Proverbs 31: 8-9

We read in Holy Scripture: "Speak up for those who cannot speak. Speak for the rights of all those who are defenseless. Speak up, judge fairly, and defend the oppressed and needy." (Proverbs 31: 8-9).  Those words were estimated to have been written somewhere between 700 and 400BC; yet, in all of those hundreds of years that have been so lived since then by mankind, those words and the sentiment that they so express are as meaningful and as relevant today, as they were when they were first written and proselytized.  The reason that this is so, comes down to the salient fact that far too often, the defenseless, the poor, the indigent, the forgotten, and the weakest amongst us, do not have enough good people championing their cause; and further that the governments that are instituted amongst mankind, deriving their just powers from the consent of those people, far too often, do not do all that they can do to take into fair account, how they should best deal with those that are needful.

In the competitive environment that capitalism epitomizes, far too many people don't care to do much of anything for those that have little or nothing, because their attitude equates to the belief that in a game in which there are winners and losers, that the losers are never their responsibility, and therefore they care little about them.   While each of us is entitled to our own belief, those that are almost exclusively self-centered are not going to be of much benefit to society, for they are essentially wearing blinders that preclude them from properly taking in the full panoply of what life really is and what life really represents.

Each of us though as part of a good civil society, has an obligation to do our part to help to make that society better for our having participated in it; of which, those that have no voice, and are being treated unfairly are fairly entitled to have their say; for they, as a fellow compatriot, are equally entitled to the opportunities so created for the expressed benefit for the members of that society.  Yet, even the most cursory of looks indicates that the underclass of America exists in abundance in this country, of which, time and time again, there are millions upon millions of citizens that have been precluded from a fair chance to become something of merit in this nation, for they lack a good foundational structure of a stable family life, a good education, a fair social justice system, good hope, as well being systematically denied opportunity.  These are the oppressed, who are wrongly prejudged and placed into categories and situations in which their fair opportunity to extricate themselves from such are well-nigh hopeless.

Each of us has been gifted with a voice, of which some of us, have a voice which has more power and more influence than others, yet, all have some sort of contribution to make; so that, those that know right from wrong, need to impress upon others, that the business of exploitation, prejudice, unfairness, contempt, and discrimination especially against the weakest amongst us, needs to be faced squarely by those that will take that principled stand on behalf of the defenseless, and will not relent until justice rolls down upon all of us like the mighty waters.

Bribery and lobbying

Of course, in western nations, bribery is clearly a crime and is frown upon by virtually all individuals and parties.  Whereas, outright bribery can be rather common in third world nations, it is not common in western nations, and is an exceedingly dangerous game to play for those that participate in such, for the consequences of those that get caught can be catastrophic.  On the other hand, western nations such as the United States permit lobbyists to perform their duty, as long as they are registered to the appropriate state agencies; and of which lobbying is considered to be a respectable way for industry proponents to help those in the legislature to write, amend, or to better understand the laws, rules and regulations so being contemplated upon or utilized for those industries that are germane to those lobbyists and their given agenda.  In other words, lobbyists are, in theory, there to help legislators pass or to amend appropriate legislation that is ultimately beneficial for the country as well as being of benefit or to the approval of those that actuate those lobbyists.

It could be said, that legislature representatives are very busy people, with a limited amount of time, and a limited amount of staff, of which no legislature representative typically has enough time to read, edit, and write, so as to thoroughly comprehend all that is being discussed and thereby passed by them in their daily activities; therefore, this thus signifies that an expert in a given or contemplated law or rule might indeed be of service to a legislative staff by being able to shed light on such, as exemplified at least in some ways by lobbying efforts.  However, the lobbyists that ply their trade in America, typically are not doing it because they are true believers in making their country a better and fairer place for the body of the people, in whole; but rather have specific agendas that they are specifically wishing to address, that will primarily benefit the power behind the lobbyist's actions, which is usually some corporate entity or similar.

For a certainty, lobbying is seldom a one-way street, of which lobbyists typically desire to setup some sort of quid pro quo with a given representative of the legislature, so as to provide some sort of perceived service or benefit for the people within that representatives' domain in return for legislation that is favorable for that lobbyist's purpose.  Additionally, there is frequently an implied understanding between both parties, that  those that currently are employed as a governmental representative, today, will have available to them at some future point, well paying offers within that respective industry, should they be inclined to take advantage of this unwritten offer.

In truth, lobbying as typically practiced in America and outright bribery, are essentially similar in that these are deals structured in which industries buy influence to favor their interests, of which, they in turn, provide some sort of compensation to those that have provided the power to implement such.  This so indicates that those with the right connections are able to influence decisions so being made by legislative bodies in a manner which benefits those spending that money through their lobbying efforts; of which, anytime that any legislative body makes a decision that thereby unfairly favors the very few at the expense of the many, they have done so to their own discredit, and to the lasting disservice of their country.

