Those that hate, often do so, to try to silence the call of their pain

It would seem that there are plenty of people that hate, and the degree of hatred and vitriol expressed in person or through social media, at the present time, would appear to be getting ever progressively worse.  This type of incivility isn’t good for societies, and clearly is a fair reflection that not all is well within America.  The thing about hatred, hateful actions, hateful words, and just plain hate, is that this type of emotion doesn’t just come out of nowhere; but rather it has to typically come from deep within a given person’s psyche, and subsequently this is expressed in negative ways through various toxic frustrations that these people apparently aren’t able to deal with, in any good or constructive way.

Yet, none of us are born in hate, or are born to hate.  This thus signifies that hatred is a trait that is often developed over some extended period of time, of which, one of the primary driving forces of the hate and vitriol that consumes certain people, is their own pain that they feel deep inside, that thereby cries out for satisfaction, and seemingly does not care how it is quieted, just as long as it is silenced, at least, for some period of time.  This is why, therefore, so many people that are themselves hurting and suffering, strike out in such a negative manner towards other people, because they do not know how to effectively treat what is ailing them, so they deliberately find an avenue that will allow them to express themselves in a manner in which they feel powerful for their ability to hurt another and are able therefore to forget their own troubles, at least, for the moment.

This signifies that the people that hate the most, despite whatever façade that they often put on to make themselves appear to be of the norm, are suffering, themselves; signifying that to respond with hate to those that are hateful, isn’t going to do anything of substance to heal the wounds that each party needs to have healed.  Most of those that are quite hateful, have a specific frustration, disappointment, ailment, addiction, tragedy, or some combination of these, that they find to be quite overwhelming and intractable, and because they cannot see a way out, or a way to make progress upon these troubles, decide that the most appropriate response to their pain, is to strike out against others, with the hopeful and sick expectation that by doing so, this will create havoc and hurt upon someone else, which they believe will help to alleviate the emptiness and pain that they feel inside.

Those that are hurting are going to turn to whatever that they believe will bring some sort of satisfaction or solace to the hurt that they so have; of which, some of those people will turn to drugs or drink, whereas others, will express themselves in ways that are destructive and hateful.  None of these things will deal with the crux of the problem, but instead this will simply postpone for a time, the reckoning that so needs to occur, sooner or later, for those that are in pain, are those that desperately need to find a sensible cure.

Germany and its lost African colonies

In the 20th century, all the African colonies that were once under the control of European powers, eventually became free and therefore sovereign from such outside oppression.  The strange thing is that when people think of the colonizers of Africa, Germany is typically not really considered; as opposed to other European nations such as France, Great Britain, Belgium, and to a lesser extent those of, Italy, Spain, and Portugal.  Yet, Germany was a major power in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century, and truth be told, Germany was also a major African colonizer, but having lost World War I to the Allied powers, the Treaty of Versailles, sealed their fate, and Germany’s colonies, were thereby subsequently taken over primarily by Great Britain, France, and Belgium per that treaty.

To a certain extent, because Germany no longer had those colonies, they should be credited for being far less of an oppressor of those that were citizens of Africa, regardless of whether such was voluntarily done or because it was agreed to by treaty; for a deal is a deal, and from 1919, on, Germany had no African colonies; whereas all those other European nations when given the opportunity to liberate such, chose instead to keep them colonized instead.  This thus indicates that Africa, to Europe, at that time, was seen as a place to be exploited for the expressed benefit of those Europeans.  Further to the point, the victors write the history, as well as also being given the chance to change the direction of that history, but when provided with that opportunity, those European powers did not desire to change, and failed to do so for the betterment and fairness of humanity.

Those then that believe the Allies were all good, have clearly got it wrong; for by their actions, in regards to those African colonies, they clearly were not good.  After all, for an African nation that was colonized by Germany, and then subsequently became, for example, colonized by Great Britain, one would be hard pressed to say that this was an improvement, but rather this would seem to follow suit with the idiom, of “out of the frying pan and into the fire; ” in which for those subject African colonies there may well have been advantages in dealing with the devil that they already knew, as compared to the devil that they did not know, but still a devil all the same.

The real important thing to know about these African colonies is that such existed as a form of revenue and as a means of mineral expropriation for those that were its colonizers.  Therefore then, defeating Germany, provided for those that were the victors, an opportunity to extract an even higher share of that wealth from Africa, which therefore meant such booty was essentially redirected from German hands into the hands of other European powers, signifying to a very large extent, that wars between nations as compared to all those other countries, that have “no dog in the fight”, often doesn’t change a thing of substance, other than where the tribute of those that are colonized will be made.

Court fines, fees, interest, penalties and such, imposed upon convicts

One of the first things that a person that is contemplating a lawsuit that involves monetary compensation as being enforced for restitution, needs to think about, is that there usually isn’t any good point in suing someone that doesn’t have the ready funds to make that payment.  Yet, for some reason, the target that the justice system seems to take inordinate pleasure in charging court fines, fees, interest, penalties, collection costs, and surcharges, are typically people that have a net worth that is zero or thereabouts, and are already in rather dire straits; but since they have been convicted of some sort of offense, this is therefore seen as the price that so needs to be paid for their subsequent “freedom.”

It would seem that it isn’t so much “don’t do the crime if you’re not willing to do the time,” but rather this is more akin, to the justice system trying to make a profit from impoverished convicts, or to get some sort of payback from those that are already disadvantaged and poor.  It would seem far better to admit that those that cry the loudest for “law and order” are the very people that should actually pay the fines and surcharges so being currently assessed against the forsaken and destitute convicts; representing, in truth, the fair price of that justice having been enforced in the first place, on their behalf.

