Soldier uniforms and the reason why

There is a high degree of formality within the military service, thus necessitating certain orthodox conduct, as well as adherence to a specific code of honor -- so meant then to instill respect by recruits to military authority, but also respect to one another, in addition to self-respect.  Those that are part of the military are understood to know that they are part of the same team, with the same basic mission, and as part of that team, they are responsible for not only their given duties so assigned to them, but also to do right by their fellow soldiers, as well.  Not too surprisingly, soldiers have uniforms so created not only as a form of identification but also as a form of team bonding, in the conscious recognition that they are together a band of brothers, united in the basic cause of resolutely defending their nation.

We live in a day and age, in which many a person is first judged by their outward appearance, and because of that, the military profession, recognizes the supreme importance of discipline, cleanliness, uniformity, respect, and obedience, as being part and parcel of what they so desire to see reflected from those that are its soldiers.  That said, even though, soldiers may well be fighting to preserve freedom and democracy, the actual structure of their given military unit is never a democracy, for when an order from the commanding officer is given, it is expected to be obeyed without debate, and further to the point, each soldier knows their inherent responsibility to the other and thereby abides by it.

As much as individual liberty is celebrated, and as much as we know that we are sovereign as individuals; this philosophy for those that have on their soldier uniforms must always take a back seat to their duty to the state.  That is a significant reason why, soldiers are indoctrinated into seeing themselves as being one part of a complete whole, and of which, each trained soldier is necessary for that whole to work correctly and efficiently.  So, though soldiers come in all sizes, colors, and shapes, it is to be expected that once a soldier puts on the particular color of their uniform, that they will subsume their individuality to their military unit, at all times.  This thus signifies why uniforms are one of the most important accouterments of what is required as a prerequisite in order to have an efficient and effective fighting force, and further to the point, why soldiers are trained to identify explicitly with the unit that they are an integral part of.

The fact that soldiers in a given unit wear the same uniform colors -- is most definitely a form of identification but also represents respect to those that are in authority, while also providing to those individuals a certain self-respect, for knowing that they are considered to be qualified to not only wear the colors of their unit, but to have as part of that deal, a band of brothers, to thus bond with.  So then, in seeing all those others that have on the same uniform, each soldier knows that they are never alone, but instead are united together for the good of the cause, so entrusted to them.

America’s central bank plays favorites

The central bank of America, is known as the Federal Reserve (Fed), which specifically is tasked with the agenda to maximize employment as well as to keep prices stable so as to minimize monetary inflation.  While those two goals are of significant importance in and of themselves, we do so find that the Fed, because of its immense monetary power, is an institution in which some entities are going to be far more benefited than others through its policies.  For instance, the Fed essentially sets the interest rate policy for the United States, which means, in effect, the lending rate or the cost of money, for those so borrowing such; in which, in short, when interest rates are low or trending lower, this encourages business investment as well as business expansion, whereas when interest rates are high or are being raised, this serves to put a damper on business expansion and typically forces corporations to tighten their belts, because the cost of money and its overall availability serves to make a material difference to the bottom line for business enterprises.

Another of the functions that the Fed involves itself in, is the supply of money within the economy, and thereby the velocity of such; in which, basically the less supply of such money and the slower the turnover of such, the more this has a strong tendency to reduce business activity – as compared to when the supply of money is robust and turnover is thus quicker, which thereby encourages businesses to expand. So too, the Fed is seen as a lender of last resort, so setup in particular to seemingly benefit those that are its most favored institutions, though this is done ostensibly for the stability of the nation, and thereby a way for those businesses that have found themselves somehow to be in a rather precarious financial condition, to be provided with a helping financial hand in order to right their fiscal ship.  Additionally, the Fed will also buy up certain company’s corporate bonds, which obviously helps to stabilize and backstop those particular companies, in regards to their specific needs for timely financial infusions, so of.

The bottom line is that the Fed, as the central bank of America, has the capacity, to play favorites, as well as to punish those that are out of favor, and of which, recent history has definitely told us, that the Fed does indeed play favorites, all of the time.  This essentially means that our private enterprise system which serves as the backbone of our capitalistic financial system, is clearly not a level playing field.  Additionally, and further to the point, those that know what the Fed is going to or not going to do, ahead of time, have immense advantages over all those that do not have that sort of actionable information. 

As much as the Fed desires to manage the economy of America, we do so find, that there have been and continue to be, periods of time, of economic high inflation, high unemployment, and of recessions.  This signifies, that business enterprises are for a certainty, susceptible to being really hurt when economic conditions thus turn against them, for whatever reasons, and those than that are aided and abetted by the Fed are quite obviously those that are going to be in a whole lot better place, then those others that the Fed has turned their back upon, or simply just ignored.

Citizens and the Right to Know

Each one of us, as a citizen, is subject thus to the laws and rules of their government, and of which, some of these governments perform their functions heroically; whereas many a government most distinctly does not.  The best structure of any government is one in which the citizens, themselves, have a meaningful voice within that governance; in addition to that government never superseding the unalienable rights of any of that population. 

One of the most important functions within any government, is the freedom of the people to express themselves, via the written word or verbally, so done through all of the modern means that a given individual can avail themselves of.  Those governments that have a vibrant and robust freedom of the press and speech, clearly are those governments, which do not fear the people having an active voice, and actually will encourage it, even in those times that it might well be inconvenient for that government, because such is properly seen by the astute within that government as being healthy for that society at large.  On the other hand, many a government wants to control the narrative of what is or isn’t going to be said or printed; and more to the point, believe in the type of control, which often necessitates rather heavy penalties for all those that will not adhere to the orthodox point of view, so disseminated by that government.

When it comes to freedom of speech as well as of the press, there is a corollary to this, which is that those freedoms are dependent upon the population having the right to know what their government is or is not doing on behalf of them.  That is to say, governments that make it their point to be overly secretive, or deceptive, or outright liars to the people, especially in those areas of most concern to the people, are by definition, inimical to the people; for by the people not knowing, and further to the point, not having the actionable right to know what needs to be known, thereby makes it well-nigh impossible for that citizenry to really know what is or is not going on by that government, in their name.

