The Soviet Union dissolution and the failure to bring world peace

America determined that its former ally, who sacrificed so much to defeat the German Nazi war machine, was at the end of World War II soon worthy of what would appear to be a permanent animosity and hence a Cold War that thus developed between these two superpowers.  This meant that money that could have been devoted to improving the general welfare of its own citizens was instead spent on armaments and the Defense Department.  Perhaps this was necessary, as the Soviet Union might have really been a clear and present danger to the United States, though it could be readily argued that it would make a whole lot more sense if the Soviet Union were to become bellicose that they would turn their attention to Asia or Europe.

In the late 1980s, East Germany opened up its border crossing, thus permitting those in East Berlin to travel into West Berlin, and soon thereafter, East Germany was merged with West Germany, which was a great tribute to all those involved in this reunification, because there was no war fought between the East and West, and this peaceful unification was a boon for not just those in Germany, but also for all those in Europe, and beyond, as well.

Incredibly, this unification was soon followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union, so that from the Soviet Union, fifteen independent nations were formed, including the return of independent Russia, which thus left behind in the dustbin of history communism, and created instead a republic, though in practice, it is more of an authoritarian state.  Nevertheless, because of the independence of all of these nations, that should have been and ought to have been the clear signal that not only was the Cold War over, but that this would be the opportunity of a lifetime for expenditures upon armaments to be reduced considerably, in the understanding that the menace and fear of the Soviet Union no longer existed.

Regrettably, this did not occur; in fact, while the United States has continued to beat the dead horse of communism and of Russia, né: the Soviet Union, it also determined that it needed another nation to treat as the menace of world peace, which is represented by China, and any other nations that it so desires to earmark as consisting of the "axis of evil," so that incredible amounts of money can be thereby devoted and will continue to be devoted to national defense, even though in actuality at the demise of the Soviet Union there remained but one superpower in the world.

Indeed, when provided with the opportunity to be the leader of world peace, the United States spit at this notion, under the misguided belief, that there could not be and would never be world peace, because their military-industrial-technology complex fed upon and thus needed to have international gremlins and hobgoblins to fixate upon, to continue to justify all the monies so allocated to "defense" of this nation and all done at the expense of the welfare of its people, with the clear understanding that there would never be world peace, because peace is bad business for those of the military-industrial-technology complex and thus the opportunity of a lifetime for world peace, is now gone.

American household net worth and the median price of a used car

An AI overview says there are about 134 million households in America and that the average household size is 2.5 people.  AI Overview also says that in 2026, the median advertised price of a used car was $26,664, and that vehicles priced under $20,000 represent only about 31.8% of the used-car market.  Finally, the AI overview tells us that approximately 76% to 77% of American households have a net worth of at least $26,664.  This indicates that around 31.5 million households have a net worth of less than $26,664.

While most Americans have the dream of owning a home, this isn't possible for many Americans because they simply do not have the credit or income capacity to afford to purchase a home. Yet, this is generally okay because there are plenty of homes and apartments to rent, which, for the most part, are sufficient for their needs; though it does not represent a home that they own, it does provide them with shelter, electricity, indoor plumbing, and the like.  On the other hand, except for some big cities such as NYC or Washington, D.C., or certain areas of cities, such as we typically find downtown, people often do not have good access to public transportation, which thus precludes them from readily getting to work, school, or basically getting done their day-to-day activities. This doesn't mean that people can't survive without a car, but it usually means that without a vehicle, life becomes more difficult, which signifies that the ownership of a vehicle is a true dividing line between those that are doing okay as contrasted to those that are truly struggling.

The thing about ownership, no matter what it might be, is that true ownership of anything only comes to fruition from those that have purchased a product outright or have paid off their purchase over some period of time.  That is to say, those that are making mortgage payments, or car payments, and so on, don't actually own what they currently possess until it is paid off.  So then, a fair dividing line as to whether an American household is doing okay or not is whether their net worth is at least equal to the median price of an advertised used car, which is $26,664, because if it is not, this basically reflects that they are not very secure in their life, and that a bad turn can make their life appreciably worse.

