World War II and the changing face of domestic labor

Wars always have intended and unintended consequences, of which, America, was still suffering from the pangs of the Great Depression, when World War II broke out; of which, that war necessitated a military force as reported by Wikipedia.com, of “…12 million men and women…of whom 7.6 million were stationed abroad.”  Not too surprisingly, in consideration that so many Americans of a young age were now stationed abroad and in reflection that the population of the United States in 1941, was approximately 133 million persons, this thus meant that jobs previously held by white men, or historically set aside for white men, would have to engage women as well as minorities, which so did happen.  In fact, we read at encyclopedia.com, that “…employed blacks rose from 4.4 million in April 1940 to 5.3 million in April 1944,… By 1945 more than 8 percent of war industry jobs were held by blacks, up from 3 percent in 1942.”

So then, with women and minorities being employed in the war industry as well as for other industrial jobs, of which, those jobs typically paid a fair and living wage – this thus signified that previous jobs so held by those same people, of domestic help, agricultural work, and things of that sort, would have to thus offer those that remained in such positions, a better overall compensation package, or fear losing such to better employment opportunities.  In other words, there is something to be said of the idiom that a rising tide does indeed rise all boats, big or small, which is what so happened via World War II.  Further to the point, once businesses became cognizant of the competency, productivity, and skills of women and minority workers, they soon recognized that these people, previously ignored or marginalized, were quite capable of putting forth an honest day’s work for an honest day’s wage.  This thus indicated, that owing to a significant extent to World War II, this was the proximate reason, why the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, saw the strong emergence of and the strengthening of the middle class of America, which was far more inclusive, than previously known.

In truth, it is in those days of labor shortages, that businesses have to seriously consider putting together compensation packages that are of better benefit to those that they so desire to employ.  Also, it is healthier for the economy when the money so being made is not held primarily by a small sliver of the population, known as the elite; but it is better for that economy and its growth when more of that money has been distributed into more hands; because, a very rich person can only eat so much, and only buy so many clothes and other accouterments, to use such on a regular basis – whereas, we find that on the other hand, that those of the middle class and below are only too happy to expend the monies that they so earn upon those necessary things, as well as to earmark, when so able, a certain percentage of their earnings to the purchase of a home.

The satisfaction and the growth of the economy of a nation, has a lot to do with the opportunity, as well as in the fair distribution of the monies so being earned – for whenever certain segments of the population are effectively treated as 2nd class citizens or even worse, makes not only for a very bad brew, but makes that country and its people, less than what they could and deserve to be.

Favored interests and eminent domain abuse

The concept of private property is supposedly held in very high regard in the United States.  In fact, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution makes it clear that private property cannot be taken from any entity without due process of law, “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”  The important thing to consider is that societies are meant to be structured in a way in which the people are able to best be benefited by being an integral part of that society.  So then, to the extent that roads, bridges, dams, and other meaningful governmental infrastructure projects need to occur and thus be constructed, for the greater good of the people, then there are certainly going to be those situations in which the government has a reasonable right to utilize eminent domain in a fair and open way, to compensate the private property owner for the selling of that property to that government, for the public use and benefit of the people.

Yet, regrettably, when it comes to the United States, it is always a mistake to discount the overall corruption, unfairness, and power of those that have lots of money and influence to take a law that is clear and obvious, to thus make that law bend to the will of that powerful interest, and especially to private for-profit interests.  Certain of those with money and influence, are prone to using such in a way and manner that will benefit them, and because of that money and influence, they recognize that just because a particular law is on the books, and has been historically interpreted within narrow bounds, does not necessarily mean that this will always be the way that it will be.  That then, is why it is that nowadays those that own private property, that is considered to be in the way of such nebulous objectives such as “urban renewal” or  for private industry development that will, in theory, increase the tax base and thereby be a more efficient usage of such space, or as a required necessity to remove blight from a given area, are all considered to be a fair and proper use of eminent domain, as per specific court decisions.

The reality of how eminent domain is currently utilized, is the salient fact that those that have little or no power are no match for those that have a whole lot of power and influence – so that the upshot is that the government thus plays favorites, in which, those that are on the losing side, have their private property taken from them against their will, and that property so taken, has not be taken for a public use, in any fair sense of that purpose, but rather has been taken from them, to accommodate private enterprise, in conjunction with the prevailing governance of that community, not for the public benefit of the people, in whole; but rather for the anticipated profit of the few, and thus almost exclusively for the private benefit of those few and favored.

In America, there are deals, and there are raw deals – and it is always a raw deal when one person’s private property can be taken by the eminent domain of the government, so as to clearly favor influential private interests at the expense of the former private owner, with the public use justification of such, of no real consideration or concern.

Compensation to the slave owner but never to the enslaved

America is a nation that has evolved over time, of which, some of the principles and rights that we now pretty much take for granted in America, were the type of thing that were well-nigh impossible back in the 18th or 19th centuries.  So then, to our modern ears, it does seem strange, wholly unfair, and just plain wrong, that when it came to slaves and slave owners, back in that time when slavery was legal within America, that propositions having to do with slaves, slave owners and freedom, basically only considered the viewpoint of what sort of compensation or incentive could be provided to that slave owner to thus encourage them to relinquish the “property” that they owned in human persons.  The answer seemed to be, to provide monetary compensation to those slave owners, of which, we do so find that in Washington DC, that in 1862, President Lincoln signed a legislative bill that emancipated those slaves in Washington DC, in which the slave owners that owned those slaves and were also loyal to the Union cause, were suitably compensated.  In other words, the policy of the United States at its highest governmental level was to compensate the slave owner but nary a dime to those so enslaved.

