Just been arrested is ruinous to many people's lives

It needs to be recognized that most lives have a general order to it, in the sense that we have daily obligations that we must attend to, and when this is disrupted in a way and manner in which we cannot attend to those necessary things, it can be debilitating to the person so suffering from that fate, which is why when we look at people that are arrested, and ultimately have their charges dismissed or reduced to something very minor such as in many a misdemeanor, what is not recognized often enough, is that act of an arrest, typically creates a very negative cascading effect upon their life, because whenever those that have obligations to take care of, fail in doing that very thing, this may easily lead to a loss of their job, and an inability to pay for certain bills, and so on, because they have had to devote resources to obtaining bail, legal counsel, and finding a way to replace that loss income.

Look, the law as applied is structured unfairly, so that those that are perceived as being annoying, or don't look the part, or live in a trouble neighborhood, or are in the wrong place at the wrong time, are going to be treated differently than those that live in the most upstanding neighborhoods in which the police in those very nice neighborhoods are typically going to be quite civil and reasonable when dealing with those that live and hence belong in that neighborhood, so that the end result of whether someone gets arrested or is let go, or even treated with the utmost politeness depends upon the perception of that officer, in which the default appears to be, to be harsh upon those that don't look the part, and quite accommodating with those that do. The reason that this is the case is that police officers answer to the hand that feeds them, which signifies that messing with those that have money, status, or power or access to such is considered to be bad form, whereas messing with those that lack those attributes is considered to be "good" policing.

While the law as applied is never going to be completely fair or consistent, seemingly, the least that we ought to see happen is for far fewer arrests to occur on minor incidents, replaced with something akin to a citation, a general summons, a warning, or passing on the issue to social services to attend to, as opposed to an arrest.  Indeed, not every interaction that the police have responded to should be escalated to an arrest, and if so, arrests should be segregated into those charges that are serious, as contrasted to those charges which are minor, in which the minor charges are taken to some sort of specialized police station in which the arrestee is "fast tracked" into being recognized, processed, and released in short order, so that they have a reasonable chance to get back on schedule to the things that they need to address on a daily level.

In other words, the very least that the law enforcement apparatus needs to do is to speed up the process, so that people who are being accused of some trivial offense can be quickly excused to be about their business, for unless this nation desires to change its mindset from "innocent until proven guilty" to something akin to a presumption of guilt for all those arrested, which seems to be the way that things currently are, it's going to continue to result in far too many arrests being ruinous to a given person's life.

Canada and Mexico ended slavery before the USA and without civil war

The Civil War in the 1860s cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. It was also devastating to the economy because of the monetary cost of that war, along with the corresponding devastating damage so done to its infrastructure.  That said, after it was all said and done, slavery no longer existed in the United States. The Constitution was amended to provide true civil rights to those that were previously enslaved, though in actuality, even today, America still has the same favored race, and those that are not part of that favored race are subject to living in a construct which has been demonstrably unfair to so many of them, despite laws that are meant to provide equality, liberty, and justice for all.

Something, though, that many people do not know or pay much attention to is that both Mexico as well as Canada also had slavery, but whereas eradicating slavery took a very bitter and bloody civil war, in which some States of the Union seceded from such, none of this happened in either Canada or Mexico.  Regarding Canada, the Slavery Abolition Act, which took a long, tortuous path to become law, came into effect on August 1, 1834, which eliminated slavery throughout the British Empire.  As for Mexico, President Vicente Guerrero issued a decree abolishing slavery on September 16, 1829, a few years after Mexico was declared independent of Spain.  In both of these cases, the law eliminating slavery was passed not only because it recognized the humanity of all human beings, but also because slavery was a clear and present affront to a fair and civil society, and thereby unacceptable to a civilized people and its government.

The United States, therefore, was an outlier, and even though both countries contiguous to the United States had ended slavery, America insisted upon not only maintaining its institution but was intent, from the Southern perspective, along with those that sympathize with their position, to see that slavery be extended into new territories and States, which clearly created a division between those that desired to see slaves emancipated or at least reduced in number as opposed to those that were absolutely determined to see slavery continue forevermore, as this was an integral part and parcel of their plantation economies, structured for profit, above all.

The bottom line is that those that were fixated on the necessity and need for slave labor were, for the most part, determined to keep that slave labor because they believed that their continual path to profit, power, and social status necessitated their exploitation of that labor for their personal benefit.  In other words, it was the profit so produced from those enslaved that meant that those that benefited directly and indirectly from the slave system would not countenance any interference with that institution, and hence they were willing to fight for their "right" to enslave other human beings, which is to the lasting shame of the United States, which was unable to legislate slavery out of existence, but instead had to fight a Civil War, which ultimately ended that slavery but has yet to end the negative aftereffects of having enslaved so many for so long.

Monetary bail is regressive and needs to be reformed

Being arrested is never anyone's desirable outcome, because it leads to all sorts of inconveniences and, for some people, sets them on a path to a miserable life.  Yet, American law enforcement seems absolutely intent upon arresting many individuals for whom circumstances would strongly suggest that an arrest need not take place, because there really hasn't been a meaningful incident necessitating an arrest; but in a nation in which police officers essentially have implied quotas, as well as incarceration facilities that have a constant need for inventory, and a justice system that needs arrestees to justify their budget and infrastructure, arrests are commonplace.

It would be one thing if an arrest meant a short inconvenience, before the arrestee was released on their own recognizance based on the fact that the alleged offense was something trivial and that the arrestee was not a true clear and present danger to the general public, at large, but that, however, is not the way that the justice system through its cash bail system actually works, though there are a few exceptions in some States.  The very first thing to recognize about being arrested is that one's freedom has ended, because handcuffs are frequently used and the subject no longer has agency to be about their business but must adhere to the conditions so imposed upon them.  Further to the point, the wheels of justice are typically quite slow, so that even a simple arrest means that the person won't be released soon enough to take care of typical things such as going to work, or school, or attending to household tasks, which can readily take a meaningful toll on being able to get their life back in order, should they be released through bail, at some point.