Africa rising

As things stand in 2020, the three most populous countries in the world are respectively, China, India, and the United States of America.  In addition, from a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) standpoint, the biggest economy in the world as of 2020, is the United States, followed by China, and currently in 5th place resides India; of which, it is predicted that by 2025, that India will thereby become the 3rd largest economy in the world.  So then, quite clearly population matters, and those countries, or continents for that matter, with the greatest population, are also those that are the biggest economies in the world, of which, those of economic might correspondingly have significant power of all stripes. As reported by visualcapitalist.com, Asia has the largest combined population in the world, at 60%, mainly because it consists of both China as well as India.  Yet, projections as reported by visualcapitalist.com for 2100, indicate that Asia's percentage of the worldwide population, though having a modest increase in sheer numbers, will then be only 43.6% of worldwide population, whereas Africa would rise to becoming a very strong #2 in the world, with a worldwide population percentage of 39.1%.  As it stands in 2020, four of the sixteen largest populations in the world are on the continent of Africa.

The bottom line, is that while it certainly can be said that the prism of the world was fundamentally written and envisioned from a combined European/North American mindset in the 20th century, the fact of the matter is, by the time that we reach the 21st century, Europe and North America combined are projected to have just 10.2% of the total worldwide population.  So that, as mighty and as influential as those nations have been economically and militarily, there will most definitely be a reckoning, for 90% of the world will not permit forever the 10% to continue to dominate and to exploit them, without there being a significant changing of the guard and thereby the making of a new world order.

For centuries, and even still today, Africa has been ruthlessly exploited by outside sources, but having established their independence from those colonial forces, over the previous decades, Africa has begun the process of becoming its own captain of its own fate, and will begin to assert itself more and more in the economic world as well as the political one, as time marches on.  For a certainty, population numbers matter, and so does the relevant demographics of a continent, of which, the more productive, and the more educated a continent becomes, the more it will advanced itself upon the world stage, to having a fair place at the seat of the worldwide table of noteworthy decisions and meaningful political matters so being debated and determined.

Africa has waited long enough to have their day; and their corresponding power over the coming years will increase substantially from where it currently resides, of which, a powerful Africa, resource rich, is on course to have the opportunity to have their say, for population numbers are quite relevant, signifying that the sun is now just rising for Africa; whereas, alas, for those of the western world, their sun appears clearly to be inexorably setting.

Capital punishment for the 1%

It is to the ultimate disgrace of the United States of America, that it insists that within its criminal justice code, that capital punishment is the just punishment for certain crimes, of which, capital punishment is held to be legal in twenty-eight States, as well as being legal as punishment for Federal crimes.  It would be one thing if capital punishment was consistently and fairly imposed for certain specific crimes, meeting certain specific standards, of which the trial was fairly done, with competent counsel utilized for the defense, with funds so available for that defense to obtain witnesses, to conduct research, for the full discovery and for the obtaining of all exculpatory evidence, as well as having the wherewithal to coalesce that information for a robust defense, and of which the jurors of such a trial, were true representative peers within that community, of which the crime was committed.

In point of fact, the faces of those on death row are almost, without any notable exception, whatsoever, the faces of those that are indigent, ill educated, disadvantaged, and without the means to obtain competent counsel that have the resources or the time or the experience to defend their client, properly.  This thus signifies that because those that are on trial, lack the means to properly defend themselves against the might of the State or Federal authorities, that the outcome of such a "trial" is almost always going to be a foregone conclusion, of which, the only real justice point to be decided, is whether or not, the person so convicted, will be subject to the death penalty or not.

So that, what we find in reality, is that those subject to the death penalty, are almost always not those that are the biggest and baddest criminals, but really are only those that have been unable to obtain an adequate and vigorous defense so as to avoid the death penalty.  This is the salient reason why none of those that are the richest of the rich, or the 1%, are ever on death row, and why none of these that are the 1%, are even at risk for being subject to capital punishment.  After all, those that have money, are thereby able to obtain strong resources, that can thereby allow them to utilize every angle within our justice system, to obtain the mercy or to buy justice, that is denied to all those without those monetary means and connections.  Additionally, criminal trials, are often about constructing stories, of which the 1% are always going to have a story that has some sort of sympathy or justification behind it, that absolves at least somewhat, very bad behavior, and typically they have far more than enough extenuating circumstances to preclude those that are in the 1% from suffering the indignity of being sanctioned to that most extreme punishment, so issued by that justice department.

The death penalty as so exercised in America clearly is done in a manner that it only affects those that have no power and no voice to begin with, and no other.  That isn't fair, and in consideration that America still believes in the virtue of the primitive justice of an "eye for an eye"; then until that government starts killing those that make up the 1% for the same sort of crimes, of which the death penalty is imposed upon those that are impoverished and weak, than that death penalty should be properly looked upon as a form of "cruel and unusual punishment" for it separates out those that have, from those that have not, which is clearly not impartial, and therefore is as wrong as it is unconstitutional.