So then, it thus makes a lot of common sense that the best government is never one that has layer upon layer of secrecy, and/or that monitors its people by an intrusive and obtrusive surveillance state; but rather is a government that is, to the degree so possible, open, transparent, forthcoming, and a firm believer that the public that it has been formed to served, is served in a fair and just manner.  This thus signifies that in order for the public to be assured that all is well, there needs to be a robust forum which provides those citizens with the information and the details of governmental actions so taken, of which, the Freedom of Information Act, is a good example of such.

In sum, the general public should and must have the Right to Know what their government is or is not doing on their supposed behalf; for when this information is unjustly withheld, this is akin to having freedom of speech and of the press, being compromised in such a way that it is the equivalency of the collective citizenry having one hand tied behind their back.

Non-violence and peaceful civil disobedience

There are a myriad amount of ways for the general public to protest against those actions so taken or encouraged by the government or of private enterprise that the protestors do not approve of, or that they see as being detrimental to the people, in whole.  In regards to those avenues of protest, as might be expected, there is a rather big dividing line between physical protests so made that have a strong tendency to lend itself to adverse actions being taken by that government or of private enterprise which thereby can lead to violence so being enacted against the protestors which can often escalate into mayhem; as compared to those non-violent protestations, which are far more civil in structure and if there is violence, it will be enacted only by those that are representatives of that government or of private enterprise but never by those so protesting.

The main issue with any physical protest in which the protestors are antagonistic in nature, is that this can easily lead to events degenerating into a showdown, between those two parties, in which one of those parties is typically quite prepared to do battle knowing that they have governmental or private enterprise auspices backstopping their actions.  On the other hand, peaceful protestors that have been trained in a manner in which they will not ever be the aggressor against those that they are protesting against, and of which, the abiding point of their protest is to have their say and to try to take to task the error of the other entity, so as to possibly effect change, or at least at a minimum, to raise awareness of what the dispute issue is all about, is the type of alternative path that might well be able to appeal eventually to the better angels of the opposition’s nature.

Additionally, when it comes to protesting, one of the alternative pathways to achieve change, is to create a protest that will impact in a negative way, the economics of a given business or of a governmental enterprise.  In other words, when businesses or governments hear only whining from the general public, but never have to suffer from a specific boycott against a given target, then to a large degree they probably aren’t going to make any of the changes so desired by the protestors.  On the other hand, any protest, that impacts the bottom line of a business enterprise, will for a certainty, get some sort of response, and if that boycott stays the course, will probably effect a positive change.

So too, just because a government states that the general public must do a certain something, does not mean that it must so be done; for if there are enough people within the general public that will not participate into being coerced into that which they do not approve of, believing that they as citizens, have unalienable rights, which supersede a misdirected given government directive and further that they are willing to pay the price for that civil disobedience, then that is their prerogative. 

Governments and businesses have a strong desire, whether they are in the right or in the wrong, for their citizens to simply obey them; but not every directive so made by that respective entity is necessarily moral or right; of which, the best response by those that do not agree with such, is to collectively and to peacefully not to consent to that which they don’t agree with through a systematic and dedicated manner with the sure knowledge that by always maintaining the moral high ground that this choice is the correct one.

Surnames, identification, taxation, and service

In today’s modern world, surnames have essentially become normalized, and therefore most people don’t pay much attention to the reason or of the need for surnames to have been created in the first place – but perhaps they should.  As might be mentioned, back in the day when humanity lived in significantly smaller enclaves, such as in villages, we find that those communities were small in number, signifying therefore that each resident of such a village, pretty much knew everybody else; of which, this also meant that people were identified by their given birthname, which would primarily just be their first name, though perhaps they also would be additionally labeled by others as being the son or daughter of so and so, or perhaps appended to their birthname would be their specific village, or of their profession.  In other words, back in a day and age, in which the vast majority of people were familiar with one another, they were simply known by their birthname, and therefore it wasn’t necessary to have a formal last name, at all.

As time moved on, and life became ever more modernized, so that some of those villages morphed into towns, and then some of those towns became cities, this thus lead to the formation of formal governments to monitor the people so being governed, of which, those same governments had a great desire to know their people, via through a census and other things of that sort so as to thus properly tax their citizens, to identify those citizens, and also to utilize those citizens for the service of that country in times of war and the like. This thus meant, that some general form of identification was needed, that went beyond a mere first name, leading therefore to not only surnames being created and subsequently mandated by the state, but also the beginning of each citizen essentially becoming identified with not just a legal name, but also an address, as well as a formal identity card.

Basically, then, surnames are part and parcel, along with identity papers, of how the government is best able to monitor its people, and quite obviously, are of no real benefit to people that know each other by sight, and call each other by their respective first names.  It must be said that with all of the thousands upon thousands of people living in cities, or hundreds of thousands in mega-cities, that no government would be able to properly administer to its citizens or to be of assistance to them, without reams and reams of documentation, containing formal first and last names, along with a specific system so setup to identify people by their own unique attributes, in regards to their birthdate, identification number, and a governmental approved picture associated with each citizen, so of.

Although by definition, each and every one of us is a unique individual, present day governments, make it a point to formalize such, and of which, this thus gives a significant amount of informational power to that government to then be of notable assistance to their population, or such can be abused in a fashion in which the people are oppressed or suffer even worse.

Mexico, France, and the Monroe Doctrine

The thing about European powers back in the time of their pinnacle of such power, is that the major players in Europe made it their point, to rule over other foreign lands in a manner in which essentially “tribute” was paid by these foreign countries to their respective European masters, as thereby the necessary price that they had to pay in order to have some sort of semblance of at least a modicum of control of their destiny and sovereignty.  After all, those countries that did not have the required armaments to successfully defend themselves, had little choice but to accept the terms so dictated to them.

