The boss of your credit card

When it comes to credit cards, it has to be taken into fair account, that the bank issuing such credit, is basically providing a loan to the customer up to the limit of the credit line approved, with terms and conditions on how that loan is to be paid back, which typically means a monthly payment, in which the customer needs to at least pay the minimum on-time, along with the customer having the discretion to pay all of the loan back, which seems like a real boon because those that pay off their credit card balance in full each month, are essentially receiving an “interest free” loan from that banking institution.

 The thing about credit cards is that they are now ubiquitous, so that those people who don’t have credit cards are typically seen as people who must not be creditworthy.  So too, being able to pay for items that a person desires through a credit card, with the sure knowledge that the bill, even when subsequently presented does not necessitate it having to be paid in full, seems far superior to having a debit card, which takes the money straight out of a person’s checking account in real time.

 It would be nice if the boss of the credit card, was actually the person whose name was on the credit card, but in actuality, the boss of the credit card is always the banking institution that granted it, and therein lies the rub, because those that issue credit through credit cards have a lot of power and discretion to change things, and can do so at their discretion and without fair warning.

 This thus means that those who enjoy a $10,000 credit limit or even higher, might believe that things will always remain the same, but might just find to their dismay, that the banking institution can just close their account, for various reasons, such as the account not being used as intended, credit score dropping precipitously, or pretty much anything that they can conceive of, and the customer has no real recourse, to reverse things, though they can try, for once the banking institution has determined that you are not the customer that they want, they have the final say, and, therefore that credit and the credit card once priceless, is now as if it never existed.

 Further, to add insult to injury, plenty of credit cards permit the user to accumulate points through their usage, which are good for things such as a statement credit, airline miles, hotel points, or gift cards, but once the banking institution determines that the account will be closed, they will no longer honor those points, so the points accumulated by the user, will simply and completely vanish.

 While the sudden closing of a credit card account by the banking institution certainly seems unfair, especially since there isn’t any independent 3rd party to adjudicate such, it has to be remembered that a credit card as issued is never a right, but is a privilege, and privileges are subject to being taken away, making it all so clear, who the boss of that credit card, actually is.

The rich and powerful have never had it better

The world isn’t fair to begin with, but what has made it worse is the incredible amount of power that is now held by those who are superrich or well-connected, to control the narrative in their favor, and to essentially silence all those who could upset that construct, for they don’t have the social reach or connections to make an impact.

 The thing about social surveillance is that it has never been easier than today, to surveil somebody, best done thru that person’s compromised phone, and once another party compromises a phone, they have a wealth of information, that can be exploited for their own advantage, along with the salient fact they know exactly where a person is, at all times and what they are doing.  Having that sort of insight upon anyone is incredibly powerful, and it need not be used immediately, for such information secured is available for those who have control of it and can be thus utilized at their discretion.

 So too, when the superrich behave badly and are caught at it, they still have the way and means to control that narrative through legal threats, non-disclosure agreements, or just about anything in which they can assert their leverage in a way and manner that they get what they want, for a price, in one form or another.  After all, it’s not a fair fight when a regular individual finds themselves to have been abused or taken advantage of by a powerful personage and can’t get justice, because that powerful person has all the right connections to see that the matter is typically resolved in their favor, and when severely outgunned, most normal people are going to lose interest in the fight, because they don’t see that there is going to be justice, so they give up the fight.

 All of the above means that, quite clearly, this is not a level playing field, for it favors the rich and powerful over regular folks.  This signifies that there clearly is the law as applied to those who are the elite, and a completely different set of rules and laws for those who don’t have those sorts of connections.  This makes for a world of inequality, injustice, and unfairness.  After all, if this government will not play its essential part to see that money does not matter, by asserting the rule of law squarely, even when inconvenient, then the nation as a whole is weaker for this.

 When the rich and powerful are in essence, above the law, then there isn’t any real reason for the rest of the population to believe that playing fair and following the rules actually is the correct or right thing to do, because they can see that the game is completely unfair and unjust, which leads then to many a person having contempt for the rule of law, because the law is one thing for those that are rich and powerful, and something completely different for those that are not.  This would seem to signify that this is not a nation of, for, and by the people, but instead is structured for those who are the richest and most powerful to exploit everyone else to their heart’s desire.

The supposed big bad wolf: non-state terrorism

Just the word terrorism seems kind of frightening, but then again, there are lots of things in the real world that really are frightening, and non-state terrorism, which is something to respect as a possibility in happening, just isn’t something that societies should be overly concerned about, because the chances of a real act of terrorism actually happening to us is almost always remote.

 Look, big explosions and terrorism attacks are going to wreak havoc on any civil society, but it is always important to have some reasonable perspective because the difference between non-state actors and state actors is absolutely stark.  For instance, an effective state actor has all the accouterments of an established military, as well as an established base of corporations that are manufacturing the armaments and are also developing more state-of-the-art armaments.  Further to the point, state actors have a budget to work within and have established as a matter of national policy the need to have military prowess.  On the other hand, non-state actors are limited to what they can or cannot do, and while they may well be innovative in what they can accomplish, given their personnel, experience, and overall footprint, they are, in actuality, limited in their ability to actually wage war upon anyone.