Hazardous waste and corporate responsibility

America produces and manufacturers all sorts of products, of which, a common byproduct of certain industries, is some degree of pollution so created.  This thus signifies that these industries that create pollution as part and parcel of their business enterprise, must have in place, the necessary financial means as well as the product processes so created that deals constructively with such pollution in a responsible and sustainable manner, in which harm to the environment and to the general public is minimized to the reasonable degree that it can be, and that such pollution so created by these processes, is divulge in a public forum, with a high degree of transparency.

Alas, in this modern age, some degree of hazardous waste is going to be produced as a matter of course in many different enterprises, of which, the goal of responsible governance is not to eliminate all hazardous waste, no matter the cost, but to come to a prudent meeting of the minds, that deals with such in a forthright and responsible fashion, and takes into proper account the benefits of that which is being produced, in comparison to the hazardous waste so created, amongst other salient factors.  While the United States has plenty of rules and regulations, and agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to deal with this sort of thing -- such is only going to be as effective as those rules and regulations along with the EPA have real bite and impact upon those relevant industries, as opposed to not having enough resources, or of having been compromised through the "revolving door" of corporate and government entities, changing hats, far too frequently.

The main issue with today's world is the fact that dangerous pollution can be created at an unprecedented scale, of which, some industries, have made a conscious decision to hide such pollution from authorities in an exceedingly skillful and underhanded methodology.  This is why when penalties are structured for those companies that have evaded and created hazardous waste in which they have taken extraordinary means to disguise and to circumvent prudent environmental controls and standards, should, as a matter of course, be dealt with in a manner in which there are punitive damages associated to such.  In other words, as bad as it is when hazardous waste is produced, by any enterprise, those companies that have done so but do own up to it, should be dealt with differently than those companies, that have made it their point to be deceptive, misleading, and duplicitous.

This country and the people that make up it, are entitled to the fair disclosure of the processing methods so needed in order to produce and to manufacture goods, of which, those industries, that clearly by the nature of such, will create some sort of hazardous waste, need to have a strict protocol in place to deal prudently with that hazardous waste, along with setting aside an appropriate amount of money as a monetary surety that this hazardous waste will not at some future point, become the responsibility of that government and its people, thereby allowing those corporate malefactors to escape with the profits from such but none of the burden for the polluted residue so left behind.

Our oceans and rivers of pollution

Somewhat surprisingly, since we are land based mammals, we find that 71% of the earth is actually water, and not land.  This has led to an unfortunate mindset of which because there appears to be an endless amount of water, that far exceeds our land mass, and in the knowledge that oceans and rivers, are not stagnant, but are typically free flowing -- of which there is therefore an expressed understanding that dangerous chemicals, garbage, and waste that deliberately or inadvertently are deposited within these rivers and oceans, will in most cases, travel from one place to another place, all of this together contributes to the rather shameful way our waterways are typically dealt with.  This means, that unlike those that bury their waste into a given landmass which pretty much does not move, that for those that are polluters, there are immense advantages in discharging one's waste into water, because of the flow of that water, which thereby makes it more problematic to positively identify those that are the polluters, but also provides a means that allows those polluters to do so in a manner, in which that pollution, typically travels elsewhere and away from them.

So then, rivers and oceans, from time immemorial, have been utilized as waste depositories, for all sorts of civilizations and those enterprises so created from such.  However, never has this world been as modernized as today's world has become, of which some of those items so polluting our waters, are specifically manmade products, such as plastic, which do not biodegrade very well; in addition, to manmade chemicals that are being discharged into our waters, all in the process of making various products to be sold and produced for profit and for our benefit.  Further to the point, while some of the pollution in our waters are clearly visible to our eyes, and the effects of such, quite obvious; there are plenty of chemicals so discharged into our waters, that are often not visible to the eye, but are incredibly devastating to not only the animal life that supports itself upon those waters, but human life, as well -- that is thereby caught unawares utilizing such water under the belief that it is clean and wholesome, when it is not.

There are laws that in theory, deal constructively with the pollution so being discharged, and of which, there are rules and regulations to deal with those dangerous chemicals and other pollutants; but when these laws and regulations are either not effectively enforced, or are circumvented via one way or another, it is our rivers and oceans that are hurt, along with life, itself.  There has to be fair balance that recognizes the value and necessity of good water, weighed against the advancements of this modern age.  Further, because one country or its domestic institutions can create pollution in one spot, but through the currents of oceans and rivers, such pollution can easily affect in a negative manner, some other country and its people, there has to be the means to deal with those that harm the commons that each of us has a natural right to be beneficiaries of.