There was a time when France owned significant portions of North America, of which some of that land subsequently became a part of Canada; whereas, other parts of that land were subsequently purchased by the United States as in the Louisiana Purchase.  Yet, we do so find that France in the 19th century, through Napoleon III, believed that it was still strategically important to have a footprint in the Americas, and thus thought that during America’s bloody civil war, that the time was ripe to therefore insert their own Monarchy into Mexico, through the usage of the Austrian archduke Maximilian and the Belgian princess Carlota to be the King and Queen, respectively, of Mexico.  So, despite the fact that Mexico had its own republic, France brought 30,000 French troops from overseas in order to accomplish their mission to conquer Mexico and therefore to claim such for their newly installed King, via the protection and strength of those French troops.

While the whole event to takeover Mexico through the aegis of France, under the noses of the divided United States, and to thus push aside and squash any Mexican resistance, might have seem to most sensible people, to be fanciful and imprudent – France went ahead and did this very thing.  While it is true that France did not actually conquer Mexico, it did lay claim to its biggest and most vital city, that being Mexico City, and did, in fact, get some native support from those Mexicans believing that the Monarchy as structured by France, would be of benefit to them.  However, for the vast majority of Mexicans, such was seen for what it was, an invasion; and therefore, in such a large country, 30,000 French troops would never be enough force to pacify and to thus conquer Mexico, completely.  Additionally, there was the problem that the United States had not forsaken and had no intention of forsaking its Monroe Doctrine, and therefore had absolutely no intention of permitting France to involve itself in the sphere of what America considered to be its own exclusive influence.  However, history tells us, that a showdown between a combination of Mexico and the United States v. France did not occur, because Napoleon III, being a practical Emperor, realized that an all-out war between France and the United States, would not end well for France, and thereby, subsequently withdrew his troops from Mexico, which thereby left King Maximilian to his ultimate fate of execution and the end of his short reign.

So then, by declaring and subsequently enforcing its Monroe Doctrine in 1823, the United States placed itself in the position in which ultimately neither of its two contiguous countries were thereby controlled by foreign interests and of which, we so find that each of these respective countries, are presently on excellent terms with America

Neglect

Life presents its challenges to each one of us; but within the construct of a nation that is so unequal between the haves and the have nots, there is a diametrical difference between the needs of those that are the forsaken as compared to those that lack little or nothing from a monetary and security point of view.  In order to sustain ourselves satisfactorily and to have thus a life that is worth living, it is important that we develop vital relationships and have in place a sound infrastructure, that is constructive and beneficial for our good development, which thereby helps to assure us of our sustainability within society.  Yet, for a large subset of Americans, that are personally challenged on so many levels, when it comes to their security, health, education, hope, and opportunity, we do find that their lives are often so fundamentally precarious that simply surviving, seems to be the first order of the day for them.

The point of good governance is to provide the necessary structure that will help those that are the most vulnerable in society; so that, by doing so, these people will develop into good and vibrant citizens for the commonwealth.  The best way to do that, is to make sure that in the most neglected areas of society, that the government, so provides to these people, some sort of sanctuary within their community, that the denizens of, can thus rally around.  Examples of this, would be good education facilities, that would provide not only the tools so needed to develop a sound mind, but also would provide nutritional meals for the development of a good body, as well as educational guidance for those so needing that helping hand, in addition to a good study area and extended daycare.  Additionally, so needed and desired within that community, would be public spheres so represented as in a park, in which, people could safely meet up and congregate, throughout the day; in conjunction, also, with the necessary infrastructure that people could avail themselves of, such as in healthcare, employment, shopping, a community center, and grocery stores.

Instead, what we so find in America, is pockets of absolute and abysmal poverty, in which the people so living within these zones, are treated by outside forces, such as the policing arm of the state, as an area deserving of the constant intimidation of what amounts to an occupying force.  The people then that live in those areas in which their educational facilities are absolutely substandard, and of which, there aren’t any safe havens within such, is thereby obviously detrimental to that community being able to ever successfully come together as a people, united in a cause, for they lack the necessary structure and tools that would encourage cohesiveness between them.

There are a lot of bad things that are permitted by this uncaring governance to happen in our most neglected zones of poverty, which should be properly seen as being a crime against humanity.  That is to say, when the richest nation that the world has ever known, sees fit to ignore and to disregard those that are the most impoverished amongst them, then for a certainty that country does not truly represent liberty and justice for all; but rather it actually represents a nation that believes that to neglect the people’s needs is somehow acceptable, when it surely is not.

Employers prefer their workers to quit rather than have to lay them off or fire them

In our modern era, workers have rights, and though it has to be said, that in a significant amount of situations, worker’s rights aren’t really where they need to be – it cannot be denied that workers most definitely have some important legal rights that they can avail themselves of, on a Federal or State level, when it comes to their employment conditions, their employment, and their termination, so of.  This thus means that companies that fire or lay off workers for whatever reason, or for no reason, at all, are most definitely cognizant that workers that have been let go, do have rights that they can thus call upon, and of which, some of those rights can most definitely impact the bottom line of said corporation in a negative way.  That is to say, that employees that become unemployed, through dismissal, and who thereupon apply for and thereby receive unemployment benefits, will clearly make a material difference upon how much that company well be on the line for, in regards to their respective unemployment insurance tax rate, going forward.  So then, the termination of employees, is something, that a significant amount of companies, desire to see such be controlled in a manner in which, those former employees that the corporations do not feel are justified in receiving unemployment benefits, are denied such.