No doubt, it certainly makes logical sense that for people that owned property, legally, that the only conceivable way to get them to relinquish the hold of that peculiar property, would be to provide them with some sort of compensation to such.  After all, when it came to slaves, those slaves, were sold for a price, and subsequently many slave owners invested time and energy into their slaves, thus signifying that to voluntarily relinquish their right to a healthy slave would necessitate some sort of compensating benefit to those slave owners, for having done so.  None of that, seems especially unreasonable – what is unreasonable, though, is a failure to recognize that enslaved human beings that owned nothing, and were enslaved for no other reason than humankind’s inhumanity and greed to its own; deserved and necessitated either some sort of compensation for having been enslaved or, if not that, fair access to the tools of the trade for them thus to make good on their life, through valued accouterments such as land, livestock, or similar.

What has to be recognized, is that freedom is not all that, when the fundamentals of what a given person needs to be at liberty, are not at their disposal – especially when they have been precluded from being property educated, have no monetary assets, no tools, no land, and pretty much no means to make an independent honest living, because there is no real opportunity for them to do such.  That type of freedom is a false freedom, which does not reflect well what America is supposed to so represent.  The problem, then, that America seems not to understand, is that which is unjust and is never rectified or corrected in a suitable manner, lends itself to becoming not only a cancer upon the soul of America, but also an ongoing injustice that needs to be dealt with forthrightly, in the here and now, for that which is wrong, still needs to be made right.

The economic reason for lynching

Although those that were formerly enslaved, became emancipated, and eventually legally freed through the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, making them thus entitled to all the rights that such a Constitution so stood for – the reality of the situation is that blacks were, especially in the South, in constant danger of their rights being trampled upon by the favored race, which so occurred on a fairly routine basis.

In order to instill terror into the black man’s hearts, those of the favored race, were prone to public displays of their impunity, by lynching blacks, purposely done for public display and through public mob participation as a way of demonstrating that the white race still had meaningful control of blacks, through the fact that such lynching was done in the open, and that the favored race was pretty much permitted to exact their type of justice with nary a worry that there would be negative consequences for them, ever, to face.

It is believed that the most common crime to accuse the black man of, that would rile up the white folks enough, to thus commit a lynching, was any sort of inappropriate alleged contact between a black man and a white woman.  This then was often the trigger to get the emotions of the white man to run high, and for them then to find the presumed perpetrator and to then do their best to completely dehumanize the black man, so as to take an especially perverse joy and satisfaction in carrying out the lynching as a form of necessary community service.

Yet, the reality of lynchings, demonstrates that there was an often hidden economic reason for why particular persons were selected to be lynched, that had absolutely nothing to do with that black man, not knowing their place in regards to their dealing with a white woman; but rather had an awful lot to do with certain black businessmen, who were conducting their transactions mainly with non-white people, of which, through their hard work these black businessmen became successful within their black community; though, not infrequently, at the expense of white businessmen who felt that their business was losing out because of this competition, and thus felt the indignity of being fairly outplayed by a black businessman.  In other words, the freed black men, living in segregated black communities, typically conducted their business with one another, which helped to strengthen that black community by keeping the little money that they had, flowing within that community – whereas, the white businessman felt that they were entitled to the black man’s money, and wanted such, in order to maintain their control and domination of those blacks.

So then, lynching was sometimes a form of economic retribution against successful black businessmen, so done to send a very specific signal to black people and their communities, that the money that they so had, should be spent in white-owned businesses, which might well have a front of a black proprietor, and such business, thereof, should not be transacted within black businesses, that were truly owned and operated by black people.  That is to say, lynching, had an awful lot to do with the favored race maintaining their control of blacks, so accomplished, by not just keeping them terrorized, but also by wresting from the black businessman’s hand, the money that they had fairly earned.

Visa and Mastercard fees are way too high

The ubiquity of credit cards so utilized in America is quite obvious, and the amount of debt that is held by Americans on their credit cards, is estimated to be at $1 trillion, and heading higher.  Those consumers that use credit cards but do not pay their credit card bill in full, each month, are subject then to the agreed upon interest rate for that credit so being provided to them, along with being on the hook for associated other fees, for being late, or for not making their minimum payment, and so on, when they fail to honor all the terms and conditions of that credit.  Additionally, from a merchant standpoint, each time that a credit card transaction is completed, they then have to pay a specific monetary amount, to the credit card company, such as Visa or Mastercard, which is structured around how much the merchant owes for fees that are designated as the interchange, assessment, and payment processing fees.  Because merchants must pay that fee in order to accept credit cards, that then represents, for them, the cost of doing business, which thus necessitates them charging a slightly higher price for the goods that they are selling in order to accommodate those fees.

When it comes to the business of credit cards, the biggest winners are Visa and Mastercard, of which, cnn.com, tell us that they “…dominate more than 80% of the US credit card market.”  Because, then, of that domination, Visa and Mastercard can pretty much charge whatever that they so desire to charge as fees, that will thus help these particular mega-corporations to make more money, because they effectively have no competition or meaningful legislation that will preclude them from doing exactly that.  Yet, it doesn’t have to really be that way, for other nations, have structured caps on credit card fees, and are far more robust in their regulation of the credit card industry.

In America, the credit card industry is essentially a duopoly, in which, quite frankly Visa and Mastercard don’t really compete with one another; and further to the point, most consumers cannot discern any difference between the two companies, and therefore use each of these cards, interchangeably.  Additionally, most consumers aren’t really familiar with the fees being charged to the merchant for having the flexibility to accept credit cards, and for the most part, don’t seem to readily care about such – not seeming to recognize that the higher the fees so being charged by credit card companies to merchants, then correspondingly the slighter higher prices that these merchants need to charge consumers in order to recover as much as possible the credit card fees so being imposed upon them.

The thing about Visa and Mastercard is that because of their domination of the credit card industry and because of the lack of meaningful governmental regulation of that industry, they have been able to make billions upon billions of extra dollars off of merchants and the consumers to those merchants, for essentially providing a convenience, to the general public.  Those fees, then, will continue to be unnecessarily high unless this government asserts itself by mandating lower fees, or by opening the door to actual competition within the industry.  