For the health of our world and the peoples that make up this world, there needs to be more responsibility taken by those that deal with that which creates a byproduct of pollution, of which these institutions need to be held accountable for their actions; for our oceans and rivers are not fair hiding places for bad actions that are ill conceived by those that should fairly answer for that which they have done, without having taken proper account of the impact of such, as well as their willful failure to do the right thing.

Religion, sacrifice, and good deeds

The United States has to be the preeminent country in its belief, that shortcuts are a valid way to live a given life.  That is to say, it doesn't much matter how one gets to a certain place in life, as long as that such is accomplished.  So too, despite all of the many fine religious institutions that America has in abundance, along with a population that claims, more times than not, that they are a faith-based people, the end result of all of this good religious belief, is to a certain degree, a religious practice that often has fallen short of what it really should be accomplishing for itself as well as for society.

In point of fact, all the rituals of religion, should best be seen as a practice that perhaps is beneficial to people doing such, in helping to get them into the right frame of mind, but serves no good purpose, other than that; for surely memorizing scripture so as to recite such, or rote liturgies, without taking to heart the practical merits of these, has little meaningful value.  In other words, the true purpose of religion is to take actually the substance of such, and to utilize it for the betterment of society, as well as to improve one's own character.  It is always ironic, to find someone that professes that they are, for example, a Christian, of which the other person hearing such, looks upon them somewhat in bemusement; mainly because based on that Christian's behavior, they never suspected as much, for that Christian appears to behave no differently than those that have no faith, at all.

For religion, to have any real meaning, it first must make a material difference in a given person's life, and thereby how that person subsequently interacts with society and those closest to them, will demonstrate that meaning, in action.  Further, a good religion, requires from its adherents, some sort of sacrifice, usually on a continuous basis, demonstrating in principle that they those that are of the faith, are making a positive difference in other people's lives, by the good deeds that they so perform, for others, and by the giving up of that which would take them off that good course.

It would be far too easy, if having faith, in and of itself, was good enough for anything, without the corresponding works that prove that one's faith is true.  So too, life is full of choices, as well as free will, of which those that profess to be religious, must adhere to the belief that  they are also required to truly throw off the old, in order to fully take on the new.  After all, those that try to stand astride so that one foot is in both worlds are mistaken in their belief, that they are good enough for both of those worlds; whereas, at best, they are lukewarm in each, which accounts them for very little.

All those that believe that they are good to their faith, should be able to rightly point to their good deeds so done by them on behalf of that faith for others; and further they need to point out just as readily, all those heavy cloaks so discarded, and false guises so removed, that thereby has permitted them to properly reflect in their countenance the liberating light of their God.

Imagine thinking and communicating without words

All those that are literate as well as those that are illiterate but familiar with the language of their people, utilize words, in order to get across their thoughts to others so as to communicate with them.  So too, the actual thoughts that we have, are typically formulated in our minds with words.  Yet, for each of us, upon our birth, we do not know any words, of which, no doubt, our mind does indeed think.  This signifies that those that have no vocabulary, whatsoever, which in this modern day and age, consists of almost exclusively very young children, formulate not words inside their mind, but they begin instead with picturing objects in their mind as well as acting upon their most basic desires, so that without words they are still able to think and to act upon their thoughts.

So then, there is a distinct process in the development and thereupon the formulation of words into our mind, and once we have progressed to that stage, and in recognition that we need to successfully express ourselves to others, we typically perform our communication through the words that we so express, one to another.  The somewhat amazing thing is that while we may often see pictures of objects in our minds, as well as having specific desires that involved those objects and needs, the way that our mind typically processes those objects and desires, is through the words that help us to convey those thoughts.

One might logically think therefore that the best way to communicate with others is through the words, and to some degree the body language that we impart one to another; of which, this is quite clearly an effective manner of communication.  Yet, the words that we speak can be misinterpreted in the sense, for example, that the nuance is missed, or the sarcasm unrecognized, or the words so spoken are misheard, misunderstood, or even misspoken; and finally there are those occasions in which we struggle to convey the words that we wish to express because we cannot seem to find the appropriate words for that occasion to express ourselves, adequately.

Yet, it must be recognized that as valuable as the verbal and written language is to communicate with others, it in the scheme of things, cannot be the pinnacle of communication; because of its limitations, because of language barriers, because one party is talking pass the other party, and because attention spans are limited or found wanting.  While it must be stated that language ultimately in its own way, is a very valuable form of communication, it still in the largest sense, utilizes symbols, just as cavemen also utilized symbols back in their day, of which, today's communication skill-set though far superior to that, still lacks in being fully and completely developed.

This so signifies, that the highest form of communication is not going to be one that utilizes words, but something that is a quantum leap forward from such.  That type of communication, is one in which, one mind meets another, each thereby knowing what the other person is conveying, with a minimum of distortion and error, by those minds being in harmony and in tune with one another, fully concentrated, and freely allowing each mind to express itself, purely.

