Either it is world domination or it will be world sharing

There is only one superpower in the world, today, and that superpower has already stated back in 2001, that “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”  Yet, as clear as this statement is, it doesn’t actually say that being with the United States, means sharing in the fair benefits of such an alliance, but rather it would seem to indicate, that there is just one empire, and thereby all other nations have a choice between paying appropriate tribute to that superpower, or to suffer the sad fate, of seeing that fury potentially unleashed against all those that have the temerity to profess their right to their own self-determination or to respectfully disagree with the voice of that superpower.

Regrettably, America relies far too often upon its domination and thereby through exploitation to make its money upon those that do not have the power, resources, or negotiation skills to do much but to humbly kowtow to its demands; thereby providing due benefit for its multinational enterprises, which are dutifully backed up by America’s awesome military force.  There is, of course, more than one way for America as the sole superpower to interact with other nations, and especially those nations that it is allied with, which is a construct in which there is less outright domination and bullying, replaced instead by sharing, respect, and fairness.

All those that insist upon their way, solely because they are the ones with the power to have their way, must recognize that sooner or later, there will come that time, when the power of that nation, will begin to invariably erode, then that nation will stumble and slip, and it so follows that all those that have been oppressed for so long, and thereby have been used, discarded, and exploited, will soon enough find the wherewithal to press their newfound advantage in a way in which because they have received no quarter from that dominant superpower, that they will in return, give none.

It doesn’t have to be that way, for countries, just as in people, have many choices that they can make.  So then, if one nation insists that it is everybody’s superior, and therefore that everybody else is its inferior, this will not have a good result for that nation when the tables are thereby turned.  While it is true, that the battle may not initially go to those that are gracious, kind, considerate, fair, just, and accommodating, it is well to remember, that those that live by the sword, must know for a certainty, that they or their future generations, will certainly die by that very same sword.  On the other hand, those, even those that have been tyrants for generations, but later have consciously made a real sharp turn in the road, to thereby live in a manner in which they see the value of sharing their wealth, their knowledge, and their power with all others, might very well find that the world becomes a safer, better, and saner place.

All those that preach liberty and unalienable rights, have a sacred responsibility to be that very thing, or else they will one day be humbled and then as sure as the night follows the day, they will receive their just deserts.

Multinational companies are taking advantage of labor

Unions have been in steep decline in America for decades.  Perhaps, this might be okay if the incomes of those so working had kept pace with the increase in productivity during those same decades, but clearly that is not the case, as corporate profits are quite strong, but wages so being paid, are not.  It must be remembered that human beings need income in order to live and to support their family obligations, and in absence of any individual labor power, those seeking employment are pretty much in no position to bargain for a fair wage, let alone a living wage, and with the government offering little of substance to help those that labor for a fair wage, the result is the ever-greater disparity between those that have it all, and those that have little or nothing.

The biggest reason for why domestic labor is in such sour shape at the present time, lays at the feet of those multinational companies that this government has continue to permit, almost without restriction, to produce and to manufacture their goods in those countries that are favorable for cheap labor and lax environmental conditions and then to thereby sell those goods all over the world, with a minimum of tariffs, duties, excise taxes, or income taxes, so applied, whatsoever.  Obviously, for those companies so creating goods outside the borders of this nation, in which, the playing field of how much it costs for them to manufacture such a good, is not a level playing field -- they see such manufacturing done under their aegis as both a way to stay competitive, and also clearly as a way to increase profits for the prime benefit of those that are of upper management as well as for those equity investors in said companies.

This thus signifies that in absence of robust unions, that domestic labor will continue to be underpaid, underappreciated, and underutilized in America, for multinationals clearly have alternatives to domestic labor which they have availed themselves of, again and again.  So then, there should be some sort of reasonable rules enforced by the government, applicable to those multinationals that do a significant amount of their manufacturing and production overseas, of which, these companies, for instance, would be taxed accordingly so that we wouldn’t have a construct in which a privileged portion of the private sector reaps all of the benefits, whereas the government ends up stuck socializing all of the costs so as to take care of their own in this country.

No matter how efficient domestic labor is, they cannot compete on a cost basis with third world nations.  So too, appropriate environmental laws and safety concerns so imposed in America, are easily circumvented by the moving of manufacturing overseas to third world nations, that typically do not have the same sort of restrictions and regulations for their environment, let alone their labor, as America does.  At this point the only possible hope for domestic labor to get some sort of fair deal, going forward, is for its government to take a more active role in seeing that labor is considered to be an institution worth defending -- because clearly this is not a fair fight, and in consideration that this is a nation which is of, for, and by the people, our government needs to demonstrate in principle the living truth of those words, or continue to live the lie.

Free speech and the workplace

Just about everyone is familiar with the concept of “free speech,” and further believe that it entitles them to say whatever that they want to say, with the exception of speech that is likely to incite “imminent lawless action.”  That certainly seems like a reasonable restriction to have, of which, the value of free speech, though, cannot be overstated, for we each have our own free thoughts and many people have a tendency to desire to express them to others, some with self-censoring and some not so much.

The thing about free speech, is that free speech is subject to being restricted at another place where many of us spend a significant amount of our time at, which is that inside private workplaces, the employer of such, has the right to restrict free speech while those that are so employed are working.  This means that employers can prohibit conversation between employee to employee, and therefore those employees do not have the intrinsic right to speak one to another while they are working.

Those that are used to being able to speak their mind, especially in a nation that prides itself as being the land of the free, would probably be rather dismayed in being restricted in their being ability to talk, especially when they have to devote so many hours in a given day to work.  Yet, that is the law as currently interpreted, which thankfully isn’t of real relevance in most workplaces, especially those workplaces that white collar workers are employed at.  However, in those workplaces, that blue collar workers are employed at, they could well be subject to such a rule; and then as for those workplaces which are known as sweatshops, those so employed there could easily be subject to such a rule.