The relentless rise of the mandatory tip

Those that go out to eat at restaurants, with the notable exception of most fast food restaurants, recognize that when they go to pay their bill, that they are encouraged to pay a tip for the food service so provided to them.  The amount of the tip, varies upon the service so having been provided, the food, and the overall dining experience; of which, the amount thus determined to be provided as a tip, is at the sole discretion of the person so paying the bill – though often in many a restaurant at the foot of the bill is a helpful calculation provided for those that are not mathematically inclined or need assistance in coming up with a fair amount for their tip.

That said, what we find currently is that over and above the fact that there are certain locales, such as Miami’s South Beach, in which every restaurant seemingly has a mandatory tip already associated with the bill, or else in those cases in which there are parties of eight or possibly even as low as six, in which case the tip has already been added to the bill – that more and more restaurants have decided to go the route of adding a mandatory tip onto the bill, and often do so, without having provided any real notice of this to the patron of that restaurant. 

While some of these restaurants that have mandatory tips, change the verbiage in a way and manner, in which the tip is labeled as a service charge, or as a fixed gratuity -- the fact of the matter is that disappointingly few of these restaurants with a mandatory tipping policy, actually make it a point to tell their customers that this is their firm policy at any time during the meal.  While some of these restaurants may well have a notice up on a wall, somewhere, explaining their tipping policy, or may well have a notice somewhere on their menu – virtually none of them, makes it clear and obvious to the patron that a mandatory tip is going to be charged, until the bill is presented at the end of the meal – of which, to add possible insult to injury, there is frequently an added line item, listed as an additional tip option to the bill.

In consideration, that tipping has historically been considered to be at the discretion of the consumer, it doesn’t seem fair or right, that a restaurant should be permitted to add a mandatory tip to a given bill, without having provided fair notice to the patron.  Further to the point, restaurants that insist upon adding service charges and other fees onto a bill, should probably be strongly discouraged from doing so, and instead should be encouraged or have mandated to them, that all service charges and various other fees, must be included in the price of the restaurant items so being sold to begin with.  In fact, the present era of some restaurants having mandatory tips, and so many others that do not, creates an uneven field, that serves to obfuscate exactly what obligations a patron of the restaurant must attend to – which would seem to suggest that American restaurants should simply follow the European model of having the price of their menu items, fairly reflect what they are truly sold for, much like consumer purchases currently represent, for virtually every other material item so purchased.

When public servants serve corporate interests

The thing about regional governments of all sizes, shapes, locales, and influence, is that these governments typically have a fairly sizeable amount of monies that they are responsible to utilize accordingly with their budget and thus see spent and expended upon those necessary things that are of the most benefit for their constituents.  When it comes to corporations, however, they are forever attempting to do what they believe needs to be so done, that will serve to increase their profit, continue their growth, and to benefit their board of directors, as well as their shareholders.  In other words, when it comes to government agencies that are responsible for how the public funds are expended, they need to be responsible to the people; whereas, corporations are typically only interested in what benefits them, as a corporation.

Not too surprisingly, when it comes to conducting business within the domain of a governmental sphere, corporations are going to be prone to doing those things that will help them to get what they want, fairly or unfairly, when so interacting with governmental officials.  In other words, corporations, understand that they often have leverage in regards to governmental officials in the sense that governments of all types, are interested in securing or enhancing private business investment into their respective communities.  Further to the point, corporations are often not completely tied down to having to do business in one particular community, but frequently have options of not only where their business will be conducted, but also how much investment that they will put into a given community.  This thus opens the door, to the competitive threat, so initiated by corporations, that if they will not get special privileges, tax set asides, infrastructure enhancements, or consideration of this or that, by that respective government, that they may well pack up and leave, or simply not engage or re-invest in business within that particular community location.

So too, certain corporations can be even more direct when dealing with governmental officials, by initiating, for instance, some sort of implicit quid pro quo, in which those that are government officials that should answer to the public and be open to that public about those things of public interest and pertinence, are offered by that corporation, indirectly or directly, the opportunity to be compensated by that corporation, in some future form, which is often implied, but never officially agreed upon.  Indeed, corporations want to have their way, and when about the only thing blocking their way, is some governmental official, who may not fully understand what a good bargain is or is not, and is not privy to the inner communications of that corporation, then through their superior knowledge and gamesmanship that the corporation has, they are often able to accomplish what they so desire, at terms that are primarily beneficial to them; of which, this favoritism, typically, is not readily available for any other persons or companies, that are not so well positioned.

Those then that are public servants need to make it their point and principle to serve the public, which is best accomplished by being as transparent as possible, which, at a minimum, provides the public with the needed insight to see and to understand the deals so being made with influential corporations.

Freedom of the press in the 21st century

Freedom of the press is one of the seminal rights, that Americans have.  When the 1st Amendment was so proposed and ratified, that freedom of the press, was something that was clearly evident to all, because there were a multitude of local papers, pamphlets, and speeches so made and then thus disseminated through the print media.  At that time, there was no national newspaper, nor was there quite obviously radio, television, or the internet.  Further to the point, those that were the publishers of newspapers, were typically fairly ordinary people, and never were they conglomerates or corporations.  When we fast forward to the present time, though, the mainstream press is nearly completely controlled by major corporations, of which, thereby the views so being propagated are almost always going to be in accordance with the views of the ownership of those media companies, along with such typically being in harmony with one of the two major political parties in America.  In other words, those that believe that they are getting the full story, taking into account all sides of a particular issue, as well as its nuances, are seldom getting that at all, from mainstream media, for mainstream media is mainly concerned about making a profit, in addition to being in good adherence to the desires of the most important government officials that they willingly interact with, often on a quid pro quo basis.