The justice system as meted out in America, seems to favor overwhelmingly those that have money in their pocket as compared to all those that don’t.  After all, those that have money typically have the room to maneuver and to negotiate terms; whereas, those that do not, are at the mercy of the court, that seems not to take into fair consideration the reality of this salient fact, that many of those convicted of crimes, are effectively broke, and also without promising prospects.

No great nation, builds their foundation and their greatness upon the backs of those that are the most vulnerable; but rather they take into reasonable consideration, the circumstances that has brought those with little or nothing to their name, to that unfortunate place that they never wanted to be at.  Those that insist that a significant portion of those convicted of crimes should be financially punished until the end of time, aren’t just and they sure aren’t right.  To kick someone when they are down, over and over again, is not only abuse but it is bullying; and it also is not becoming of a nation that purports to represent progress, as well as equal justice under the law.

No doubt, the justice system and the carceral state is a beast that needs to be fed; but why must it feed exclusively upon those that have no real meat?  Rather, America needs to reform itself, and get back to the very basics, of understanding that institutions which are supposed to represent justice, but somehow are never satiated, are destructive to the core of American values, and it is those misguided and misbegotten institutions, that need themselves, to be reformed.

You want to be good, then practice being good

On any given day, we make all sorts of decisions, some good, and some not so good.  For all those, that want to make more good decisions so as to therefore be a better person, and thus, in principle, be good for something and therefore good for others, this is going to necessitate a whole lot of practice.  In other words, as much as we might want to believe that we are born good, and that everything that we deal with subsequently is always going to be good, that isn’t going to be the reality of the situation; but rather, we are going to have to diligently practice being good, as preparation for whatever so comes, expected or unexpected, in order to maintain that goodness for ourselves and for those we interact with.

To a very large extent, we should welcome problems, difficulties, and setbacks; because when everything is going our way, we might not really be learning all that much, and for a certainty, we probably aren’t doing all that we could be doing in order to make this world a better place for our being a part of it.  Therefore, a more productive way of looking at inconvenient problems and such, is one in which this creates for us, our opportunity to make something good out of it; and to the degree that we succeed, so much to the better; whereas, to the degree that we fail, this should therefore be a wake-up call for us to keep on trying to be good and to do right, so that in the future, we will do better.

As they say, a “baptism by fire” is a surefire way to either grow or to regress.  Nevertheless, as much as we might desire to avoid such, recognize that if our own house was on fire, we would strongly prefer that the fire fighters coming to save our home, would be those that have had good experience and previous success in dealing with such, as opposed to those which may well be schooled, but have, to date, been untested.  That is why we need to not only step up, where it is appropriate to step up; but occasionally we need to push ourselves outside of our normal boundaries in order to grow further, because the more experience that we get of which we end up being successful with, the more useful and complete we are, as good human beings.

There wouldn’t be any drama in life, if everybody was a goody two-shoes, but we need not worry about that, because there is always plenty of drama, if not in our immediate vicinity, then for a certainty, outside of it.  While some people, might find such drama to be purposeless, or some might find such unbecoming, the fact of the matter is, most people are at a minimum intrigued by it, if not outright involved in it, willingly or not.  It is that drama, that we need to engage ourselves in, not so to entrap ourselves by it, but rather to prove our mettle in a field in which such proving will provide a real material benefit for others, which is the real-time type of practice, that defines us as good, or as good for nothing.

There should not be any plainclothes police officers

There are plenty of urban areas around America, that quite frankly, are dangerous, especially for those that are members of that community; of which some of the main reasons why this is so would be the guns, the poverty, the lack of opportunity, the violence, as well as often the lack of a good moral compass.  These types of areas, often consist of people that aren’t all that relaxed, that aren’t at ease, and to the large extent, they are agitated and nervous.  In that type of cauldron, to add plainclothes police officers to that mix, is going to be a highly volatile situation, which will invariably lead to regrettable and violent outcomes.  Consider this well, not everything that glitters is actually gold, and not everyone who is in plainclothes and thereupon claims to be a police officer is actually a police officer; to wit, people that have turf to protect, are going to have a strong inclination to protect their turf and to damn the consequences, so of.

When police officers are permitted to try to blend into a community by wearing plainclothes, and to act the part of being someone or something that they actually are not; this is going to lead to some rather bad outcomes, that really do not need to happen.  It is important to acknowledge, that in today’s world, there are all sorts of ways to monitor a given urban area, that does not necessitate plainclothes police officers; such as through snitches, drones, surveillance of all types, wiretaps, and so on and so forth.  Those that really want “boots on the ground” should really make it their policy, that those boots be part of the clear identification of a police officer, rather than some sort of undercover and deceitful policy, which pretty much asks for trouble from the get-go, and almost always ends up getting trouble in the end.

Those that are sworn to protect and to serve, should do so by wearing the colors of their profession, rather then pretending to be something that they are not.  Anytime, that a police officer is in plainclothes for some law enforcement assignment, they are pretending to be something that they are not; in order, apparently to combat crime, by essentially being deceitful, which is never going to be an appropriate way to build trust or acceptance within a given community.

Those that are officers of the law, should lead by example; of which, that example should be that they are forthright, honest, fair, and just.  After all, to entrap or to entice somebody by deception, misdirection, and lying, are not the attributes of a good person, but rather are the refuge of those that are scoundrels and are up to no good.  Those that are paid to uphold the law, should themselves be answerable to that same law, by themselves being obedient to it.  All the words in the world, can’t change the fact, that actions do speak louder than words; and that those then that do not walk the walk of their talk, are not good exemplars for the community and aren’t therefore of benefit to it.

Defund the police, is that the right target?