Informants and the criminal justice system

The criminal justice system is inherently unfair, for a lot of reasons, of which two of the most salient, are the fact that those with access to money and therefore a good attorney are going to have an entirely different justice experience than those that are impoverished; who because they often aren't able to make bail, are thereby typically incarcerated, pending their outcome, and therefore under intense pressure to make the best deal that they can, in order to resolve their outstanding charges.  The other very important reason why our criminal justice system is so unfair is that an incredible amount of people that have been charged with some sort of crime, have been placed into their unenviable position by the testimony of a person or persons working as an informant, who themselves have often been unduly pressured into performing such, on behalf of the justice department.

It would be one thing if informants provided their information to government authorities, out of a sense of doing the right thing, that is, by doing their civic duty, so to speak; but in actuality, the vast majority of these informants, almost without exception, get into the business of informing, or snitching, in order to first, protect their own self, and secondly to gain something in return from governmental authorities.  In other words, people that are caught in their own criminal activity, may find themselves being provided with a deal, that either reduces their sentence, substantially, or frees them from having to do time, or provides them with some sort of monetary compensation, when they agree to finger other "bad guys" for the expressed benefit of those justice department agents, whether these be police officers, or prosecution authorities.

As might be expected, though all that testify in a court of law, must testify under oath, it almost goes without saying, that those so testifying that have been offered a deal by the justice department, or by the police that serves to have reduced their own sentencing, or resulted in the dismissal of their charges, or has provided some sort of compensation to that informant, are going to testify in a manner that follows the script of what the prosecution authorities so desire, irrespective as to whether such is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  Further to the whole truth, how is it therefore possible for those hearing that testimony to be receiving the whole truth, if the deal so structured for that informant, formal or not, is not fully divulged to those judging the reliability of that testimony?

Additionally, there is an inherent unfairness when the prosecution, for lack of a better word, is able to "bribe" informants to testify in a manner that benefits those informants, by providing them with a reduced sentence, reduced charges, or their freedom; whereas on the other hand, the Defense attorney, has no corresponding legal option or power to do the same sort of thing, indicating that if a given person is going to give false or misleading testimony, that the prosecution quite clearly provides a much better package deal for them.

The fact that so much of our criminal justice system activity, leans so heavily on informants of all stripes, of which, the deals so being structured for them, are typically done in a manner that is non-transparent, non-disclosed, coercive, and unfair, leads to the inevitable result that our justice so rendered is neither going to be impartial or fair.

All deliberate speed

The seminal Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, was ruled upon unanimously in 1954, in which it was decided that racial segregation of school children was unconstitutional because separate educational facilities for minority students was clearly not equal in quality to that of the favored majority race.  The court instructed that such was to be ameliorated "…on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed…"  It is now been sixty-six long years since this judgment was put into effect, of which, "all deliberate speed" has come and gone, with seemingly a very minimal effect; of which a very strong argument can be made that our public school system still suffers from essentially the same systemic segregation that this decision was supposed to rectify, and without a doubt, that the purposeful segregation of our public school education is still unequal and unfair, of which the favored race, still has and continues to maintain a separate and superior public school system, far more times than naught over racial minorities, and of which, it must be said, that there are few public school systems that are actually integrated.

While there are myriad reasons why the foregoing is so, of which some are unintended, and others are quite clearly intended by those parties of interest; none of this serves to resolve the problem as it exists; of which, it is the children that are the ones that suffer for having to go to public schools which are inadequate, segregated, and substandard, as well as it being this country that suffers for deliberately permitting so many of its children, to be ill educated and without opportunity or hope.

The only possible solution to today's continuing problem of the systemic segregation of our public school system, as well as the inferiority of those public schools that are prevalent in minority communities is for the federal government to get involved, and to get involved via the only means that will produce a clear and meaningful result in a relatively short period of time so as to ameliorate the second-rate quality of that education so suffered from our minority brethren.   This thus signifies that the only avenue to correct such, is by the nature of the purse, that the federal government controls, of which, no single entity controls more money than the federal government, and what that federal government so provides, is the very same thing, it can also take away.  So that, this federal government needs to make it the national standard that every State of this union will be evaluated in regards to their public school system, and every State so found to be in violation of segregation as well as the inferiority of public schools for those that are the minority, will be subject to having all federal funding revoked from said State, forthwith;  unless such a State provides both a plan of action, with a specific substantive timetable, and adheres to such, so as to correct their public school system to eliminate said segregation and inferiority, from that public school system.

The whole point of the decision so rendered in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was to see to it that each school child of this great nation, no matter their income or their race, would be provided a proper education.  This has not been done, and needs to be done, and not with all deliberate speed, but right here, and right now.