The fact that so many households in America actually don't have a reasonable or acceptable net worth in this the richest nation in aggregate in the history of the world, reflects that not all is well when it comes to fair opportunity, income distribution, welfare, and the like, which this government of, for, and by the people needs to do a much better job of addressing as contrasted to simply ignoring such, or mouthing platitudes.  Indeed, part of why so many fall so short is the salient fact that this nation has a federal minimum wage which does not even come close to representing a "living wage," along with the fact that labor unions have been in steep decline over recent decades.  Look, it's pretty straightforward: unless this government steps in on behalf of its most vulnerable to make it governmental policy that all those who labor receive a fair wage, then we will continue to have millions upon millions of Americans who have a net worth that is pathetic, and this ought not to be the case.

"All truths are not to be told"

It would seem that the above proverb conflicts with the requirement that we are held to in a court of law where we are instructed to tell  "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", but what is missing from this picture is that fact that a court of law is all about getting the full picture of what has occurred and the knowledge of this so of, which thus negates those that would like to spin things in a way that would favor one side regarding a particular issue at the expense of the other.  In other words, our courts of law need the whole truth, so as to consider fairly the information so provided and thereby to rule correctly in that court of law.  On the other hand, we in our day-to-day activities are not held to the restrictions of a court of law, but are held to the standards of civility and sensibility which signifies that there are those times when discretion is necessary because it isn't so much that the other person cannot handle the whole truth, though sometimes that is the case, for it really comes down to us being emotionally intelligent in how we communicate, which does not mean that we are thus permitted to lie in certain circumstances, but reflects that we owe it to the other, to be prudent in how we communicate with them, in the sure knowledge that not everything truthful must be divulged. This signifies that we should take care in what we say as our civil obligation to one another.

So too, when we consider that not all truths are to be told, it needs to be understood that in life, we, in a lot of respects, earn our right to the whole truth, and that to provide the whole truth for those that are not prepared for it can be damaging to that person, because they are not ready to receive that truth, or do not know how to handle such truth being revealed to them at that time.  Indeed, as parents, there isn't any point in certain cases to telling the whole truth to a child, especially when all it will do is confuse the child or disturb the child's mind, which again doesn't mean that we lie to the child, but rather that there are those times when our experience, our wisdom, and our discretion overrule simply divulging the whole truth when it really isn't appropriate to do so.

In life, it needs to be recognized that to achieve great things necessitates a good foundation to build upon, and that the edifice that we thus create needs time to be developed, so that overwhelming somebody with information that serves no useful purpose at that time can even be detrimental to them and should not be given out.  The timing of anything of real import is critical, so not all truths need to be told because the time is not right, because, for example, of the unpreparedness of the other, or the simplicity of their mind, or their lack of maturity, or their lack of openness, which is why we who are wise are careful with imparting the most profound truths, because that is our obligation to the whole truth, and why we should always be careful and considerate about it.

The governmental obligation to those that are ill and the very aged

All sorts of government programs are designed to benefit the people as a whole, but, as implemented and practiced, they have not succeeded in their mission, to wit, America, which is the richest nation in the world.  This would signify that more needs to be done to be of aid and help to those that are amongst its most vulnerable and that the true measure of any country that desires to be perceived as being great, or as being superior in its governance to all other nations is how that country treats those that are its most vulnerable, which are typically those that are ill and the aged.

Indeed, not too surprisingly, people who are very ill and people who are very old typically have very little utility to their country, because they are not able to work or to accomplish many things that able-bodied people can do, which thus makes them an economic burden to the state.  This is the reality, and this is something that will not change: the ill and aged are going to cost the nation a price that could be readily paid by a nation of wealth, or could be dealt with in a way and manner that is not truly humane to its most vulnerable.