Lots of people can’t seem to even conceive that there ever was a time without police presence, and police enforcement of the law; but in reality, that simply isn’t historically true, for what we today perceive as the police is a fairly recent iteration of what is essentially a tool so created for the good security of a given community.  Further to the point, more people, need to take to heart that what a police force should represent, which at its best, isn’t some sort of mad intimidating force, but rather should be seen as an aid to the community so as to maintain domestic tranquility.

Today’s police force, is highly militarized, and seems to a very large extent, not to answer a whit to the people, but rather answers to the prosecutorial arm of the state, as well as to those that are the actuators and power players of that given community.  So then, to consider defunding the police, because of the problems that some communities have had with egregiously bad police actions, really necessitates a fundamental change with the prosecutorial arm of the state and its adjuncts; unless, one truly believes that the police pretty much do whatever that they want to do, to whomever that they want to do, and are therefore effectively above the law.  As true as that might seem, the police are better seen as having to answer to those that are above them, which in practicality is the prosecutorial arm of the state and its actuators, of which, those district attorneys, their underlings, community councils, and the like, are the very ones that can make change, if only they would have the courage as well as the follow through to do so.

The problem with bad police actions fundamentally rests with that prosecuting arm of the state, in conjunction with the governance of that community; and all those that think that when police officers join together to protect their turf and therefore when perceived to be necessary, go out on an informal strike, such as the “blue flu” or when they refuse to ticket or arrest people as their form of pushback— must understand that the way real power works, is that the prosecuting arm, needs to, in those types of situations, to put their foot down, so as to give the firm order that such illicit actions will be punished, including termination.  For all those, then, that believe that a police force, gutted out by terminations, and illegal strikes would be devastating to a given community, they should understand that the state in a time of crisis, always has viable options, which includes calling upon the National Guard or similar.

So then, as bad as a police force can be, that police force must actually answer to that prosecutorial arm and its respective governance; and therefore, that prosecutorial arm of the state along with its governance, should, in fact, often be the target of the public’s anger and animus, because it is that prosecutorial arm that has failed to do their good part in controlling that part of law enforcement which is detrimental to the people, prejudicial, or out-of-control.  Those that are the police are not the bosses in any community of any size or importance; rather they are the order takers, and therefore it is those that make the orders, that need to be held accountable, above all.

Reciprocity, trust, and anonymity

We live in a world, in which all sorts of business so conducted as well as social interactions engaged in are increasingly becoming more anonymous, as well as far opaquer; in which, far less frequently are these transactions, open and above table, especially compared to what it was back in the day.  There are obvious problems with that, because those that wear literal masks or figurative ones, are not the same sort of entity as those that are transparent and open.  For an absolute certainty, anonymity is often the refuge of scoundrels, and while that doesn’t mean that all those that have taken on a hidden identity are up to no good, it does mean that the trust level so generated from one fake persona to another, is going to be rather low.  In point of fact, it’s difficult to trust anyone or any organization, if the true identity or objective of such, is obscure or hidden.    Further to the point, when one party is open and forthcoming, whereas the other party does not reciprocate, in kind, this does not bode well for that becoming a trusting type of relationship.

The best way for any relationship to be reciprocal and trusting is for both parties to have a sincere interest in the other.  Certainly, one of the ways that trust is generated, is primarily because the people or the organization so conducting business are already familiar one with another, having previously established a relationship, with a good understanding of what each party values, in turn. A relationship of value does necessitate a true meeting of minds, in which, both parties have a fair understanding of each other’s needs and desires, and try to accommodate one another for mutual benefit.

Regrettably, today’s world seems to be sliding ever faster into far more incivility, made so much easier, because of the anonymity of the multitude of forums available for people to express themselves, and the salient fact that apparently those that are anonymous, need not overly worried about ever being exposed upon it.  That type of interaction, is often not going to be healthy, because the type of person or organization that gravitates to such, typically doesn’t have the other’s best interest in mind, but rather cares more about being irresponsible and propagating their own agenda.

Trust is built upon each party knowing the other; that doesn’t mean though, that they have to be perfectly honest or even upstanding all of time; but rather this reflects that they represent at a minimum to each other, a known quantity with known foibles and known merits.  Additionally, trust is built on not only reciprocity, but on the implied understanding that each party has a desire to keep that relationship, intact, because they value it.  Those that are in it only for the short term, or by their inclinations are mercurial, so that they essentially cannot ever be successfully pinned down – aren’t going to be trustworthy, they aren’t going to be true, and thus they represent something that is not really deserving of our time and effort, because they have not done their good part to be a responsible person to us, preferring instead to be irresponsible, and therefore unworthy of our trust.

Asserting your will without acquiescence over another is almost always wrong

Lots of people like to have their way, and many of those same people, are not averse to doing just about whatever it takes to have their way over another.  Those then, that cross the line to outright manipulation, exploitation, deceit, trickery, and violence in order to have what they believe that they have a right to have, are the very people that have allowed their selfish desires to override their common decency, as well as their good common sense.  While it’s absolutely fine to desire and to want things, one’s will should work in conjunction and cooperation with others, as opposed to demanding this or that from another, through one’s sheer force of will or worse.  Further to the point, those that are enamored of their power and their will, so as to have their way, don’t seem to properly comprehend that each person is sovereign to their own self, with their respective right to their own desires and their own will, as well.

To believe that the highest nature of humankind, is essentially that might makes right, or one’s social position, or status, or money, or this or that makes for what is practicality defined as right, therefore means that the superior within this context, should be served by the inferior, which hardly seems fair or just.  Different people have different things, and different people want different things; and none of these people in the scheme of things is exactly equal in regards to their intelligence, accomplishments, means, and background; but what they are equal in, is that they are all entitled to their own free-will, their own viewpoint, and their own beliefs.