In consideration that those that have to work under the most trying of conditions, in which they pretty much are dealt with as human machines, is in itself, a very tough construct to deal with -- and then to not be able to talk with a fellow employee that is just a few steps away -- so as to at a minimum, connect one to another as human beings, is a toxic workplace, which dehumanizes people.  That said, regrettably, those that have little or no choice, have little or nothing that they can do about their present bleak situation, except to hope that it can be overcome, in some way or manner, directly or indirectly.

For a certainty, society has a role to play as well, and those products made under conditions in which the employees are not paid a living wage and further are not permitted to have a basic conversation one to another, are perhaps those products that we should not purchase.  After all, those that are privileged enough to have a voice, should use that voice, and if we will not speak up for those things that matter, then we have voluntarily silenced ourselves when we could well have made a meaningful difference.  It is unfortunate, that sometimes we do not appreciate the freedoms that we do have, until such has been sundered from our very hands, and of which, once gone, can be very difficult to get back.

America: Apartheid Nation

Sometimes, indeed, the emperor wears no clothes.  To wit, we are told by the groundbreaking author, Michelle Alexander, that “…there are more Black adults incarcerated and under correctional super­vision than were enslaved in 1850,” and further that “By November 2012, the US held a higher percentage of its black population under lock and key than south Africa did during apartheid.”  These facts cannot and should not be ignored, and while it can be said, that for some blacks, this nation does indeed seemingly provide for opportunity and fairness; this quite obviously is not true for the whole of this nation, in which this country summarily fails to live up to its guiding principles of egalitarianism, hope, and justice.

No nation, can truly live and be successful, half free and half oppressed, for that which is wrong, cannot possibly outlive that which is right.  Further to the point, all children are born innocent, and therefore what they ultimately end up becoming has a great deal to do with the environment and opportunity that surrounds them as they grow up.  Therefore, those communities which are bereft of hope, harassed, disadvantaged, despised, dilapidated, with wretched infrastructure, and poor educational facilities are going to have a strong tendency to produce people that are not going to be beneficiaries of the positive attributes that America has to offer, for that sort of offer to them, is for the most part, null and void.

The deliberate segregation of those of color, and especially those of color that are impoverished, is a disgrace to what this country is supposed to stand for.  Those so born into those ghettos of despair, are disadvantaged from day one, and all those that live there suffer through the indignity of knowing that they, for the most part, do not matter to mainstream America, for if they did matter, this country would be far more proactive in addressing the poverty and hopelessness that these poor segregated communities are filled with.

America’s sick answer to those that are the most hurting, that are the most discriminated against, and therefore the people who are not heard, for they are lacking in substantive power -- is to pick on them, day in and day out, without mercy and without a care, and to add to this disgrace by functionally blaming them for all of the crime and all of the troubles that America so represents.  The prisons therefore are filled with people of color, because they are the easy targets to go after, for the poor and ill-educated cannot conceivably fare well in any court of law in this nation.

While America likes to get up on their high horse when it comes to other countries and their sins, injustices, and troubles; they seemingly are incapable of their own proper self-evaluation, for as bad and as discriminatory as some of these other nations are, America is itself, no shining beacon on a hill.  America likes to say that the reason why so many people of color are incarcerated is because it is those people that commit the crimes.  Yet, the real reason for why this is happening is effectively ignored, for the main crime of those so convicted, is foundationally the crime of being of color and poor.  Those that are responsible for our governance, that will not testify to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, are destined to keep making the same errors -- and until such a time that this country recognizes that to take away another person’s dignity, their self-respect, and their hope, is a gross error with material consequences, nothing whatsoever will change in this Apartheid Nation.

Income tax returns should be made public

Each year, with very few exceptions, those that have some sort of income are required by law to file a tax return.  As it currently stands, tax returns, for whatever reason, are considered private information and therefore not subject to being publicly disclosed.  Yet, consider this, property taxes, which are a yearly obligation for those that are home owners, are publicly disclosed.  This would presuppose that the need behind income taxes not being disclosed is not nearly as sacrosanct as some might imagined. 

Additionally, the appropriate payment amount for one’s income tax is based upon the calculations so of, and the voluntary compliance by its citizens, of which, because currently the filing of those personal income taxes is private, basically leaves the good enforcement of the accuracy of those calculations and compliance to the understaffed and underbudgeted Internal Revenue Service. 

Consider this, though, if personal income tax returns were public, one would expect to see a significant increase in the whistleblowing from taxpayers in aggregate -- in regards to returns that appeared to them to be suspicious.  Additionally, in consideration, that some companies make it known that they don’t want you to discuss your salary with others, as well as seemingly doing everything in their power to keep the payrate of their employees, secret – we can correctly surmise that secrecy of this sort probably has a lot more to do with management trying to manipulate and to control the payrate of employees to their self-serving benefit, and therefore the public divulgence of that income, would be both fair-play and quite illuminating.

It is true that a significant amount of people have a real curiosity about how much other people, especially those that they work with, or are friends with, or live nearby, actually earn in a given year; of which, there is also the inconvenient fact that for some people there is perhaps an unhealthy desire to “keep up with Joneses”; yet, there is also truth in the statement that citizens of this great nation are entitled to know what other people are actually earning, which will thereby help them to get perspective, to negotiate, as well as to perhaps re-evaluate where they are at, and finally it might just inspire them to be more diligent about going after their own goals.

In general, transparency is empowering for those that have little or no power, and a source of annoyance for those that are dishonest, double-talking, double-dealing, and deceptive.  Those that don’t pay their fair share of taxes, pretty much know it; whereas, those that play by the rules and pay their fair share, also know it.  What is unknown, is how many taxpayers are not paying their fair share; of which, the public disclosure of all tax payers’ income tax returns, would go an awful long way to answering that very question. 

There was a time when the government had no national income tax, but relied instead upon tariffs, duties, excise taxes as well as land sales to fund its governmental responsibilities; of which, upon ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, the income tax became part and parcel of this county.  Back then, as reported by Wikipedia.org, in 1913, “Approximately three percent of the population was subject to the income tax,” whereas today, that income tax, affects a significant swath of Americans, of which, in fairness to them, they should know for a certainty as to whether or not our progressive income tax system really has those that make more, pay more.