Nowadays, then, the only true freedom of the press, is going to primarily come from those that are not associated with the mainstream media, and are often utilizing all the ways and means to disseminate their particular viewpoint through the various avenues so available to them; such as primarily through the internet, as well as through apps so structured that can robustly provide such, also.  This thus would normally mean, that the freedom of the press, has never been as vibrant as it would be today, because the wherewithal as well as the tools so needed, to disseminate a given viewpoint are relatively inexpensive to obtain, and, of which, the potential audience to such, can be rather large.  Yet, the Damocles sword so held over those of independent media, is not only the potential lawsuits that they must respond to, in regards to libel or slander; but significantly the fact that this government has determined that “disinformation,” and “misinformation,”  as determined by that government, should not be permitted.

In 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, stated “That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.”  Yet, in fit, form, and function, this government and its obedient servants to such, are absolutely determined to control the narrative, of which, they recognize that the instrument that is hurting their desired viewpoint from being the prevailing sole voice of what is so being propagated, is the internet and the apps that go along with such.  The governmental angle to thus get their way, is to emphasize that misinformation and disinformation, are all around us, and that only the government knows what is really true, and by virtue of that knowledge, thus has the right to preclude or to remove the publication of all that which has been classified as misinformation or disinformation.  In short, we live ever more under the tyranny of a despotic government, that will broker no dissent, of any of that which lies outside what is considered to be acceptable to them. In truth, despotic governments, the world over, are interested only in obedience and control, and care not a whit about seeing disclosed any alternates to the “truth” that they want you to believe.

What is your biggest regret in life?

The least that any one of us owes to anyone, is to be honest with our self-evaluation – for if we lie to our own self, then pretty much that signifies that we are prone to lie to anyone on just about anything.  Look, all of us are going to have some regrets in life, or else our life has been absolutely perfect; and in consideration that none of our lives have been perfect, because we are imperfect beings, then it so follows that each one of us must then have some regrets about some things so done are left undone in our respective lives. 

To answer the question about what our biggest regret is in life, we have to take the time to actually examine our own life, and the decisions, mistakes, and the regrets that we so have; of which, many people will find that their biggest regret is usually based around what they either failed to do and thus should have done, or something that they did do, that they deeply regret having done.  While it is true, when it comes to regrets, that we do not have the power to turn back the clock; we always, though, have the power to learn from our mistakes, mishaps, and regrets to thus make it our desire to not repeat the same type of mistakes, now and into the future.  Further to the point, while there are mistakes that cannot ever be corrected in the sense, that perhaps the person that we want to make good with or for, is no longer among the living, or that time has simply passed us by, we still always have the opportunity to do what we can, to demonstrate that we have properly learned our lesson, by thus going forth and helping to do the right thing for our character and for those others that we interact with, day-by-day.

The very first step to self-improvement is actually recognizing what needs to be improved upon, and then taking the time to implement what needs to be implemented in order to effect that improvement.  Those that have dug themselves the biggest hole, for their regret is quite large, need then to understand that to rectify such is going to take time, energy, perseverance and consistency.  Yet, if we really do want to make amends for that regret, we need to be proactive, as opposed to simply moping about and feeling woeful about what has so happened that we regret – for it is one thing to recognize a wrong and subsequently do absolutely nothing to rectify such, and entirely different thing to put forth the effort to amend such, to the best of our ability, in which, those that are successful in doing so, may well still have those regrets, but at least they can honestly say to themselves, that they have done their part to make good on it, in one form or another.

To have regrets, demonstrates that we have a conscience, of which that conscience, comprehends the difference between right and wrong; so that, those that have made bad choices, are encouraged to do what needs to be done so as to demonstrate that they have learned well the lessons so taught, to thus become a better person for having taken a very bad fall, in which they have subsequently dusted themselves off and then fully risen up to be better for such.

The Highest duty

We read in Holy Scripture, “ But seek first God’s Kingdom and his righteousness” (Matthew 6: 33).  Yet, how many of us that profess to be Christian, or believers in God, by our thoughts and through our actions, apparently pay not a whit of attention to this sage advice.  The proximate dilemma that this material world presents, is how to one degree or another, it has a way of distracting us as well as enticing us to concentrate our minds and actions upon all sorts of things, that have little or nothing to do with being in harmony with the kingdom of God.  This then is the very reason, why we have so much violence, disharmony, hatred, discord, and rebellion in this world, because the vast majority of humankind do not comprehend what their highest duty is and are also confused about such.

In order then to get to where we ought to be, the very first thing that we need to concentrate our efforts upon, is that which is our highest duty, above all.  In short, if we do not comprehend, that life should consist of priorities, goals, and the duties that are incumbent upon each one of us, of which, our primary purpose then should be to reason out what those priorities, goals, and duties should actually be, then we have failed in our very first duty.  We are not meant to be automatons, and further to the point, we are not meant to mindlessly follow what has come before; but rather we are meant to utilize our free thinking minds to discover or to re-discover what we ought to be about.

There are many people that we will meet, friend or foe, that will tell us what our duties should be, of which, if we are fortunate, this advice will be sound; and if not so fortunate, this advice when followed, will serve to take us in the wrong direction.  Nevertheless, it is our duty to recognize that those that question nothing, and therefore accept everything, are not going to fare well in much of anything.  We need, then, to take the responsibility to be discriminating in our life, for in the end, we each are the individuals that must answer for the life that we have so lived, for better or for worse.  That is why, we must focus upon the purpose of our being, so as to recognize that when two duties, seemingly contradict one another, that there then thus has to be a higher duty, that supersedes those that are contradictory to one another.

The problem that we so have is that when we know what we believe to be, our highest duty, but yet this duty clearly contradicts with another duty; is that so many of us, try to reason such things through, by believing that within a given duty, there are occasionally exceptions to that duty – without comprehending that this has to be in error.  There is, in the end, only one Highest duty, and that duty has no contradictions to it, ever.  While the words of that Highest duty, will be somewhat different, depending upon the background and the individuality of a given person – yet, in essence it will always be the same – for that Highest duty is to love God by displaying that love through our fair, just, and charitable actions with one another.