 Look, the elephant in the room is always going to be state actors and is never going to be about non-state actors because the difference between the two is so striking that it doesn’t make sense to group them together as somehow being the equivalent to one another.  The bottom line is that money matters, experience and expertise matter, the sophistication and power of weapons matter, the inventory of weapons matters, and the priority of a government of how much they are going to devote to armaments and things of this sort matters.  In all of this, a state actor has not only the capability but also the capacity to really hurt not just non-state actors but also state actors, as well, because the bigger the footprint, the bigger the potential hurt.

 Non-state terrorism is very much hit and miss, with occasional hits that are quite effective, and a whole multitude of misses, for various reasons. Also, it is important to note that non-state actors cannot often work outside their domain, at any great distance, because they lack the manpower and logistics to do so. Additionally, non-state actors know that they can’t compete against state actors, which is why they specialize in terrorism, in the hope that by doing so, they can make an impact, which is why they do what they do.

 All of the above, makes the point that as much as we might desire for non-state actors who are performing terrorism to simply disappear or to be completely eradicated, it just isn’t going to happen, because it only takes a few motivated individuals with their hands on some sort of weaponry to perform terrorist acts.  So, non-state terrorism is not going to go away anytime soon, and our best response is to simply do what we can to reduce such, without getting completely bent out of shape, or acting the fool.

Efficiency

There are lots of organizations and companies that have a desire and a need to be efficient in the resources that they utilize, which is why it makes sense to periodically take a top-down look at the company to make sure that it is running as a well-oiled machine.  While it could be said that efficiency has its place, but it certainly isn’t the only thing, it has to be added, that the problem with deadweight is that it tends to drag down good people with it, so where there is a need to cutback or to lay off, rather than to ignore such, it’s probably necessary to do what needs to be done.

 That said, it’s those types of meetings in which upper management gets together and decides that 10% of the workforce needs to be eliminated, and then goes about earmarking who is or is not going to stay, without bothering to figure out what different departments and the personnel within those departments are actually doing that causes problems because upper management has failed to previously engage with that personnel. In other words, if there isn’t anybody in upper management that actually knows what is going on at certain departments and they don’t even know who the personnel are that make up that department, or their purpose, they probably should try to ascertain what is going on first, before willy-nilly firing people before understanding what it is that they do.

 After all, to believe somehow that 10% of any workforce is somehow unessential seems to reflect that upper management doesn’t have a very good grasp on understanding the personnel within their organization.  So too, there is a need to better understand what different departments and the personnel within those departments are doing, before just systematically deciding that 10% of them just have to go.  Not only will that be devastating to that individual department, but some of the people being let go may be quite efficient and competent in their work, but because they are unheralded or politically unprotected, they are dismissed.

 Sure, there is going to be “fat” within any organization, but extracting out the right fat is no easy task, because human nature tends to give higher credence and credibility to those that we like or that flatter us, and less to those that seem off-putting.  Yet, from an efficiency standpoint, the personnel to keep should be based upon competency and experience, as contrasted to those who are good at giving lip service, and seeming to be of worth, even though they aren’t.

 Additionally, when it comes to business enterprises and the need to lay off personnel, it’s typically going to be far more efficient to look at the “big hitters” within the organization first.  That is to say, those who make the biggest salaries should be thoroughly examined, because not only will laying off personnel who make big money help to get to the efficiency target quicker, but often the blame for the need to lay personnel off probably rests mainly with top management, to begin with

They tell us not to fight in school

We are told not to fight in school, and school officials do their level best to enforce this upon the student body as much as possible.  This certainly seems sensible since the primary purpose of school is to learn, and learning isn’t going to occur when students are fighting.  Further to the point, fighting is not a proper way to deal with conflict resolution, and those who are in authority want to emphasize that before we decide that we are going to fight, or that we believe it's right to fight, there should be a serious attempt to calm things down, and to let the better angels of our nature to take over.

 That said, none of that really seems to matter, because we learn from our elders and we certainly learn from the conduct of our nation, and because the United States is the sole superpower in the world, of which, rather than to deal with conflicts maturely and diplomatically, it seems to prefer to skip that perceived sort of weak resolution, and just go straight to the flexing of its muscles again and again.  So then, the one thing that you could say about the United States and its military force, which is used all over the world, is that the United States proudly believes that might makes right, and proves that point emphatically to recalcitrant countries repeatedly.

 This would seem to imply that since the United States military imposes its will upon sovereign nations worldwide, in which the vast majority of those nations suffering from that will, have no true defense to such wanton aggressions -- that the bullying of other nations through our miliary might, seems to be something that the United States believes it has the right to impose upon any nation of its choosing, and further that no other nation has the right to tell the United States that it cannot.  This signifies for those who don’t seem skilled at conflict resolution in school or in society that fighting is the American way, and since that is true, they may as well start practicing in school.

 Indeed, the reason that this country is domestically so violent and leads all other Western nations of similar background in domestic violence by a large margin has a lot to do with how bellicose and violent America is when dealing with other nations that aren’t kowtowing to its demands.  That certainly makes sense, since violence has a way of begetting more violence, ad nauseam.  So then, since this is the American way, the United States may as well forget about emphasizing peaceful means to conflict resolution and get right to the meat of the matter, which seems to stipulate that we ought to train our children to be warriors, and when so trained as warriors they will bring that to their persona, and hence we will help to create an even more violent nation, trained in the art of fighting, which will mesh well with what America already represents in reality to the outside world.