To believe that it is the best governmental policy to talk the talk about promoting the general welfare of all the people, but when push comes to shove, ignoring those that are its most vulnerable in a way and manner that these infirm people do not get an appropriate amount of consideration and care, reflects badly on the priorities and structure of its governance.  After all, while death cannot be avoided, it can be dealt with in which those that are near their end of life are still valued and thereby treated with the care and concern that they are due as fellow human beings.  So too, those that are ill, whether that be physical, mental, or spiritual, are the same that should be accorded the type of consideration that will lessen the burden that they have to carry, and to the degree that our healthcare system can ameliorate their illness, should be addressed to do that very thing.

In fact, we seem to have a nation that despite incredible amounts of money devoted to healthcare doesn't seem to allocate how those monies are spent and utilized responsibly, probably because this nation insists upon a for-profit healthcare system in its capitalistic system, which quite frankly signifies that profit comes before people which is why we get the pathetic results that we get presently, where way too many Americans suffer through illnesses without proper care and the aged are tar too often treated as an expense to be reduced, in which the humanity of our most vulnerable citizens is put aside, because money matters more, and those that are infirmed, aged, and impoverished are considered bad for business which is why they have no fair access to the security and care that their nation could provide for them, and thus this is the national shame that America continues to ignore.

Government of, for, and by the wealthy

To believe that the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few doesn't matter in a democracy is to believe in a fairy tale.  Let it be known that concentrated wealth matters, and to the degree that those with wealth make it their point to get what they desire to get, so as to maintain, or even better, enhance what they already have, is going to definitely have negative consequences for the people, which are inimical to a democracy and hence bad for the general public, who are the ones that will suffer the most for not having a voice, and thus not having any influence upon the most important public affairs settled upon.

While it is true that we do have a democratic vote in which some of the most important legislative propositions are put up to vote by the people, and the people are also the ones that through their vote select their political representatives, it needs to be acknowledged that the side that expends more money on a particular proposition or candidate is often in the driver's seat of obtaining the result that they desire to get.  That is to say, the influence of money in a democracy absolutely makes a difference in the results obtained, which is why there should be more robust guardrails in place to not just identify who and what is providing the funding for these things but also to limit how much money can be designated from one entity to those propositions and to politicians, because without appropriate guardrails, those with money are going to see to it that they have an undue influence upon getting the result that they deeply desire.

Indeed, whenever the people's vote is essentially heavily influenced by those who are gifted in creating ads for a price that guide people to a certain conclusion isn't good for society, because the decisions so being affected have often been shaped by the rich and powerful for their benefit, which signifies that the only real workaround therefore is to limit the influence of those that are super-rich in these decisions.  Further to the point, the only way to reduce the overall power impressed upon the people by the super-rich is to appropriately tax these entities and to not permit wealth to pass on essentially untaxed or lightly taxed from one generation to the next, because that is especially damaging to democracy, for it leads to the type of death spiral which provides the people only with what amounts to being a democracy in name but not in principle because their vote and the result thereof have highly favored the super-rich at the expense of the general public.

Look, those that are well connected are in a very good personal space, and those that are super-rich are typically very motivated to see that they, at a minimum, maintain their status and thus are determined to see that the democratic vote and all relevant propositions go their way, and quite apparently this is readily happening because the super-rich in America are increasing their lion's share of the wealth, year after year, at the obvious expense of those that collectively are regressing, which clearly reflects that our democratic vote as currently structured is deeply flawed and needs to be revised for the better.

Pretextual traffic stops

Most people drive to work and use their vehicles to take care of necessary things, such as shopping, seeing friends, handling family responsibilities, or going to school.  In other words, people drive vehicles because they need them to get from place to place, and in a context where many cities or towns lack robust public transportation, people will use their vehicles to get from one place to another.

Not too surprisingly, most people do not desire to be stopped when driving their vehicle for some imaginary infraction, and so especially take reasonable offense when they are pulled over, for apparently no good reason, but subsequently receive reason enough from the police officer, that they were, for example, driving above the speed limit, or failed to signal their intention to change lanes, or failed to signal to make a traffic turn, or didn't come to a complete stop, or the tinting on their car window appears to be too dark, and the list goes on and on, because basically anybody at any time can be pulled over, because police officers are adept at finding some pretextual reason for a traffic stop, and are going to do so, when it is their wont to do that very thing.