“Your neighbor is your unknown self, made visible.”

The above quotation comes from the book, Jesus: the Son of Man, as written by Kahlil Gibran.  It is important to recognize that in Matthew 22:39, we read in Holy Scripture, “A second likewise is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” Yet, when we look around at our neighborhood, our community, our society, our nation, and our world, we are distressed to find that how we so behave as a people does not actually reflect that we do love our neighbor as our own self.  Perhaps the answer then, is to understand, that our neighbor is the same equal creation so made by God, and of which, is therefore entitled to all of the same unalienable rights that we are entitled to.  Further to the point, it would behoove all of us, to thus see our neighbor as being our previously unknown brother-in-arms, now made visible to us.  So then, in recognition that we are brothers, we should thus love one another, akin to how healthy family members so love one another.

After all, when we are unable to see the equal humanity of the other – no matter the behavior, good or bad, so having been displayed by them, than we have dishonored what it means to actually be a child of God – for we are all children of God, and if some of those children, are difficult, rebellious, misguided, and so on – it is not our place to condemn them for their apparent errors, but rather it is our place to treat them in the same way and manner that we would desire to be treated if we so were suffering from the same types of errors or mistakes.

There is far more power in forgiveness as well as in taking the time to learn and to discover the other, then in taking the easy route of condemning another for their faults.  Those that spend an inordinate amount of time, criticizing those that they do not care for, justifiably or not, are not making any progress in helping to make this world a better place for their participation in it.  Rather, we are obligated to do our fair part to help others where we can so help, and to do things that are of benefit to those that we come across, day-by-day, because to do less than that, reflects that we are not doing our fair part to uphold the significance that we are all part of the very same One.

It is important that we take the time to look at others through a prism, that perhaps we have bypassed or ignored, that permits us then to see those others, as akin to seeing our own self, in a brand new way, as if we were previously blind, but now can see.  We are, in actuality, all of the same substance, which thus means that we should be equal-minded with one another, in the conscious recognition, but for the grace of God, that could be us; but also, more importantly, that each of us represents a fair reflection of how true that we are to God, and until we can see the essence of God in all that we congregate and interact with, then we have failed in fulfilling what it means to be a good and devoted child of God.

The end of the road for taxation

There aren’t a lot of people that have assets, money, or a real good income, that are exactly thrilled about paying taxes; but the thing is, that when those that have lots of money, assets, and wealth, aren’t taxed at some appropriate rate, progressive or not, then that society will tilt ever more dramatically in favor of all those that have established that wealth; of which, typically, these people with that capital still in their hands, will desire to see that wealth ultimately be distributed to family, friends, and causes that they support, above all, upon their demise. 

The problem with this type of mindset, or of having a government, which does not appropriately tax those entities that have the most assets and wealth, is that it thus become inevitable that a nation that purports to be a republic or a democracy, is actually essentially under the controlling hand of those that have that money, wealth, status, position, and power.

As reported by fortune.com, as of 2020, the Fortune 500 companies had “…approximately $14.2 trillion in revenue, $1.2 trillion in profits, and $20.4 trillion in total market value.”  Yet, the corporate tax rate, is set at just 21%, despite the fact that from 1951-1987 the corporate tax rate was never lower than 40% and was as high as 52.8%.  The result is what we so see today, which is an ever growing divide between the corporate few that have so much, and the many non-shareholders that have so little.

So too, when it comes to the estate tax, as recently as 1997, the estate tax exemption was just $600,000 per individual, and as of 2023, it is $12.92 million per individual or $25.84 million per married couple.  It doesn’t take a genius to know that for those that actually have assets above $25.84 million that they are going to almost for a certainty avail themselves of all the legal tax stratagems which will thus reduce their estate tax to a rate thus approaching zero.

Finally, we do so find that the baby boom generation, are according to the Boston Consulting Group estimated to have $53 trillion in assets as of 2020.  In short, America has plenty of money, held in the hands of very powerful corporations as well as in the hands of the baby boom generation, of which, if America, so desired to do so, this wealth, could see a meaningful portion of such redistributed to the general population to help eliminate poverty, for education, for infrastructure and necessary repairs, and for research and development, all accomplished for the overall benefit of the people.

For an absolute certainty, America cannot be considered to be the land of earned individual meritocracy, when a privileged minority of its denizens are permitted to inherit their wealth, simply based upon being born into a family that has that wealth, thereby essentially bifurcating this nation into one in which the few have everything literally handed to them as their birthright, versus all the other people that must make do without such an incumbent advantage.  Those then that desire the United States to be in fit, form, and function an aristocratic society, essentially have it – regrettably, to the lasting disgrace of what our Founding Fathers so valiantly fought against.

War, the threat of war, and diplomacy

In the 21st century, America has been directly or indirectly involved in wars involving Libya, Iraq, Syria, Russia, Niger, Somalia, Uganda, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen. To believe, somehow, that these wars have made the world safer, better, and more secure is a complete lie, borne out by the very fact, that the world has become an ever more dangerous place, especially when the two greatest nuclear arm powers are at loggerheads with one another.  So too, to believe that the answer to trouble, or potential trouble, must always be warfare is the type of mindset that benefits only those of the military-industrial-technology complex, and does a grand disservice to the people, at large, on all sides of a given conflict.

Those then that actually believe that American wars, are initiated, in order to bring about for the country so being warred upon, a better society, of democracy, freedom, liberty, education, and opportunity for all, are absolutely delusional.  Wars, for the most part, are exactly what they appear to be – the forcing by violent means of one nations’ desire against the sovereignty and desires of another nation.  When it comes to America, in particular, none of its wars in the 21st century, have involved any countries in North, Central, or South America, which would seem to indicate that America believes, for whatever reason or reasons, that it should not be seen as just a powerful North American country, but rather should be seen as a global superpower that on its own, is entitled to make war against anyone at anytime for any reason, whatsoever -- treaties, niceties, and diplomacy, be damned!