To assert one’s will over another in a way and means in which there is never a fair meeting of those respective minds just isn’t right, for the forcing of one’s way over another, is not therefore a collaboration, but rather represents, instead, dominance of one over the other.  Those that are unable to come to a successful resolution about what is so being discussed, often need to table that for another day, rather than having one party taking advantage of another, while there is still a legitimate disagreement in the air.

It isn’t that one should never assert their will, because there are, however, those times when the other party is incapacitated in some respect or that they are not of age, and therefore, they are better served by a sensible person acting on behalf of them, for their ultimate betterment.  That said, more people need to keep foremost in their mind, that we need to constantly monitor, and if necessary, sensor our mind; for those that let their desires to have free rein, so as to thereby overrule and to override the respect that we owe one another, will find that bad things and unnecessary conflicts are going to invariably happen.   

We, as adults, need to remember that we are no longer little children, of which, some of those as little children have had a previous tendency to claim everything as if it was their own, even when this clearly wasn’t always the case, and would thereby protect or claim what they considered to be theirs, through whatever means was necessary for them to do that.  At least, what little children do is somewhat excusable, for they are just little children; whereas, adults should and ought to know better that to assert one’s will as if that is all that matters, and damn the consequences, so of, is all so very wrong.

Pre-conviction incarceration

The International Centre for Prison Studies, tells us that “…roughly 480,000 people sit in America's local jails awaiting their day in court;” signifying that for these unfree individuals, that the fact that the foundation of American jurisprudence which is the presumed innocence of everyone until proven guilty in a court of law, is essentially a falsehood for all those that are incapable of coming up with the bail amount so stipulated in court.  It would perhaps be seen as a minor but acceptable inconvenience if the amount of time that those that cannot meet bail, was found to be simply a mere number of hours, or perhaps a couple of days; but, in fact, The International Centre for Prison Studies, tells us that, detainees “…waited a median of 68 days in jail,” which is an absolute outrage and a clear injustice for these incarcerated, but non-convicted people.  Think about it, those that are in jail for 68 days, convicted of nothing, have in all likelihood, lost their place of residence, along with their car having been towed for non-payment, their credit destroyed, and their livelihood filled by someone else.  Those that are in jail, lose everything of value, because they do not have the ways, the means, or the wherewithal to hold onto the little that they do have.

None of the above is fair, and further to the point, none of this appears to be in conformance with the 6th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides the defendant with the right to a speedy trial, which they certainly aren’t getting, because the trial part hasn’t even begun for them; rather they are incarcerated, pending a trial or some other fair resolution to the charges so made against them.  To justify the taking away of a given person’s freedom, the government, should be held to the highest standard possible, and when it is estimated that nearly ½ million Americans are incarcerated for a meaningful amount of time at any given time during a calendar year, without having been convicted of a thing, there is something seriously flawed within American jurisprudence.

The incarceration of anyone, should be something that is the proper punishment for a conviction of a given crime.  It should not be used as a way and means to keep those that the government cares not a whit about, so as to keep them essentially segregated from the general population; but the thing is that’s pretty much what the government does, time and time, again.  In America, it is a crime to be poor, it is a crime to be non-championed, it is a crime to be the underclass, and it is a crime to be the forsaken.  There isn’t any valid reason for America to do this to the disadvantaged, except as a means of punishment, intimidation, coercion, and crowd control.  In reality, this reflects what America is in actuality, which it is not a democracy, which it is not a republic, but rather it is a police state, intolerant of all those that they believe have no value and no good purpose to the state, and therefore fair game for that police state to put their boot upon their necks, knowing that by doing so, a clear message has been sent, that appropriate subservience and obedience to the state, trumps justice, fairness, and liberty, every single day.    

It doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game

There are lots of people and organizations that believe that competition is a good thing; and in certain situations, and aspects, they are right.  Then again, when competition is taken to the extreme, in which the “win at all costs” is the fixed mindset, many people and organizations will go to extreme lengths to do what they feel they need and should do to get what they believe they have a right to get. That type of competition isn’t healthy, because it often consists, at least in part, of lying, cheating, exploitation, and outright thievery which are not attributes that are healthy for any society of any merit.  Further to the point, any construct in which the game as played, is essentially a zero-sum game, in which one side therefore gains something, whereas, the other side must correspondingly lose something, isn’t going to bring out the best in people, but more than likely, it’s going to bring out the worst.

There is a lot to be said about the value of cooperation, as well as of collaboration, as quite obviously being a far healthier construct to build societies upon.  After all, when each party to a transaction believes that they are getting a fair benefit from that transaction and that structure, this encourages people and organizations to work harder, to stay focused, and to strive towards their collective goals, for the overall benefit of those so engaged.  To a very large extent the limitations of humankind, are self-imposed limitations, for there isn’t any compelling reason to believe that the correct viewpoint for the world at large, is that this is a zero-sum world, for if that be the case, the future holds no promise, expect perhaps for the very, very few, and even those very few, are not secure, forever.  On the other hand, in a collaborative world, in which we are all truly in this together, there is a sensible reason to keep on keeping on, for the promise of that world, is the promise of a united world, working together for the greater good.

Even in the capitalistic world, it doesn’t need to always be a cutthroat competition, as if somehow this fairly separates the deserving from the undeserving; when, in fact, in many instances it is more of a separation between those that are ruthless and will stop at nothing in order to get what they so desire, as compared to those that play by the rules and are a good neighbor within their community.  Those that believe, that somehow one always reaps more by using fear, intimidation, force, and misdirection; seem not to comprehend that a more inclusive society that works with people, that values those people, and provides those people with a fair shake and a fair say in a given enterprise is a far better and safer environment to be in.  Remember this well, while greed does indeed drive certain people to get this or that done, it seldom brings out the best attributes from those very capable people; whereas, those that cooperate and collaborate are the very people that are built to last, for what they so desire to achieve, requires teamwork, and from this alliance of many, they work together as one.     