Of course, from a company perspective, a far cleaner solution for them, is not to have to terminate any employee, ever – not necessarily because business conditions are always good , or that every employee so working is doing an acceptable job, but instead mainly because the overall conditions, thereof, are in some cases, poor enough, that employees will, on their own, just quit.  This thus signifies that for some corporations, they actually have a reason for why the work conditions are like what they are in that company for a certain specific segment of their employees; of which, therefore, the reason why, for instance, work hours are inconsistent, work conditions are unsafe, work pay is anemic, and bosses are overbearing, rude, and seemingly arbitrary, is to create the toxic-type environment in which the weakest employees will thus quit and thereby not be typically eligible for any unemployment benefits, at all.  Instead, in these cases, the employee so quitting, will look first to the government to aid them in providing them therefore with public assistance, and thereupon this will cost the company not a dime.

When it comes to some corporations, there most definitely is a method behind the seeming madness; which is for these corporations to stay ahead of the curve, by actually make it their point to separate the wheat from the chaff, by having working conditions, which are structured in a way, that no self-respecting person with reasonable options, would continue to work at that company for any long period of time unless they are made of the strongest stoic stuff or seemingly are truly without any other options.  This means then, that the disaffected will continue to fall to the wayside by quitting, thereupon to be replaced by new employees that will begin at the same low paying wage and poor work conditions, ad nauseam.

Tax the rich!

America purports to have a progressive income tax system, but in reality, there are so many workarounds to the taxing structure so utilized, as well as there being so many excellent tax attorneys, in addition to all those effective and highly compensated lobbyists, that the wealthiest of Americans, be they individuals or corporations, never come close to paying their appropriate amount of taxation, of which, the vast majority of these superrich people and mega-corporations could easily pay what they really should pay, as their needed contribution to a fair share, so of.

For instance, as reported by propublica.org, historian W. Elliot Brownlee, estimates that in 1918, the top 1% highest income earning Americans, were responsible for 80% of the income taxes so collected by that Federal government.  Yet, we read at taxfoundation.org, that in 2019, or one hundred years later, that the top 1% were responsible for the payment of just 38.8% of the Federal income tax so collected.  This represents the type of regression in which the superrich have somehow been able to successfully place onto the backs of those that have far less income and wealth than they have, to thus take up the slack and to thereby essentially pay the income taxes for these superrich entities, instead.  In other words, the Federal income tax, is clearly no longer a tax that collects mainly from the top 1%, but rather it reaches all the way down into the pockets of those that are of the middle class, as well.  Additionally, in 1918, though there were corporations, the profits and wealth of that corporate power was considerably less than it so represents today, and of which, the top 1% of the wealthiest corporations in America, presently, do not ever come close to contributing their fair share in the payment of those income taxes, but rather are extremely adept at paying far less than what they should pay, while also having the audacity to “game” the system so much, that for some of these notable corporations, despite profits in the multi-millions upon millions, pay not a dime in Federal income taxes, whatsoever.

What those that are superrich, be they individuals or corporations, know for a certainty, is that the more convoluted, complex, and subject to interpretation that a given tax code is, the more that this is to the advantage to that corporation or superrich individual.  Additionally, they know that the less power that the Internal  Revenue Service has, and the more overworked that they are, along with often being not well compensated, the better the situation will so be for those that are superrich and well placed.

If this government, truly wants to receive more revenue in income taxes from mega-corporations and superrich citizens, then it needs to not only drastically simplify the tax code, but it also must make it a point and principle, that those with the greatest degree of wealth, income, and assets, actually thereupon pay their appropriate share of that wealth in taxes; for after all, this is the nation which provided them with the foundation for that wealth to be accumulated in the first place.  The bottom line is that those that can easily afford to pay more in taxes, need to do so, rather than to burden those that are just getting by, instead.

The Right to Know Act

There aren’t a lot of people that don’t suffer some degree of anxiety when pulled over for a traffic violation stop; or when they are stopped on the street by a police officer for some questioning or a possible frisk of their person.  Those that are especially nervous are typically the very people that are most vulnerable to police abuse,  which would include just about anyone that is not part of the favored class in America.  In other words, there aren’t very many people that are outside of the privileged class, that ever welcome any unanticipated interaction with a police officer, which regrettably, is the state of these affairs in America, at the present time.

While there are many things that could go wrong for somebody that is stopped by a police officer, one of the most annoying things for those being questioned, is the fact that most people, feel compelled to provide identification to the officer so requesting it, irrespective of whether or not, this is something so required by law to do.  In other words, those operating a vehicle, for a certainty must provide their identification; but someone just walking down a public street is not required by law to do so, unless under specific circumstances; but when that law as practiced is right in front of a person’s face, most people see that the better part of valor, is to provide identification to that officer, because they know if not so provided, the situation could easily progress to something much more serious, and far worse.  That said, one of the problems with identification, is that the typical ID card that a person has, consists of a lot of important information – such as one’s legal name, their present address, their date of birth, along with their physical characteristics.  This then is the type of information, that in the wrong or abusive hands, could lead to personal harm or harassment, or both.

What really doesn’t seem fair, especially in consideration that a lot of officers, are in theory, beholden to such mottos as “to protect and to serve,” is that the officer, except in some particular situations, does not need to identify themselves to the person that they are questioning.  In other words, police officers, are provided with the protection to keep their real identity private from the person so being questioned, who as a private citizen has had to divulge their own identity.  That type of construct, quite obviously, lends itself to abuse, because whenever the arm of the law, is able to hide behind the symbol of being a police officer, whereas the general public has for all practical purposes, been essentially compelled to identify themselves, along with possibly explaining the why and who about what is so going on, sure doesn’t seem to represent either “protection,” or “service.”

So then, what would be a better deal for the general public and make for a format which would encourage more civil interactions between the people and  police officers, along with also making those officers more accountable to those that they are sworn to protect and to serve, is to have those officers provide some sort of identification to those so being stopped by the police, which would at a minimum, at least identify that officer, with their specific badge number and last name -- which is what “The Right to Know Act,” is essentially all about.  After all, accountability should be part and parcel of being a good police officer, of which, those officers then that are reluctant to identify themselves to the public, would thus seem suspicious, by their refusal to properly identify themselves.