The rather sad point when it comes to humanity and the governance of nations, is that, incredibly, if humanity were only to look at the animal kingdom, they might actually learn a relevant lesson or two.  For instance, though animals of the same species could often go to war against one another, for territory, for food, for mating reasons, and whatnot; those that could war against one another, often instead, realize that the better part of valor, is rather to display all the signs of war, as in the baring of teeth, or the thumping of the chest, or aggressive movements, but tellingly do not truly wish to engage in warfare with one another, most of the time, because they recognize that any battle, is going to probably involve some real damage, on both sides. 

The terrible thing about warfare is that warfare is a terrible thing -- for the damage it does to the minds and the bodies of those so involved in it, the destruction of infrastructure, the upsetting of the norms within society, the environmental damage, and the regression of civilization.  So then, rather than seeing warfare as a legitimate response to trouble, a far better reading of the situation, is to understand that “saber rattling” along with constructive diplomacy is the superior avenue to walk upon.  After all, when we consider all of the killing and destruction that Americans have done through warfare, supposedly to make the world a safer and more just place – is that, time and time again, nothing of substance has been resolved.  Further to the point, to believe that justice comes through the point of the sword, should be seen as a source of embarrassment for any nation, that considers itself to be civilized, and reflects instead the insane belief that “might makes right” which is wholly untrue.

The Uber kill app

Perhaps Uber and other ride sharing services such as Lyft, are a very good thing – but the real question is whether Uber is a very good thing mainly for those that are the owners of Uber, as compared to it being a very good thing for those that are its riders and drivers.  The main problem with ride sharing services as currently configured is that Uber takes a significant portion of the monies collected, that they have earmarked as fees, from the earnings of the driver, which also means thus charging a higher price to the rider because of those fees, of which, these fees appears to be typically around 25%, but can be even higher depending upon various other levies so being charged, as determined by Uber.  Further to the point, the transparency of the fees so being charged, and the reasons behind such, does leave a lot to be desired, but it is what it is.

The principle behind Uber just isn’t all that difficult, which is pretty much aligning riders that need a ride, with drivers who are willing to make that drive.  In a world, then, of which, never have so many people been connected through their smart phones and the apps that come with such – we do so find that it probably would not be overly difficult to create an app, that charges a set fee of $1 or even less, or possibly just is dependent upon advertisers, that thus allows people that want a ride to connect with people that are willing to drive them on that ride, which pretty much cuts out the middleman, of Uber, and hence means that the riders would pay less for their rides, and the drivers would get more. 

When it comes to the pricing of that model, there are multitude of ways to address such, of which, one of those ways is to use Uber as a proxy to set what the price is for a given ride and then simply use the “Uber kill app” in which the rider then proposes a particular price, which would be under the Uber price, and the first driver that expressed an interest in making that drive, would then accept the offer at the price so offered; and if nobody responds, then the rider could just use Uber.

As for the identity of the driver and of the rider, that could simply be resolved by providing a screenshot to one another with pertinent information, so that each party would have the necessary but not overwhelming knowledge of the other.  The bottom line is that ridesharing doesn’t need to be so complicated or convoluted that a fee of 25% or more, needs to be charged and thus cheats the driver and the rider out of money, so that those that are the principles and stockholders of Uber can make money upon the backs of regular folks.

In short, there are plenty of people that want to make some money by driving people for a price, and there are also plenty of people that need a ride – of which, in this world of smart phones, GPS, and well executed apps, there isn’t any real good reason why those rides could not be accomplished more and more with a service app that cuts out the middleman and thus helps the driver and the rider, so of.

Southern Aristocracy and the need for enslaved or cheap labor

In the year 1860, the United States, had about 4 million enslaved peoples, of which, there were six States of the Union that had a slave population which was at least 40% of the persons living within their States, and of which, two of those States, South Carolina and Mississippi were actually majority enslaved.  Upon the election of Lincoln, and despite the fact that Lincoln did not believe that he, as President, had the Constitutional right to interfere with slavery, in those States which had slavery; the Southern Aristocracy, decided that their reading of the tea leaves, indicated to them, that their way of life, could only still continue to exist into the future, if they seceded from that Union, which they subsequently did so, through the violent means of war in which the first shot of that war, was fired by the South.  The end result for the South, would be their defeat by the North, and the death thereby of hundreds of thousands of people, along with an incredible amount of destruction and the burning of materials along with infrastructure, as well as homes from that war, in order for the South to finally capitulate, which they so did, through an unconditional surrender.

The end of the war, meant that those that were formerly enslaved, were freed, and were, in theory, subject to the same Constitutional rights, including its newest Amendments, as everyone else within this nation.  Regrettably, that which is written on paper is never the same thing, as its application in the real world, of which, while the Southern Aristocracy had been defeated, they had little or no interest in seeing that the valuable land that they so own, which was the integral basis for their wealth, that they had so created through the valued help of enslaved labor, would somehow ever be sacrificed to anyone else or any other institution.  This thus meant that the Southern Aristocracy had to come up with some sort of format and therefore the means that thus would enable them to not only regain the wealth so lost to this Civil War, but also would permit them to make even more wealth, going forward.

The answer for the Southern Aristocracy was to replace those that formerly had been enslaved, with what appeared to be a win-win format, of sharecropping, which thus did not appear to violate the human rights of those that were partners to such.  The main issue that those that were previously enslaved had, was that they essentially owned nothing, and without access to capital, were thus faced with a situation in which their newfound freedom was endangered by their lack of capacity to earn a living.  The answer to this problem, seemed to be sharecropping, in which, in theory, those tenants and harvesters of the crops would do so under the basis of receiving a fair share of the benefits of the crop work so being performed, at the end of the harvest, which thus would pay for their seed, fertilizer, tools, room and board, and provide them with a proceeds of the profit, so of.  Not too surprisingly, this structure worked out very well for the owner/planter and not very well for the tenant/laborer.  So then, in short, the Southern Aristocracy successfully made the transition from working almost exclusively with slave labor, to basically working with “freed” people that they cheated, tricked, or hoodwinked, so that they could thus continue to make their profit and create wealth upon the exploited backs of those that had little or no alternatives, to such.