It would be one thing if everyone was equally subject to being stopped by the police, from rich to poor, from white to black, from young to old, but in actuality, study after study has found that it is those that are poorer, those that are not white, and those that are younger, that are pulled over more often, which makes it fair to assume that police officers are targeting certain people in certain situations to be pulled over, and when pulled over, thus permits those police officers to basically investigate what they desire to take a look at in regards to the person's identification, and what they visibly see in the car, along with asking questions, or doing a more investigative search of the person and vehicle, in which, for the most part, in most situations, those that have been pulled over, don't have much choice except to comply with the officer's instructions, because they are typically cautious in considering other actions consistent with their Constitutional rights, for they don't want matters to get worse.

The problem with pretextual traffic stops really comes down to the fact that it is impeding citizen's ability to simply drive from one place to another without being stopped for some bogus reason, which makes it to be a situation in which, just like yesteryear, it's pretty much "your papers please," which seems to reflect that in the United States, as much as the people take pride in the belief that they are free and hence are at liberty to be about their business, this is contradicted by the fact that while driving on the roads of America, they are unequally subject to being stopped by a police officer, who then proceed to nose about their business, and hence for those police officers to effectively work as an instrument to impose "order" which makes for some to be far less free than others, which isn't fair or right.

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves"

The quotation above comes from the hand of none other than the ingenious Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson. It should be taken to heart by all good Americans, because the point of what Jefferson is saying is that this is supposed to be a government of, for, and by the people, and none else.  In other words, those that are in the highest and most powerful positions of governance, along with those that interpret the laws of this land, are servants of the people, and whenever that government forgets this very thing, or actively works in opposition to such, we have the makings of tyranny and thereby the reduction of, or even the elimination of our liberty, along with our freedom of conscience.

There are plenty of people that are outright scared to actually live in a democracy in the sense that they don't believe that the people, in whole, are intelligent enough, are perceptive enough, and are engaged enough, to actually make decisions that are of benefit to the people.  While there is truth to that statement, the resolution to such, should not be a throwback to way governments have been in the past, and still are in many a country today which essentially represents the belief that only the elite know what is right for the people, and these elites should be in charge of the most vital and important decisions rendered upon the people, which might be okay, if those elites were actually working on behalf of the people, but in far too many cases, they are working on behalf of their own individual power, status, and lust for endless lucre, all at the direct expense of the people.

We need, therefore, not just an engaged public, but it must be the highest priority of this land to actually see that we educate all of our people, not just on the history of what this country's foundation is, but to have them be thinking and questioning people who know and thereby exercise their Constitutional rights for the betterment of society, at large.  This signifies that the best opportunity for the people to live under a governance which is beneficial to them is that country in which an exceedingly high number of those people are literate and truly recognize that their input and engagement are absolutely vital if we are to keep this country in harmony with what it is supposed to be and to represent for the people.

Indeed, ignorance is not bliss and never will be, because those that desire to be free, are the same that develop and utilize their God-given gifts for the betterment of their own lives and the civilization that they are good members of, by not just questioning authority, but by seeing that said authority answers to the people, and perform their functions with the type of responsibility and care, that is necessary to assure the people that their good interests are foremost in those activities by those with power have  on behalf of those same people.

In sum, each of us has a responsibility to do our fair part in contributing to the general welfare of this nation, so done by our development of our mind along with the knowledge of what this country represents and see that we apply such in our lives so as to hold to account those that we have empowered.

"But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."

In 1821, John Quincy Adams spoke these above immortal words that ring as true today as they did back then, for America needed to be reminded that its principles were founded upon the belief that its most important mission was to augment liberty and freedom domestically, and that the ill-considered involvement in international affairs, no matter how compelling or intriguing, would not be in her best interests, for America was meant to lead by example as opposed to joining the physical fight overseas in a supposed worthy cause for freedom for another country's people, as in doing so, would thereby necessitate a standing army, higher taxes, and a corruption of its purpose by engaging itself in foreign affairs that would weaken its integrity and standing as the premier institution and governance of those who would be free.