Clearly not the “land of the free”

America prides itself upon being known as the “land of the free”, but this simply cannot be true, because through the court decisions so made at the highest levels of government, along with the way that the policing arm of the state is able to conduct its business upon citizens of this great nation -- freedom, has seemingly taken a permanent handcuffed back seat.  Despite, the fact that our 4th Amendment clearly states, that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses… shall not be violated,” literally thousands of times each year, through no-knock police raids, people’s houses and persons are not secure from the long arm of the law, doing whatever it so desires, with minimal oversight by those that are in a position to uphold Constitutional law, but choose not to.  Further to the point, in this country, people that are out in public square, are susceptible to being stopped by the police for absolutely no reason, providing the police with the opportunity to then engage them in a conversation or search, in which, though citizens are entitled to ask as to whether they are under arrest or free to go -- many of those citizens are quite reluctant to ask those very questions to a police officer, because they know that the officer has the imminent power to detain them, to arrest them, and regrettably, to use physical force against them, if those officers are not content with their compliance.

So then, when citizens are neither free when they are out in the public, nor when they are at home, then the people are not free and clearly have no safe place of sanctuary.  Yet, a person’s home really should be their castle, and therefore the entry of police officers into anybody’s home, should rightly be the highest of hurdles to overcome, of which, citizens at a minimum, are entitled to see the warrant, authorizing such a search, and of which, no-knock raids should be banned as inimical to that Constitution of, by, and for the people.

What a given person does behind closed doors should be to a very large extent their own private business.  After all, the fact that what is or is not occurring in the privacy of one’s home is not being done out in the purview of the public eye, is indicative that the government, should not tread within those areas that are the private spaces of those that they are supposed to be servants of.  Of course, there are lots of things that people do, that other people and even governments, for that matter, do not care for, but virtually nobody likes a busybody, and there isn’t any good and sound reason of why the Constitution should be forsaken for governmental curiosity, for intimidation, for monitoring, or for control.  Rather, people need to have the freedom to be about their business, and to live their lives in a manner of which they are not obligated to being forced to conform to societal or governmental norms, or of always having to look over their shoulder to worry about what the government may or may not do to them; for each of us should be fairly entitled to pursue whatever that it is, that brings us peace and contentment.    

Do not discount the value of older buildings and homes

In today’s world, of often deliberately designed obsolescence, people are always replacing what is seemingly pretty darn good, for what they have been told will be better, and therefore are paying again and again for goods, that apparently offer some incremental improvement in performance and reliability.   When it comes to buildings and homes, though, that which is old, isn’t necessarily of no and little value; for, in fact, a fair amount of old buildings and old homes are structurally sound, made of good materials, as well as competent craftsmanship, of which, quality and care of this sort is seemingly harder to find today; for we live in an era in which profit, above all, as well as the substituting of materials of lesser quality, are the shortcuts that often trump, good value and longevity.

The above signifies that therefore buildings and homes which are old, aren’t necessarily structures that necessitate always the removal or destruction of, especially if those structures have had periodic maintenance and upkeep throughout their life to date.  After all, in many cases, repair and rehabilitation, is a far more cost-effective decision to make in regards to our older structures, rather than some simplistic reasoning that all buildings of a certain age, have no or little utility, at all.  Additionally, older homes and buildings bring historic value to communities, of which, some of these structures are a form of beautiful architecture in their own right, as well as typically being materially different in their look than what is being so built in the present day.

Further to the point, the destruction of older structures and thereby the wholesale replacement of such, typically costs a lot of money, and of which, that which thereby replaces such, is going to have to recover its expensive cost of construction, through correspondingly higher pricing and the like, of that which was so replaced.  This so indicates, that those that insist upon the wisdom of the new forcing out the old, need to be more cognizant, that not everyone or every community can prudently afford the new, and that the outright removal of older structures, actually serves to therefore take away opportunities and housing for those of lesser income and wealth, as well as limiting the choices for those that are more conservative in their expenditures so being made.

So then, a significant number of older buildings and homes have value and good purpose, of which, it should be part and parcel of communities that are considering redevelopment and the like, to take into fair account, that not everything that is old, has little or no utility; for the contrary view tells us, that they most definitely do, and further we know that a dollar saved, is the same as a dollar earned.  So too, that which is new and valued today, will at some point, be considered old and of lesser value in the future, of which, the money, materials, and labor spent on these various infrastructures so having been built, needs to be fully acknowledged, so that rather than taking the position that something is always considered to be obsolete because it is old, we recognize instead the sensibility that we should not necessarily judge a book by its cover.

Separate and clearly unequal

The United States is not an integrated country, for in virtually every community of size, there is a distinct separation of the races.  That is not to say, that there isn’t any integration at all, but rather to say, that the amount of segregation that currently exists between the favored race and minorities is so prevalent, that it can only be by design, and not happenstance.

So too, laws and civil rights so passed to specifically address such issues, while no doubt, having brought some progress and opportunity to those previously denied a fair shot, has still disappointingly got an incredibly long way to travel yet.  For instance, those that are white, live longer than those that are black; white people also have a much higher percentage of Bachelor’s degrees and advanced degrees than so achieved than blacks; in addition, white people earn a higher income on average than blacks, and finally in the accumulation of wealth, white people absolutely dominate black people’s accumulated wealth.  In all of these things of substance so measured, which has a fair amount to do with the quality of a given person’s life, the favored race, still is in the command position, which demonstrates in principle, that much more needs to be done in order to help uplift those that have been unjustly oppressed for so long.

After all, in a construct in which money and wealth equates to power, those that have more, are going to typically control the direction of where this country goes, unless held firmly in check by its Constitution and fair judicial decisions, so of.  That is to say, the unfairness that America so represents in circumventing egalitarianism, is in actuality clear to even the most uneducated eye, thereby signifying that whatever means that have been taken to date to deal with systemic racism, redlining of housing, gerrymandering of districts, and prejudicial police and corrupt jurisprudence has not been dealt with forthrightly or effectively.