Payroll inequality gets ever worse

We read at epi.org, that “The top 1.0% earned 13.8% of all wages in 2020,” and further that “The bottom 90% received just 60.2% of all wages in 2020.”  Further to the point, we read at mroline.org, that Elsby, Hobijn, and Sahin inform us that “In 1948 the bottom 90 percent of employees earned 75 percent of payroll compensation.”  This clearly indicates that the disparity between those that have as compared to those that have not, is getting ever wider, which thus signifies that America is regressing in its mission to be a nation that truly represents fairness, equality of opportunity, and the value of having a vibrant middle class.  Rather, this country, despite its immense wealth, finds itself getting ever more unequal, which is a clear reflection that not all is right within America,  in regards to its capitalistic system, its supposed progressive taxation, and its governance, so of.

In truth, it would be a lot easier to respect America, if it actually represented in action, the value of its institutions by thereby having a nation in which the whole of its people, were treated in a way in which the vast majority of them, lived lives of self-respect, so demonstrated by the accouterments typically so found in the middle class, of home ownership, vehicle ownership, job security, as well as having a reasonable amount of leisure time so as to enjoy a satisfying life.  Instead, we have a construct in which, in many a household, both parties to that household, are compelled to work, as thereby being the only avenue so available for them, in order to have some semblance of a life that is worthwhile and allows them thus to provide for their progeny through a reasonably decent environment.  Then too, we have those that are situated below the middle class, in which, their life is a constant struggle, and of which, they are far too often surrounded by an infrastructure so fundamentally poor, that their progeny will be stuck within a cycle that will, more times than not, mark them for a life that will be quite underprivileged and dissatisfying.

The fact that the payroll inequality gets ever wider between those in the top 1% as compared to the vast majority of Americans, that represent the bottom 90%, is proof positive, that whatever “fair deal” that once was part and parcel of what this government believed it owed to its citizens as its responsibility to thereby create the foundation for each citizen to have fair access to a good education, competent healthcare, and a decent paying job, has clearly been vacated, and apparently is not going to come back, ever again.  Further to the point, there are very few people, that are looking for a handout, whatsoever; rather, what they are looking for is a fair opportunity to develop their minds and their respective skill set so as to become self-sufficient, and therefore their own person.  The tragedy, then, is the fact that America has turned its back upon those that are its most disadvantaged, and further compounded that error in judgment, by making it their point, to relentlessly squeeze the middle class, on behalf of those that are the rich and the powerful, so that these superrich can live their soft lives of luxury, while sucking the lifeblood out from those that are the vulnerable middle class.

Sheriff as coroner

California is the most populous State of the union, of which, it is one of only three States in which the person that is the coroner can also be the sheriff, which is the case in the vast majority of the counties in California.  When it comes to the duties of the coroner, that job basically entails, when so necessary, determining the cause and manner of such death so as to create the required death certificate  – along with taking custody of the body, making a positive identification of the deceased, as well as other attendant duties.

In short, the coroner position is a very important position, for not every death so occurring is absolutely going to be cut and dry; of which, thereby, it is important for the general public to be assured that all deaths are competently investigated and classified, correctly. So then, when we have those situations in which a given sheriff is also the coroner, this type of dual duty, though probably fine, for the vast majority of cases, will itself be susceptible to not being fine, in those cases, in which, the policing arm of the state, is itself, subject to some reasonable suspicion in regards to the nature of a particular death.  That is to say, whenever the sheriff is also the coroner, that sheriff is probably going to desire to see that in those cases in which a person so dies within the custody of that sheriff or those that work for the sheriff, or when there is an interaction between the subject and the sheriff or one of the sheriff’s  underlings leading to that subject’s death, then the sheriff, as coroner, may so determine or be tempted to determine the cause of death in a way and manner which does not ever impugn upon that sheriff’s prejudicial point of view.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand then that a sheriff should not also be a coroner, because the temptation of performing one’s job as a sheriff is probably going to be in a meaningful amount of cases, a situation in which the commonsense viewpoint for that sheriff, is to first protect and defend those that work with that sheriff,  or the actual sheriff, himself, over having thereby instead a full and thorough investigation of a given suspicious death.  So too, a sheriff is always going to be sorely tempted to desire to control the narrative in a way and manner in which law enforcement, gets the benefit of the doubt, over a search for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Basically, it must be said, in any situation, whether it be the sheriff as coroner, or a coroner that does not have the full and proper independent authority to conduct their affairs in an open and transparent manner, that the general public have been cheated from knowing the truth -- for whenever a coroner is not honest with that general public as to the nature of a given person’s death, so as to protect someone or for their own spurious reasons, then the person so dying has not been given their say; and those that are grieving for their loss, have not been provided with full disclosure on what so actually occurred.

Matthew 5: 3

We read in Holy Scripture: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.”  Yet, in reality, this translation of Matthew 5:3 doesn’t appear nearly as enlightening, as the inspiration that the incomparable Kahlil Gibran writes, which is, “Blessed are the serene in spirit,” which seems to be far more apt in capturing what our Messiah was trying to impress upon His disciples, with His Sermon on the Mount.

In life, especially in this fast paced modern day and age, in which so much appears to be happening, and of which, so many of us feel pulled first in one direction and then pulled back in an entirely different direction; it is thus easy for any one of us, to thereby subsequently lose our serenity, for we are often caught within the grips of a life, that seems to demand so much from us.  Yet, it doesn’t really have to be that way, for each one of us is first of all, master of our own being; and secondly we are the ones in control of how we will or will not react to that which is happening all around us.  The wisest amongst us, then, are never the ones that go with the prevailing winds of the time; but rather these are people that first establish a firm foundation, which thereby permits them to remain stable, during the tempests of life, and thereby not to be overtly influenced by the ever changing winds of life and its experiences.