Pass the baton

When it comes to American Enterprise, one thing that we can say for a certainty, is that many things are subject to change, and those corporations that are not up to their stuff, are the very same, that will miss their window to change, and subsequently will be left behind, for there are many an American corporation, in their day, which appeared impervious to competition, and seemed secure in their place with the American consumer, but somehow lost it all, slowly and then quickly.

 While a company is made up of many things and many factors, it is vital to recognize, that a company also consists of human beings, and some of those workers aren’t just very skilled at what they do, but have a wealth of information that isn’t necessarily written down in a document, but is contained within the mind, or their muscle memory.  In consideration that these employees aren’t going to be there forever, their skill set should ideally be passed on to the next generation, or it will be lost.

 So too, just because things have always been done a certain way doesn’t mean that it is the best way or that other ways should not be explored, because companies that have lost their innovation are in danger of being surpassed. After all, there is always some other entity looking to improve upon the way that things are, which is why not only is research and development important, but also why it is important to continue to be innovative and to look for ways to improve.

 Additionally, companies should not be afraid to thoroughly investigate just about every aspect of their organization to see if there is room for improvement and then to make it their point to improve. Indeed, one of the major issues with companies that have been successful but are starting to slip, is the fact that those in management are just comfortable with the way that things are, and therein lies the crux of the problem.

 So then, it is necessary to bring in “new blood” to any organization, not only because there comes a time when the best and brightest are well past their prime, but also because the younger generation has something to prove, and wants the fair opportunity to get to the proving.  Indeed, new employees, because they are not caught up yet in the corporate culture, for they haven’t been there long enough, can see things that those who have drunk the company “Kool-Aid” aren’t able to see readily, which makes them of special value. 

 A company is only as good as the people that are within it, and when those people have either seen better days, are resting on their laurels, or don’t seem concerned about innovation and progress, then that company is in trouble. How good the younger generation can do to improve matters comes down to not just their talent and desire, but also coordination with those who have the experience and know-how, so that with that new energy and perspective, along with wisdom, success is best assured.

Doesn’t insurance just seem like a scam?

In answer to the above question, a lot of people would say no, but even those people would admit to the fact that insurance sure doesn’t seem quite right. Then there are those people who are convinced that the way that insurance operates in America, sure seems, at a minimum, to be unfair, if not an outright scam, as well as the fact that it doesn’t do a good job often enough of taking care of business, when the insured needs that insurance to actually be a substance of strength for them.

 Look, insurance in many situations is mandatory or nearly mandatory in America, such as for our auto, our home, or our health, and in any case, in which a given individual is required by law to have insurance, the minimum that this country owes to its own is to robustly regulate the industry so that the profitability of the business is restricted to a certain set modest amount, and in those instances in which annual paid out insurance claims have been lower than expected, rebates should be issued.

 The strange thing about insurance, isn’t that it exists but rather that it’s so profitable, in which, for instance, major health insurance companies are making billions upon billions of dollars off of people, which not only doesn’t seem right, but clearly is morally suspect, because for a health insurer to make that type of money, could only be indicative that their primary concern is profit, not people.  That is to say, if this nation believes that it’s good for the American people, that health insurance providers are able to make billions off of people’s health issues, that seems to state quite clearly that profit for the few is more important than taking good care of the many.

 While it certainly makes sense that we should have insurance to protect what we own, should some adverse event happen to us, the deal as structured clearly favors the insurer at the expense of the insured.  Additionally, material things such as homes and cars should not be in the same category as one’s health, which would mean that health insurance shouldn’t be a for-profit industry, because not only does that seem to be unprincipled, but also because the drive behind health insurance should not be about getting that almighty dollar, but rather should be about doing that which is right by those who need good and compassionate healthcare.

 Perhaps what insurance needs is far less of a nationwide footprint, and far more usage of a localized insurance, in which a consortium of people and businesses get together, to pool their monies, to thereby bring insurance to the people at a reasonable cost.  This would thereby represent something more akin to what credit unions are structured for, and if successfully implemented, would be a very viable alternative to the current insurance situation, which is, quite frankly, a structure that is very, very good for the insurer, and at best, a disappointment to the insured.

The monuments game

It would seem in this consumer capitalistic society that there is constant pressure from a very early age, that each family needs to not only keep up with the Joneses, but ideally, to surpass them on some significant level.  After all, nobody really wants to be at the tail end of the line when it comes to visible achievements and accomplishments, because to be in that position is to be in the position of a loser. So then, many of us desire that others see us as quite accomplished, and thereby deserving of admiration and respect, which is the type of monument that we want to see displayed in front of our house, as a fitting tribute to that success.

 America is a very rich country, so it certainly makes sense that many of us should have a strong desire to take on the accouterments of that success, done through our hard work and dedication.  To a certain degree, that seems like a fairly reasonable thing to strive for because having certain creature comforts often makes for a more satisfying life.  The thing is though that when the game appears to be about getting access to or owning certain accouterments so as to give the impression that we are successful, but at the same time we have little or nothing to show that we have contributed in any meaningful way to the society that we are a part of, then our overall priority should be reevaluated.