America is meant to lead by example and to the degree that it can demonstrate its superiority and the good welfare of its governance on behalf of its people to countries around the world, so much the better, but it need not, and should not, insist upon engaging in foreign affairs regarding the governance of other nations, for in doing so, it will thus commit its resources and its people to fighting for that which is not its true concern, for it is of more importance to take good care of its own people, first and foremost, with the recognition that other governments in foreign lands are the responsibility of those people, and should not be the business of America, at all.

Regrettably, America instead has determined that it is in its best interest to engage in foreign entanglements deliberately and not only that, but to become an empire, where it thereupon sticks its nose into just about every country's domestic business, in a pursuit which is claimed to be in defending freedom and liberty worldwide but in truth, is really about imposing its will and desires on other nations to obtain profit and power from such an engagement, above all. In other words, America, which should be a paragon of freedom and liberty, isn't promoting that with its actions, but rather is promoting that "might makes right" by imposing itself upon weaker nations so as to exploit or take advantage of those nations, not really for the benefit of Americans, but rather to be of benefit to the elites that profit from such corrupting foreign affairs.

Indeed, America is at a crossroads, whereupon it is not too late to go back to its originating foundation that made it such a wonderful visionary when it first asserted its independence, but instead we have a nation that has devolved into an imperial power, which has weakened its integrity considerably and reflects that greed and authority are of more importance than promoting the general welfare of its people as well as supporting liberty and freedom of conscience for them, for America has gone abroad and found plenty of never-ending monsters, which it will never completely destroy, but are instead destroying what America was meant to represent

The abject failure of DOGE

While it must be said that the average American is definitely interested in having a more efficient government that pays attention to its budget and thus acts responsibly in keeping its accounts prudent, accessible, and transparent to the people, we find that there is certainly room for an institution such as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).  Indeed, upon the election win of Donald Trump in November of 2024, that administration soon created DOGE, which was essentially led by none other than Elon Musk, for the expressed purpose of making the government run more efficiently and hence to be more cost-effective and purposeful in that which it does on behalf of the people.  So, enough time has elapsed since the implementation of DOGE, and with DOGE no longer part of this nation's governance, a reckoning is due.

AI Overview tells us that the United States Federal deficit in 2024, under the Biden Administration, was $1.83 trillion; under the Trump Administration with DOGE, it was $1.78 trillion in 2025 and $1.99 trillion in 2026.  The truth is in the numbers, which reflects that DOGE was an absolute abject failure in its stated goal to reduce governmental spending by billions upon billions of dollars, and didn't come close to becoming efficient in the sense of substantially reducing the federal deficit, for it clearly did not do that specific thing.  While it is true that DOGE eliminated somewhere around 300,000 federal jobs, that seems to really be more about punishing those that were in employment and perceived to be of a different political party, thereby succumbing to the new sheriff in town, and hence did basically little to reduce the deficit, while also, in some cases, deliberately hurting governmental programs meant for the benefit of the people or as a reflection of the obligation America has to other nations.

So too, the whole structure of DOGE was fundamentally flawed, because the best way for a government to become more efficient is to work closely with those that have the expertise in how that government operates and expends its money, as opposed to simply slashing and burning whatever suited the fancy of those making the decisions, or as a form of punishment for those that were not of the correct political party.  Additionally, whenever looking at any budget, the smartest people in the room are going to hone in on examining carefully the biggest budget items, which in America would consist of the National Defense, Healthcare, Social Security, and the Net interest on the national debt.  These represent the big ticket items, and to the degree that these could be dealt with so that monies expended or retracted from them were done in a more efficient way, this would be reflected in a distinct improvement of those respective numbers.

In sum, there isn't any doubt that there is plenty of "fat" in the national budget, and further to the point, there are certainly plenty of things that could be done to make the government more efficient, but virtually none of that was done, and really, when it comes down to it, DOGE was a publicity stunt, which accomplished little, if any, lasting value, thus making DOGE fairly seen as an abject failure.

Is the United States truly the land of religious freedom?

