people, to serve only that one voice, which says that its authority will not bow to any other.

One would expect better discernment from the United States, then how our government and its representatives act on the international scale on so many levels at the present time.  First, the United States insists upon meddling in all sorts of affairs that really are not relevant to its Constitutional authority, and secondly it does not desire to find common ground with others, all that often, but rather reaches for that power supremacy card, and utilizes it as a cudgel against all those that annoy them, again and again.  For whatever reason, the United States believes it lives in some fantastical world, in which they forever fear that some other nation-state is going to tread on them.  The reality is that isn't happening, but those that keep bullying others around, and shaking other nation-states down, are surely going to reap what they have sowed.

The importance of "skin in the game"

The idiom, skin in the game, can basically be defined as a particular person or institution having some sort of personal or meaningful complicity in the decisions so being made by that person or institution so enacted, in which the consequences thereof, impacts them as well as the parties that they are intended to impact.  That is to say, when advice is given to anybody, of whom the consequence of the person giving such advice has no material impact upon them, then, in fairness, that person does not have skin in the game, because they are not risking anything for providing that advice.  On the other hand, when someone requests that his constituents, take up their arms against some sort of oppressive enemy, and that person or institution does their part in taking up their own arms, then, they for a certainty, have skin in the game, for they are involved in it.

There are always going to be those instances, of which in the advice so given, that the person providing that advice, may indeed have the best of intentions, but they are not in a position in which they really could have skin in the game, such as, for example, when a person provides an entrepreneur with business advice, of which that person giving that advice, does not own a business or is even a manager of such.  That does not mean the advice has no relevancy or has no value, but, it does indicate that the person receiving that advice should take into account, that the advice so given is essentially by a person that is not risking anything.

The main issue with those people and institutions that do not have skin in the game, is the fact, that the further removed that a person or institution are from having skin in the game, the more that the decisions and advice that they make, while having consequences for those receiving such, good or bad, does not noticeably affect that person or institution that has made those decisions or given that advice.  The problem thereby becomes that when those that are making or implementing the rules, regulations, and laws for others but have no skin in the game, not even on a tangential level, the less inclined they are to take to heart, the real consequences of those rules, regulations, and laws upon those that these are applicable to.  This is why, for instance, when those that judge or enforce the law, are placed into a situation where the worm has turned, that they become for the first time, truly knowledgeable about how that law is actually applied in the real world, and this often becomes an insightful revelation for them.

Those that have never walked a mile in another person's shoes, do not truly know that person, and do not have skin in the game with that person, of which, because they lack that experience, it therefore means that they are less capable of having harmonic empathy for that person's situation.  So that, those that have never had to worry about where their next meal is coming from, or the security of their employment,  or the fair safety of their being from the long arm of the law, do not have a true appreciation for all those that have experienced or have been threatened with those very things.  All this signifies that those that do not have skin in the game, are going to find it problematic to do the right thing, even if they actually desire to do the right thing, because having personally risked nothing, they therefore will not suffer the consequences of what so occurs, and hence will not be able to properly value the ultimate repercussions of what they have advised, implemented, or done.

The non-variability of gas station prices

There are some street corners in big cities in which each one of those corners, actually has a gas station upon it.  One would think, that in a situation in which the competition is literally a stone's throw away, that at least one of those gas stations would have a meaningfully lower price than the others, so as to put pressure of those other gas stations to compete at that level, as well as to differentiate themselves from those other gas stations, so as to increase their volume of business over their competitors.  The fact of the matter though, is that the typical baseline price of gasoline within a particular county in a particular State, in which all of the respective gas stations are subject to the exact same governmental taxes, demonstrates more often than not, a small disparity in gasoline prices.  That is to say, the highest price in the neighborhood is typically less than 10% more than that baseline price, and the lowest price is no more than 10% less.  While, that is a difference in price to the consumer, that difference in consideration of the importance of that commodity and the expense, thereof, is relatively light.

What doesn't make a lot of sense, is that oil is produced by several gargantuan oil companies, such as ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and the like, of which the oil fields that they extract their oil from are going to have accompanying costs that are quite obviously going to vary from not only field to field, but from company to company.  In other words, the cost to extract oil for ExxonMobil as compared to Shell is going to be noticeably different, and certainly should never be about the same, because some oil fields are far more productive at a far lower cost than others, and that materially matters.  So that, logically those companies that extract oil at a lower internal cost should be able to sell their oil at a lower cost point, of which those retail gas stations, that buy that cheaper oil, should thereby be able to pass on some of those savings to the consumer, and by their consistently lower gas prices, take market share away from their competitors.

However, instead, we live within a construct in which barrels of oil, no matter the internal costs to extract the oil, actually are sold by the manufacturers of that oil by the barrel through commodity markets, so that the low-cost producers, as well as the higher-cost producers are basically selling their oil for the same price, and the retailers that thereby buy that refined gasoline through that market, are in essence, paying about the same price for that refined gasoline, which thereby necessitates, more or less, that the prices that the consumer thereby pays, is going to be about the same, subject to different country taxes in different States, as well as the fact that some States have higher gasoline taxes than others, in which the end result is that the consumer of that gasoline, in the area in which they live, basically pays about the same price for a gallon of gasoline no matter what gas station that they do their business at.

All of the above, basically signifies, that though gas stations do ostensibly compete against one another, they are in many ways and forms, similar enough in their pricing, that for all intents and purposes, they act as if they are nationalized, though they are not.