The next issue for the arrestee is the effort to be released on one's initial arraignment in which our justice system thrives on padding the charges so imposed upon the arrestee and typically makes the case that bail needs to be imposed, and the decision so made by that court, doesn't take into consideration much of anything that the defendant or their representative has to say, because there isn't any real time to consider these things, so bail so being set has little or nothing to do with the arrestee having ready financial assets to pay bail, and everything to do with a "cookie-cutter" approach, and thereby cares not a whit how that person will meet bail or if they will meet bail, and those that cannot be quickly bailed out, their lives are effectively ruined or they exist in a very bad place.

Indeed, the monetary bail system is really structured to punish arrestees, regardless of the true guilt or innocence, and additionally to essentially force those that cannot make bail to plea bargain to a deal, which is not justice, but rather coercion against an arrestee who, because they have not bailed out, for they don't have the assets, they thereupon make a plea to a charge which isn't fair to them.

A far better construct when it comes to bail is to recognize that those who are arrested aren't guilty of anything, but rather are innocent until proven guilty, which signifies that those who have been arrested should be allowed to be quickly released without monetary bail, especially when they have been charged with an offense that is minor in nature, so they can be about their business and let justice have its course, in a manner that is not a matter of the money in a person's wallet but rather deals fairly with the facts as they are.

The reasonable need for more expungement of criminal records

We find that in the United States of America, this would appear to be an incredibly lawless nation, because so many Americans are locked up or have been locked up, or are on probation, or on parole.  Perhaps this is a good thing, strictly enforcing "law and order" and keeping the state's good citizens safe and secure.  Yet, it needs to be understood that there are all sorts of crimes that are either victimless in the sense that the possession of certain illicit drugs affects only that person who possesses and uses such, and therefore there is no victim; as well as prostitution being a crime even when it is between two consenting adults, and then there are those crimes such as disorderly conduct and loitering, basically structured to get off of the streets those that annoy law enforcement as well as to provide inventory for our prison facilities.

All of the above are the types of crimes, that should seriously be available to be expunged off of people's records, after a relatively short period of time, because when it comes to employment, there are those uncomfortable questions, about having been arrested, let alone convicted of a crime, which clearly are detrimental to securing good employment opportunities, which is the proximate reason why those that have been convicted of victimless as well as other minor crimes, typically labeled as misdemeanors, should be able to avail themselves of having that conviction be expunged from their record, thereby providing them with a pathway in which they can honestly answer the employment question by stating that they have not been, because that conviction is no longer accessible to employers and the general public, for it has been expunged.

Additionally, even those who have been convicted of felonies should have avenues available to them for expungement that may require a more careful look at the circumstances and the charges they were convicted of, and that would permit them, after a reasonable period of time, to have their conviction expunged from their record.   While it is true that certain people are absolutely incorrigible, it has to also be recognized that people are subject to change for the better, especially as they mature and age out of their most vulnerable years, which should permit them to extricate themselves from having to wear essentially a "scarlet letter" for life, which thus reduces their opportunities and a fair chance to make good on their lives.

Of course, when it comes to expungement there are going to be plenty of people that are totally against it, because they are firm believers in the necessity to punish those that have committed crimes, but this type of mindset is far too simplistic for our modern-day civilizations, and should be seen as a throwback to a different age and time, in which the point of essentially making certain people to be labeled as "outcasts" was to assert the prime authority of the powers that be, to serve as a visible warning to the commoners, that they ought to know their place and if not obedient, to suffer the opprobrium of that which itself, didn't so much represent the law fairly applied, but to a large extent, represented those that were considered to be above the law, which is why until the law is equally applied to all, without exception or excuse, there needs to be far more expungement.

Indiscriminate tariffs hurt the poor

It used to be that tariffs were one of the most significant ways for the government to receive revenue, but that has changed in the modern era, in which tariffs have typically been eliminated or reduced considerably in favor of "free trade."  However, just because tariffs have fallen out of favor doesn't mean that a particular administration can't bring them back for various reasons, good or bad.

When it comes to international trade and business, so of, all the players need to agree to the terms of that trade, and know that the rules of the road are not subject to change due to arbitrary decisions which have not been properly reasoned out, and previously debated upon and discussed, with each party having the opportunity to have their say.  In other words, tariffs implemented that appear to be done as a form of "punishment" or a way to exert pressure on countries that do not have the resources and overall strength that the United States represents are not just going to be resented by those suffering from the new tariff structure but are going to be seen as being unfair and unreasonable, which is why they are bad for international trade and a poor way to deal with countries when it comes to trade.  That said, the least America should do when it insists on implementing tariffs is to do so in a way that doesn't hurt our domestic poor and disadvantaged, meaning tariffs should be segregated into categories, basically necessities and luxuries.  That is to say, things that everyday families must expend their money such as on food, clothing and general goods should not have to suffer from tariffs; whereas luxury goods such as hi-end vehicles, and non-necessity items that are considered to be status symbols or of prestige should be subject to a higher tariff.

When it comes to tariffs being indiscriminately enforced, there needs to be a recognition that higher prices on goods that consumers must have are going to mean more money coming out of their pocket, and in the absence of a higher income, this is going to squeeze those consumers more.  So too, higher tariffs are quite frankly going to lead to higher inflation, and thereby less purchasing power.  Again, that doesn't mean that tariffs are necessarily bad; it just means that they should be carefully considered, because tariffs affect the bottom line of money expended and thereby not saved, and because there is a significant swath of Americans who struggle paycheck to paycheck, this signifies that the worst tariffs are those that impact negatively the most vulnerable amongst us.