The lie of the “lost cause”

All sorts of people want to write history in a manner in which such is distorted in a way, that it can become for these people, a call to a specific “lost cause” – though, in truth, such never really existed at that time and age.  For instance, some people in the South, even of today, want to desperately believe that the Southern rebellion against their National Government was honorable, justified, a principle of States’ rights, and therefore the right thing to do; though, truth be told, this is a lie, that deserves no quarter, whatsoever.  For instance, though Lincoln did not win a single Southern State, he won enough States that the election of 1860 was fairly won by Lincoln, and thereupon Lincoln became the 16th President of these United States.  Those of the South, would not countenance such an election result, though, and thereby decided to secede from that Union of States.  The thing is, that such discussion of secession, had been dealt with previously by President Andrew Jackson, who made it abundantly clear that secession was misguided, unconstitutional, and “…disunion, by armed force, is TREASON.”  Further to the point, Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address stated that “In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.”  The very reason why Lincoln stated what he stated, was his absolute belief that the highest law of the land was our Constitution, and of which, that Constitution, did not forbid slavery, nor did it permit the abolition of slavery, and therefore, despite Lincoln’s personal animus towards slavery, Lincoln would not interfere, without rebellious circumstances, with that peculiar institution.

One would think, that if there were any sensible people of importance in the South, that Lincoln’s Inaugural Address would have been music to their ears; for if the most important institution in the South, was that peculiar institution of slavery, then Lincoln, so made it clear, that he as the Executive of that nation, would not interfere in such.  Instead, the South, deliberately chose to secede, and further to the point, took up arms against the United States of America.  It was these combined treasonous acts, which thereupon led to the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, and subsequently the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which together, meant the death kneel of slavery as an institution in the United States of America.

In other words, the South never had a “lost cause,” but rather took the law into its own hands while also negating the National ballot box, to do what they thought they had a right to do, thereby instituting that great civil war, which saw the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens so perish or to become injured in such; along with the massive amount of property so destroyed and damaged.  The fact that those that were defeated, felt a need to attempt to rewrite history in a manner in which there was some sort of justification for their actions, is a disgrace to these United States, and a smear upon all those that gave their last dying breath to this nation, founded upon freedom, opportunity, justice, and equality.    All those that brought trouble, where trouble need not have been brought, should be remembered for who they really were – unpatriotic, uncivil, traitorous, and the damned.

The cheapest labor, always?

The mathematics of labor is not all that difficult to calculate, for when labor is cheaper in wage price somewhere else, and when the work so being done with that labor meets the standards so set out, then pretty clearly that specific labor is a cost saving for that company which has engaged that labor.  America has morphed from a nation that use to manufacture goods to sell domestically as well as to then export them, to preferring instead to a very large extent, to outsource the manufacture of said goods, primarily because by doing so, the labor price is often substantially cheaper, along with the overall labor conditions and environmental laws typically being quite favorable for that American company, especially in comparison if such was predominately domestically manufactured.

So then, America has done the obvious, which is that they have discovered that overseas labor in developing nations, with a “rule of law” that bends to those with power, influence, and money, thereby allows them to manufacture goods at a price point that more easily permits them to turn a very nice profit.  The fact that America often “lords” it over these other nations and the inhabitants of such, essentially exploiting them for the benefit of American enterprise is something that those corporations pretty much prefer to believe does not actually exist.  Perhaps, they somewhat assuage their guilt, if they have any, by repeating the mantra that their employment of overseas labor has helped the impoverished in those lands by providing them with steady income and a way and means to escape the drudgery of agricultural work or something of a similar nature.

In an era in which “free trade” has become normalized, and in which, monies so made overseas by these multinational corporations and the profit, so of, can often be moved about in a manner in which taxation is reduced considerably, avoided, or evaded, this thus makes it clear sailing for these corporations to conduct as much business as conceivable overseas, because the lure of that profit is far too great to prudently ignore.  So too, when the labor and environmental standards of America, can be circumvented by utilizing another nation, as their manufacturing base, in which, therefore that corporation need only meet what is so demanded by that foreign nation, which often works hand-in-glove with that which provides employment for them, then never has times been better than now for those American multinational corporations.

Should it, though, always be a race to the labor wage bottom?  Doesn’t a given American corporation have first an obligation to the very nation, that provided the infrastructure, the education, the knowhow, and the finance to first do right by their mother nation, by doing their good part to see that the people of this nation, are provided with the ways and means of fair opportunity along with a living wage?  Instead, what we have is a bifurcated America, in which the elite has all of the money, all of the wealth, and all of the benefits; leaving ever further behind a significant swath of domestic citizens who have been cheated out of prosperity, by those that love money, above all.

All is well that ends well, and it will end well

Lots of people are worried about lots of things; and lots of people are dissatisfied with their life in one aspect or another.  This would seem to imply that when a given life ends, it often doesn’t end all that well for a whole lot of people.  Yet, for a certainty, when it really does end, it will end well.  The problem that most people can’t seem to get their head around, is that they get fixated that one particular life is the be-all and end-all of their existence; but that is not the case for any one of us, at all.  In fact, life in this world, is a journey, of which that journey does not end, until it successfully ends; no matter the detours, failures, and mistakes -- for each of us keeps on going until we ultimately get to where we need to be.

If more people had a better understanding of who and what that they really are; and further to the point, focused far less on the physical, and far more on the spiritual; far less on the temporal, and far more on the eternal; then the avenue of enlightenment would become a whole lot clearer, a whole lot sooner for them.  After all, it’s difficult to know what we should be doing, if we don’t really comprehend who and what we really are.  That said, even those with great knowledge, though, are susceptible to their own foibles, despite their wisdom; often for their failure to rein in their ego and their desires in a manner in which these are subservient to the greater good.