The domestic production of foreign cars in America

Next to one's own home, the most costly material item that people need to purchase is their vehicle for transportation.  That said, the lifespan of even the best of vehicles is limited, so that, unlike a home that through proper maintenance and whatnot, can easily stand for one hundred years the best of vehicles needs to be replaced, periodically.  While it is true that at one time, all the vehicles being sold in America, were American in their origin and labor of, that hasn't be true for several decades, and won't ever be true again, in a world that has become appreciably smaller.  The one thing that America did right in recent years, when it comes to the big expensive item that cars and SUVs represent, is that it forced the hand of many foreign manufacturers, to agree to a quid pro quo, so that these foreign manufacturers in order to have fair access to the American market would therefore in lieu of exorbitant tariffs or other restrictions, have decided to produce and to manufacture a certain percentage of their vehicles on American turf in order to maintain their access to this market.  Those foreign manufacturers thereby invested millions upon millions of dollars into infrastructure, the purchasing of parts so needed for their manufacture of vehicles in America, as well as the hiring of American personnel, to accomplish such.

So then, to a certain significant degree, when Americans purchase cars that ostensibly appear to be foreign manufactured, those cars may well have been assembled primarily through American labor, utilizing American tools and American parts, which thereby helps to keep that money so being spent on such an expensive item as a vehicle, circulating within America, which is beneficial for America.  Despite this success, though, America has in recent decades, continued to lose millions of manufacturing jobs to foreign based companies, as well as through the utilization of more automation and robotics.  Still, in lieu of the fact that America was able to get foreign manufacturers of vehicles to open up expensive facilities to produce and to manufacture vehicles upon American soil, one would think that in order to protect, defend, and to promote other manufacturing jobs within America, that America would desire to do the same sort of thing, for other industries, besides just the automotive one.

In point of fact, about the only thing that wakes up foreign companies that are selling a lot of their product into the United States, of which none of the product is being manufactured within the United States, is the implementation of necessary tariffs, so as to help protect domestic manufactures and to encourage those foreign operatives to invest in America, so that they can continue to have fair access to that market share.  After all, the domestic cost of labor, the domestic cost of land, the domestic cost of environmental laws, and the cost of litigation in America, is going to, more times than not, be significantly more expensive then the corresponding cost of such in a given foreign nation, of which, a tariff so implemented is a fair way to help even the score between two competing nations.

The bottom line is that the type of deal that was structured to help secure the continual domestic manufacturing of automobiles in America --necessitated that foreign manufacturers would have to compete on the same soil, as our domestic manufacturers so do.  This is fair, and should be implemented far more often for other industries that are currently being hollowed out by foreign manufacturers that do not employ Americans.

Wage growth and stock market returns are not in sync

As reported by ssa.gov, from the years 2001 to 2018, the Average Wage Index (AWI) for workers increased 2.59% annually; whereas, in comparison to the S&P 500, that stock market index return over the same period of time was 4.43%, annually; signifying that the stock market return was a cumulative 71% higher than the AWI over that period of eighteen years.   Since, it takes labor to produce products, goods, and services, one would think, all things being equal, that wage growth would be in sync with stock market returns, but clearly stock market returns have been appreciably higher than wage growth.  This so indicates that those that control the means of production, and are the people in charge of the wages so provided to American workers, have siphoned a higher percentage of those profits onto their own executive and upper management hands as well as onto the stockholders of record, as opposed to sharing that wealth, fairly, with those that are an integral part of the process of creating those goods and services.

Not too surprisingly, in an era in which labor unions are weak, and governmental taxation policies favor the rich and elite, this means that those that are mere wage earners and without good (or any) labor representation whatsoever, are going to end up with the short end of the stick, more often than not, of which that lack of wage growth commensurate to the stock market returns so generated, reflects that laborers are not receiving their fair day's wage for a fair day's work.  After all, wages that companies do not pay to their employees, are therefore monies kept for those that own the means of that production for their own benefit; so that, in essence, the rich, privileged, and most connected amongst us, get even more wealth, all at the expense of those that are falling further and further behind in wages earned.

So then we live within a construct, in which when times are bad, employees are fired or laid off or have their working hours reduced or are simply let go because they are often considered to be "at will" employees, and hence there is no monetary penalty so paid by the employer for these workers, whether they are laid off, terminated, have their hours reduced, or their wages stagnated.  On the other hand, when times are good, employee wages do not rise at the same level that the profits and the stock market returns are generating, mainly because those that do the employing, are not compelled by law, or pressured by labor unions, or by governmental forces, for that matter, to pay more in compensation, then they are wont to do.

All of this is indicative as to why the rich get richer, the middle class remains under pressure, and the impoverished remain stuck in their place.  This is also why there are those privileged few that continue to aggrandize more and more in assets, that thereby allows them to lord it over a significant portion of their fellow Americans, because their greed and unfairness knows no bounds; and this sheepish government does not thereby utilize its power to appropriately tax those privileged people or those corporations, and lacks the very courage to pass necessary robust labor legislature laws that would help to ameliorate this current wage situation, which steals from those that have not, to give more to those that have.

How to be happy

Most people, claim that they desire to be happy, and some of those people wishing for that, are actually quite happy; whereas, a significant amount of other people, somehow can't find the wherewithal to be happy, and thereby utilize excuses that seemingly preclude them from that happiness, such as a lack of opportunity, a lack of material assets, a lack of good friends, and a lack of their fair share of things of which all this serves to steal their happiness from them.