If this country will not live up to its guiding principles, then this country and its governance is a counterfeit to that Constitution and its Declaration of Independence.  As long as there is breath in this country, though, there is the opportunity to take what has historically been wrong and to make it right.  None of this is really all that difficult, for the necessary words have already been written that there will be no discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or national origin; yet clearly there is still that discrimination.

Here stands today, though, the historic opportunity, to prove to the world, which has its own troubles and difficulties, that America, first amongst all nations, demonstrated the wherewithal to successfully take peoples from different national origins, different creeds, and different races, and through the process of a dedicated and determined governance truly lived the proposition that all of humankind is created equally by the very hand of God, in which, each was afforded a fair opportunity of good housing, good healthcare, good education, and good employment, and of which each of us was thereupon fairly judged by the content of one’s character, no more and no less.

America: Incarceration country

The Bureau of Justice Statistics tells us that: “46% of people incarcerated in state prisons in 2015 were convicted of nonviolent drug, property or public order crime.”  So then, without even taking into fair consideration the fact that not every violent criminal act signifies that the perpetrator is an actual menace or a direct danger to society at large, we still have the salient fact that nearly 50% of those so incarcerated are not violent, which basically means that they are not a physical danger to the general public.

It would be one thing if incarceration was the only available means to deal effectively with those that commit crimes, but in actuality, there are a multitude of ways to constructively deal with those that have broken the law.  For instance, not every crime committed demands punishment, but rather a fair number of criminal laws so being broken could be dealt with more constructively by appropriate education or rehabilitation.  Further, there are crimes that could be resolved by strict monetary penalties in lieu of incarceration, and others by some degree of community service.  Additionally, there should be more flexibility on the punishment so being imposed, in which then, some so convicted, for instance, would be permitted to work their normal schedule in the outside world and then at the end of the day, would spend their time in a halfway house.  So too, more crimes should be addressed through the punishment of restitution to those that were victims of it.  Additionally, in this hi-tech world, GPS ankle bracelets and things of this ilk, should be sufficient to track those that have broken the law, but aren’t deserving of the expense of incarceration.

It must be taken into fair account, that carceral institutions are not free in cost, but are actually quite expensive, in regards to the amount of money so being spent for each inmate to be housed in a secured facility; so that, from a cost effectiveness standpoint, if nothing else, some crimes are not worth the expense of going through the criminal process system, at all, but would be better dealt with by the issuing of an infraction, monetary penalty, or something equivalent to that.  Additionally, it is a complete waste of human resources to have convicts, especially young adults, be incarcerated in which within that facility, the means to rehabilitate that prisoner such as through education, or via the training of a particular trade, doesn’t exist, which essentially means locking those people up and throwing away the key.

As the land of the free, America should be embarrassed that it locks up so many of its own, apparently under the general belief, that American jurisprudence gets more satisfaction from incarcerating hundreds of thousands of its own citizens, without taking into meaningful consideration that there has to be a better way to deal with the consequences of crime – in addition, America apparently doesn’t care enough to thoroughly investigate the incipient reasons for why crime is bred in the first place and then through that research, doing something constructive so as to ameliorate such. 

America has law upon law upon law, and clearly does not hesitate a moment in incarcerating as many of its own that it possibly can, but that doesn’t make it right, and it certainly doesn’t make it just -- but rather this serves to be a demonstration that those that are at the seats of power, have no interest in reformation, fairness, or equality, but are pretty much of the cynical mind, to exploit them or to incarcerate them, or both.

Evil is best defined as the absence of good

As much as Hollywood would like us to believe that life is a constant battle between the forces of evil v. the forces of good, which perhaps makes for an engrossing drama, the truth of the matter of what evil really is, is actually far more pedestrian.  In actual fact, though evil may give the appearance of being a great and powerful force, it really is not; for that which is evil, is what which has walked away from the Light, that which has walked away from the good, in order to embrace instead that which is dark and destructive, and therein lies its ultimate dilemma; for evil lacks the necessary fuel to sustain itself perpetually, and therefore try as it might, evil, has to, at least, periodically, come up for air, or it simply will not be able to sustain itself.  

Further to the point, because evil is the absence of good, those that are evil and are doing bad acts, can become good, simply by changing their mindset and thereby performing instead, good acts.  This signifies that a far more constructive way to look upon evil is that because evil exists, we are thereby able to see the contrast between those that perform selfish and diabolical acts as compared to those that are selfless and caring for others.  In other words, the fact that there is evil being committed, should embolden us to want to be virtuous, ourselves; because we see the harm and hurt that evil does and therefore do not desire to follow such by our own conscious volition.

God has provided each one of us with free will, and by virtue of that free will we are entitled to try out different things, of which, not all those decisions subsequently so made are going to work out all that well.  The fact that we do make errors, mistakes, and commit wrongs, does not make us evil; rather, what makes us evil is the knowing that what we are doing isn’t right, as well as deliberately overriding our own good common sense, by insisting upon our right to keep on doing what we shouldn’t be doing, thereby bringing harm to others as well as harm to our own being.

We are each provided with choices, and each one of us has a given role to play in life, of which, what we actually do and say, defines us as a person, and reflects fairly our true character.  All those that stand on the side of right and good, though they may well be cheated, treated unjustly, or physically vanquished by those evil acts so made against them, will, if they keep the faith, receive their just dues for having stood true.  All those, on the other hand, that do wrong, more times than not, will have to face the music, of a tune that they have played and written by their own wicked deeds in this life, and until they can take that which has been created in disharmony and make it thus harmonious, they will suffer the pangs of a life that is wrong, for not having done right.

“Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?”

We read in Holy Scripture the answer to the above question so asked by Jesus: “For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.” (Matthew 12: 50).  It is well to remember, that Jesus the Christ, was the bearer of truth, and therefore it is to our eternal benefit to contemplate and to meditate upon these invaluable words.