In sum, trade is important to countries, and obviously countries want that trade to be beneficial for their nation, and typically such trade is beneficial  from the buying end when the items being purchased from foreign lands are cheaper than what they would cost if manufactured domestically, which is why imposing a given tariff needs to be carefully considered because imposing that cost upon the consumer is a form of taxation, which should not be regressive, but rather should be progressive in its tax effect.

Run with purpose and leave the cell phone at home

People can do all sorts of exercises that appeal to them, but one of the most important is simply running.  While there are many reasons people run, the main purpose really comes down to raising and sustaining one’s heart rate for a decent amount of time, which benefits and targets cardiovascular health.  This would indicate that the things that we can do to improve our running form, from wearing the right shoes and clothes to our stride and form, should be of importance to us, because the object of the exercise is not just to put forth a good effort, but to do so with good form and with dedicated purpose.

Therefore, it is surprising that a fair number of runners actually run with their phone in hand, which, quite frankly, is going to make for an inefficient run; because this is not natural, it signifies that the body will have to make adjustments to accommodate a phone in one’s hand, which isn’t good for the overall mechanics of that run, and should be avoided.  Yet, people do it, perhaps because they have nowhere else to safely store their phone, or they feel the constant need to check the status of their run, or to listen to music or a podcast.

Indeed, when it comes to phones and running, most people are going to have a very strong grip on their phone, which isn’t going to be comfortable and puts unnecessary strain upon the muscles holding that valuable phone, which also serves as a constant drag and distraction while running.

Then there are those people who have a device such as an Apple Watch on their wrist, or some other sort of tracker of their running performance where they are wont to check and recheck it during their running, but doing so will take one’s attention away from the run, even for those seemingly brief amounts of time, and thereby negatively affect their overall running performance and form.  While it makes sense to want to know the performance of a given run, and perhaps pick up the pace and so forth, unless such a glance is ever so brief and infrequent, it just makes more sense to put forth a good effort and monitor what can be monitored after the run.

There are indeed a lot of ways to exercise our bodies, and one of the very best for overall fitness is running, which, to do so properly, necessitates a minimal amount of extraneous gear so as to be as effective as possible in working the whole body and, in particular, our heart, which itself is not just an organ, but is a muscular organ.  All of us need a good heart so that we can properly pump blood through our circulatory system, signifying that those who run are doing a good deed for their body, which is why they ought to run with a purpose and leave the distractions at home.

The Naturalization Act of 1790

The Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1788, and our first president took office in 1789.  This signifies that any Acts so legislated and subsequently ratified came forth from our legislative representatives, and therefore to blame King George III for "…obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners" was thus superseded by that Act of 1790, which stated as part of this Act that only those aliens who were a "free white person" were permitted to be admitted to becoming a citizen, as long as they had satisfied the court that they were of good character and had resided here in the States for at least two years.  In other words, immigrants to the United States had to be white and essentially property owners to have the opportunity to become naturalized citizens, and all others were not eligible for that citizenship.

This would thus signify that all those who claim that America, upon its founding, was a "white man's country" were absolutely right, because all those of different races were not even permitted to become naturalized citizens through this Act, for they were restricted from this very thing by the wording of this Naturalization Act.  This then is the way that it was, and only very slowly over time was this Act to become modified to accommodate those of other races, in which, the history of America clearly shows that non-white immigrants were treated differently and thus were not equal or even close to being equal to white persons, which is why the Supreme Court decision regarding those of the black race, signified that the black man had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect," was pretty much par for the course, and a clear reflection that not all were equal under the law, and therefore that the white man was the alpha male of this Constitutional republic, which even in this present age, fundamentally remains the case.

Indeed, to believe that privileges bestowed upon the white man, by virtue of simply being white, does not truly reflect that this nation historically has not been fair to those of other races and creeds and correspondingly unduly favored the white man, is not to know the true history of these United States.  While there is nothing that can be done to change the past, there is plenty that can be done to change the present and the future, to thereby provide some form of restitution justice so due to those that have been historically mistreated, so as to make good on balancing the scales of justice, by providing those previously treated as "less than" with the fair opportunity along with the assistance of a governmental helping hand to thereby give them equality under the law.

Those then that decry "reverse discrimination" are missing the point, for the point is that those that were denied what rightfully should have been theirs under our founding documents are fairly entitled to receive now and forevermore that which represents a nation founded upon the principles of unalienable rights as our equal birthright, and a rule of law properly applied to all, and thereby no respecter of persons.

The United States does not need to spend multi-billions on a border fence

It could be said that a nation should have control over its borders, so that those who are not citizens or even possibly enemy agents could not easily cross into the United States, which certainly seems like a sensible position to have because we ought to know who it is that enters our nation, and we ought to make it our point that there are procedures in place that those who would like to come into our nation must adhere to.

In actuality, crossing over the border, especially the southern border of the United States, is something that literally millions upon millions of people have done over the decades, which would more than strongly imply that there are institutions that desire for those who are not legal immigrants to find a way into our nation, probably because they are people that can be exploited to the benefit of those entities.  That said there are ways to still permit non-citizens to come here, which, while not as lucrative for those in the business of using illegal people, would probably still serve their purposes adequately.

That is the reality of why so many illicit immigrants are here, and the response in recent times has been a clarion call to "build the wall," and many billions have been spent and allocated to doing that very thing.  The problem with this sort of mission is that physically building a wall that would serve its purpose exceedingly well isn't going to ever occur, because where there is a will, there is always going to be a way. After all, physical barriers can be dug under, gone through, and circumvented by going over, because every wall has vulnerabilities.  Additionally, the wall would serve to disrupt migratory patterns, and in some places, because of the topography, it isn't really achievable in the building, so of.