The problem for those that get overly excited when everything is going their way; is the fact that these are often the very same people, that also overreact to events when everything appears to be going against them.  This type of persona, is quite obviously, going to wear a person out; for even when the highs and lows of a given person’s life appear to balance themselves out; the fact of the matter is for those that are most susceptible to this, that their life becomes something more akin to a roller coaster, which thereby makes for a life, that isn’t serene, at all.  On the other hand, those that are calm in spirit, are better able to see the bigger picture; knowing that life has its inevitable cycles, of which, therefore, some days are going to be especially blessed, whereas other days are going to be more challenging – and not only are they okay with that, they appreciate it, for as in anything, repetition of the same thing, day in and day out, tends to be rather dull.

To be serene in spirit, then, doesn’t mean to be passive and thereby taking an attitude of che sara, sara – but rather it means that we are accepting of the fact, that life isn’t always going to be easy, and that events certainly are not always going to go our way; of which, in our understanding of that, we thereby thus take solace in knowing that if we continue to perform good acts as well as to make good decisions, based upon our good thoughts, that in the end, it will all work out -- for those that are serene in spirit, understand well, that those that consistently demonstrate self-control and self-command are the masters of their own fate.

“Fines … are expensive licenses for criminal misconduct”

The late Senator, Arlen Specter, stated, that when it came to gross corporate misconduct that “I see fines with some frequency and think that they are expensive licenses for criminal misconduct.”  The esteemed Senator made an absolutely valid point, which is that when it comes to corporate malfeasance, corporate wrongs, and nefarious corporate acts so committed, that the justice system, in general, seldom prosecutes such as criminal activities against corporate persons, in regards to those bad corporation actions so taken that would appear to lend themselves to criminal charges of, for instance, negligent homicide, manslaughter, environmental pollution, toxic waste, fraud, and money laundering. Rather, what we do so find, is that way too often those corporations committing what would appear to be clear and obvious crimes, aren’t subject to criminal prosecution, at all; but rather, when so prosecuted, are prosecuted only from the level of monetary fines, as well as being subject to possible corporate restrictions or probations so mandated for their business enterprise.  In other words, corporations, are treated as an entity that apparently, to the justice system, does not appear to be run by human beings, on behalf of those human peoples, and for the benefit of those human beings; but, instead, these bad acts committed with aforethought by those corporations, are treated as if such appears to be acts solely committed by some artificial entity, known as a corporation, and none else; as if there are no responsible human beings within these corporate entities, at all.

The thing about the rich and powerful, and in particular, those that are rich and powerful, within the corporate world, is that those that consider committing bad or hazardous acts in regards to outright fraud, environmental pollution, the selling of dangerous and addictive drugs, and other harms to the commonwealth or people, is that the very people that make these decisions, often in the highest of corporate executive offices, typically do so, with the abiding knowledge that they, themselves, will not ever be held to personal account.  This thus indicates to these corporate VIPs, that the decisions that they make are permitted to go far beyond the line, of what is right or sort of grayish, into crossing over to that which is undeniably wrong, with the sure knowledge that in their lust for profits, and unrelenting growth, that they will not personally suffer criminal prosecution, if they should somehow be subject to some sort of investigation.

Those of the corporate world that have money and influence, and of which, their primary objective is to secure more money and influence without ever being concerned about scruples or of the doing of that which is proper; aren’t worried ever about anything, whatsoever, as long as they are assured by their legal counsel and/or the justice system of this nation, that they will not ever have to suffer from the possibility that they will be charged under some sort of criminal statue.  Basically, every rich corporate person, with dubious ethics, desires to live within a construct in which their corporate money and their corporate influence will buy them out of trouble; and when that is the case, then what we so have, is what the good Senator has stated – corporations that are thereby constructed in which they are permitted to buy carte blanche expensive licenses for that which is essentially criminal misconduct, which simply put, allows these corporate entities, to commit crime, without ever having to ever pay with their own personal blood.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was amended in 1940, of which, that act in 1940, thus established the forty hour work week as the standard for American workers; thereby providing for those laboring more than forty hours in one week, with time and a half as their compensation for their standard overtime hourly pay if such should occur.  Additionally, through that act, child labor, with some notable exceptions was outlawed, and also an hourly minimum wage was thereby established for employees.  The establishment of the Fair Standards Act during the FDR administration was probably the most constructive legislation ever passed for the benefit of the common laboring employee.  Yet, the forty hour work week as the established standard, has not been successfully reduced per Federal law, in over eighty years; despite all of the progress so having been made with machines, robotics, computers, and the like. 

Perhaps, the forty hour workweek is the type of norm, that should not ever be challenged, and therefore ought never to change; but in a world in which humankind has demonstrated its mastery over the elements, time and time again, it would seem that a nation that is actually progressing would at some point, reach the stage in which the labor so being required from a given individual, would not necessitate a continuous commitment of forty hours, week in and week out.  That is to say, the Fair Labor Standard Act was established in which previously employees were often required to work six days a week,  of which each day would consist of eight hours or possibly more of labor; yet, when this was changed to legally reduce such to forty hours a week, unless the employee was compensated with overtime pay, the American enterprise world or the progression, so of, did not come to an end.

In our modern society, we understand well that there needs to be a good balance between work and leisure; or between work and other commitments, or between work and other activities of interest.  In other words, to believe that the primary purpose of life is to work, seems to put the cart before the horse; because often the main reason why a person works, is to earn the necessary funds so as to enjoy in their spare time, the accouterments and other preferred interests of life; of which, many a person desires strongly to have more free time to address not only their responsibilities in life, but also to experience an overall better life.

American prides itself on believing that it is the world leader and thereby the epitome of what a great country so represents; but when it comes to the amount of labor hours that each person must devote each week in order to get some semblance of a good life, or to at least pay the bills of that life; America has not been making much good progress, at all.  That is why it is so important for this Federal government, to acknowledge that those that labor so hard, are deserving of a fair deal, updated to the present time, and of which, as part of that fair deal, there would be the reduction of the standard work week from the current forty hours, to thirty-five hours or possibly even just thirty-two.  Most people would call that progress – which is what the Fair Labor Standards Act so aptly has represented historically for the American laborer.