The not so independent contractor

For many a person, there is something to be said in being their own person, that is therefore not employed by some other person or corporation, but works instead for their own self.  While that does sound pretty darn good on the surface, and perhaps helps assuage a given person’s ego, there are an awful lot of good reasons why it behooves most people to desire to be an employee of a good company or organization, as opposed to working on their own, instead.

The very first thing to recognize about working is that most people have a strong desire to work in a profession that provides them with security, a good wage, career advancement, as well as a good benefit package.  In fact, many a company offers to their employees, that good wage, with a fair amount of security, avenues for advancement, and benefit packages which may well include 401K matching, healthcare benefits, dental benefits, vacation time, sick leave, personal time off, stock options, and various other perks and benefits, based upon one’s length of employment with the company as well as profits and growth so being made by that company. 

In consideration, of the bills and other financial obligations that we are obligated to address, along with family duties to attend to, it certainly makes sense for many a person to desire to secure the type of employment that will best be able to fulfill those obligations on a consistent and reliable basis.  This thus means that for most people, being an employee of a good company is the correct avenue to take.  Yet, even when people know this, we live in a society, in which more and more people aren’t being offered full time employment at jobs that they would normally expect such to be offered at, but are being encouraged instead to be an independent contractor to them, or a gig worker, or a consultant, or things along those lines, by these very same entities that normally would be the place where an individual would go to get hired as a full time employee.  The fact that this is the case, should be the very first sign, that being a so-called “independent contractor” with the conditions appearing to be dictated by that which would normally represent one’s employer, is probably going to be a situation, in which one entity is going to come out way better than the other.

The fact of the matter is that when someone is an independent contractor, that these individuals are thus typically responsible for their own healthcare, their own sick leave and vacation time, their own holiday pay, as well as being responsible for both the employee and employer self-employment tax.  Additionally, it is common for the independent contractor to have no firm guarantees of how long their work duties will continue with whomever that they are working with; which thus signifies that it is up to that independent contractor to secure more work, if necessary, by their own initiative.   In short, while it might feel good to be an independent contractor because it seems to mean that therefore you are your own boss – being one’s own boss isn’t all that, when at the end of the day, the risk to return, leaves something to be desired.

Capitalism and utilitarianism

In a capitalistic society, the objective seems to be to make as much profit as possible, of which, that profit deservedly goes then to those that created or helped to create that profit.  In regards to utilitarianism, this theory seems to stipulate that an action is considered to be correct when it thus produces the greatest amount of satisfaction or happiness to the highest amount of people.  So too, we thus find in a capitalistic society, that those that are the biggest proponents of that capitalism, have an innate desire to determine the overall worth of an individual based upon their perceived economic value to those capitalists of that person.  In other words, capitalists don’t care much for people that have little or no economic worth to them, unless it can be reasonably assumed that at some future point, these people will develop some meaningful amount of economic worth.  That is to say, when it comes to capitalism, it is all about the money, and those that have a zero or even negative economic worth are typically seen by capitalists as parasites to the economic system.

It is indeed a very dangerous mindset when society at its highest level, determines that what is of most importance to that society, is whether or not, a given individual has economic value to that society.  That is to say, those then, that are seriously ill, mentally challenged, troublemakers, the infirm, and the aged, are typically the type of people that aren’t going to have a lot of utilitarian value to society, because they often don’t have a lot that they can personally provide to that society, of anything that could conceivably be measured as contributing to the Gross National Product.  This thus signifies that to measure a given person’s value solely from the state of their perceived economic worth, is not only going to dehumanize how we interact with other people, but also this could readily become a slippery slope, in which those that are not economic contributors to society are seen then as impediments to the continued advancement of that society, and hence are accorded no worth within that society.

A significant amount of people at the present time, do not truly believe that each human being has the same intrinsic value as another human being, thus signifying that for those that think that, there are then particular human beings that are highly valued, and quite obviously, there are then those others that have little or no value.  Once a dividing line is created in which some people are considered to be of more value than others by that society, and of which, that society as it is structured and governed, supports the implementation of the rules that govern it, that serves to support this very theory, then the end result is going to be a society in which some of people will be accorded all the benefits and good accouterments as pretty much being their calling in life; whereas, those that are considered to be of the littlest utilitarian worth will be seen as those that should be fully exploited, fully taken advantage of, fully utilized, and then disposed of, without a second thought.

Nightmares and anxiety

Each of us has dreams every night, of which, none of us, can remember all of our dreams, but virtually all of us, can remember at least some of our dreams, some of the time; of which, not terribly surprising, those dreams that have a lot of emotional impact have a strong tendency to typically be the dreams that we remember the most.  That said, those dreams that make us overly anxious, or fearful, or upset, are usually described as nightmares; and while it is true that a nightmare is not reality, for we are in a dream state, it can often feel so real to us, that the experience of that nightmare can seriously affect our emotional state upon our waking up from such.

While there are a lot of reasons of why a nightmare might so occur, such as from the lack of consistently good sleep, a poor diet, drugs, guilt, stress, and things of that sort – it has to be acknowledged that people that have stressful lives or are in an especially stressful situation are in place in which this thus often creates anxiety -- and anxiety has a way of carrying over into our lives, even when we are trying our best to keep our minds focused upon something else or upon some other activity so as to alleviate that constant nagging feeling of anxiety.