Politicians are wont to say all sorts of things, and some of those things are inappropriate and clearly at loggerheads with our Constitutional principles.  We find that in December of 2015, candidate Donald Trump called for "…a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States…"  The fact that a statement like that would not torpedo his Presidential aspirations is actually a fair reflection of the type of prejudice that is still part and parcel of the United States mindset and reflects that far too many Americans don't themselves believe in the free expression of religious faith, and therefore what that represents.

Look, it has to be said, no matter the religion, no matter the color of one's skin, that people are still entitled to the free expression of their religion, and to the degree that any religion or sect of religion, is not in violation of other written laws, then the government needs to leave such alone, as opposed to demonstrating biased interest favoring one religion, as in the establishing that religion as the preference of the government, so that in effect, other religions are held as lesser than, or even worse, are consider to be inimical to this government and thereby are treated disrespectfully and those that are adherents of certain religions, are discriminated against for exercising their free expression of religious faith.

To believe that what makes America great is for all of its people to have the exact same beliefs and attributes in anything, such as religious faith or the color of one's skin, or of one's national origin, is to misunderstand what America was truly founded upon and what it represents.  Indeed, America cannot be the land of freedom, and cannot be the land that respects an individual's right to think freely and to adhere to their conscience, when that government of, for, and by the people makes it to be their point that certain people or certain religious beliefs are greater than, or considered more equal than, others.

One of the things that this nation needs to do a better job with, especially in consideration that a significant swath of its citizens did not originate from or have a heritage from European countries is to recognize the worth and value of citizens that come from non-European countries and to understand through how it conducts its relationship with its citizens, that what matters most is the content of one's character, and surface characteristics such as the color of one's skin, or one's national heritage, or those that take on the aura that they are in keeping with what for all intents and purposes is the preferred American religious faith, are thereby somehow superior to all those that are not in keeping with those traits, and should thus be treated with preference by that government.

Whether or not people play fair with one another is one thing, and it could be argue that it is their prerogative to do so, but what should not be in dispute, is that this government is no respecter of any person, and to the degree that it respects some but not others, reflects its betrayal of its Constitution and what it stands for.

James Madison championed the free exercise of religion

As much as some people, even very important people in high governmental positions believe that this is a nation essentially created to favor the Judeo-Christian heritage of those that first came here from Europe, we find that the Constitution of the United States of America does not second this assertion, but rather through its First Amendment as first brought forth from the pen of James Madison, this is a nation that doesn't just tolerate all religions, and certainly therefore does not favor a particular religion, but insists upon the people having the right to be true to their conscience and thereby has written into its Constitution, that this nation supports the free exercise of religion, above all, for everyone.

This presupposes that a lack of toleration, and therefore the restriction of the people's right to the free exercise of religion, is clearly against its Constitution, has no place in America, and never will.  So then, this makes America the bastion of not just being able to freely exercise one's religion, but that in doing so, this must be supported by the highest law of this land, its Constitution, and those that do not, are those that have violated that Constitution.

Perhaps it can be said that some religions, or the sects of certain specific religions, seem to be a clear and present danger to this nation, but to the degree that those that act upon their beliefs are in violation of specific laws, regarding, for example, violence or things of that basic sort, will have to answer to that law, for the free exercise of any particular religion does not carte blanche provide that person or institution with the right to subvert laws so written for the protection and benefit of the people, at large.  In other words, while we do have the right to the free exercise of our religious beliefs; it needs to be acknowledged that those who commit acts that are detrimental to the people of this nation and thus in violation of written law will have to fairly answer for their actions.

Each of us should be forever grateful that our conscience is ours to own, and thereby makes us sovereign individuals that are not forced by this government to adhere to a particular religious belief that would violate that same conscience.  While it is true that some people may be offended or annoyed by those that have different fundamental beliefs about certain things, this then is something that they cannot themselves do anything about; rather, they are restricted in enforcing their belief system upon another, though they are entitled to proselytize whatever it is that suits their fancy, to those that may have an ear to listen.

What makes America great is the fact that the people are entitled to freedom of conscience, and in that freedom to make choices and decisions that are in adherence to what they believe is consistent with their most precious beliefs, which this nation supports through its Constitution, which thereby permits its citizens to be free.