 In this world, there are plenty of things that need to be addressed and done, and the more that we see of the real world, the better that we understand that not all is well and healthy within it, which is why rather than accumulating this or that consumer item, which we don’t really need, we should instead focus on doing our good part to help make society a better place for our good participation in it.

 Indeed, a society filled with selfish people who are all about themselves and have completely bought into the rat race is never going to be a healthy society.  Fortunately, we don’t all have the same desires, or the same goals, or the same mindset, for we are a mixture of many different elements, and the best of these people, are often those who have examined their life, and when found wanting, have made it their point, to change what needs to be change within them, so as to be a more complete and caring person, with the understanding that since we are all in this together, that we need to work together, for the greater good.

 In the end, each of us will have to face our Maker, and perhaps there will be those whose only complaint is that they didn’t accumulate more personal monuments or spend enough time appreciating their own genius, who will duly reap what they have sown.  Then there are those others, who took a step back from the madness of the crowds, and understood that the race isn’t to the swiftest, or even to the best, because it’s not really a race, but rather it is us doing our good part to bring light to where there is darkness, and necessary perspective to all those that seem too wrap up in their own supposed glory to see clearly.

Does your voice really matter?

Teachers are very good at getting across the point that all voices matter, and therefore, each of us has a voice that does matter.  While this does sound real good and healthy, the reality of whether our voices matter would appear to be subject to some serious debate, because whenever there are injustices that are well known to be part and parcel of this society, and having been occurring for decades but haven’t been successfully ameliorated or resolved, this would indicate that voices or not, those that have authority and power, seem to have the only voice that matters.

 To believe somehow that power actually listens to the powerless is fundamentally askew.  Rather, while there are a myriad of ways to attempt to get the attention of those in power, it more often comes forth from those who are able to bend the ear of somebody in power, which is indicative that they themselves have a degree of power.  This means that as much as we might voice our disdain about this or that, or voice our concerns about important items of the day, that those in power often don’t pay attention to it, because to them, they don’t hear it;

 Indeed, it doesn’t seem to matter how many people support a certain issue, and how great those numbers are, if the powers that be, don’t feel that they need to lend an ear to hear what the people are saying, because if those powers believe that what is occurring ultimately isn’t going to affect them or their business, then they have the right mind to ignore such, which they often do.

 Power has a strong tendency to concede nothing, and will concede only when they believe they have no good choice but to do so, or occasionally, when they have a crisis of ethical conscience -- for it is possible for people that have power, to suddenly wake up and see the injustice of a situation, and thereby to do something constructive about it, but in absence of this, only unrelenting pressure, unrelenting protest, and unrelenting voices, will possibly serve to press those in power, to consider their alternatives.

 Our voices should matter, but as in anything, how much a given voice matters has a lot to do with whether or not that voice can gain traction with others that favor that message and have the abiding desire to press onward with their collective voice in order to effect change.  The bottom line is that change is not easy to see implemented because those in power aren’t interested in change, because they already have what they want, and therefore want to keep it just the way that it is.

 Nevertheless, those that believe in what they believe, are entitled to air their voice, and in doing so, they are trying to make this democracy a better place for their valued agitation, because this is a nation of, by and for the people, and the people have been blessed with a voice that should be used so as to let be known what it is that they have to say.

High school diploma with Credentials and without credentials

To achieve a high school diploma is not a particularly difficult task, of which, just essentially showing up and doing the minimum of work is often good enough to get across the finish line.  In truth, there ought to be real credentials that need to be achieved in order to truly earn a high school diploma, but in the absence of such a standard, the least this nation owes its high performers is to differentiate them from those who are just doing the minimum. 

 So then, certain high school graduates really ought to get a certificate that stipulates that they have credentials, or they get one without credentials, and those with credentials should be accorded the respect that hard work and dedication deserve.  That said, not everyone is academically inclined, which is why there needs to be multiple pathways to obtain credentials, of which, the traditional one would include taking college courses while in high school, having a high ACT score, or having a high SAT score, but in none of these should GPA be relevant, because the problem with GPA is that many schools, just make it a formality to get a high grade, whereas the scholastic testing of a student, or college course work completed, definitely proves their mettle.

 So too, it is vital to understand that just having students who are academically high performers, should not necessarily supersede everything, because some sensible people just aren’t academically gifted, but they are gifted in other areas, such as in the arts, or in public service, or in general hospitality, of which, these are very important attributes, so that, those that have these particular skillsets, as well as other skills of merit, should be provided with a pathway that will permit them to also graduate with credentials.  That is to say, academics has its place, but it is not the only thing, and a strong argument could be made that some of the finest people in this nation, aren’t all that academically gifted, but they are paragons of virtue, of self-sacrifice, and of a belief that it is noble to do what they can to help make their society a better place for their good participation in it.

 Look, whether this nation should work harder on motivating its students to actually learn and to become something of substance, is something that needs to be addressed, but in the meanwhile those students that are in a good place in achieving something of substance, should be encouraged, and not only that they should receive some sort of benefits from their government to help get them to the place that they desire to go, because the more successful the students of today are, the better it will be for our nation, which is why it is vital that this government of, for, and by the people invest into that which will help assure that America remains a beacon of freedom, fairness, and opportunity, as compared to simply permitting more and more of Americana to degenerate into enclaves of hopelessness and incivility.