In a state of technological superiority, one would think a far better solution to protect the border would be the sophisticated usage of technology, through all the abilities that we currently have, so utilized in conjunction with information of where and how previous border vulnerabilities have been exploited, which would serve well in reducing such from where it has been in the past to something far smaller.  So too, a policy which permits "guest workers" to enter this country would take care of our labor needs for certain jobs that domestic workers do not desire to labor with.  This, in sum, would serve to do a far better job of taking care of the issue without the actual need to build miles upon miles of a border fence, which would simply represent a challenge for those that desire to cross the border, but would not be enough to stem the tide, because without an effective and robust team of personnel and equipment monitoring and defending that wall, people would still find a way to cross.

In short, there needs to be a comprehensive response and competent strategy using all the arrows within our quiver to effectively reduce illicit immigrants from entering this nation, which could be readily achieved if led by those of superior strategic vision.

“We must recognize the social responsibilities of corporations"

The above quotation says in full: “We must recognize the social responsibilities of corporations and the corporation must use its ownership of assets to reflect the best interests of the people. If we don’t, they will take away our ownership.”  This was said in the context of a foreign investment by an American corporation, with the fear, and thus the concern, that failing to act responsibly in that foreign land could lead to the nationalization of that investment and thus the loss of control over ownership of that investment. These words, while directed to foreign investment, could also be reasonably seen as applying to domestic corporate investment, as well, because corporations, as artificial constructs of the state, should always have a responsibility to serve the good interests of the people, or else they are on some level exploiting those people, and should thereby be sanctioned.  As for the personage who stated this viewpoint, it was none other than Nelson Rockefeller, the grandson of the oil baron John D. Rockefeller, Sr., and thus it should be seen as the opinion of someone who knew business, knew what power and influence mega-corporations have, and how they use it.

Regrettably, we seem to live in a day and age in which corporate power has never been stronger, and that far too many corporations seem hell-bent on making as much profit as possible while also paying as little in taxes, which is not the type of combination that makes for a good corporate citizen, which is why this government, which appears to have been captured for the benefit of corporate interests, needs to realign itself to its Constitutional mission to promote the general welfare of the people, as contrasted to promoting and favoring the general welfare of corporations, instead.

Each of us as a citizen is responsible to the laws of the land, and when we violate the law, we are subject to penalties, including the lost of our freedom.  It seems that when it comes to corporate malfeasance, be that in the sense of contracts which have been set aside to favored corporations, to environmental damage and pollution, as well as to how labor is mistreated and underpaid, that corporations seem to be in far too many cases above the law, as if the law as exercised when it comes specifically to corporations, favors those corporations, and thus makes the general public to have to carry more of the burden regarding the welfare of the people, even though corporations are well positioned to readily do more to be of benefit to the people, but instead concentrate overly upon corporate profit and bonuses, which are typically structured to favor those in the highest positions within those corporations and thus is not fairly distributed to all those that have done their part to contribute to that corporation.

This nation therefore needs to comprehend that robust guardrails need to be put into place on these mega-corporations to make sure and to verify that the people are receiving something of tangible benefit from the privileges so bestowed upon corporations, or else things must change to protect the people, for as it stands, corporations could do and ought to do a lot more to serve the people, rather than lording it over them, and unfairly not doing their part to be a responsible corporate citizen

Repairer of the breach

We read in Holy Scripture: "… You will be called Repairer of the Breach, Restorer of Paths with Dwellings." (Isaiah 58:12) Indeed, to be the repairer of the breach is arguably the highest calling that anyone could strive to make good on, because when we look at all the warfare and arguments that occur in societies and the nations that societies are made of, it is the dissension, the ugliness, and the incivility so displayed by so many that makes for a construct which is not just, and not peaceful, which is why we need those with influence and people of good faith, to make it their point to be repairers of the breach.

In actuality, each of us should do our fair part to help make society a better place for our participation in it, which means that we ought to think less of our own selfish needs and desires, while considering instead that everyone has the same unalienable rights, which signifies that to be true to those rights, means being responsible one to another which should be prominent in our thinking, because the wrong thoughts are going to produce the wrong actions, and the way that we overcome that, is to get our mind set on those activities that will help bring harmony and civility where there currently is disharmony and incivility.

No doubt, to repair what needs to be repaired is not an easy task, which is why no one person, or one institution, can do so, because it requires the "buy-in" from scores and scores of people, because we are all in this together, and together we are the ones that need to make good on what has to be made good on.  All the problems present-day societies face are consistent with the same sorts of problems we saw in yesteryear's societies, such as violence, injustice, poverty, unfairness, untruthfulness, and selfishness.  Sure, we of the Western world may have accouterments unknown to societies from generations ago, but we have not been able, though, to relieve ourselves from the injustice so displayed far too often in how we conduct our business, which needs to be changed, for the change that we desire must first come forth from our own consistent efforts, along with those that we join together with, in pursuit of this the most worthy of goals.

To bring hate and strife, especially when we are frustrated and upset, is easy to do and fall into, but those that can control their temperament and bend their will to doing the right thing, even when it's easier to cheat and do something wrong, are the same that are mature in their character, and should be seen as people to be emulated.  To give in to behavior which we know for a certainty isn't becoming of what we were meant to be signifies that we have not grown where growth has been required, and until we do so, we will continue to stumble.

Here then is the dividing line between those that will not learn, and therefore must continue to cycle through the same exercises and issues again and again, whereas there are those others who make the effort to repair the breach with the sure knowledge that joining together in a good common overarching purpose is the only way to achieve what we were born to do and to have the will to accomplish, thus creating the society that we were meant to live in.