By all economic means possible

There are many that profess that we need more "law and order" because there is too much crime, and by virtue of all of that additional "law and order", crime will be reduced because the "bad" guys will be incarcerated, leaving the world to consist of solely good guys and thereby good law abiding citizens.  Yet, this belief in the efficiency of "law and order" is belied by the very fact that in 21st century, never have so many been incarcerated; yet, crime rates, while trending down recently, are still substantially above the baseline that existed in America back in 1960, indicating that the mere incarceration of individuals does not, in and of itself, resolve crime issues in America.

One of the things that many commentators do not wish to discuss, or choose not to discuss, about crime rates in America, is the fact that the more unequal a country is in regards to its wealth and income distribution, the more crime that is thereby produced.  Intuitively, this makes sense, for if we were to postulate that everybody had the exact same wealth, of which that wealth was enough to have a pretty decent life -- there would thereby be far less crime, because crimes that are committed primarily because of lack would be reduced to a bare minimum.  On the other hand, when we picture countries in which the lion's share of the wealth is held in the hands of the privileged 1%, and of which the middle class, once robust, is now fraying, and the lower class, is ill educated, and without opportunity or hope, then one would expect that crime would be prevalent, which is the case within America.

America is a capitalistic society, of which, within that capitalism as practiced at the highest levels, there is a definite construct that bends, cheats, and manipulates the system to such a large extent, that the end result is that we have a very small amount of favored winners, that thereby take in a gargantuan amount of the corresponding profits, wealth, and assets; leaving the balance thereof to be fought for by all those that are not part of that privileged position or class.  So too, with systemic racism, with prejudicial law enforcement, with an often misguided and unjust criminal justice system; combined with distinct pockets of utter abject poverty, decaying public schools, poor healthcare, dysfunctional families, and hopelessness, this creates and perpetuates a lower class that has no firm foundation to build upon, but rather must hustle to scratch their way into some semblance of a decent life.  We should not then be surprised, that those that have been forsaken are going to have a strong inclination to do what they need to do, in their own competitive way, to make something of their lives, so as to achieve some sort of success, by any and all economic means so possible.

This signifies what should already be obvious, which is that a meaningful percentage of what has been defined as crime by the state, is that which is being committed by people who are left without any other means but to commit crime in order to have a fighting chance to get some portion of that great, big, fat, rich pie that America represents, in whole.  Remember this well, those that have nothing, are fairly entitled to have something, and when the state does not do its part to ameliorate such, those that lack the accouterments of a fair and sustainable life will do what they have to do.

Toleration, liberals, and free speech

One of the fundamental tenets of American freedom, is written into our Constitution via our First Amendment, that "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech."  Because, Congress cannot make a law abridging the freedom of speech, this so indicates, that the citizens of this nation, have the right to freedom of speech.  As it has been adjudicated, that freedom of speech only meets its match when such freedom of speech as Justice Holmes stated, "….create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

So then, fundamentally freedom of speech permits people to express unpopular views, prejudicial views, and uncomfortable views, of which citizens clearly have the option not to opt-in to listen to such; but should maintain the respect to tolerate the right of that person or persons to express themselves in such a manner.  After all, it must be acknowledged, that most of us, have changed our opinion or mindset upon things of meaningful substance, at least once in our lives, of which, if we therefore were mistaken in that previous opinion, we now should be more open-minded in accepting views that differ even diametrically from our own, so as to provide space and the common courtesy for others, to express what they so desire to express.

Far too many people, desire to silence others, for having beliefs that are not in conformance with their own, and believe that society would be better off for that silencing, since apparently some of those people, believe that they, alone, and not those others or any others, know best.  In reality, just as the burning of books, never serves society well; so too, the burning of other's opinions and viewpoints, at the point of a sword or through punishment or intimidation or through the long arm of the law does little to make society more harmonious.  In point of fact, it isn't healthy for the mind to not want to consider, how it is that other people have come up with their opinions and viewpoints, and that a better understanding of others, and where they come from and what they are trying to achieve, makes for a better understanding of people, one to another.

It is especially disappointing that when it comes to the necessity of freedom of speech, or the toleration thereof, that surprisingly liberals, are often just as narrow-minded and bigoted in their own way, as conservatives are.  That is to say, many conservatives don't want to hear or take to heart what the other side has to say, because they believe that they are right, and that which is wrong, therefore has no place in their viewpoint within the marketplace of legitimate ideas.  Whereas, many liberals don't want to hear or take to heart what the other side has to say, because they believe that the other side does not have the fundamental right to spew their hateful  or inconvenient opinion, and that therefore these liberals will not tolerate such speech, and thereby will not permit it to be heard.

This world can be a very uncomfortable place because it consists of vastly different ideas as well as vastly different opinions, even ones of extreme vitriol, but it is ever needful that people in societies are permitted to express openly what they feel the need to express; and if one's go-to response is going to typically be violence, or intimidation, or intolerance, that serves to say, in effect, that the only thing that will be tolerated is "my way"; and such a belief as that is not only childish but also the very opposite of freedom.