Tax audit all personal income above $1 million and all corporate sales above $100 million

There aren’t a lot of people or corporations that welcome a tax audit, but at the same time, there are plenty of people and corporations that are well prepared for such an audit, because those earning high-income, as well as those corporations that are pushing out a lot of product, recognize that they are going to have to be evaluated from a tax compliance standpoint, periodically.  If the point of having a tax code in America is for the purpose that individuals as well as corporations pay their appropriate share in taxes then the least that this nation owes its own taxpayer citizens, is the assurance that those that bring in high personal income as well as those corporations that sell an abundance of goods, have contributed what they should have contributed to the country that has provided them with the opportunity to make that money in the first place.

 When it comes to tax audits, it just makes more sense that there be a particular purpose behind such, and what that purpose should be is to see that the highest performers in this land are audited so as to better confirm whether they are or are not paying their fair share.  This signifies that rather than tax audits being an event which may or may not occur for certain people and corporations, that there needs to be a special category set aside for the big performers, which is why, those that have a personal income of $1 million or more should be automatically audited, and corporations that push out a lot of product, such as $100 million or more, should also be automatically audited.

 It isn’t like being audited is somehow a crime, it just should be common sense for the tax authorities of the state to want to examine the tax returns of the biggest players in this country, which will not only help assure compliance with tax laws, but could also mean the restructuring of some tax laws depending upon what is discovered in a careful examination of those tax returns.  All those who are high-income individuals should simply look upon an audit of their tax return as the price that needs to be paid for their success, as well as keeping in mind the important fact that these high earners can easily afford a tax accountant or attorney to deal directly with the IRS when it comes to their audit.

 So too, just the knowledge by the general public that the biggest players are being audited each and every year, should make them feel better about their own contribution in the paying of taxes, because there is a general consensus that the richest and most connected typically don’t pay their fair share, and one way to answer that question is to audit their returns, which should definitely provide some answers as well as to provide more revenue for the tax authorities, because when people and corporations know that their tax return will for a certainty, be audited, they are going to be more careful about what they put into it.

Pretrial Discovery Rule 16

There is a general belief, especially for people who don’t pay attention to things, to just believe that the way things are at present is the way that things have always been.  This isn’t true now, and never has been true, for changes are all about us, some quite visible, and others invisible.  When it comes to a criminal trial, there is the general belief that pretrial discovery has always existed, but that isn’t the case, it wasn’t until 1944 that pretrial discovery was codified, and by doing so, each side to a criminal case was thereby obligated to become transparent to the other, by providing access to pertinent documents, witness names, and just the general evidence applicable to the case at hand.  In other words, pretrial discovery makes the point that each side needs to have fair access to the other side’s materials, so that they can not only better understand the elements of the case, but also to help build their own case better.

 It might seem really weird that the prosecution, as well as the defense, is obligated to open up their books about the case at hand, as opposed to each side being able to keep their evidence and strategy close to their vest, but the very purpose of discovery is to allow each side a fair chance to prepare their case to the best of their ability, by a more thorough understanding of the perspective of what the other side has, which by this being the rule, precludes either side from “blindsiding” the other side.

 Further to the point, if the very point of a trial is for a fair and impartial outcome, as compared to one side having all the advantages so that they can achieve the result that they desire, then pretrial discovery is the very thing that definitely levels the field.  After all, whatever evidence that there is in a criminal trial shouldn’t be seen as a secret, but rather should be available for the other side to examine and to question thoroughly.  That is to say, the point of a trial is to get to the truth, and pretrial discovery is a huge aid in obtaining that truth, because what needs to be known is there to be known.

 Indeed, there isn’t any point to a public trial if the evidence pertinent to it can be hidden, distorted, or simply not available to the other side.  That isn’t a trial at all, but more an exercise to see that those who should be shamed are shamed, for it is difficult to come up with a sound defense, without having what is needed to properly prepare for it.  Look, a trial should be about the search for truth, and truth should not be something that needs to be concealed, and only then, at just the right time, will it present itself.  If what is true is true, then let it be known, loud and clear, and those then that aren’t able to refute that truth are the same who will have to accept that in the end, it’s always better for the truth to win out.

Utility bills and getting nickel-and-dimed

It used to be back in the day that people would write a physical check and then mail it to their respective utility company when paying their bill, or even go into the utility office itself, and pay it there.  Back then, a utility bill was a utility bill, so if a given customer owed $95, that’s what they paid, no more and no less.  Nowadays, while a customer can still pay most of the time via a physical check, this has been superseded by the paying of bills online, in which, truth be told, some utilities have no additional fee for those paying online, whereas others do.  It is those others, that create the issue about being nickel-and dimed, because quite frankly there is going to be a lot more human effort involved in opening up an envelope, taking out the check, making sure to post the check to the right account for the right amount of money, and then depositing that check.  For those who pay online, on the other hand, the payment structure is seamless because your login information contains the account number, and therefore, what is paid will automatically be aligned with your account.  This would seem to be not only more efficient, but far less prone to any errors.

 So then, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense that fees have to be paid, to the utility company for paying online, when the efficiency of customers paying their bills online, should clearly be superior to the receipt of what use to be thousands upon thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of physical checks.  This then would presuppose that the reason these fees are being imposed really has nothing to do with being fair and considerate, but as a way and means to extract additional money from customers, in which, because utility companies are regulated, just seems wrong.