Spend time with the common people

The United States of America has all sorts of issues with adhering to the spirit of its Declaration of Independence as well as its Constitution, which is quite obvious when we see the difference between how those who have it all are treated, as contrasted with those who are struggling with life and doing no better than just keeping their collective heads above water, if that.  It is one thing to want to uplift the common man and to rail that the government needs to do more, and it's a very different thing to actually spend time with the common people so you can really live and feel their life.

To best understand where the common person is coming from necessitates not just spending time in conversation with them, but really being amongst them, in one's everyday interactions and transactions, because unless we can experience their vulnerabilities and better appreciate their difficulties and challenges by personally being there with them, then we really have not fully understood or empathized with their situation.  That is to say, we need to meet the common people where they are, not where we want them to be, and, more importantly, we need to listen more thoughtfully throughout our conversations with them, as well as to do activities with them.  Indeed, if we really care, we need to do more to walk in the shoes of those who are the common folk, so that we can fairly experience what they are having to deal with, and thus understand their situation better, which will make it more readily apparent where improvements can be made so that they can have more opportunity to experience America at its finest.

It has to be admitted that it's easy to dismiss the concerns of others when our own life consists of the benefits of mostly having things go our way, which makes us believe that if those others who are not so fortunate simply pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, they too could enjoy the same sort of life that we have.  What is lost in this equation is that capitalism as practiced appears to be a zero-sum game, made quite evident by the fact that this nation does not believe that those that labor and put forth an honest day's work are thereby entitled to an honest day's wage, because the minimum wage as structured by the Federal government is not a living wage, and those that lack material wealth are susceptible to the type of struggle which far too many people in and out of government turn a blind eye to.

In society, we ought to hear the voice of the voiceless, and we ought to see and feel the plight that so many good people must deal with on an everyday basis, so that we can better understand the challenges that they face, and the best way to comprehend that better is to spend time with the common people and then, from those interactions and experiences, do something constructive to bring change for the better, brick by brick.

The brilliant credo of John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

We find that wisdom can come from all sorts of places and people, and the most important thing is to receive it and then act on it righteously. The credo of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., displayed in the main lobby of the Rockefeller library, is something every good American should take to heart, and, if done and lived, would truly make America a far better place to live and enjoy.  Regrettably, though, far too many Americans don't live by this credo and have no interest in adhering to it.

 This credo states that "… every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty."  Indeed, each of us does have a responsibility to our rights, and especially to our unalienable rights, for it is the wrong thinking regarding these rights, and our abuse, so of, that gets so many people into the kind of trouble that would be best to avoid.  That is to say, while we have the right to the pursuit of happiness, this needs to be circumscribed by the fact that we do not have the right to go about achieving such happiness at the expense of other people's unalienable rights being violated, for we must first be responsible for having that right and none else.  So too, when good opportunities are presented to us, it is our responsibility to do what we must to make good on that opportunity, for there is no world in which there are endless opportunities, which signifies that when such comes, we need to seize it and thus claim it as our own, by thereby making good on it.  Finally, there are far too many people who believe that what they possess is by all rights their very own, which is a selfish outlook, and should be tempered by the fact that those that are gifted with great material things have an obligation to be not just prudent with their possessions, but dutiful in seeing that those possessions do not corrupt their mind and their ethics.

 This credo also states that "I believe that truth and justice are fundamental to an enduring social order."  Indeed, those that would have a good life must make it to be their point to live up to truth, and to not submit to lies and deceptions in their everyday activities, because those that permit lies to triumph over truth, have done so typically because they will benefit in some way from that lie, which means that they have made a serious error which can only be overcome by dedicating their lives to living by and for truth.  Additionally, there needs to be justice in this world, especially in consideration that the next world is a domain of pure justice, which signifies that we have a duty to be just and fair to one another presently, and thereby no respecter of other persons, but rather a respecter only of the character of that person.

 Finally, this credo states that: "…right can and will triumph over might."  Indeed, we live in a domain in which history tells us that might seems to be the go-to way that countries deal with one another and also how they conduct their domestic affairs.  That is to say, firepower and intimidation seem to trump sensibility and fairness, which is a construct, lived by that does no favors to humankind.  Rather, we are obligated to do the right thing, and by doing so, this will be the moral power that will overcome might; for that which is right cannot ever, in the skeins of time, be vanquished by might, but instead might must be the servant to right.

 In sum, we must collectively live by this credo and by doing so we will make society a better place through our good contribution to it.

The coming return of feudalism

When it comes to neo-feudalism, they say it can't happen here, in this the land of freedom and opportunity, but they are wrong, because capitalism is inexorably devolving into feudalism with no effective guardrails to stop it; for as long as the people have their bread and circuses, they seemingly don't care and won't band together with enough energy to do anything of substance about it.  Indeed, the first step toward achieving feudalism is ensuring people's safety: getting them to voluntarily, and without too much complaint, sacrifice their freedom, liberty, and privacy to thus be protected from nebulous dark enemies that would take away their safety. The second thing that must be done is to eliminate all privacy of what a person does or does not do on a given day, by tracking them through their activities via their phone, internet activity, and travel, along with eliminating all paper currency so that all monetary expenditures and transactions are known.  These two things combined permit the government to know everything about its people, and through that knowledge to control them for the benefit of the elites, which will encourage the people to acquiesce and thus to exchange their freedom for food, employment, and housing, along with receiving mindless entertainment structured for them, in addition to being inundated with constant propaganda as well as grooming to convince the people that this is the way that life should be lived.