Most people are quite cognizant as to who their mother is, as well as their siblings, and even in the most dysfunctional of families, we usually find that blood truly is thicker than water.  As good as that may well be, for familial love, duty, and obligation most definitely has its place; we must, in order to grow and to mature, rise above the narrow belief that it is always our family first, and therefore society or others, being seen as the lesser.

The bottom line is this, that God has no favorites, plays no favorites, and thereby equally values each one of us, good or bad, sinful or saintly, the same.  That is how it should be, for we are all equally created by the loving hand of God, and if we were to find out to our dismay, that God actually had those special souls that He valued more, then that God could not conceivably be just, and we would not be at peace.  So then, it follows, that the human family that we are born into, as well as the family we typically create later in our personal life, should best be seen as our loving tribute to our Father in Heaven, of which we are, at our best, trying to emulate the familial love that God so freely and unconditionally provides to all of us.

Further to the point, many people are most forgiving of their own blood, of which, there are also plenty of people that will do just about anything for those that they are intimately connected to.  But why should these positive attributes be restricted to just our immediate family?   In reality, we need to broaden our horizon, and to recognize that the good that we are so willing to do, for example, for our parents, for our spouse, for our children, and for our siblings, should not be the be-all and end-all of our existence, but rather should be the impetus to desire to connect with those others that are in harmony with Godly virtues.

So too, for those brothers of ours, that are stumbling, that are confused, lost, misguided, abused, and forsaken, we should demonstrate by our compassion, by our patience, and by our wisdom, that we have a sacred obligation to lend that helping hand and to be that good Samaritan for those others in need, especially in the understanding and the knowledge that but for the grace of God, that could very well be us.

This world is meant to demonstrate to us, that we are all interconnected, and because we are all of the same equal substance, that we should wish to do right one to another, so that together, we can all get to that special place of eternal sanctuary of which there is no more sorrow and no more pain.

How the Civil War was lost

Of course, history teaches us that the Civil War was won by the North, of which, the subjugation of those Southern States, that had wrongfully abandoned their perpetual duty of unity with these United States, to which they had seceded from that union, in order to form their own nation, was built upon the notion that “no …law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”  The defeat of those Southern States, meant that through the passage of the 13th-15th Amendments to the Constitution, that slavery was thereby abolished, as well as that all those born or naturalized within the United States were citizens of it, and that all men, irrespective of former servitude, had the right to vote.  Yet, as good and as valuable as those Amendments were, what the North had failed to do was to listen to the voice of Congressmen Thaddeus Stevens who in September of 1865, in his reconstruction speech, stated “…we propose to confiscate all the estate of every rebel belligerent whose estate was worth $10,000, or whose land exceeded two hundred acres in quantity.”

That is to say, it is well to remember, that those Southern States, having illegally seceded from that perpetual union of States and further to the point, having established their own nation, were thereby after their defeat -- which cost this nation hundreds of millions upon millions of dollars, as well as the loss of blood, life, and infrastructure, throughout this storied land, and of which that confederacy received no quarter by that union, but the unconditional surrender of their arms, were in no position, moral or otherwise, other than to accept whatsoever conditions were so demanded by that union.

Additionally, and to the point, the uprising of the Southern cause, was primarily caused by its aristocracy, the pride and the honor of those that were the actuators of that movement – of which, it specifically was those people, the richest and the most powerful of southerners, that duly deserved upon their defeat to sacrifice all of their material assets to that united nation which had conquered them -- in lieu of their physical life.  Regrettably, this was not done, neither were these ignoble rebels executed, or even incarcerated, but basically, with very few exceptions, those that had had the audacity to take up arms against the United States, on behalf of defending their peculiar institution of the enslavement of human beings of a darker complexion, were permitted to keep, for the most part, the land, the possessions, and the power, that they previously had, with the sole exception of the ownership of their former slaves.

This thus meant that as the Northern side lost interest in the South, and thereby took a more laissez-faire attitude, that the Southern powers that be, began their inevitable rise to re-take power, and by virtue, that the land that they owned was still theirs, they were able to effectuate all that they could ever want, and pretty much re-structure a lifestyle that permitted them to utilize their land for good profit, own the law, and to dominate those that were formally slaves, by the conjunction of having those very things.

The time to make that change and thereby to provide a fair opportunity to those that were formerly enslaved was at the point of the defeat of those Southern rebels, and subsequently with the re-distribution of that Southern land this would have provided the way and the means for those with no material assets and of little education to become something of earned merit.  This did not happen and that is why this country is not just, and has no peace.

“The great enemy of that tremendous force of freedom is… imperialism”

One might think that the quote above must have come from some disgruntled third world power, some tinhorn dictator, but in actuality it came from Senator John F. Kennedy, in 1957, of which, those words as viewed today we would not expect to hear from the executive office, except perhaps as a form of misdirection, for America, and make no doubt about it, is the world’s preeminent imperial power.  This therefore begs the question as to where did America go wrong, so that it has forsaken freedom as the be-all and end-all for other nations to embrace, thereby replacing such, with imperialism, above all.

The basic answer has got to be not so much about the lust for power, though that is part of it, but rather has almost everything to do with money and the desire to make as much money as possible for our multinational corporations and banking institutions – so accomplished via those nations that simply don’t have the strength of character or aren’t in a position strong enough, to do much more than accept the terms of business so desired by America.  Further to the point, imperialism has little or no interest in fostering democracy in other nations, and thereby cares not a whit about freedom for other countries, but prefers instead to deal with autocratic nations, that have plenty of internal firepower, because that construct is more conducive to the making of money as well as the paying off of who so needs their pockets filled with cash as their compensation.

So then, the American governmental viewpoint is that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander, because freedom of choice, free will, unalienable rights and the like, are inconvenient annoyances for those that want to exert control and mastery over other communities and nations so as to extract as much profit from them, as possible; as well as to thereby negotiate the best deal for those multinationals and banks in order to “develop” natural resources and infrastructure within nations.