 In any business enterprise there are multiple avenues to add to revenue, and one of those pathways is to nickel-and-dime the customer, which in theory, doesn’t hurt them much, because the amount of money, they are being charged for the convenience of paying online is minimal, of which, because utility companies can easily have hundreds of thousands of customers, those small fees add up for those utility companies to quite a bit of money.

 It just seems like bad optics to add on a convenience fee, especially when that fee amount is fixed, which signifies for those that don’t have a high utility bill that they are paying a much higher percentage of the total bill that is thus represented by that fee, as compared to someone else whose bill is considerably higher.  Yet, this is the way that it is, because the one thing about America is that it’s considered to be OK to nickel-and-dime a customer, because that demonstrates ingenuity in extracting more from a customer than they really should legitimately get, but it sure doesn’t seem fair, and it sure doesn’t seem right.

The right for everyone to vote should change things, but has it?

We read at theamericanleader.org that at the founding of this nation, “only about 6% of the population could vote,”  because only property-holding males could vote.  Over time, this began to change, and eventually the United States got to the point at which every citizen age eighteen and above had the right to vote, with the exception of the vote being taken away from convicted felons.  In consideration that the demographics of this nation have changed considerably since its inception and the fact that those who get elected as well as propositions passed, are democratically voted upon, it would seem to make sense that the voters would more times than not, get what they wanted, through the power of the ballot.

 Perhaps, the vote has changed things, because some of the most important legislation that this country has passed has come forth from the efforts of legislators. Yet, when we look around and see the reality of America, it would appear that never have so few had so much, and that the law, which shouldn’t be a respecter of persons, clearly favors those with connections and money.  In other words, the rich, well-positioned, and powerful in this nation seem to never have had it better, which signifies that the many who are struggling paycheck to paycheck have not only been completely outplayed, but are leagues away from obtaining the American dream.

 Indeed, we find that corporations and high-income taxpayers do not come close to paying their fair share in taxation, which means less money is being collected by the government to be redistributed for the general welfare of that nation. So too, when the policing arm of the state seems fixated on enforcing law and order, as opposed to upholding justice and fairness, then those who are considered to be on the outside are the very same who are going to be hurt the most.

 So then, all the changes that so many people clamor for don’t ever seem to occur, making a reasonable person to believe that “dark money” or its equivalency has far more power than the general public does, which is borne out by the fact that the general public keeps getting the short end of the stick, again and again.

 In this, the richest nation in the world, it would be helpful and correct if there were a more equal distribution of that money, but this isn’t happening, because taxation favors the well connected, and big corporations are permitted to essentially become sole-source or monopolies in many a respect, without any pushback from this government, of, for, and by the people.  So too, the educational system which is the key for so many people to have a good opportunity for success, has a clear separation between those school districts that have everything that a student needs to achieve and to learn, as compared to a poorer school district, which doesn’t provide even close to what is needed for a student to actually get educated.  All of this basically means, is that simply having the vote doesn’t appear to hold a candle to those who have power, connections, and influence.

Southern Enticement and Contract-Enforcement Law

One might believe that we live in a capitalist society in which competitors in a particular business don’t ever collude with one another, but when it comes to the necessity of turning a profit, businesses and entrepreneurs are going to tend to do what they believe that they need to do to give their business enterprise the best chance of success.  Back in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the vast majority of blacks lived in the Southern States, which should not come as any real surprise to anyone, since slavery was pretty much part and parcel of how the Southern economy functioned back then, and thereby those that despite being freed, were typically stuck in a construct in which they didn’t have a lot of good options to vacate their locale, of which, the general belief of blacks being employed as farm labor and similar, was that since they had a need of employment and of income, to strike the best deal that they could make, and if something better came their way to migrate to that.

 Not too surprisingly, when it comes to white people who controlled the means of production, a lot of them didn’t want to get into a bidding war with one another when it came to black labor, so that, a law was duly passed, known as the Enticement and Contract-Enforcement Law which stipulated that to lure a worker away from one job to obtain better working conditions and more pay at another job, would not be permitted.  In other words, whatever employment that a black laborer obtained under this contract law meant that they could not leave that employment to take on employment with someone else for better pay.  To say that this was a real raw deal for the black laborer would be an understatement, because in a true capitalistic system, workers are entitled to find employment at their discretion and will, and to be not only precluded from doing so, but to work within a domain, in which wages are essentially frozen, and of a contract which is unfair to them, is morally corrupt -- yet, this was the law as exercised back then.

 Quite frankly, there is then not only no room for advancement when a contract stipulates that the laborer has no right to take on a better deal, but it also removes any incentive from a laborer to do more than necessary, since there isn’t anything for them to aim for, in the achieving of such, which is why, the force of the law, welded by the white man, make a mockery of what supposedly freed people could or could not do, because when employment opportunities are restricted and thereby do not conform to an open market, it is the black laborer that suffers, and thereby is exploited. 

 So then, whenever people wonder why there are so many black people nowadays living up in the North, or the Midwest, it really comes down to perceived opportunity that leaving the Southern states represented back in the early 20th century, because those that see no future in one locale, are going to take on the risk of another locale, because this thus represents their only fair hope for success, in this the supposed leader of the free world.