The problem that the elites have with, especially the middle class, is that there are way too many people who have agency to create trouble for them, especially in a construct in which they and the lower class also have the democratic vote, because there are therefore far more people with voting power that make up those classes, as contrasted to the elites of society, even when taking into account all those others that serve those elites and obviously would vote in conformance with them.  The way around this proximate problem really comes down to obtaining as much knowledge as possible on all the middle and lower class citizens so that this knowledge in the hands of the elites can be used against them so as to tighten their control of these classes and thus get them to be more readily compliant and obedient to the desires of the power brokers of this nation.

Additionally, the middle class needs to be hollowed out so that more power and more wealth can continue to be accumulated into the hands of the elites; for only when the middle class is absolutely dependent upon their employment conditions being in control of the capitalistic elites will they have lost their monetary power, completely. This, though, can only be successfully accomplished by providing those formerly of the middle class with robust creature comforts and drugs of their choosing, in exchange for having lost their agency. All this combined will signify that the middle class, having lost their private ownership of assets, land, and housing, will be the modern day equivalent of serfs, though well protected and with a decent place to lay their heads down to rest, for having sacrificed their freedom for safety.

When cocaine was legal

In modern society, cocaine use and distribution so of, for the general public, are illegal in the United States, and those who are involved in the cocaine business, whether they are users or sellers, are subject to laws that could incarcerate them for many years, depending upon the circumstances.  In other words, the usage of cocaine in America is illegal and has been that way for over one hundred years, except for some specific usage of the cocaine derivative in the medical profession, typically as an anesthetic.

The strange thing is that cocaine was once utilized in patent medicines, as well as an anesthetic, in addition to being an ingredient in soft drinks such as Coca-Cola.  Cocaine was seen as a vital stimulant, and thus as an energy boost for those that drank Coca-Cola, while also being available for public health usage as in nasal sprays and lozenges.  In other words, cocaine was part and parcel of products that could be bought at pharmacies, in addition to it being available to the consumer as a beverage.  This then was the way that it was, and it needs to be acknowledged that it is coca leaves that cocaine is derived from, of which the chewing of coca leaves is still a common practice in those societies that grow such, because those leaves are a stimulant, thus warding off fatigue, as well as being an appetite suppressor.

While today's America makes it seem that cocaine is a scourge on humankind, it is the abuse of cocaine along with the fact that it can become addictive that creates potential problems,  for the cocoa leaf has been part of specific societies for millenniums, and those that ingest that leaf, do not suffer from the same sorts of ill effects that cocaine produces, mainly because as a derivative, cocaine as produced will have a significantly much higher potency than the coca leaf, which therein invites dangers, which is the proximate reason why it eventually got banned from all substances and products that the consumer could purchase off the shelf.

So then, back in the day, before chemists made cocaine ever more powerfully concentrated, there was, to a very large extent, no real issues with cocaine and its products, but in America it needs to be recognized that competition and the desire to dominate a market will make for the type of decisions in which a product prudently utilized can be transformed and thus transfixed into something far more potent, which is great for profits in the sense that a person who is addicted or becomes habitually attached to a product so being sold, is going to be very good for business.

All of this would seem to imply two basic things, the first being that properly regulated, off-the-shelf products in patent medicines could use a derivative of cocaine again, and in an era in which high-energy drinks are consumed by millions of Americans, it would seem that there would be a place for a derivative of the coca leaf in energy drinks, also having its place.  That said the bottom line is that nothing will change, mainly because those who could have and should have been more responsible with cocaine were not, and thus have damaged its image, seemingly forever.

"…The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened"

The full quotation of the above, as spoken by President John F. Kennedy on June 11, 1963, is:

"This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened."  Regrettably, more than 60 years later, we find that the present administration of 2026 has determined, implicitly if not explicitly, that this nation was founded by white men, essentially for the benefit of white men, as well as selected others of different races as determined by white men, while accepting only those of specific orthodox creeds, and in particular, treating certain creeds such as those of the Muslim faith as undesirable and therefore making them intolerable people, and hence not deserving of equal rights.

 Indeed, either Kennedy was wrong back then, or he was right, and our founding documents make it loud and very clear that Kennedy was right, which thereby means that those that do not believe that all men are created equal, and that therefore it so follows that all persons are entitled to the same rights as any other person, are clearly wrong in their perception, and should be considered to be in enmity to what this country nobly stands for, which thereby makes them to be the most unpatriotic of citizens.

 Look, it has to be said, either we are all in this together, or we will surely fail as a nation and as a people from artificial and wrong-minded divisions, which serve to disunite us, and to weaken us as a people and as a nation.  While each of us is entitled to our opinion and our own viewpoint, it needs to be acknowledged that the most appropriate way to teach good civic virtues for our citizenry is to have leaders that are true to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, for without such, we will be susceptible to being misdirected into beliefs that are not consistent with our founding, and not becoming of a nation which claims to be a bright beacon upon that hill, representing truth, liberty, freedom, equality, justice, and opportunity, for all.

 To believe that God blessed America is to believe that America is in harmony with what God represents, but whenever that is not the case, then those blessings will not continue to come our way, for those that turn their back on God's good virtues are the same that will reap what they have sown, for it must be acknowledged that God will not be mocked.  So then, it is incumbent upon those that are our representatives, our justices, as well as the executive office, to be true to what this nation represents through its founding documents, and if not, if they have any integrity, to resign from that office.

 In short, America is at that crossroads, which gives America a chance to reset and to determine thereby to do the right thing by its people, by the sure recognition that equality of justice means that all are treated the same way, and that no one person and no one entity has special rights that should ever make them to be treated in a highly privileged way, for all have equal rights, and those that believe differently have clearly lost their way.

When will war end?

Societies seemingly can't get themselves away from war, which is distressing, especially when considering how "civilized" some of the leading societies and nations consider themselves to be.  Indeed, despite knowing better, and of being quite knowledgeable, we find that when there are disputes and disagreements or perhaps out of sheer greed, the go-to option especially for those countries that have a robust military, is to war upon the other.  No doubt, wars can bring some benefits to some parties, but at what cost? 