A nation that is imperialistic essentially wants all other countries to pay tribute to them, of which, for those that are allied with that imperialistic country, deals are structured that at least bear some sort of semblance of fairness, of mutual respect and of consideration; whereas, those vulnerable nations that are not allied to that imperialistic power, are going to give up what they have to give up, or find themselves at the highest governmental or military level, susceptible to being overthrown and thereby losers of everything.

In theory, America stands for freedom and liberty, but in actuality the prevailing reason why this world is as unfree as it currently is, lays at the very feet of the imperialistic United States.  Senator Kennedy had it right in promulgating the belief that the great enemy of freedom is imperialism, because imperialism, takes away unalienable rights, and replaces such with only those human rights that do not interfere with imperialistic dictates.  This makes for a world of frustration, dreams denied, opportunities revoked, and people oppressed, all so that the privileged few can make more money from those that have been cheated from that which they have an unalienable right to.

The Constitution and majority rule

A lot of people believe in their heart, that propositions so fairly voted upon, in which one side of that proposition receives more votes than the other, means that the proposition has passed and therefore that proposition has become the law of the land and should subsequently be adhered to.  Although that might seem to make perfect sense, it must be properly understood that just because a majority has passed some specific legislation does not mean that the proposition, itself, is Constitutional in its application or in its effect.  In other words, not every law passed or the interpretation of such, is Constitutional; which is an extremely important point to understand, for it must be recognized that the only thing that really separates good people that are in vulnerable positions of a given minority viewpoint from the tyranny of the majority, is the fact that highest law of the land is the Constitution, and all laws that violate the Constitution are null and void.

While majority rule, certainly seems sensible, it is not going to be sensible all of the time, if that majority is not held under Constitutional restraints, of which those restraints as adjudicated are thereby superior to whatever a given majority so desires to have happen.  For instance, if the majority simply voted that they should have their particular taxes reduced based on some prejudicial criteria that favored that majority, while a specific minority of people should have their particular taxes increased or other things of that sort; then what would essentially have occurred is that this country would have devolved into a construct in which the powerless, or those on the minority side, would have to serve the powerful, or those on the winning side.  That wouldn’t be fair and that wouldn’t be right; so that, it must be said that the founding principle behind the Constitution, is that each of us is accorded rights, that are there to protect us from a misguided or unenlightened majority.

Further to the point, we are provided with the responsibility of voting for our elected representatives of which it is the people’s duty to first and foremost to hold those representatives accountable for their actions taken, and additionally to see that what those representatives do on a given day, is as transparent and as open as possible for the citizenry to therefore be able to stay fairly informed of what is so occurring under their name by those representatives.   That is to say, it seems as if few people are all that happy about the governance in their nation as well as governance in their community, of which, if this be the truth, then it is up to the people, to construct something of meaning in order to effect positive change by holding their representatives responsible or else the people will continue to be marginalized.

This is supposed to be a Constitutional government, of, for, and by the people, of which, the simplistic viewpoint that the majority rules -- is superseded by the highest law of this land which trumps that which is not in harmony with that Constitution.  Further, though we are all entitled to vote our self-interest and even to promote such, that self-interest must be in adherence to Constitutional law, for good governance is meant to take our initial selfish desires and to mold such into one nation, united.

The internet and freedom of expression

People have a natural inclination to desire to socialize with others of the human race.  The beauty of the internet is it allows people to communicate seamlessly with people all over the world, of which, unfortunately, when those communications are subject to eavesdropping by governmental or corporate interests, this stifles the openness of such communication.  Additionally, those that are not directly part of any communication, may not be correct in their personal interpretation of words so spoken or written; as well as the fact that conversations which are taken out of context often taint the understanding of such.

When everything that we say and show online, is thereby subject to governmental purview, review and censorship, people are obviously less free, as well as their being thereby susceptible and vulnerable to manipulation and to being compromised by governmental agencies as well as their hidden actuators, as applicable. 

A world society that freely and responsibly shares one to another is going to be a healthier world, that intuitively understands our commonality, which thereby helps us to overcome any long held ingrained prejudices and makes for a better and safer world; but when that domain is upset by the powers that be, in which, we are afraid to express who we really are, and of which we are punished for not being compliant to that which monitors us -- we have created the seeds of our own miserable and terrible world, and what will be reaped will definitely be an oppressive state of limited unalienable rights.

The internet deserves better than to have been co-opted by governmental and corporate interests, to therefore be used against the people, so as to manipulate, control and to harm them, all in obedient service to these undeserving overseers.  The words that we write, the social media that we post, and the back and forth of our communications should not be overseen by anyone or any authority without our expressed and authorized permission.

Governments will tell us, every day, all day, that for the good of society and for the defense of society, that we need to give up some of our freedoms in order to have good protection and security; but this is a false construct, for those that do the watching, almost without exception, do themselves not desire to be watched.  This signifies, that those that claim that what they are doing is for the betterment and for the safety of our community, but are not completely and fully transparent in all that they say and do, are deceptive, they are liars, and they are wrong for what they stand upon.

The internet should be a legitimate forum dedicated to the freedom of expression with very limited and circumscribed government and corporate oversight.  No doubt, there are going to be bad actors that use the internet; then again, there are bad actors that are in government, as well as there being bad actors in the highest echelons of corporate offices.  Humankind does not need constant monitoring by those that claim to have our best interests in mind but really don’t; they never have, and they never will.

Each of us has been gifted with unalienable rights, using the internet, should reflect that, no more and no less.

Impressment was involuntary servitude

Great Britain is an island and the only way that there came a time when the “sun did not set upon the British empire” is the fact that in its heyday, Great Britain had the most formidable navy in the world, bar none.  While it is probably true that conscripted soldiers aren’t treated all that well in the best of times, it therefore pretty much follows that conscripted sailors stationed in the vast wide ocean on a ship, of which unquestioned discipline is part and parcel of how navy ships are able to get things done, are going to find that insubordination is not going to work out well for those so inclined to speak up about their rights, real or imagined.  This pretty much signifies that service in the Navy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries was the type of job that most people of sound mind would not willingly desire to take, and therefore the British Royal Navy found itself many a time, with a serious labor shortage of sailors.