The thing about dreams, or nightmares, for that matter, is that all of this originates in our mind – which signifies that the dreams and nightmares that we have, are ours to own.  This means to the degree that we care not to remember or to dwell upon our own dreams, is a conscious choice which we control.  In short, the fact of the matter is that these are our dreams, which should send a signal to us, that it might well be in our best interests to want to pay attention to our dreams, good or bad, so that we can try to figure out the message of what we have so dreamt.   Those then that desire to learn from their dreams, thus make it their point to have some sort of memory aid by their nightstand, such as a voice recorder, or pen and paper, and further they impress upon their minds before they reach that sleep state that they so desire to remember their dreams.

For those, then, that seem to suffer from an inordinate amount of nightmares, this should be best seen as an opportunity to try to figure out the message of the nightmare and then thus to correct what needs to be corrected in the mindset and the actions, so of, subsequently made.  While a nightmare might present itself for a multitude of reasons, one of those seminal reasons, has got to be seen as a warning to us, that not all is right, which is why we feel that anxiety that nags at us.  Each of us can try to escape facing what we need to face, but in our repose, we so find, that what we will not deal with consciously and proactively in the present, is presented to us as a nightmare so that we will be reminded that our house is not in order, and that we best do what we need to do to achieve that necessary order, or at least try to.

Tyranny and its need for self-serving secrecy

In the interest of national security there is a time and place for secrecy, but what has to be admitted is that to a very large extent, those governments and institutions that have an inordinate amount of secrecy associated with them, are almost for a certainty, using secrecy, more times than not, in a self-serving manner, and not then for the protection or for the benefit of the general public.  In other words, those agencies and enterprises that are up to no good, are going to strongly desire to keep “under wraps” anything that they fear might be interpreted or misinterpreted by the general public as being actions which are detrimental to the people and their rights, at large.

When it comes to the best of the reasons of why secrets are necessary, that reasoning is usually based around the fact that there are elements within and without societies, that necessitate some sort of response or action, which requires confidentiality of some degree in order to best effect the proper defense or response, so needed or desired.  For the most part, the general public, well understands the need for secrecy and will not then insist upon the full disclosure of that, which probably should not prudently be disclosed.  The problem, though, is that a lot of the secrecy that we see in the present time, has a lot more to do with the types of actions that are done in secret, and are deliberately hidden from the public, that for a certainty, are basically built around subterfuge, deception, outright lies, and must be kept secret, because these secret actions are insidious enough, that they often serve to undermine the foundational principles of what the Constitution, so represents.

It is unfortunate that governments are only as good as the people that run them – of which, the more secretive and deceptive that government is about what is really going on, in the name of the people, the more that government devolves into being a power onto itself, and less that it feels then for a need to be a responsible servant to the people.  When the people are precluded in knowing what is really happening, because there are labyrinths upon labyrinths and a multitude of layers of secrecy, secreted from them, then this nation, isn’t really run by a government, of, for, and by the people, at all; but rather, this government is run by those that are the powerful and secretive implementors of it.

The more secretive a nation is and the more secrets that it so has, the more that government has become tyrannical in its structure, because it essentially has bifurcated itself into a government that is publicly known, along with a very powerful secretive government, which is unknown.   So too, a tyrannical government would have difficulty in existing, if not for its secrets, because when the people know all of what their government is about, they will fight back, in ways big and small, when what is so happening to them is clearly unfair, unjust, discriminatory and wrong.  Remember this well, the best government is that which is honest, transparent, and open to debate its proposed policies – whereas, that government that insists that it needs all sorts of secrets to best protect and defend the people, is in all likelihood, inimical to those same people.

“For you grow to heaven, you don't go to heaven”

The sleeping prophet, Edgar Cayce, tells us that: “For you grow to heaven, you don't go to heaven.” In the western world, mainly because of its material success, as well as the fact that it has its footprints all over the globe, there is a tendency to believe that the western world thus has all of the answers that humankind could ever consider to ask.  Further to the point, based upon the commercial advertisements that we so encounter each and every day, in which, these advertisements, make it their point to emphasize that all we could ever want is contained within the particular product so being marketed, that it therefore becomes almost second nature for many of those in western nations to believe that whatever that it is that they so need for satisfaction, is always going to be something that is readily available to them, if only they would buy this or buy that.  Yet, that isn’t true whatsoever, and never will it be true, for lasting happiness and satisfaction, whether in this world or beyond, cannot ever be simply purchased and never will that be so. 

We do so find, that the way that the Christian religion, for instance, has been often disseminated or distorted to the people, at large, is that there seems to be a general belief by the public, that they can do all the sinning that they so want, and perform as many bad actions as desired, if they will only accept finally that Christ is their savior, and hence be not only forgiven of all their sins and errant ways, but thus be eligible to go to Heaven, as well.  For all those that mistakenly believe that there is some sort of shortcut or a way to “game” the system to get into Heaven, without essentially having to change the content of one’s character, this is fundamentally untrue.  No one just goes to Heaven, for Heaven, is a destination that can only be earned by developing or rediscovering the skill-set so needed, that is in harmony with God’s good commands.

To believe that Heaven, pretty much accepts anyone at any level, at any time, is nonsensical.  For the very problems and unresolved issues that we had in this world, we bring with us to the next world, and when those character traits are thus not in accord with love, empathy, compassion, justice, truth, and forgiveness, then it really isn’t possible or conceivable that we can successfully enter through the Holy Gates.  Remember this well, that which we truly value, we work very hard to achieve, and further to the point, we will not relent until we achieve that very goal.  This then, signifies that to reach Heaven, we must grow and develop ourselves in a way and manner that is heavenly in our demeanor and by our actions, forthwith.

The world that we exist in, is structured for us, as a proving ground – so meant to test us and our worth in the cauldron of sacred fire.  The challenges we face are meant for us to overcome, and until we prove our mettle, again and again, we will not make it to Heaven, for Heaven is a destiny so meant for those that are conquerors and not for those that are the conquered.