 We find that many years before John F. Kennedy became President, he wrote "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."  How true those words are and how few in the highest positions of power actually care to listen and to learn from such sage words but that is regrettably the construct that we live by, which is quite simply that "might makes right," which seems to be the way of the world for many societies and nations, and is the proximate reason why we continue to suffer from the hell of these endless wars and all of the ensuing tragedies thus imposed upon humankind.

 It is a fact that the one thing that societies get wrong over and over again is the belief that from war this will make for lasting peace, but that isn't the case, whatsoever.  Rather, to overcome warfare, one needs to not take up more and more weapons, but instead one needs to put down their weapons, with the sure recognition that what does not ever work in the long run, is not going to ever be the solution, either.  Regrettably, those that ought to know better and therefore ought to be able to see that our efforts and concentration should be directed to a higher purpose other than warfare are not doing what they are supposed to do, because without proper leadership and an ethical core which is conscientious of dong right, and will not therefore give in to doing wrong, no matter what would appear to be the immediate consequences, nothing of substance will change.

 So then, one hundred years from now, two hundred years from now, if humankind will not determine to do better and thereby to actually be good and humane to one another, we will be in this same boat of damnation, repeatedly heading for tragedy that need not occur but will continue to occur until such a time as societies make it their point to do the right thing as contrasted with doing the wrong thing.

 Indeed, war in this world will not ever end, until as it has been said, the warrior takes a backseat to those that have the conscience that moral courage trumps physicality, and that which represents the eternally good should not be treated as if its attributes are temporal, when they are not.  This then is the point, we are here for a purpose and that purpose is not to make war upon one another, but rather it is to find common ground with one another, based upon the sound principle that all have been equally created, thereby signifying that all are entitled to the same unalienable rights, and it is our highest duty to live faithfully to those rights, so done by willing and doing good to the other, forever and ever.

The negative consequences of losing your job

When we are young, we are subject to losing our job, because of irresponsibility, or the fact that it was temporary or a way-stop, or from other factors, of which, the upshot in a lot of cases is that losing that job is no real big deal, because the bills and responsibilities that we have at a young age are not that daunting.  Eventually, though, we become an adult, and adults will have responsibilities and bills that must be maturely responded to, which signifies that whatever job that we are doing is important to us, especially when the job would appear to represent our career choice, of which, we are happy or satisfied with its overall pay package and benefits.

 As we age, we take on more responsibilities, not just to ourselves but to our family, as in our spouse and our children.  Further to the point, when we believe that we are settled in our employment, we are going to desire to take on a home mortgage with all its incumbent expenses, and in many places in America, we are going to obviously need a vehicle to get us to where we need to go from a job perspective as well as to take care of other interests during our free time off. All of this signifies that a steady income makes for the type of life that we can control which thereby gives us the earmark of what makes for a happy life.

 The fly in the ointment though, is that should we lose our job, everything can quickly fall apart, especially when we are unable to find suitable employment that offers us the same sort of pay and benefits as we had before. This then becomes the proximate problem that will bother us morning, noon, and night because when we are unable to meet our financial obligations, this creates not just stress, but can readily take down the whole and complete edifice, from housing, to our vehicle, and finally to our personal relationships.

 Indeed, those that discount how vital and important a good paying job is to the individual don’t seem to comprehend that in Western nations, responsibilities have got to be adhered to, or else our life becomes something akin, to solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. In other words, the center cannot hold and it all falls apart. This indicates that whatever governmental programs that there are to support those who become unemployed should be as vigorous and as helpful as possible. Additionally, a single employee is never a match in power as compared to their employer which is why a conscientious and caring country makes it to be its point to be pro-union which thus helps greatly in seeing that those that labor are able to make a living wage as well as to have protections and guarantees within the work that they do, subject to their own behavior and work ethics.

 Many a story can be told of those that lost a good paying job and never recovered, thus essentially destroying their life, which would be one thing if America was a poor developing country, but in fact, America is the richest country in aggregate in the world, and for this government not to do more to help the common man, demonstrates that we don’t have a fair deal for the people, at all.

Is America currently fascist?

On April 29, 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in this message to Congress, stated what he believed was a great danger to this nation: “Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power,” thus signifying that “... the liberty of a democracy is not safe…” because of this private power becoming stronger than the actual democratic state.  Again, these words were spoken by that President all the way back in 1938 and when we look at corporate as well as individual power as demonstrated by the incredible amount of business conducted by certain behemoth corporations, as well as the sheer amount of assets held by these corporations, in conjunction with individuals that themselves are worth billions upon billions of dollars, it has to be admitted that never has there been so much material wealth and temporal power held in the hands of those that do not need answer to their government, but in actuality, are the ones that are controlling that government for their personal and continual pleasure at the expense of the people, in whole, thereby suggesting that America really is not actually a functioning democracy, but rather is fascist at its core.  This then is the proximate problem of our time, because whenever the people do not have agency, and therefore whenever we have a government which is not of, for, and by the people, then we do not have a democracy, but instead we have fascist despotism.

 The country that America is supposed to have is mandated by its Constitution, and to cede such control to private interests and in particular to artificial constructs of the state, demonstrated by corporations, which currently are structured to be perpetual in their nature is anathema to the people being able to exert any direction or general purpose through that governance, because those with unelected private power are themselves in effective control of the decisions so being made by that government, because governmental positions have been captured far too often by private enterprise, and those that are in the most powerful governmental offices are consistently the same that are representatives not of the people, but are instead of that capitalistic industry.