Our God is a God that provides us with many chances, along with free-will, so as to be that which we so desire or think we desire to be.  For a certainty, there is no greater homage that any being that has been created can so provide, then to utilize their free-will as an act of love and of aid for their fellow beings along with providing the fruits, thereof, to God.  Yet, having free-will, can be that sort of tempting enticement, that many cannot resist – wrongly, insisting upon the improper usage of such to their own destruction and harm; for far too many see free-will as a way to assert themselves as something akin to a counterfeit god, but such as that, cannot last through the vagaries of time, nor through the inevitable conflicts of meeting those of the same mindset that thereupon inevitably interfere with the desires of each to have their own way.

Yet, it must and it will end well, for that who is our Creator, is perfection; and therefore, all that has not apparently ended well, cannot have, by definition, reached its final ending.  It will end well, for that is how our creation was structured from the beginning; and therefore, it is our good part to see to it, that we keep on keeping on, doing what we should and ought to be doing, so as to reach that glorious finish line, in which all is well.

Profit sharing and when profits are not shared

Companies are in the business to make a profit, and to the degree that profits are so made, all to the good.  The thing about profits, though, is the distribution of those profits, so made.  To wit, for a significant amount of corporations, profits so made, are at some percentage, for instance, funneled back into the corporation for research and development or equipment, or provided as dividends to shareholders, or as a form of additional compensation for well-placed employees, or earmarked for investment purposes, or other myriad things.  Those corporations that are absolutely transparent about where and how profits are divvied up, along with the reasoning behind such, have at a minimum provided a service for all those that are connected with the corporation; though the decisions, in regards to those profits, may or may not be fair, or demonstrate conclusively that the best decisions have been made.

When it comes to profits, far too often, the distribution or designation of those profits, seems to be left in the hands of those that are upper management, and of which, oftentimes, that upper management is not fully transparent about the distribution of those profits, and typically prefers to keep it that way.  Not too surprisingly, when it is upper management, alone, and therefore without any meaningful input from labor in regards to the distribution of profits so being made, then it is that upper management, that usually is the entity that comes out quite favorably in the distribution of those profits.  Perhaps this is a good thing, or perhaps this is the prerogative of upper management, but what it is not, for a certainty, is that it is not a fair thing.

Each person that has performed their duties within a given corporation, should by implication, seem to have a fair right to receive by their contribution, in return, some portion of the profit, so of.  Obviously, the more sharing throughout the entire corporation that there is in regards to profits, the better it is going to be for the rank and file of that corporation; whereas, the lower the number of participants to such sharing, the more it would appear that the rank and file, does not really matter to management when it comes to any additional compensation available to them, from corporate profitability.

What we see in how profits are shared within corporations, reflects to a large extent what we see in society as a whole, in which the few get ever richer, while significant swaths of Americans fall further and further behind, often not even earning enough income to make it on their own without some form of governmental assistance.  But why should it be the government that always has to assist? For if corporations would do their good part to share their profits more widely, then more of those that currently struggle, would be better able to hold their own.

Further to the point, if corporations would more often share some meaningful portion of their profits with those that have been good and loyal employees to them, they would demonstrate in action to their employees, that their contributions not only matter, but that these valued employees are deserving of more directly reaping some of the good fruits of the harvest, so made.

The downside of downsizing

Far too many companies have engaged at one time or another in the practice of downsizing, for all sorts of reasons, some legitimate, and some not so; for reasons such as because a given plant site is perceived to be non-competitive, or to phase out a given product line, or because of economic conditions, or to save money, or to bust an incipient union, or to increase profitability, and so on and so forth.  While corporations should have the flexibility to look at any and all avenues that they believe are the most prudent paths to consider taking in the conducting of their business; it would seem to be, that in consideration that nothing is as important as our fellow human beings, that the laying off of employees should be something that should always be close to the very last resort, so of.

In point of fact, National and State governments, should make it their point when it comes to tax policies to specifically punish those companies that lay off a certain percentage or quantity of employees, by therefore removing previous tax set asides, tax abatements, and other favorable legislation, as a form of punishment, for the laying off of employees. After all, if the whole purpose, for given favoritism for a particular company is because that company is perceived to be of overall benefit to the locality; the fact that they are laying off employees, can seldom be reasonably seen as being of community benefit, and most certainly isn’t for those that are no longer employed.

Clearly, the business world is a complicated place, with seldom there being any guarantees of profit, business, or perpetuity.  That said, employees with any corporation, are primarily there because they have a need to make a steady income, and when that is disrupted, unexpectedly; without any safety net, or without any subsequent place of employment, readily available, that can easily create a personal world of desperate havoc.  That is why, the laying off of employees, is something that really needs to be restricted to the direst of economic conditions; for at least when that is so occurring, there is a more believable storyline that makes reasonable sense for those actions, so taken.

A given employee, wants to believe that when they are diligent in the tasks that they are assigned, and that when they are responsible in their duties that they perform, that the company so employing them will treat them fairly.  That is why it is important that more employers are more transparent with their workers, so that workers can better understand, the need for cost reduction, the need for profit, the need for innovation, and so on; as well as the company itself has a fair obligation to prove to their employees that they themselves are making prudent managerial decisions.

All those companies that initiate massive layoffs and are downsized should truly be held accountable for those layoffs and that downsizing.  Further to the point, it shouldn’t be the least of the employees, that suffer the most from said downsizing; rather that hurt should start at the very top, with upper and middle management being specifically targeted, for really those that earn the most, and have the highest status, should be the first in line, to lose both, when it comes time to make personnel cuts.  Perhaps then, with that structure, there would be less layoffs of the regular workers.