Paper money and real money

Most everyone basically believes that dollar bills are money, and thus those dollars bills essentially represent a form of currency.  The thing about dollar bills, or credits of those dollar bills so held in bank accounts and the like, is that the worth of those dollar bills has an awful lot to do with the credibility so given to those dollars by the individuals and enterprises that we exchange money with on a daily basis.  In other words, the stability of a dollar bill, or the lack, thereof, really comes down to the confidence that the recipient has that the dollar bill represents a form of currency that has some implicit stability and thereby universal value to it that is generally accepted by all; and of which, when that perception by a meaningful percentage of people and enterprises thereby changes, the value of that paper money has a strong tendency to depreciate, thereby producing inflation.

The thing about electronic deposits of dollar bills or even the physical dollar bills in a given person’s pocket is that in short, those dollar bills, are pretty much well designed pieces of paper or digital entries, that have no utility to them, other than the full faith and confidence of that government that supports such.  That is to say, Monopoly™ money has no intrinsic value, whatsoever, because nobody is credulous enough to believe that Monopoly™ money has monetary value to it.  So then, basically the only reason why dollar bills are accorded a high degree of credibility is not only the universality of those dollar bills, but the fact that the government  will do its level best to support the dollar, because it understands that a dollar that has lost all credibility, will for a certainty inevitably create an extreme economic crisis.

Many a country, even a well-established country, has issued paper currency, only to have such, through sustained inflation over some period of time, along with national debts that cannot be properly serviced, or via outright national fraud, thereby suffered the indignity of that money, becoming severely depreciated vis-à-vis other sound currencies, thereby leading to the actual default on such, completely, to the ruin of those that have assets in that paper currency.  That is to say, having paper wealth, while seeming to be of value to a given individual or enterprise, does have a potential downside, and that downside is that paper wealth, is susceptible to its value being depreciated precipitously through inflation or default, catastrophic or not.

The main purpose of paper money is its value as a universal medium of exchange, so that trading and selling can more easily be accomplished between parties; and thereby the good governance of a given country, is to the degree so possible, to provide intrinsic stability to that paper currency; for real money is never that which is held on paper, or electronic credits of such in a bank; but rather real money represents that which has a call upon real assets, such as a home, a business enterprise, a vehicle, or a stock certificate, and basically all that which is tangible and has utility in and of itself – whereas paper money has, at best, only a derivative value, based upon confidence, and no more than that.

The law makers and the real law breakers

In order for any nation to prosper there has to be a “rule of law,” of which, without a well-defined and fair rule of law, so structured that it thus applies to all, equally; we so find that where there then is the lack of such a rule of law, that thereby the power structure of that nation and thereby the exertion of that power within that nation will have a strong tendency to favor the ruling class of that nation, and thereby to supersede the rule of law, itself, especially in those cases of most material importance to those of that ruling class.

In the United States, there are laws upon laws upon laws; of which, the interpretation of those laws and the appeals in regards to those laws, oftentimes has an awful to do with the power and the influence of whoever it is, that is petitioning that government, for a redress of grievances.  In other words, for those that are the forgotten, the forsaken, and the forlorn, there is no appeal to any type of justice system, because these people aren’t recognized as being of any material importance to the nation, whatsoever.  On the other hand, for those that have position, power, and influence, but for whatever reason have been caught with their “hand in the cookie jar,” it is absolutely astonishing how many appeals, delays, favors, considerations, and the like are thereby typically available for them to draw upon; thus, making it appear, or more than appear, that there is the law as it is applied to the common man, and there is a wholly different way of that law being applied to those that are especially well positioned.

While it can be said, that any law can be subject to some interpretational differences, what we do so find, is that, those legal minds that are highly compensated and especially clever, are able to take a given law, which seems to be fairly clear and obvious, and somehow seem to be able to make a successful argument to those of authority, that somehow something within that law, can be interpreted in a certain special way, that will favor their client’s interests.  This thus signifies, that laws as ruled upon, don’t seem to be ruled equally to the rich and poor alike; but rather, those that are the most influential amongst us, are somehow categorized into the position in which the law, as applied, is structured differently and thereby more favorably for them.

The most disappointing thing is that when it comes to crime, we do so find that the conviction and punishment of the common man, is almost always, quite cut and dry; whereas, for those that are amongst the upper echelons of society, somehow, it appears, that these people don’t have to observe the exact same laws as everyone else, or rather, in their lack of observing them, they end up being distinctly treated in a diametrically different way -- which way more times than not, favors them.  The problem with this type of unequal application of justice, is that it lends itself to the general public losing their respect for the rule of law; of which, for all those that are above the law, it not only sets a rather very poor example of leadership to the common man, but it is also indicative that those that make the laws and thereupon break them, without corresponding punishment, are hypocrites of the worse order.

Good policing and bad policing

There are, unfortunately, plenty of people that believe that in order to obtain obedience to the state’s policing arm, that the policing authority has to be wielded in such a way, that the people rightly fear the consequences of their bad actions.  These types of people and those that implement such, are basically known as the “law and order” type, who do not broker dissent, and thereby believe that a state in which criminal acts are dealt with, quickly and surely, will not only earn the lasting respect of the people, but will substantially reduce the criminal element.

The problem though, with this type of mindset, is that it has been tried again and again, throughout the ages, and though it might well look good in principle, it does not work well in action.  The issue that a significant portion of the general population has with a strict law and order state, is that such not only often appears to them as being arbitrary, unfair, overly punitive, as well as concentrating far too frequently on public shaming -- is that a substantial portion of those so suffering the ill effects of this law and order, are being punished in a way and manner that does not often reasonably conform to the nature or the severity of the crime, so committed.  Further to the point, those suffering the most from this law and order state, often are those that are the un-championed, the oppressed, and the impoverished, above all – which presupposes that those not so suffering from such, are probably either better connected, or much more devious.