In point of fact, all of us are going to have to deal with situations that do not make us happy within that particular point of time, but some of those people are far better able to handle those situations so that they are not personally overwhelmed by them, whereas others, unfortunately, do not.  The bottom line is nobody is going to be perpetually happy, for circumstances necessitate that our attitude needs to adjust to a given situation, of which, some of those situations will not lend itself to simply maintaining an attitude of plain happiness.  Rather, it must be recognized that bad things do happen to people, of which, our appropriate response is to see what we can do constructively to relieve such, and to thereby bring some well founded perspective as well as good reason to the situation, so as to evaluate such in a way that we can bring forth improvement or amelioration of it.

This thus signifies, that our degree of happiness has a significant amount to do with our internal attitude, subject to what is occurring around us, and in those times when chaos and insensitivity reigns, we need to not allow the circumstances of that moment, to overwhelm our natural good sensibility, for all things that are wrong, bad, and evil, will so pass, sooner or later; because that which is right, good, and virtuous are its superior, thereby meaning that each sad note in life so played, will be overcome by the happy note that will be ever triumphant over it.

So too, unhappy people, often need to turn their attitude around, from one of self-centeredness, as in "what can you do to make me happy," to something that allows that individual to place themselves in a position of which they are more consistently kind to others, are more considerate of others, and more generous of their time and wisdom with others, which will invariably produce an internal being of happiness, for to be that helping hand to others, radiates goodness inside, which is happiness.

Additionally, when someone performs an act of goodness towards us, we should acknowledge such with an aura of gratitude, which thereby makes us feel happy inside, as well as making that other person, feel appreciation for our thankfulness.  It is, those little deeds of goodness that are performed day in and day out, that represent the true source of our continual happiness, for every time that we perform something of merit, our life as well as the lives of others, becomes better.  To be happy, really comes down to recognizing that we are all in this life, together; and that by valuing one another in a manner in which we get joy by helping one another, makes us happy, because life is meant to be a shared experience, in which, we willfully assist one another.

Shaming people seldom gets them to correct their behavior

We live within a world in which far too many people engage in behavior with others that doesn't take into full account that each person has value, and that therefore how we treat one another, has consequences, good as well as bad.  The problem with something such as shaming, or the belief that when a particular person engages in bad behavior that they should be ashamed of themselves, is that this doesn't often produce any real lasting change in that person's behavior, but rather more often serves to make that person more socially withdrawn, especially when that shame comes through an authority figure, such as a teacher, parent, or mentor, in which that person so shamed often loses some degree of their own self-belief and self-worth.  After all, when an authority figure tells someone, in so many words, that they are worthless in some aspect of their personality or behavior, many people not only believe it, implicitly; but also in absence of any constructive suggestions or help, believe that they will not readily overcome that which they are told to be ashamed of.

Further to the point, all shaming done in which a stranger attempts to shame someone else for behavior that they don't approve of, such as, for instance, not properly "social distancing" or whatever, isn't often going to produce any change in that subject's behavior, but typically will result in contempt for that other person, and for what they believe, because most people do not appreciate being essentially bullied by somebody else, and therefore won't readily be obedient to them.  In truth, social shaming, may perhaps work on some people, but only typically in the sense that they will modified their behavior to subsequently be more discreet or secretive about that which they are being shamed about.  In other words, if the purpose of shaming is to help people, to correct that which appears to be incorrect, shaming is not the appropriate way to do so, for it serves more often, to exacerbate situations, rather than to resolve anything of substance, meaningfully.

The main thing about the act of shaming, is the fact that it doesn't require much aforethought to do; as opposed to actually taking the time to take in a given situation and then come up with something of merit to address what appears to be behavior that would behoove the person so exhibiting such, to improve upon.     After all, behavior which appears to be inappropriate or wrong, typically has some sort of root cause that is enabling such, and a considerate person, therefore, desires to see that the root cause is dealt with in a manner in which by doing so, that person improves their own outlook and their own life. 

The bottom line is that shaming is the go-to choice of all those that do not have the time, or do not care to take the time, to address what is actually happening with another person in a responsible and mature fashion, but prefer instead to strike out against that other person, because they themselves are typically impatient, uncaring, or self-centered.   Those behaviors that some people do that upset other people so much, are best addressed in a manner in which we should more often take into account, that sharp angry words stir up ill feelings; whereas, kind tolerant words command respect.

Knowing how to destroy the world is not progress

Knowledge is something that quite obviously can be utilized for the good of mankind, but also, regrettably, for bad purposes, as well.  Even the most cursory of looks around our world, today, indicates that on so many levels, knowledge is used far too often to oppress mankind, to hurt mankind, and to destroy mankind, typically for the expressed selfish benefit of a particular person or organization.  Still, there are plenty of people and organizations that use their knowledge for the betterment of mankind and to do what they can do to see that this world is a better place for their efforts, and further they prove their good stewardship of the resources that mankind has developed, and continue to develop, day-by-day.

Yet, we live within a construct in which the world has grown appreciably smaller, so that small-minded bigots of immense power, now have the capability with their devoted minions of destroying not just their own sovereign land, but are also well able in their capacity to destroy the world --through, for instance, a nuclear nightmare, or through other means, that accomplishes this same sort of principle of destruction, over some given period of time. 