The new digital scrip as a replacement form of payment for work

Payment for wages and labor, as presently so done, is tendered via United States currency.  While one may make all sorts of complaints about the dollar; the truth of the matter is that the dollar is established, it is the coin of the realm, it also is readily accepted in foreign nations all over the world, and it is essentially viewed as being the world’s reserve currency.  That would seem to make the strong case for anyone so working, to be paid via United States currency, which is a very reliable and a clearly universal form of payment.

The thing is that people and corporations are known for being greedy. So then, we live in a day and age in which, for whatever reasons, digital currency is considered to be an alternative form of payment for this and for that; and of which, some businesses as well as some individuals actually prefer to be paid in some form of digital currency.  Perhaps, this desire, has more to do with the belief that there is greater anonymity with digital currency, or that this new form of currency represents a superior value, or a combination of these two.

There are certain States that make it their policy that wages must be paid in United States currency, along with the salient fact that the Fair Labor Standards Act insists upon the same.  Yet, there is the law as written and there is the law as applied, along with the acknowledgment that there are those times when the law struggles to keep up with the reality of what is so occurring in this modern hi-tech day and age.   This thus signifies, that we are not far removed, whatsoever, from some innovative company, determining, that in lieu of paying their employees United States currency, that they will instead pay them via some form of digital currency.  The thing too, about corporations, is that they have incumbent profit incentives, and those profit incentives, can often push them in directions which are a bit shady.

For instance, the problem with digital currencies for any corporation is the fact that they do not control the value of that digital currency and therefore have no effect upon it, at all.  That, in a nutshell, would not appeal to most corporations; whereas on the other hand if they create their own digital currency, which they would thereupon control, then all would be well, from their perspective.  The thing is, that when a given company creates its own digital currency exclusive to those that work with or for that company, it really isn’t digital currency, at all; but rather it is more akin to digital scrip, and therein lies the rub.  For, because that digital scrip is exclusive to that corporation, they thereby determine its value exclusively within all aspects of the corporation aegis that is under their domain, as well as giving that corporation undue influence upon others outside its sphere, but susceptible to their siren call, as to worth, so of, of that digital scrip.

When it comes to the United States dollar, it at least, is backed up by the full faith and credit of the United States government.  When it comes to digital scrip, it is backed up by that corporation, and none else.

Employers, labor, and “bossing the market”

Certainly, one of the most important things about a given job offer, is the wages, so of.  Pretty disappointingly, for most people that receive a job offer, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of give and take involved.  Rather, most of the time, the salary so being offered, is what it is going to be, and pretty much the person receiving such an offer, is left with just the decision of whether or not to accept the terms of it.  Now, some employers, consisting usually of smaller companies, are more reasonable, as well as being more flexible, so there are in those types of situations, some actual give and take.  However, when it comes to a significant amount of the biggest employers, they often have little or no interest, in any sort of negotiation, whatsoever; especially when they are the biggest employer around, by far.

It shouldn’t be that the wages at the biggest conglomerates, are pretty much dictated by that conglomerate; but, in a day and age in which labor unions have been eviscerated, that pretty much is the case.  Of course, from an employer perspective, one’s labor costs are a critical component in maintaining good profitability, and to the degree that a given employer can keep those labor wages suppressed, then the better this will be for their bottom line.  So then, for many a large employer, labor is just another cost component; of which, therefore management’s objective is never really about being fair, or even about doing right, but rather has almost everything to do with, providing only enough of a wage salary that will enable these conglomerates to find enough employees, at the lowest cost point, so considered, for reliable help.

There are few people that believe that labor, at any time, has an equal seat at the same table with those that are their employer.  What we so find, is that, the biggest employers, pretty much are in the command position; therefore, it is that said employer who typically is the one who sets the prevailing wage levels for given positions; knowing full well that prospective employees have to find some sort of work, in order to bring in necessary income, so that, these people, then, are very susceptible to often just accepting what is so tendered to them, fair or not.

It is disappointing, that the national government, has not done its good part, to either index the national minimum wage to inflation, or alternatively to take the necessary steps to redefine the principle of the minimum wage to represent, a living wage, instead. In point of fact, a look around, would indicate that the biggest conglomerates that the world has ever known, are more than holding their own; whereas, a significant percentage of those so working for them, directly or indirectly, are getting mere crumbs, in return. 

The bottom line is that many of our biggest employers are not interested in any sort of labor negotiation, and pretty much don’t have to worry about such, because in absence of organized labor, it is all so easy for those employers to pay only what they so determine that they will pay for those that work for them.

Property rights and property wrongs

In any country of tangible merit, there needs to be a rule of law; of which, that rule of law, plays no favorites, while also being consistently applied in a fair manner, so that it is no respecter of persons or status.  In truth, virtually every nation, favors the rich at the expense of the poor; and therefore, favors those that own and have property, over those that do not.

For instance, when it comes to the political franchise of the vote, the United States, initially limited in its States, the voting rights of the general public, to just white males who owned a certain amount of property.  Not too surprisingly, when only a subset of Americans is permitted to vote and the legislators, so elected, are essentially responsible to only those that voted them into office, then the legislature so subsequently passed, is going to have a strong tendency to favor the positions and desires of those that have the vote, over those that do not.

Any nation in which the rich, are afforded all of the advantages, and thereby none of the disadvantages; and in which the rich make it their point to socialize expenses such as for the police and the military, while getting their way in regards to favorable tax treatment, tax abatement, and tax set asides; then, in effect, the laws so being created and applied, are not fair.  Further to the point, those that own a lot of material goods, such as their business, their home, their vehicles, and so on and so forth, often prefer to work under the structure of law, which aggressively protects the property rights of those that have these things, while caring hardly a whit about those that do not.