Good food is that which nourishes the body

Our physical bodies need food that nourishes the body in order to properly sustain itself.  While, there are all sorts of food items that people can eat, those food items, are not all equal; of which the biggest change in nutritional habits in modern times is how many calories are now being consumed by people that are highly processed and stripped thereof of necessary minerals and vitamins, often with an abundance of unpronounceable chemical additives, and typically with sugar or sugar substitutes that make up a meaningful percentage of that food item constitution.  It must be stated unequivocally, that all things being equal, that those that consistently eat a diet of good nutritional food in comparison to those others that consistently eat a diet embodying the consuming of an abundance of processed junk food, that the person so eating that junk food, will find, sooner or later, that their physical body will duly suffer for having made that fateful decision.  Again, it must be stated, that physical bodies need physical food, and that not all physical food is equal, so that those that are conscientious about what they consume and make it their point to eat foods that are nutritional, as compared to those that do not follow prudent nutritional guidelines, we will thus find as the result of this difference in eating habits, extended over a long enough time period, that what we so consume, materially matters.

Unfortunately, in countries in which the god of that country, is money, or the pursuit of money, above all else -- then those that are in the food making business, of marketing and selling such products, are going to have a very strong tendency to want to create food items that are cheap in cost, while deliberately be designed to have a desirable taste, while taking on the guise of being wholesome,  so as to lure in the unsuspecting to consume their product, far more than what is prudent.  After all, because each of us needs food in order to sustain our bodies, the price point of food items so being sold, and perceived desirability of them, is a strong determinate of what people do or don't buy.  Fortunately, for people, governments are created by the consent of the people for the expressed benefit of those people, of which a strong government takes responsibility to see that the people are sustained and protected from that which is deceptive and not good for them.  This so signifies, that activist governments make it their point to tax appropriately as well as to subsidy appropriately that which is junk food in comparison to that which is nutritional food.

So then, to the degree that governments do not differentiate between junk food and nutritional food by appropriately identifying such and by thereby adding an appropriate governmental tax for that which is junk, while providing an appropriate subsidy benefit for that which is nutritional, signifies that this government does not care about the bodies of their citizens.  Yet, our freely provided public educational system  has been created for the express benefit of those citizens, so as to develop good, literate, and self-reliant citizens that are needed for the sustainably and advancement of that nation.  So, it then follows that a well developed mind has the continual need of a good, healthy body, as well; and that the government thereby has a responsibility to do its part in promoting such.

Rules and laws are ever expanding

While there most definitely is a place for rules and laws, it must be understood that when it comes to those rules and laws, often times, more does not make for a better society, but almost certainly makes for a more repressive and unfair society.  The very first problem with so many rules and laws is that more times than not, what is not needed is more of the same, but rather society would be better served instead with the fair, consistent, and equal application of those laws being applied to all of mankind, in kind.  What we find though is what happens again and again, is that those that have money, or connections, or both, need not overly concern themselves about rules, for they are, in essence, invulnerable to them; so that, in effect, the rules and laws are mainly put into place primarily so as to keep the masses in their place, which thereby aids in the favored minority being able to not only maintain control over the masses, but makes it easier for them to continue to exploit them by the arbitrary or prejudicial usage of those rules and laws.

While a lot of people believe that rules and laws are a necessary precondition in order to have a good civilization, this is countermanded by the fact that so many of these rules and laws are specifically created so as to be a source of trouble and of manipulation for those that are not part of the favored group -- who themselves are the arbiters of these laws.   After all, no matter the intent of a given law or rule, how good that law or rule is, has an awful lot to do with how it is applied to the general population along with the rightful sensibility of such; and to the degree that this is done in a fair, impartial and consistent manner, then that typically makes for a good rule or law.  On the other hand, laws and rules, that are ever changing, depending upon the times, or the interpreters of such, are typically bad laws and rules, for they lack consistency as well as often, sensibility.

So too, rules and laws can be liken to an alternative form of taxation, in which those that disobey such, are subject to fines or incarceration, which because these take away the source of income for people, is effective in extracting money or precluding the earning of money from those that are found guilty, and thereby weakens those people that are held in violation of those rules and laws.  Additionally, to try to overcome infractions of those rules and laws, often necessitates the expenditure of assets to obtain good counsel, which again, is another form of extracting money from the public, so as to be redirected to those chosen few.

It so seems that just about any rule or law, no matter how clearly written such is, can be interpreted in a manner in which those that have influence and money are thereby able to obtain relief from such; whereas all those that lack those very things, do not.  Therefore the continual expansion of these rules and laws are clearly meant as a means to get all those that are not part of the governing or protected class, to pay proper homage to those that are, or else suffer the ill effects of their recalcitrance.