This thus signifies that mankind, has the means within its grasp, to destroy this planet, of which, perhaps from some sort of perverse perspective this is seen as progress for having obtained this awesome destructive power into mankind's hands, thereby aggrandizing unto mankind the power of complete death and annihilation of this world.   Rather, though, the destroying of anything of merit, no matter the sophistication of that knowledge needed to do so, is something that should be perceived as being witless if so done, and a gross injustice to all those that live upon this earth, if so suffered.

Again, it is not to mankind's credit to destroy that which mankind did not even create in the first place; but if through mankind's free will and desire, it wishes to do so, and none are able to preclude such, it will be done.  On the other hand, the measure of any civilization is whether or not that civilization has made the world, the conditions of that world, and the life of those people that make up that world, a better place, than it was before that civilization was so created.  That is, in a nutshell, the very reason for our being, so that we, as one united mankind, are able to thereby create institutions and relationships that are based upon principles that are just, moral, fair, and right for the continuing benefit and necessary benefit of mankind, throughout this world and even beyond.

The powers that we have today, to create a better world or to destroy such, are in our hands, for the very purpose, of proving or disproving the worth of mankind as so exercised in this time and place.  The choice of destruction would be the choice of a collective selfish misguided egotist, and thereby the choice of annihilation; whereas, the choice of creation, and of being of true benefit to mankind, is the worthy choice of all those who desire, above all, to be co-creators with that which created us in the first place.

John 14: 2

We read in Holy Scripture "In my Father’s house are many homes. If it weren’t so, I would have told you. I am going to prepare a place for you." (John 14: 2) Although each one of us is created by the same One Source, the development of each of our souls, and our adventures or misadventures on this earthly plane are going to inevitably pull each one of us in different directions, and with different outcomes; so that the end result is that each one of us is going to be at a different place of consciousness of knowing, who and what we really are, with correspondingly different accomplishments so noted. 

This thus signifies that it doesn't make sense to believe that the spiritual plane that holds our souls and welcomes us into the eternal house of our Father, is going to be the same home for everyone, for such a construct as that, would invariably mean a cacophony of different vibrations so meeting which would correspondingly not sync well one with another.  So then, our Father who is not limited by anything, has for our consideration provided us with homes that correspond best with our spiritual development, so that within that environment, we are comforted in knowing that the home that we thereby are situated in, is indeed the right place at that time for each one of us.

Far too many people wrongly buy into the binary belief, that life consists of either a heaven or a hell as being our final destination; but if it really was this way, that would be a cosmic injustice to each one of us.   That is to say, none of us just simply goes to heaven, but step-by-step, home-by-home, we grow our way and thereby earn our way into the full sanctuary of our God in that heaven.  Everything that we do does matter, and all that matters is recorded, and that which is recorded, must be accounted for, and that which is accounted for, must be answered to and that of which the answers fall short of the true essence of God, must be made whole, sooner or later, one way or another.

God is never the great punisher, but that which separated itself from God, through its free will, must in the skeins of time, reconstruct its essence so as to become part and parcel of God, once again.  There are, after all, no mistakes in God, so it is therefore not possible for that which is wrong, to somehow magically to become right, without the necessary transformation that releases that darkness which taints that soul into Light. That is why there are so many homes in our Father's house, so that we have the necessary opportunity to properly reconstitute ourselves into the beings that we are supposed to be, so that when we go forth again and incarnate upon this planet or similar, we are better able to be a force of good for those that we interrelate with.

That which we prize the very most, necessitates trials and tribulations to obtain; and it is through those trials and tribulations, that we are afforded the opportunity to be that good and faithful servant,  and by accomplishing this, then all will be well within our soul, and we will thereby have rightly earned the key to that One golden door.

Government property and trespassing

The National government as well as State governments, own a lot of land, of which, because these lands are owned by those governmental entities, there are quite typically restrictions placed upon the public access to that land and to the facilities that are part of that land.  While it certainly makes sense that there should be appropriate rules and regulations for facilities so built, on behalf of the public, such as public schools, public libraries, public parks, and so forth; there are also plenty of military installations, military bases, or facilities that aren't even noted as to what their purpose is or even what their particular function is, of which these facilities are often quite restricted and therefore off-limits to the public, with strictly enforced no-trespassing signs, as well as security being in placed to protect such.

The problem with any government facility which precludes the general public from ever stepping foot upon that land or into that facility, is that the public has an implicit right to know what that government, of, by, and for the people is actually doing on the public land, held for the benefit of those people.  That is to say, the more secretive any government is, and the more restrictive that government agency is in providing fair access to the general public to public lands and to the facilities so built upon such -- or even worse, to believe that the general public should just mind its own business, is inimical to the best interests of those people.  After all, the best government is never going to be that government that keeps an abundance of secrets, but rather is a government that to the degree that it is prudent to do so, is fully transparent and completely open with the people, for these are the very people that the government is setup to actually serve.

A very strong argument could be made and should be made, that every government facility should at a minimum, be available for the people's representatives to visit and to look about, with minimal restrictions, at least some of the time.  Further to the point, each facility so utilized, should have to periodically justify its restrictions on its visibility and use, or in absence of such justification, provide more open access to the general public, for it never feels right to see any governmental property, setup in a manner in which the public is treated as a pariah to that government, rather than being properly seen as having innate rights to see for their selves, what is actually going on through that government.