The rip off of end-of-life software

When we purchase a given product, it's reasonable to believe that the manufacturer of that product is going to support it, and even more to the point, when that manufacturer is not just your typical going concern but actually has sales, let alone profits, in the billions of dollars, it is fair to assume that the product being purchased is going to continue to be supported through thick and thin.  Regrettably, this nation has determined that certain companies don't need to have imposed upon them statutory support requirements, which companies such as Microsoft and Intuit thereby take advantage of via the software purchased by consumers, which signifies that after some arbitrary period of time the said product has reached its end-of-life support.  The upshot of this being the case is that software that was once purchased and still works necessitates that those who desire to continue to use those products with support be replaced with the purchase or the rental of the newest or replacement version of that software, which quite frankly is not consumer friendly.

Unfortunately, software enterprises in America don't feel an obligation to faithfully support their customer base, under the mistaken notion that they have the right to fleece their customers more than once, even when those same customers are satisfied with the product that they currently have and do not desire to update or replace it because that product still functions at an acceptable level to them.

It is disappointing that this government will not properly regulate these companies that do not stand behind their products or, at a minimum, provide some sort of support that extends the end-of-life for these products, whether done directly by that company or subcontracted to another company.  The bottom line is that the amount of money which would need to be devoted to supporting older products is probably not only going to be minimal, but through that support, might even be profitable, when support encourages customers to upgrade or to replace older products, and provides to the consumer the reasons why the newer product is better or more robust and so on.

After all, in an age in which we find that the consolidation of competing companies is approved by this government again and again, it needs to be taken into fair consideration that there needs to be some reasonable accommodation made by these software companies that necessitates that they do a far better job of supporting their customer base, especially when we consider that people have budgets along with expectations whenever they purchase a product, and one of those expectations is that a working product will not age out, which thus necessitates additional money being spent to get a replacement of what essentially is the same product, but in a different guise.

When it comes to products being sold, there is an ethical obligation of the seller to support and to maintain those products, without the consumer having to suffer some sort of forced obsolescence of that product, and the least that these companies need to do is that when purchased, the end-of-life date is fully disclosed from the get go, as contrasted to it just simply occurring at their discretion, which may have a lot to do with those companies finding a relatively easy way to "goose" sales, and thereby to cheat those that made good faith purchases.

Avoiding what cannot be avoided

There are those events in life that we intuitively know we have to face, but way too often we are quite reluctant to face them, perhaps because we feel that we cannot overcome them because we are not properly equipped to do so, or perhaps because what we have to face would reflect that we need to make changes in our life and we are not presently prepared to do so, or perhaps it's because we don't want to face what we need to face, and thus avoid doing so by ignoring it to our own ultimate detriment.

 In all of the above, postponing what needs to be addressed, or avoiding what cannot forever be avoided, doesn't do a darn thing to resolve it, and we must still resolve it.  Look, it has to be said that life is not only going to present us challenges, but that the very purpose of our living here in this day and age is for us to prove our mettle, and the best way to do that is to face up to what we were not just meant to accomplish, but to actually accomplish what we were born to do.

 Those who believe that they can perpetually put off till tomorrow what needs to be addressed today by just delaying the inevitable will find that, consequently, they aren't going to get to where they need and ought to go, because they will not do what needs to be done. In actuality, in some of those cases, there is going to be an additional punishment or penalty that must be incurred because that is the price that we have to pay for having persisted with our bad decisions, and possibly we incur such because it is something that we didn't do, and because of that lack of doing, something bad happened, which need not have occurred if only we had done our part.

 Those that take a great deal of pride in avoiding things that are meant not to be avoided, for they are adept at making their escape at just the right time, will surely recognize that when it's all said and done, there never was a permanent escape, so that what is due and truly past due will be paid and it will be paid in full, which is why when we are placed in the unenviable position in which we must face the music, we may as well lift up our chin, and see that we address what needs to be addressed.