Those then, that have an open mind about policing, understand that policing, in every society and at every time, must be structured in such a way, that it is a two-way street, in which, therefore, there is respect so demonstrated by those doing the policing to the people; in addition to the people showing respect to those that purportedly are there to serve and to protect them. The bottom line is that whenever the general public perceives those that are doing the policing within their neighborhood as something akin to an occupying force, then there is never going to be peace or justice within that neighborhood, no matter how many people are arrested, ever.  Rather, in order for the police to function well within any community, that community must have a desire to voluntarily cooperate with the police, so enacted because those people understand the good necessity of having a police force within their community in order to ameliorate bad situations and events that need to be thus addressed in a responsible and coherent fashion.

It is well to remember that there can never be a lasting peace within any community, if the price for that peace, is injustice; for that which is unjust, cannot ever bring a lasting peace.  Instead, it has to be recognized that the only legitimate policing force is one that works with, not against, the community that it is serving, of which, it is thereby the responsibility of that community in conjunction with the policing arm to thus build a bridge of rapport, one with another.  So then, the difference between good policing and bad, is the difference between that which is supportive of the common good, and that which is destabilizing or destructive to such.

Those that lean, and those that are leaned on

Life has its troubles and problems, of which, for those of us that are the most successful, or that clearly have their respective act together, they are thus able to fairly demonstrate that they can consistently handle what so comes their way with aplomb, except perhaps in those occasional times in which they are unexpectedly overwhelmed by something; but even then, they thereby usually show forth their character, by their sound ability to get back up on their feet, soon after.  Then, there are also those others, that clearly appear to have a life of trouble and problems which seem to constantly overwhelm them, of which, day after day, seemingly, no progress is ever made on any sustainable level to resolve their most basic troubles or problems, ever.

So then, what we so have, is a divide, between those that lean on others; as contrasted to all those that are leaned upon.  While most people that find themselves being leaned upon, don’t have any real issues with such, especially when the leaning clearly has a beginning and an end to it; we do so find that in those situations in which the person that is being constantly leaned upon, perceives that this leaning does not appear to have any lasting resolution ever to so appear on the horizon, that therefore this constant dependency by the other thus ends up taking a toll on the person so being depended upon.  After all, the dead weight of another, is something, that will certainly take its toll, eventually, upon even the strongest of people.

This thus signifies, that as much as we might desire to help the other, we have to always keep in mind, that we need ourselves to maintain some personal space as well as personal time, so that we don’t suffer from being burnt out or from the diminishing of our good character; of which, if such as that thus happens, this could easily lead us to resent the other person as being some sort of annoying  pest.  So too, for the person that does all of the leaning, it is important for them, to understand that the traffic so being generated, cannot always be just one way; because that direction, so of, isn’t going to lead to anything other than an undesirable dead end.  Therefore, those that typically do all of leaning, need to seriously find some other avenue or idea that will provide them with the means to assist that person who they believe, doesn’t need their assistance, in some activity, that will actually benefit their helpful friend.  For we so find that once a person that is so dependent upon another, recognizes that they too are capable of being of aid to another, in some way, big or small, this thus helps their own self to become more enlightened.

So then, for all those that have a strong tendency to lean on another, they must first be cognizant of that fact, and thereby then resolve to do more to become self-sufficient, which will thus help them to improve their overall outlook in life.  Whereas, for those, that are leaned on, they too must recognize that carrying another person’s weight all of the time, isn’t healthy for either person, and thereby it is often wiser to help steady a person that is stumbling, rather than to just lean over so as to carry them.

What makes the superrich nervous

When you are the class of privileged people that have all of the money and all of the power – then about the only thing that you ever get nervous about is losing the very qualities that permit you to have those financial resources and power at your disposal.  So then, what we so find is that in times of social unrest and societal unease, those that are the elites of a given country, are the very same people, that have little or no interest in ceding any ground to those that are in opposition to them, no matter how justified their cause may well be, because they do not wish to risk any possible troubling change to the current social order in which they are the kingpins of. 

After all, those that are superrich have it all; so that, therefore, they have zero interest in any sort of sharing, or in the diminishing of their power – unless upon their own terms.  So too, this signifies in any construct, in which there is a massive disparity between those that have all of the material assets as well as the controlling influence upon all governmental policy that affects them as in comparison to the common man, that it is thus vital that those that serve the superrich for a very generous stipend, prove their value, so of, by putting forth whatever narrative, muscle, as well as policies so required, that will induce those that are the common people, that all is well; or if not well in the present, will, given enough patience, or on an arc long enough, eventually trickle down to them.

The superrich make it their point to try to convince others, that their wealth and power, is absolutely legitimate, and therefore that they are deserving of having such; of which, the importance of convincing the general public that this is true, is of high importance to them, because these superrich so wish to impress upon others, that all that they have, is really part and parcel of simply playing the capitalistic game, very well.  The implication of this sort of mindset, so accepted, is to thereby successfully win over a huge subset of the population, so as to convince them that all is fair, and that therefore the opportunity for these others to thereby become superrich, is thus some sort of achievable goal.

The superrich need to be perceived by a significant percentage of the population as being seen as licit in having achieved their status; which thereby makes it easier for the superrich to thus convince those believers, that therefore the social order need not change at all, because not only is it fair, but clearly it is also the best conceivable pathway to becoming successful, for these others, as well.  Yet, the superrich know that this is all a lie, and when they are constantly confronted and bombarded with the facts and information, which demonstrates that any nation having a small elite that has all of the money and all of the power, cannot possibly represent a true democracy -- and further to the point, a  nation in which so few have so much, can’t possibly represent egalitarianism, fair play, justice, or  authenticity, then we do so find, that the superrich get really nervous, because knowing that they aren’t the type to willingly give up what they so have, then they know that there will be indeed, a frightful reckoning, and blood in the streets.