Governments should try to never put themselves into a construct in which the public sees that government not as their  legitimate champion for their cause, but rather as a separate entity from the people, and therefore answerable not to those people, but only to those that are the power brokers of that government; so that, in effect, those of the government, or connected to that government, are separate from the people, and hence separately dealt with, in a manner in which the lion's share of the public benefits goes to those that are integral to that government, and the scraps thereof goes to the general public.

Ethics and the law are not necessarily in sync

The law as mankind knows it, should be based on universal ethics that apply fairly to all people, and should be done in a manner which is consistent as well as being knowable for those people.  For instance, mankind insists that far too often that those that break mankind's laws are bad people, and typically are labeled thereby as criminals; yet, there are all sorts of laws passed into existence, that are arbitrary in nature, are unfair in their application, and are not consistent with good ethics.  So that, in accordance to those that write and implement such laws, those people that are disobedient to such, are punished; even though, laws are subject to change, even on the most fundamental of levels, and even though not ever law is actually a good or a fair law.

In point of fact, as mankind gets more modern, it has a strong tendency to add more rules and regulations to its legal code, and never to subtract from such.  The reason that this is so is myriad, but the primary reason is that those that are the legislators, or the entities that influence those legislators, often have a vested interest in seeing that certain laws are passed in order to protect their interests, which often serves to harm those that they fear would infringe on what they already have or want.  That is to say, laws passed such as the "right-to-work" law are even worded in a way, that seems to be something that everybody would be in favor of; but are in reality, a façade, in which that law has been written for the expressed purpose to make it far more difficult for a given employee to unionize, or to have a firm assurance that they will be secure in their employment.

Each of us has a duty not so much to obey the law, but rather to be in adherence to good ethics that may or may not be consistent with the law as practiced.  After all, laws are typically written and legislated by the ruling class, or the powers-to-be of a given government,  and therefore do not readily conform to the fair execution of laws on behalf of the people, in whole; and especially on behalf of those that lack monetary resources, political connections, and champions for their cause.  In virtually every case in which a law is unequally applied, it can be stated as a truism, that such a law as that is also unethical as practiced. 

Those governments that have a higher consistency between the laws so propagated upon the people, in relationship to good sound ethics, are the type of government that is most beneficial for the people; whereas, those governments that are most arbitrary in their law and the execution of that law are the most tyrannical and are a pox upon the people.   Unfortunately, the real reason why modern societies have passed so many additional laws that have little or nothing to do with sound ethics, of which no one person or entity has a true comprehension or knowledge of all of those laws, is to lay more traps to catch those that they should desire to catch in those traps, so that the government thereby has the power to control that population, never seeming to realize that injustice in all of its many forms, will not produce a harmonious or peaceful society, but rather a divisive and alienated one.

Wi-fi Antennas

Back in the day, before cable TV, before the internet, and before wi-fi existed in all of its many forms and iterations, people were able to enjoy watching television, through their antenna which was an integral part of the television set so own, as well as having an antenna on the roof of the house in order to bring in the signal so as to watch, television.  This thus meant that the cost to watch television came down to having a good outdoor antenna being positioned in the right place, an indoor antenna on the television suitably working, and an actual television to watch such.  Once all those things were in place, viewers were then able to watch for free, commercial television, as well as their local public broadcasting station.  Nowadays, all of this is still true, in the sense that antennas are still able to pull down television signals from the sky, and people therefore are able to view commercial television for free, should they be inclined to do so.

As important as television was, and still is, this has been surpassed for the vast majority of people with the need to be connected to the internet, of which, though a significant amount of America is urban, there are still many people that live in rural areas, or are in remote parts of the country, that do not have readily available to them, satellite or cable service, or simply don't have the budget to pay for such, but still desire to have a connection to the internet.  Additionally, in fairness to those rural people, who typically do not have an abundance of extra money to budget for extra things, the government has made and needs to continue to make a concerted effort to see that every American, to the degree that it is possible, has fair access to the internet, rather than being simply left behind.

Certainly, one way to provide internet access to those without such, is through long range wi-fi antennas, of which when properly positioned, and in addition to the use of a booster, as necessary, to amplify a given signal, has been found to be successful in gaining access to the internet.  This is important for those lacking internet access; and arguably is just as important as having good, clean water, electricity, and indoor plumbing, of which it seems that every American should have each of these as a basic right so as to be able to pursue their fair access to happiness.

To a very large extent, access to the internet, is primarily controlled by private enterprise, so that these gatekeepers are only too willing to provide fair access to their customer base, for a price.  But, not everyone has that price, and in an era in which it is common for students to be able to access the internet in order to competently do their work, as well as for employees to keep up-to-date and in contact with their employer through the internet, as well as for national emergencies being broadcast through the airwaves, and so on and so forth, our rural brethren, should be provided with a helping hand by that government, of, by, and for the people.

Too much governmental debt inevitably leads to default of that currency to that debt

All governments that are in control of their monetary policy, and thereby have the ability to print essentially fiat money in order to increase business activity, or to handle a crisis or pandemic, or to lift up a country from the doldrums of a recession or depression, are prone to misusing their monetary power in a manner in which that country gets itself so indebted, that there is no real reasonable expectation that they will make good on those monies so borrowed.  After all, anytime a government, is in charge of how much money or its equivalency that they can print, they are going to have a very strong tendency to print money, for instance, when they are in a crisis, in order to more easily extricate themselves from it, as opposed to doing the sort of things, that would necessitate "belt tightening," or meaningful systemic change, or anything that requires the general public to make a sacrifice on behalf of that state.