 That said, the two things that people have at their disposal are, first of all, that there are far more people than there are those that are in the privileged positions, of which those people are becoming more knowledgeable about how the lion’s share of the industrial and labor effort so made by those working people has been unjustly taken from them, which signifies that the number of those people, joined together, may yet have their valued say.  The other thing in the people’s favor is that the founding of this nation was meant to demonstrate that the people had the fundamental right to throw off despotism, so as to pursue their unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which presently is being denied to a very wide swath of Americans, that do not receive a living wage, that do not have access to a strong labor union, and aren’t secure in their own persons, all because this has been co-opted by unelected powers that see the people not as citizens of this nation, and thereby entitled to equal rights, but rather as nothing much more than subjects, meant to be exploited, and manipulated for the benefit of those elites, and none else -- unless the mass of people, rise up against these elites as is their unalienable right.

The military-industrial-technology complex runs this country, not the president

We're taught to think that America is a de facto democracy in which American citizens vote on the most important propositions, legislative representatives, and, every four years, who will or will not be the president of this nation.  This is the theory, but in practicality, we need to take into account that the military-industrial-technology complex appears to be the institution that is actually running the show, demonstrated by the fact that in this land, we see the unfathomable amounts of money earmarked for this complex, even though the United States is not at war with any country contiguous to its landmass and has no real reason to expend such a huge amount of its budget upon the military-industrial-technology complex: yet, it does.

 As they say, follow the money, and when we look at where the money is expended, this complex receives a gargantuan amount of money each fiscal year, even though this nation is not in the midst of World War III, and was founded upon the sensible belief that, as stated in its Constitution, when it came to its Army that “…no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” Instead, we have not only a standing Army that no other nation can match in the terms of expenditure devoted to such, but this Army exists and persists year after year after year.

 So too, one might think, that the Executive office in conjunction with Congress would do something of merit to reduce our monies devoted to the military-industrial-complex.  Indeed, one needs to recognize that the Executive office term is no longer than two terms of four years, and that congressional representatives are up for election every two years for Congressional representatives and every six years for Senators, signifying that these representatives are going to need funding from some entity, and those that receive money directly or indirectly from the military-industrial-technology complex are going to do their bidding.

 On the other hand, the military-industrial-technology complex does not have any of its personnel and important personages up for any democratic election.  That is to say, those in the military that rise to the top are often “lifers”, and those that are part of the industrial and technology institutions are those that perform at a satisfactory high level that is in conformance with what the board of directors and stockholders approve of, and are themselves typically long-serving executives who are strongly supported when perceived as being quite effective at securing additional revenue and profits for their respective institutions.

 Additionally, the military-industrial-technology complex makes it their point that they do not appreciate any surprises from the Executive office; therefore, they are very good at grooming only those candidates that will adhere to their desires and, for certain, these approved candidates will not ever consider standing against that complex.

 Indeed, while there are plenty of citizens who support as much as it takes for a strong “defense”, perhaps because they aren’t thinkers or have been indoctrinated, we do find that the billions upon billions of dollars directed to the military-industrial complex are the same dollars correspondingly taken away from American citizens that could have been utilized for the necessary improvement of this nation’s infrastructure, and of its education, and of its opportunity and fairness for all, as well as in support of the general welfare and well-being of this nation, but that hasn’t occurred and will not ever occur, because the military-industrial-technology complex comes first and foremost, and the devil takes the hindmost.

This will end the war with Iran within 24 hours

In a world in which a certain President bragged that they could end the Ukrainian-Russian war within 24 hours when elected, we find that this did not occur; yet, the idea that the United States has the capacity to end wars within 24 hours most definitely has its appeal and quite obviously is far better than the “endless” wars that America can’t seem to resolve sensibly.  This leads us to believe that anybody who comes up with an idea or concept that could end the current American war with Iran might be worth paying attention to, and indeed, a bold idea has come forth.

 When we consider that those who are in the highest positions of power and influence in this nation have made it abundantly clear that our Judeo-Christian heritage has no real accommodation to those of the Muslim faith, and further to the point, believes that the Muslim religion is not one of peace but rather of conflict and war, then it would seem that there needs to be done something of substance that would resolve this proximate problem.

 Fortunately, our Secretary of War has made it quite clear that America is a nation of testosterone-driven warriors, who are second to none to any other country or unchristian man in this world.  Secretary Hegseth is a fine specimen of a man’s man, and though he has perhaps reached that age in which his physical prowess has already peaked, we need to consider that Hegseth is quite obviously, as a conservative, faith-filled Christian man, by his definition, far superior to anyone representing the Muslim faith.  So too, the best way to prove that an American military man is more of a man than somebody else is not just in the field of warfare with mechanical armaments and such, but rather really comes down to what it was, back at the beginning, hand-to-hand combat, and not some unmanly affair in which one’s opponent could tap out when subject to intense pain or in an untenable, vulnerable position, and also not from some limp-wristed referee deciding that enough is enough, but rather such fights need to be what a real man’s fight represents, to the death.

 Indeed, the suggestion comes to the forefront that Iran itself also does not desire an endless war with America, so that there would seem to be a reasonable solution to such a problem that serves well both nations.  Let therefore the best of Iranian men, who quite frankly can’t be very good, manly, or strong, take on our warrior secretary Hegseth in a fight to be globally livestreamed to the death.  The winner, should it be improbably or impossibly an Iranian man, would be for the United States to cease all military involvement, directly or indirectly, with Iran, and should the winner be Hegseth’s America, which it surely would be, then America would take over all the Iranian oilfields and destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions as their spoils of this fight.

 This fight to the death would be the culmination and proof positive of America’s strength and determination, for there isn’t a doubt in the world that Hegseth would succeed in the killing of that non-Christian heretical Iranian man, and thus bring peace on earth to all humankind, with the sure blessing and approval of Hegseth’s God, who is our true ultimate warrior benefactor.