Law enforcement and your cell phone

We live in a day and age in which our cell phones have a wealth of information about us, which is not only extremely personal but also is extremely detailed and accurate.  Indeed, that information in the hands of someone that we have no desire for them to be able to access that information is something that most people not only deeply desire to avoid but definitely don’t want to have happen to them.

 The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution stipulates that the general public is protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, subject to various exceptions, such as voluntarily granting law enforcement the right to look at our phone as well as exigent circumstances. When it comes to exigent circumstances, this typically seems to be something that is subject to interpretation, and regrettably, such interpretation has a strong tendency to favor law enforcement’s perspective.

 For those who are subject to an arrest, there is a strong tendency for people to desire to conform to what law enforcement desires from them, because they believe that not doing so will probably make the situation worse. This, quite obviously is not a good position to be in, and in consideration that law enforcement is capable of saying just about anything in order to access what they desire to access, or to know what they want to know, granting such access to one’s cell phone is more times than not, isn’t going to be enough to get back one’s freedom, though it does depend upon the circumstances, while also depending upon the overall projection of what law enforcement believes about you, in which, the more that law enforcement sees you as an upstanding citizen or somebody of value or worth, the better the chances are that things will work out favorably or tolerably well for you.

 While there are all sorts of laws meant to protect individuals from the law being arbitrarily enforced upon them, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the law as exercised is going to be faithful to the protections that people are supposed to have.  Further to the point, once a person is arrested, and their cell phone is no longer in their control, it’s problematic as to whether a warrant will be issued to search that phone or whether that phone might just be searched without that warrant, because law enforcement has a lot of robust tools that can perform that very thing, without the subject ever really knowing about it.

 In short, for all those that have cell phones one needs to take into fair consideration as to whether or not, what is on that phone, might be problematic, from a law obedience perspective, and if it is questionable, then it would probably behoove that person to clean up their cell phone, because today’s cell phones with their wealth of detailed information, are the pathway to figuring out who and what we are, and for those that have something in which, prudence itself, states that they would be better off if this was not contained on their cell phone, should remove such, posthaste.

Cellphones and the decline of productivity

Back in the day, cellphones weren’t in existence, so that people that were working at various tasks, didn’t have the constant distraction and disruption that cellphones represent, because they simply weren’t present, and while it is true that our cellphone is our own minicomputer, the problem with these ubiquitous devices is that they far too often serve to distract us from taking care of our necessary tasks, at hand, which thereby means that people’s productivity thus declines.

 The most amazing thing about cellphones is that whenever that you see somebody out in the public with their eyes glued to their phone, or their fingers moving rapidly upon such, is there is that remembrance and reflection that there was a time and age, when cellphones didn’t exist, which thus indicates that people quite obviously had to do something else other than to bury their nose in their phone, which might be activities such as concentrating on one’s work or homework, being social with other people, taking in the beauty of one’s surroundings, daydreaming, or just a general appreciation of all that surrounds us.  Regrettably, this seems to represent for a lot of people, the past, and apparently a past that will not ever be repeated, because a significant amount of people, seemed to be tied to their cellphones, as if their life would somehow be much the worse, if they didn’t have their device always on them.

 Look, it has to be admitted that every time that our phone makes some sort of noise or flashes, in regards to a text message or email or social media update, even if we don’t take a peek at our phone, it’s going to serve to distract us from what we should and ought to be doing, of which, because of that distraction, we simply aren’t going to be as effective or productive at what we should be doing, then we are.  This is, in a nutshell, the problem with cellphones -- that while they can provide us with a wealth of actionable information, they have a strong tendency to actually pull us away from what should be our focus to something that really doesn’t need to be addressed at that time and place.

 Yet, there doesn’t seem to be a clarion call to do anything about this, so that whatever issues that we presently have in the form of distraction and lost productivity seem to be the price that society is willing to pay, so as to have their phone continuously with them.  This would appear to be a mistake, because when we fail to put reasonable boundaries in place to protect us from overeating, or drinking too much, or failing to get our work done on time, we are the worse for it, because we know that in order to achieve what we need to achieve, we are going to have to put forth concentrated effort which must be prioritized over all those other things that we could do, but ought not to do.  This is why we need to develop the discipline to not permit our cellphones to dictate to us, and to thereby distract us from getting done first things, first.

Like for Like

The changes that we desire in our civil society start with ourselves. That is to say, we can’t expect the change that we are in favor of to occur without ourselves behaving in a manner that reflects the change that we want to see actualized and doing our good part to help bring this to fruition. In other words, if we want a more civil society, we need to be more civil to one another, and if we can't do that ourselves, then we aren’t contributing in a positive way to the change that we want.

 Look, it’s true that we cannot change others simply through the force of our mind, but we can though lead by example, so that the type of behavior that we desire to see in the other, we first exhibit ourselves.  Further to the point, we should want to encourage good behavior, by appreciating behavior that is conducive to a good civil society, which means that those that can maintain their cool, even while everyone else seems to be losing their head, are the very type of people, that we should not only admire, but should desire to emulate, because in the scheme of things, people tend to overreact upon certain events, and it is desirable to be around people that while acknowledging injustice, don’t end up taking on the cloak of injustice and incivility, themselves.