The United States of America has clearly taken the road of indebting itself at ever increasing rates, despite not having been involved in any type of World War since 1945 or economic depression since 1930, and despite the fact that with the exception of a pandemic, which it clearly was ill prepared for, and subsequently incompetently handled; has not been in the position of having a real compelling reason, why it has had to indebt itself at levels, previously unimagined, without at a minimum, making wholesale changes in the way that it conducts its fiscal policies.  Clearly, the powers to be, believe that America, alone amongst all other nations, is the exception to every rule, but it is not; rather, American national indebtedness, is a serious issue which has serious repercussions not only for America but throughout the world, and will result in the eventual default of that American debt, and the recalibrating to some other currency alternative, in the future.

At this point, America has plainly taken the path of currency debasement in the hopes that through that debasement, that it will more readily be able to handle the payment of that national debt, through inflation, and therefore the cheaper true cost of that debt, that so ensues.  While in some respects, inflation appears quite quiescent, and the government insists that this is true; quite obviously we see inflation in the price of our healthcare, our insurance, our home prices, gold, and most notably in the price of our stock market.  This is the inevitable result of all those companies that have pricing power, utilizing such; as well as the fact that the excess of money so produced by that national debt is mainly in the hands of those that have no other place to store such "wealth" except in the equity markets, because they already own all the material items that they care to own.

As reported by in2013dollars.com, and updated in July of 2020, our currency has declined in value markedly over the last fifty years, so that  "This means that a dollar today only buys 15.05% of what it could buy in 1970."  Now, with America's national debt, at unheard of levels, and with no end in sight, it is clear that debt will soon reach that point of no return to solvency and therefore, that debt and the dollar as we know it, will no longer be a viable fiat currency, but will thereby collapse at an epic scale, to be replaced by something else, that is secured by something of lasting merit and of value.

Those that blindly follow others never do lead

Each of us has been gifted with our own mind, and it is our sacred duty to develop our mind in a way that makes us sentient and independent thinking human beings, to the degree that we are capable of doing so.  This doesn't mean that we shouldn't listen to others, or that we shouldn't learn from others, or contrarily, that we should deliberately be perverse, just to be perverse; but rather what it means is that we are ultimately responsible for our own thoughts, and what we corresponding do by our actions from those thoughts. It is important to take to heart that our purpose in life is not to be some sort of automaton, but through our own volition to try to be that which we ought to be.

Not everyone that speaks to us has our best interests in mind; which, of course, includes governments, associates, and social media.  After all, most people and organizations have their own agenda that they are true to, of which, their desire may well be to see that we become an unwitting cog in their machine, so as to make their constituency and their world view stronger, and correspondingly to make our independent selves, weaker.  That is why the unexamined life is always a tragic error; for if we do not have the interest, nor take the time, to discover who and what we really are -- then where we shall go, is often prone to the vicissitudes of the time, rather than being something that we take right control of as the captain of our fate.

Each us does need direction as well as instruction, but not all that do the directing as well as do the instructing, have our best interests in mind, and those that do not, are only too eager to see that we fall in line with those others, that prefer not to think for themselves, but rather compliantly obey commands, without taking the time to contemplate as to the actual legitimacy of such.   The strength of any society does not consist in the conformity of its members; but rather consists of each of those members being of service to that which strengthens the bonds of all that which represents truth, justice, harmony, and fairness.

Those that do wrong, and make the excuse, that it was in conformance with those others, doing the same sort of thing, have bought into a false construct, which somehow seems to state that what we do, right or wrong, is okay, if it is done in obedience to someone or some organization which is or appears to be our superior.  Remember this well, obedience to tyranny is meritless; so too, obedience to evil, should not ever be provided sanction.  Each of us has an innate responsibility, to own what it is that we do and say, so that, those that cede that owning to some other agency, in the false belief, that they thereof are not responsible, have truly sold their souls for a very cheap price.  Rather, recognize that those that blindly follow, questioning nothing, have discarded their innate sovereignty, for the chains of abject bondage.

Matthew 18: 7

In Holy Scripture we read "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" (Matthew 18:7).  So too, this scripture passage was utilized by President Lincoln in his 2nd Inauguration Speech, at a time in which, the Civil war was within just a few weeks of coming to its successful conclusion, but not before this nation had suffered through a truly terrible cost of death and destruction; yet, within that civil war tragedy, this also became the means to birth forth a new era of liberty and justice for all, which was something initially promised within America's most precious founding documents.

It should be of real compelling interest to all Americans, that Lincoln drew upon this particular scriptural passage; for far too many Presidents in our more modern era, are seemingly reluctant to call the very people that they are supposed to represent, to account for their actions; yet, ultimately isn't this what justice and good governance is supposed to be about?  That is to say, what we do, say, and become most definitely has a material impact upon the country that we are denizens of.  Therefore, offences so done, most definitely have consequences; and further to the point, it is only right that when such offences, though not desired, should come, that justice must have its day, for every action so taken, right or wrong, must and will have a corresponding reaction.   Truthfully, each of us has a responsibility to own up to our actions, good or bad, and those that bring forth offence and the believers to such, must be the ones that have the ultimate responsibility to answer fully for that offence.