One way utilized so as to get a given quota of sailors for a naval ship was to basically kidnap or coerce the drunk and disreputable from taverns and things of that sort; though, of course, the quality of the man so snatched from there was typically rather suspect.  A far better way, though, to add sailors was to reclaim those that were said to have deserted the service, of which in a day and age, in which identification of who and what a given person represented -- being somewhat hard to verify, one way or another, this so provided the reasoning to question sailors on other ships, and therefore when, for instance, merchant ships, were boarded by the British Royal Navy, the Royal Navy took it upon themselves to take those that they claimed to have deserted them, and thereby “impressed” them back into service with the British Navy. 

All of the above sounds rather eerily similar to the fugitive slave law, in which those that were alleged fugitives of the law, and considered by those in the business of capturing such, to be by their rights to catch them, of which, upon so being caught, then that person would be returned or “impressed” back into slavery.  So then, in that day and age in which Britain ruled the seas, it was Britain, that acted as judge, jury, and executioner, and if Britain decided that certain sailors of a United States merchant ship or even of a frigate, were in their viewpoint, really British subjects -- that had wrongfully abandoned their duty to Britain, then Britain would claim them as their own, and impress them back into service with Great Britain.

Not too surprisingly, sovereign nations don’t take too kindly to their citizens being manhandled and kidnapped by any foreign nation, especially one that they had to previously fight so as to gain their own liberated freedom.  Yet, at a time, in which the United States Navy and military power were really not a match to Great Britain, America thereby swallowed its pride and permitted that which they did not desire to see permitted, to be done.  Still, there did come that time, as in the War of 1812, in which part of the reason for that war, was that America was sick and tired of being treated as a cat’s paw by Great Britain, and therefore they went to battle, to demonstrate that America was the wrong nation to be tread upon, so as to do right by those that were personally suffering from having been so wronged.

The deliberate policy of the ghettoization of America

In a nation as rich as the United States, ghettos would seem to be something that should not actually exist, but exist they so do.  First and foremost, there is the continuing lie of this country being an actual melting pot, in which we are led to believe that we are on a pathway of the amalgamation of different ethnicities, different creeds, and different classes, but America does not come close to practicing or even making meaningful progress to that which it so nobly preaches.  Even the most cursory of looks indicates that in most major cities, races are predominantly segregated one from another, as well as there being the purposeful separation of unfavored creeds from the mainstream creed, in addition to the fact that high-income people deliberately segregate themselves from those that are impoverished.  Rather than this being a nation united, this is clearly a nation divided, of which the greatest shame so of, is reflected by the multitudes of people corralled into impoverished ghettos that demonstrate fairly that America is really the land of exploitation, unfairness, and injustice.

So too, it must be stated that there is nothing random about the separateness and segregation in America, and therefore nothing random about American ghettos consisting primarily as centers of despair for those that are minorities and are of color.  America professes some of the most inspiring and meaningful sentiments so ever written or so heard, but the follow through by that country and its countrymen demonstrates in living color that this is not an egalitarian nation, nor one of equal opportunity, and that clearly its justice halls are definitely respecters of connected persons, of which, the most powerful and propertied people of this nation far too often live the belief of “not in my backyard,” and in this they have been quite successful in propagating this mindset throughout our biggest metropolitan cities, in a manner in which they are protected and augmented; whereas, those in the ghetto are there for the express purpose of exploitation and control.

When blacks first began their great migration into the big industrial cities of the north, that seemed to offer them opportunity, hope and promise; they were welcomed by such under the implied if not expressed condition that they must willingly congregate into their own zones to live their lives in, with the exception of their being permitted to work wherever that they were needed to work, under the conditions of employment so dictated by those that employed them.  Yet, these same minorities in the communities that they resided in were subject to taxation, and thereby found to their dismay that their taxes so collected, were not being utilized for infrastructure so needed in their communities, by those in charge of disbursing those taxes on behalf of the public. Additionally, loans and credit needed for businesses, homes, and upkeep within minority communities, were systematically not served by banking and credit institutions, thereby precluding minorities from having the good opportunity to build businesses as well as to increase equity in their own homes -- directly leading to those communities becoming dilapidated from the lack of such investment, and the paucity of tax dollars being fairly contributed within their community.

The main reason why so many minorities find themselves in these ghettos of despair, is to make the task of controlling, manipulating, and abusing them, so much easier for the powers that be.  After all, what the general public does not see and does not visit, is often the same to them as if it doesn’t exist.  And if it doesn’t exist, then for all intents and purposes, it sure won’t be changed.

Labor wages, profits, and rentiers

The money that various people are able to make such as per their labor, or through business profit, or by virtue of being a rentier, is each a very different way of money so being made.  For a very significant amount of people, they earn their keep, by laboring at a given job, and receive the wages so agreed upon, whether or not such is an actual reflection of the true worth of the labor so having been done, or is even fair.  As for the profit that a given organization makes, the controlling entity so making that money has risked their capital in order to make that profit, as well as often additionally providing their own personal labor to do so, of which, for some organizations this works out very well, whereas for others, not so much.  Then there is the rentier, of which, rentier is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a person who lives on income from property or securities.”  Some very good examples of a rentier would be those that live off of their investments in equities, through equity appreciation and/or dividends; as well as those that rent out property that they own, be it, commercial or residential, at a rate that provides them with a profit; or those that make loans of their capital to people and organizations for a price, such as in banks or their equivalency.

To a very large extent, those that labor for their wages, are respected for their work ethic, and to the degree that they are able to make a good living from such, this is to their credit.  As for those that make their money through the profit of their particular business, the respect for such is dependent upon a lot of factors, such as fair labor wages, fair opportunity and growth for those that are part of that organization, as well as that company’s overall willingness to pay their fair share of taxes. Then there are those rentiers, of which, in short, they make their money by virtue of having money, of which many a rentier has little interest in having to actually personally labor for it, and so, no matter how they spin it, rentiers predominantly make their money, passively, which seems quasi-respectable, at best.