 Indeed, whatever our pet peeves are about the other, the important thing is to do our good part in doing the right thing, and behaving thereby in the right way, which may serve as a good example for those who need direction.  After all, hypocrisy is insisting upon people behaving a certain way, but not conforming to that way ourselves, which is why we not only need consistency, but also why we need to monitor our own behavior, so that we exemplify the very characteristics that we desire to see exhibited by more people.

 The least that we should do is to make it our point to see that we don’t make worse a situation that is already degenerating, by giving in to negative emotions, and by doing negative actions, that we often are going to regret later.  That is why we need to think before we act, and not only that, we should already know how we should act, and to thereby conform to that ideal, to the best of our ability, because not only will that make for better relationships, but it also serves to remind us how difficult it is to maintain our good demeanor and balance, when things are going wrong.

 It is our obligation to the society that we are a part of, to do our fair part to help make that society a better place for our participation in it, which is why we should judge less, and simply be about our business to help get done what needs to get done, and also to relate to people on a level that takes into consideration that their inherent value is no less than our own.

Make it your principle not to look back

The problem with moving forward but turning one’s head to look back, is that the direction of a person’s momentum is still moving forward, but no longer has visual guidance as to what is ahead, for that is being concentrated instead on what is behind, which means that any obstacles that come our way, will trip us up.  Further to the point, while there may well be things that we regret having done, these represent our past, and to constantly dwell on such is a mistake, because it will not change what has already occurred.  Additionally, to constantly focus on the past means that we are not forward-thinking enough, and thereby are short-changing our ability to make positive progress, which should be our main objective in life.

 We need to remind ourselves that we live in the ever-present, and if there is something that we need to meaningfully address, the best way to do that is to concentrate on that very thing, which is why looking back is typically not going to be helpful for us for it often serves as a distraction.  Still, there are plenty of people who do not desire to leave the familiar because that provides them with comfort, but at the same time, they need to, at a minimum, at least occasionally push themselves out of their comfort zone, or else they will stagnate, and stagnation is anathema to growth and progress.

 So too, by looking back, we discount the future, so as to emphasize the past, which isn’t going to be beneficial for us in accomplishing what we need to accomplish, because we aren’t focusing on what needs to be done to get to the destination that we were meant to get to.  Indeed, some of those who live in the past are fearful of the future, because the future is uncertain, but that is always the case, and those that will not prudently risk something to gain even more, have essentially buried their talents to live on their past accomplishments, as if that is all that they need do.

 Look, it has to be said, the race is not necessarily to the swift, but it certainly is never to those who aren’t even moving, for stagnation just doesn’t accomplish all that much.  The important thing is to have a worthwhile goal and to thereby do what needs to be done to accomplish that goal, which necessitates not only acquiring necessary knowledge, but also developing and obtaining the accouterments that will bring that success, without ever wavering from that goal, by always staying focused upon such, which thus means that in that objective, the past remains the past, and the drive to get to that goal, is the actuator of what we do and say.

 Each of us is meant to leave behind that which will hinder us in progressing to where we are meant to be, for that extra baggage will slow us down, while also serving as a distraction, of which the new is meant to push out the old, and to thereby replace that old wineskin with the maturity and accomplishments that newly earned wine richly deserves.

Your cellphone knows everything about you

The fact of the matter is that our smart phones are so robust nowadays that they have the capability through apps to open up our house door, to start our automobile, and to save our credit and debit cards, for pretty much this device contains and thereby represents who and what we are, for all of our text communications, pictures, videos, as well as our location as we moved about our day is duly noted, stored, and recorded.  This signifies that while there are massive conveniences to having a device that we can call upon to surf the web, to call a friend, to conduct business, to take pictures, to make social media posts, and so on – we also have a device that remembers everything that we do and in the hands of some other entity with access to our passcode, would provide them therefore with a very detailed biography of who and what we are, for our phones surveil our own self, exceedingly well.

 It isn’t too much of a stretch to believe, that governments the world over, are absolutely delighted that cellphones know so much about us, for therefore everything that we have essentially done either on our phone, or in our movements in the community that we are a part of, has been recorded, and whenever the government or some other entity has access to that information, this can be utilized to manipulate us, to control us, and to compromise us, for there is always going to be some information meant exclusively for just one party or one person, that in the hands of a different party or a different person would serve to alienate us or to hurt us.

 We thus live in a day and age in which, if we do not have ironclad guardrails put into place as to who and what controls our information dissemination on our cellphone, then we have essentially ceded our private information to private enterprise and to the governance that regulates the same.  This is not, therefore the brave new world that we believe that we have entered, but rather this is a world in which “Big Brother” in any of its myriad forms is watching us and in that watching, putting itself in pole position to “groom” us in whatever direction serves its purposes.

 It is somewhat ironic, that all of the domestic spy agencies that spy on its own, are presently salivating that never has there been a time such as this, in which social surveillance is done voluntarily by the user which is not only incredibly accurate but also incredibly detailed, of which, many of those that are being surveilled, are blithely unconcerned, unaware, or clueless, as if they believe that living a life as an open book, in which everything is known about them, will somehow never be used to influence or to harm them.  As it is been said, information is power, and the type of information on our cellphones is so detailed and so complete that in the absence of an individual having personal sovereignty over that information contained on their cellphone, they are at the mercy of those who do.