In fact, there isn't any good point in believing that there is fair justice if our sins, mistakes, and regrets can simply be swept under the rug; for that which is wrong must eventually be rectified by that which is right, and it will be not be well within our soul, until this has been successfully and meaningfully accomplished.  While an apology has its place, as well as an admission of fault having its purpose, these in and of themselves, do not positively correct that which has already occurred, of which other people have correspondingly suffered from.

None of us can ever escape nor should we sincerely hope to unfairly escape, our responsibilities from the adverse and uncaring actions and deeds that we have done.  While it is true, that in this world, we can often circumvent such, through our influence, our corruption, our good fortune, and so forth; that which has been done in darkness and deceit, will in the skeins of time, inevitably be fully exposed to the truth and the light.  So then, those that temporarily escape their moral battles of character that they need to face, today; must understand that this battle will ultimately be faced, sooner or later, of which, the suffering of such will be solely borne by those that were the instigators of those bad actions, for that which is just, is ever triumphant over that which is unjust, which is why those woes that come from our offence, have their needful place.

All that is moral has an associated cost; whereas, all else is just a game

Any good society is foundationally based upon good morals, and nothing else.  That is to say, manmade laws and actions that are arbitrary, or deliberately wrong or misguided, have no sustainable place in a society that wishes to become good.  On the other hand, societies that expressly believe that there is an unchanging moral code, of which it is our duty to not only discover and to know such, but to thereby live to such, are the only type of societies which are inherently sustainable and are of a true benefit to the people.

This clearly indicates that any society, be it formal or informal, that does not make the learning of morals, and the appropriate propagation of those morals for its people -- the building block of that society, has built that society upon sand, and that which is built on sand, will not last.  In far too many of today's most "advanced" and "modern" societies, as mankind has improved its knowledge of this world, and even of the universe, mankind has aggrandized onto itself powers that they do not clearly understand and that they do not clearly own, believing that mankind knows best; based upon the belief that the more that mankind unravels the intricacies of life and its laws, the wiser mankind is.

It is one thing to learn how to master the atom as well as to comprehend time and space, but in the skeins of time, this is susceptible to becoming a situation in which mankind misses the forest for the trees.  To wit, as mankind increases its scientific knowhow, it unfortunately has a strong tendency to also belittle that which is immutable and thereby to formulate the thought that morals and even truth, are somehow subjective, and hence subject to change; signifying that mankind has traded the only wisdom that matters for a false construct which will invariably lead to catastrophic outcomes to mankind and for this planet.

That which is of utmost importance, never does change; of which it is of immense significance for mankind to understand that first and foremost mankind is a moral agent.  This therefore makes mankind's most important duty and obligation to be to live to that universal moral code, and everything else that has no moral roots, is therefore of relative insignificance.    This signifies that whether or not mankind discovers this new scientific law or that new medical breakthrough, while having some definite merit to it, is not the be-all and end-all of mankind, but rather should be properly seen as much more of a sideshow, than anything else.

Far too many people get far too caught up in the "games" that are played on this planet, never seeming to realize that the only thing that really matters here is discovering the truth.  For in that discovery of truth, mankind will thereby be reminded that there is an eternal law, which is moral and unalterable, and which consists of justice, fairness, benevolence, and love.  So that, the only things that cost any of us anything at anytime are only those moral decisions and moral actions, that we take day-by-day, for these have consequences that last well beyond the decisions and actions so taken at that time, of which, those reverberations are ever eternal, for good or for bad, for better or for worse.

Left behind and poor

Most of us are quite aware, that there are historic communities throughout this land that have, for various reasons, been abandoned and left to decay, and thereby have become known forever after as ghost towns.  While the reasons for this occurring does vary from place-to-place, common examples that we find, would consist of one-trick pony towns, in which the primary employer abandons the town, because perhaps the natural resources have all been profitably extracted from that community, or their business enterprise has turned bleak, or the railroad or highway that use to travel through the town, has been replaced by something more modern and that circumvents that city, and so on and so forth.  The bottom line is that things do change, and communities that are overly dependent upon just one fundamental thing, such as a natural resource, or one big employer, are susceptible to that community being abandoned at some future point.

So too, within big cities, certain areas of that city may become forsaken, for reasons such as the perception that a certain neighborhood is not safe, or is not desirable, or is in the wrong school district, or it has lost important businesses, or has the wrong this or the wrong that, so that those that have money and the wherewithal and who have perceived that a specific area of town no longer appears to be desirable are often going to be the very first people to leave, because they have the not only the perspicuity to recognize that they should, but also typically have the funds that permits that choice to be made.  So that, when good people with good incomes and good values leave a given community and these people are either not ever replaced, or are replaced by a substitute that does not have the same good values or capabilities, then that community loses something of real value and has it replaced, at best, with something that is inferior to that.  So then, should this continue, that community will suffer the ill effects of being hollowed out, in which those that can leave, do so; whereas, those that have not the means to leave, are thereby left behind.

Those then that are left behind in communities that were once vibrant and healthy, are typically going to be the very people, that can ill afford to be left behind, which are the poor, the disadvantaged, the unhealthy, and the unemployed; yet, they are the very ones that because they lack the capacity to move, are unable to move, and thereby are left to suffer the ill effects of living in a community of despair, which offers them little hope, little opportunity, and little infrastructure of real value and merit.