Corporations should not be protected from criminal law

The United States has all sorts of laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, reckless endangerment and the like, of which plenty of people are found guilty of these very crimes, each and every year.  Yet, surprisingly, corporations, which are no more than an artificial creation by the state so that a group of people can join together to act thereof as a single united entity, and thereby solicit business via that entity, seem almost immune from suffering the ill effects of behavior which, if done by a given individual or group of individuals, would definitely be criminal.  For instance, in regards to the gross and deliberate damaging and catastrophic pollution of waterways by a given corporation -- of which such water is thereby utilized unawares by those residents as drinking water to their individual harm; this should properly be seen as a criminal offense, with corresponding criminal penalties.  So too, labor by personnel at a facility in which the safety standards have deliberately been relaxed so as to forego necessary maintenance expenses or the like, in which thereby these employees are subsequently harmed or die by those substandard conditions, should properly be seen as a criminal offense, with corresponding criminal penalties.  Again and again, corporations that behave in a manner, underhanded or not, explicitly or not, that lead to the death or harming of innocent parties, whether those of their employment, or those advertently exposed to their bad behavior should and must be held accountable to those bad actions.

As things currently stand, the best way to get away with murder, manslaughter, or reckless endangerment really comes down to setting up a corporate entity, in the foreknowledge that by doing so, corporations have the opportunity to thereby make bucket loads of money, while simultaneously being personally protected from having to suffer the personal penalty for what would be considered to be crimes, if done by a person, so that they are thereby permitted as a corporate entity to play dice with those residents that live within the vicinity of their operation, as well as those employees that work for them in those unnecessarily dangerous and exposed conditions that leaves them susceptible to harm.

If this country truly desires to see corporations behave in a mature and responsible fashion that takes into full account their wrongful actions so contemplated, then it needs to start holding those bad people within those corporate enterprises, individually responsible for their actions that harm others.  After all, if the tradeoff for these corporate entities essentially comes down to a construct in which if they are caught, they are corporately fined, and nothing much more -- in contrast to all the profits, bonuses, and stock options so awarded to those in the executive offices, then one can expect corporations to continue to perform in a manner in which their personal desire for the rewards of being greedy and irresponsible, will continue to outweigh their responsibility to be a good and principled corporate citizen.

The bottom line is that the whole point of having laws, rules and regulations, is that a civilized society needs structure that is fairly applied and with corresponding penalties so imposed for egregious actions that harm that society.  To provide, more or less, a free "get out of jail card" to persons within corporations, is a grave mistake, for corporations are made up of people, and those people that do wrong and harm within those corporations to others, need to duly suffer for it.

Matthew 12:48

We read in Holy Scripture: But he answered him who spoke to him, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” (Matthew 12: 48)  One might think that the answer would be fairly obvious in the sense that our true brothers and sisters must be those that live in accordance and in obedience to that law, which is immutable and ever just--which is God's law.  Yet, many people as well as civilizations have not taken this practical wisdom to heart, and thereby live their lives in a manner which reflects that their brother and sister is really no more than their own self, and deliberately work in cliques with others of the same mindset to benefit their selves, at the expense of others, in whole.

There are plenty of ways to define human beings, of which, many people believe, for instance that those that are native born within the United States, are thereby Americans.  Yet, if being an American was a simple as simply being born here, or of becoming a naturalized citizen, then America would be a country of peace, harmony, and good will for all; but even the most cursory of looks indicates that America isn't that way whatsoever, and that in reality what is necessary to be considered to be an American represents diametrically different things to different people.  The reason that this is the case is that so many people that are citizens of America are nearly clueless as in their understanding of what it truly means to be an American; though, such has been written clearly for us in our Declaration of Independence, and thereafter formalized within our Constitution.  So that, a person that is truly an American, would believe wholeheartedly that everyone, without exception in this country, is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that further that this is an egalitarian society, of which each of us stands on our own merits, with laws equally applied and enforced for all, and that all are thereby entitled to be fairly judged by those that are their peers.

So too, while each of us has our familial blood relatives, that deserve our respect, love, and concern; to believe that just those that are our relatives, no matter their merits or demerits, are the only ones deserving of that love is a false construct, for the forgiveness and compassion that we so readily provide for family members, is only fair and sensible, if we also provide a fair amount of the same to those that are not our blood relatives, for to treat one group of people in a more favorable manner, solely because of their blood relationship to us, is not inclusive, but exclusive.  Rather, our true responsibility, above all else, is to fully comprehend that we are all children of the very same God, of which, because each one of us has the same Father that it so follows that all of us, are truly brothers and sisters to one another; and that those that are on the pathway of knowing and thereby adhering to God's law, have a formal duty to recognize that we are all in this very same thing, together, in which we have a sacred responsibility to help those that are the least amongst us, for these are ever our fellow brothers and sisters, that though they be lost, they need be found. 

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.