All those that labor for their wages are working.  Those that are in a business to make a profit, typically also are working and working hard, along with having to successfully deal with the stress of the ups and downs of the competitive business world.  Rentiers on the other hand, usually aren’t interested in working, for all they really want to have happen is to have the money that they currently have, create more money for them; and in order for that to happen, this signifies that somebody or some entity has to trade their money or something of value for what the rentier so has, of which the difference between the true value of what the rentier owns and what it thereby is sold or rented for, is the profit that the rentier so gets, simply for having ownership of it.

Typical laborers find themselves in a trying position in order to negotiate themselves a fair wage; while those that own businesses are constrained by market forces and competitors as to how much money that they can make; whereas, rentiers have something of material value, desired or needed by others, placing them in the catbird seat, to press their advantage, and thereby to get what they really want without actually having to dirty their hands by toiling for it.

The loyalty of a standing army

Revolutions are fought and won, often with armed force, and far less through a noble idea whose time has come.  As much as we might like to believe that the “good guys” always win, or that right always triumphs over wrong, the fact of the matter is that it often is the side with the greater firepower and determination that prevails.  So then, it does make sense for any country of self-worth, to be prudent and forward thinking enough to have the necessary military might to thereby protect itself, from foreign dangers.  The fundamental problem, though, is that once a country determines that it is going to have, not a militia, nor an army reserve, but a fully functional standing army, along with all the other military branches, thereof; then it has made the fateful decision to engage full-time with that institution which has the power to exert itself in a future way that may not be in accordance with its own Constitutional law.  History has shown us repeatedly that many nations have forcefully installed new governments, through violent military coups, of which those that were soldiers of that military essentially made a determination that their preference was to overthrow that which they were supposed to serve; to serve, instead, their military coup leader.

This thus indicates to believe that somehow, standing armies are forever loyal to their Constitution, and to their fellow countrymen, is belied by the historical fact that this clearly has not been the case, in country after country.  So then, standing armies, as our Founding Fathers warned us, are an ever-present danger to the liberty of its own citizens, as well as a potential menace to the stability of that government, of, for, and by the people.  Further to the point, as much as we might want to believe that our own military would never, under any circumstances, ever take up arms against its own population; we need to recognize that the police have consistently been called into domestic action, and without hesitation have willingly obeyed the powers that be.  This thus begs the question, as to whether those that make up that standing army of which they have been trained from their indoctrination into those armed forces, to obey unquestioningly the chain of command, and of which that command has done its good part by providing those soldiers with good healthcare, housing, salary, benefits, education, and provided them with stability and purpose in their personal lives, as to whether when push comes to shove, that those soldiers would then abandon their discipline and put their guns down for Constitutional reasons, when they have been commanded instead by those that they respect, to do the very opposite.

To believe that it cannot happen here, is to ignore history as well as to dismiss the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.  Further, and regrettably, even the citizens of this great nation, may not even be on the same page with each other about their government, of which, the appeal of a coup to some of those citizens, is their desire for an authoritarian government that behaves in a way in which their “yeses” means yes, and their “noes” means no.   That, combined with the fact, that wars are ugly, bloody, protracted and destructive is the reason why the question must be asked, as to where does that loyalty of our standing army actually lie, for in this, lays the tale to be told.

White poverty and black poverty are not the same

There are millions upon millions of people that live in poverty in America, of which, while there are at least twice as many blacks that live in poverty than do whites on a percentage basis; the fact that there are in total, many more whites in the actual population, signifies that in aggregate, there are more whites that suffer poverty in total, as compared to those that are black.  Yet, with the exception of some Appalachian communities, as well as in other small towns that time has passed by, there seems to be a dearth of white ghettos that are part and parcel of large metropolitan cities.  In other words, while just about anyone of a given large metropolitan area, can site the communities where the rich people live, then can also site, almost without any sort of hesitation, the communities where the poor people live, and of which within those poor communities, the residents of such are overwhelmingly people of color; as opposed to at least some of those communities being majority white and poor, which seems puzzling.

The reason why this is so, has a lot to do with the fact that the color of a given person’s skin, identifies that person as being a particular ethnicity, of which, those that are white, are just by virtue of being white, allowed presumptive entrance to just about anywhere that they so desire to go.  True, poor whites, may ultimately be limited in where they end up residing, for they may find themselves “found out” as being of a lower and inferior class, but nevertheless, they have the actual real mobility to move from one place to another, and in conjunction with that, whites are almost always provided with credible benefit of doubt, that gives them, then, the opportunity to be some place, that they, on the surface, are probably not actually suitable for.  In regards to blacks, because of their skin color, many doors and opportunities are simply not there to begin with, as they are presumed to be, by many, undesirable; additionally, blacks are most definitely limited in their mobility because so many doors are closed to them, and further to the point, blacks have historically and deliberately been segregated away from desirable areas of communities and pushed instead into orbits of separateness which have not been the equivalency to even a middling community; as well as those communities have typically lacked good, sound infrastructure, and therefore poor black communities have the worst schools, the worst job opportunities, as well as blacks being surrounded in their residences with very high concentrations of poverty.

All of the above, basically means that whites that are in poverty, still have a decent chance of extricating themselves from at a minimum, simply being surrounded by exclusively other impoverished people as well as by decaying communities.  Blacks, however, are more often than not, frustratingly trapped into ghettos of despair, of which, their opportunity to find something better is severely constrained by the fact that they are typically unwelcomed by many and their options to find something better have been significantly limited.   

To be poor and to be white is one thing, and to be poor and to be black is another thing.  They aren’t the same, though each of them may indeed be equally materially poor; yet one race has far more implicitly going in its favor to be of aid to them, whereas, the other race has far, far less to avail themselves of.