After all, live long enough and we see that things do change, of which, some of those changes are for the better and some are not.  Therefore, in absence of governmental or private enterprise programs which proactively deal with systemic problems within specific areas of a community, so as to provide assistance and opportunity for those people, that are in essence, left behind in a town or an area of a city that for all practical purposes is in a visible spiral of decline, than those people will essentially have limited good options to make something of their lives, for they have been forgotten and left behind.

Billionaires and poverty

According to statista.com, there were 49 billionaires in the year 2000 in America, and according to cnbc.com, there were an astonishing 705 billionaires in the year 2018 in America.  Yet, as reported by census.gov, we find that in America, "In 2018, there were 38.1 million people in poverty."  So clearly a rising tide does not lift all boats and clearly this unprecedented and unhealthy concentration of wealth is mainly good for those that are the billionaires, but does little or nothing, for those that have little or nothing of material assets, or of opportunity, or of hope.

The fact of the matter is that the taxing authority of this great nation appears to have been subsumed and thereby compromised by those that are the richest amongst us, for the express benefit of that individual wealth, as well as corporate ownership of wealth.  Further to the point, antitrust laws that once stood for something and meant something of significance when so implemented, apparently is no more, as the easiest path for any entity, individual or corporate, to accumulate massive amounts of wealth over short periods of time, is to have monopoly or dominant positions in enterprises in which the barrier for entry for any other entity is prohibitive; and therefore these privileged organizations are able to extract extra profits for their businesses and suck dry the pocketbooks of other enterprises or various people without the fear that they will ever be undercut or overcome by something else.

It is to the great shame of America, that this the richest nation in aggregate wealth in the world, somehow has 38.1 million of its citizens that live in poverty; of which, this very small elite of people that have become extraordinarily rich in America, still somehow believe that they deserve every dollar of their wealth, and that further it is not their responsibility or necessarily even their desire to see poverty, as an institution, being placed into the dustbin of American history.  Perhaps the most telling reason of why this is so, is because the very wealth that these billionaires have is often fundamentally based upon their successful exploitation of others, be it in this country, or countries throughout the world, of which their cleverness in milking every angle and every loophole that benefits them at the expense of others, is their signal calling card.

Those that are billionaires should never be seen as heroes, but should be seen for the frauds that they actually are, because none of these billionaires, no, not a single one, is about being fair to society and in particular being fair to the people that make up that society; but rather they are always about getting and extracting all that they can get from that society, and hiding behind the false front, that what they have done, isn't illegal, probably because they can afford the finest legal minds, the finest talent, the finest lobbyists, and the finest accountants that money can buy.  First thing that these billionaires really need to do to get their hearts right is to recognize and to understand that nobody begrudges anyone else a fair profit, nor does anybody begrudge anyone else that works extraordinarily hard to have the fair fruits of that labor; but to leave 38.1 million peoples behind, when you can be a force of good for at least some of those people, is the very reason why billionaires that have their pleasure now, will find that all of their money and all of their influence, is not the coin of the realm that they will fatefully face in the afterlife.

Proper headgear should be mandatory for soccer players

The most popular sport in the world is soccer, of which, the vast majority of players playing soccer, currently are not required to wear headgear.  Yet, in a sport in which heading the ball is part of the game in order to score a goal, or to control the ball, and in which head-to-head contact occasionally occurs when two players go after the same ball, or elbow-to-head contact occurs when one player leaps with his elbows raised; we find that all of this contributes far too often in player's receiving concussions, and concussions are not good for human beings.

The reason that a person's head is so important is that the head carries the brain, and damage to the brain, can have not only short-term effects that are negative, but can also have detrimental long-time effects, as well.  This thus signifies that to the degree that concussions in any sport can be reduced or negated, then it probably behooves that sport to take a serious look at this, in order to protect the health of the participants in that sport. 

In fairness to the sport of soccer, past participants in that sport, that have been known to have suffered concussions on more than one occasion, should be cognitively studied so as to ascertain how damaging repeated blows to the head, causing concussions to that player, are to the long term health of those players, and the results of those studies, should be peer reviewed and published.   Additionally, to be proactive in requiring headgear should never have to wait until the studies of such are definitive, and without question; but rather should be done when the preponderance of evidence so produced, shows cognitive damage from head-to-head collusions and the like.

In recognition, that sport in the scheme of things, is basically a form of exercise, entertainment, and the application of skill-sets in a team environment; this should not necessitate players unduly being in danger of suffering from cognitive decline through concussions that could have been mitigated through the proper usage of headgear.  Because of the nature of the sport, head-to-head collusions are going to happened, as well as elbow-to-head; in addition to the fact that players also head the soccer ball in order to score a goal or to pass the ball to another player, so that, headgear is obviously a prudent requirement to have for players, for their own good health.

Obviously, it almost goes without saying, that any sport that involves contact so dramatic so as to cause a player a concussion, and in which that sport per the rules of the game, has no intention of dramatically changing its rules to preclude such; therefore needs to take into account that the player's mental health, should not have to be impaired to such an extent by playing a particular sport that it damages their mind  through that brain injury, so that the consequence is that it negatively impacts their concentration, their memory, and their enjoyment of life.  This is why it is important to first study and to understand the potential damages of a given sport, and then to try to ameliorate such, with equipment and rule changes, as necessary, that addresses those very points.