The bottom line is that to a very large extent the “protecting and serving” by police forces all over this nation, is mainly their protecting and serving those that have, as opposed to those that have not.  After all, people with money, position, and power, have a distinct value that means something of significance and of real worth to all those that service such.  An argument could be made, that in societies, in which there is a great degree of disparity between the very, very rich and those that have little or nothing; that those that have the wealth have made it a fundamental priority to secure that wealth, by essentially “owning” the policing arm of the state, as well as its justice system.

So then, what we so find, again and again, is that, when the rubber meets the road, laws which appear to be fair and sensible, are in their application, anything but; for nations consistently favor and readily accommodate those that have power, money, and influence; at the expense, always, of those that are the oppressed, the forgotten, and the neglected.  This thus clearly signifies, that those that cry the loudest for “law and order”, are quite obviously those that have something to lose, and therefore demand that their property assets be protected from those that are the “barbarians” at their gate, and pretty much don’t really care how that is done as long as they are able to keep that which they have.

The unfairness of inflation upon those that are the most vulnerable

The government likes to come up with all sorts of dubious reasoning as to what the real inflation rate is, but somehow it seems that consistently that government underestimates what the real inflation amount actually is, for the common citizen.  In point of fact, for instance, there is a world of difference, between someone that owns their home, as contrasted to someone that rents, when it comes to inflation; for on the one hand, the owner of the home, is typically seeing their home price appreciate in value; whereas, the person so renting, typically just ends up paying a higher price for their rent.  To a very large extent, inflation impacts different people, different incomes, and different wealth levels in a manner in which those that have little or nothing are often the ones that end up holding the short end of the stick.  After all, people need food to eat, fuel for their car, energy for their living space, insurance of all types, and so on and so forth, of which, in an era in which inflation is persistent, this impacts those that are the most vulnerable, the most; because often their wages are something that is not automatically inflation-adjusted, so that therefore higher inflation, essentially means that they are effectively suffering from the ill-effects of a wage cut.

So too, those that know that inflation is coming, because of inside knowledge, or their superior ability to read the signs of the times, are able to therefore have a significant leg up, upon all those that do not.  For a certainty, when economic change comes, such as significantly higher inflation, those that have positioned themselves well for just this type of scenario are able to navigate the tricky waters, a heck of a lot better than those that have not.  Further, when a business is able to charge a higher price for that which they are selling, but on the other hand, their labor costs remain essentially flat, than inflation, for these companies, is not a bad thing.

The bottom line is that inflation is the debasement of the coin of the realm.  This thus signifies that a dollar today is not the same as a dollar tomorrow, nor is it the same as a dollar in the past.  Those nations that have little or no inflation, have demonstrated the integrity of their monetary system; whereas those that have meaningful inflation, have not.  After all, debts so incurred, are typically paid at some future time, and when those debts, because of inflation, have essentially become cheaper to service, because the dollar has been debased, then the debtor has, in effect, received a discount upon their debt. 

In an era in which inflation is persistent for any extended period of time, those that are just managing to get by, are susceptible to losing the little that they have; because their income has appreciably weakened, vis-à-vis their expenses.  All those that do not have their wage salary, indexed to inflation, or suffer from the absence of periodic wage raises, have been placed into the unenviable position of trying to make ends meet, with even less at their disposal, then they had, before inflation.

The misallocation of billions upon the defense budget

For fiscal year 2022, the overall national defense budget for America weighs in at an astonishing $752 billion.  This is in an era in which the United States has no Congressional declared war, and of which, there isn’t a single nation, or consortium of nations that are even contemplating, let alone actively pursuing, some sort of organized military attack upon the United States of America. The United States spends an inordinate amount of time, insisting that this nation needs to be defended at all costs, from all enemies, foreign and domestic, in which, there is in actuality, no nation intent upon bringing war upon America, and there isn’t any good reason to believe that this will change anytime soon; for in truth, America is about as safe from foreign military attacks as any country of its size can actually be.  The fact of the matter is that sensibility demands that the defense budget should be slashed considerably and those monies so saved would therefore be of more value being spent on necessary infrastructure as well as on a more robust safety net for those that are disadvantaged, neglected, and destitute.

Nothing that is ever built, whether that be for the military or for a given company, is going to last through the vagaries and sands of time, forever.  That is to say, military equipment so being manufactured, has not only a finite shelf life, as well as also necessitating constant maintenance, upkeep and training; but in today’s hi-technology world, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, missiles, and the like, are subject to becoming outdated within a relatively short amount of time.  This thus signifies that billion upon billions of dollars are being spent on armaments and military equipment, that not only weren’t necessary to begin with, but have no significant meaningful purpose or worth, after a decade or two.

Additionally, there is the major issue that those that are part of the military-industrial-technology complex, can’t go in to the government with a straight face to ask for more money, and more armaments, unless they are able to build some sort of case, dubious or not, of why they need even more money, more equipment, and just plain more.  Further to the point, those in the military aren’t real interested in just sitting on their hands all day, but rather they prefer to be involved in foreign affairs and disputes, of one sort or another, in order to somewhat justify all the billions so being spent on these armaments.

So then, when billions are being spent on the military-industrial-technology complex, there is for those so involved in such, as well as the actuators of this, an imperative to find areas of the world that necessitate the intervention of American muscle, as well as the need to constantly sell the narrative to the American people, that there are all sorts of “bad” actors that have it in for America, because these bad people are jealous-hearted and hateful.  This is, in reality, a whole lot of hooey, of which the biggest losers of all these billions being spent exclusively on the military, are the peoples of America, who are, in effect, cheated out of a decent life, or even hope, in this the richest nation ever known in the world.