 Indeed, to believe that somehow, in the end, justice will not prevail, is to believe in some sort of make-believe world, in which there aren't any fair consequences to actions taken that were ill-advised.  Those who are wise are the same who will not put off till tomorrow that which needs to be accomplished today, for in doing so, they have taken the necessary step to make progress; whereas those that keep avoiding what cannot be avoided aren't progressing at all, and somehow still wonder why they aren't getting any closer to the finish line, without seeming to realize that they aren't even in the race.

Make a person feel good about who they are, and you have a friend for life

How we interact with one another definitely makes a material difference in how we get along; those who are quick with insults or cutting remarks won't have the same kind of relationship as those who are supportive, concerned, and caring.  This is why we need to be more mindful of how we treat one another, and in fairness to all those that feel that how they are dealt with is far too often unfair, we need to treat people the way that we would prefer to be treated, so that what we receive is like-for-like, but even in those situations in which we aren't being reciprocated that way it makes for a far better construct when we do our part to make a person feel good about who they are, through our sincere encouraging words and optimistic perspective which is beneficial to many, and especially for those that are vulnerable and feeling down on themselves.

Look, it has to be noted, that there are those people we interact with, in business, in our personal lives, and in our neighborhood, that typically bring a smile to our face, because they validate us, by essentially being upbeat and encouraging with us.  Then there are those people who have a perpetual frown and a bad attitude that we don't particularly care to interact with, because they are a downer to how we are feeling, signifying that how we come across to people definitely makes a difference, so then, when given the opportunity, we ought to choose to be more supportive than not.

While there are those people that do need to, from time-to-time, bear the brunt of a dressing down, so as to help get them back on track, for the most part, positive feedback, which sees the best in people is going to be a better way to come across, so that virtues such as patience, empathy, consideration, reading body language, and actively listening is going to be more beneficial to people, because positivity is typically a better way to engage with one another, for there probably is enough criticism, shortfalls, and disappointments enough in a given person's life that we need not add or emphasize to it.

So too, growth is often an incremental thing, so we ought to be supportive of any step, no matter how small, that a person takes that represents progress in the right direction, which helps build self-confidence and a belief that a task that appears daunting can be accomplished, and thus keeps them going.  Indeed, we often don't really know how truly important our interest and concern is to the other person, which is why we need not discount our contribution, because in life, it can be "A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver." (Proverbs 25: 11)

In sum, life has enough challenges for all of us, so we need to do our fair part to be a helping hand in all the various ways that we can as our obligation to the society that we are a good member of, which is why we make it our point to be good to others, and when done, it provides us with satisfied friends who are good to us, in turn.

"They hate our freedoms"

Present-day presidents lie to the American people all the time, which is disappointing while also demonstrating the disrespect many presidents show the people in this modern era.  One would think that the legacy media would call to account the Presidents that consistently lie about the most important events happening, and would thereby do their duty to the people to expose such chicanery, but we have to remember that the legacy media is controlled by some of the richest, the most powerful, and best connected people in this nation, so that to expect the legacy media to actually provide us with all the news that's fit to print, is to believe that integrity, honesty, and forthrightness, are virtues that the legacy media currently represent, which is really believing in that which no longer exists.

Undoubtedly, President Bush had to say something after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and his address to the Joint Session of Congress was when he stated that "they hate our freedoms," which is an absolute lie and makes absolutely no sense.  To believe that terrorists would attack the United States of America because we supposedly represent freedom, in our religion, in our speech, in our voting, and in our ability to disagree with one another, is first of all not even true within the United States, because those that are of the wrong religious faith have been infiltrated by governmental agents in many instances, and those that speak the wrong words have been locked up or even assassinated, and those that were previously enslaved and represent the un-favored race have consistently been denied fair access to the ballot, and finally disagreements in this nation are often met with violence, arrests, and the silencing of those that have unorthodox views.  So then, the freedom that the President claims that we as citizens have so as to be about our business and to fairly express ourselves, without interference by that government, of, for, and by the people, is far from satisfactory, and therefore to proclaim America as essentially the freest country in the world is belied by the actuality of how it interacts with those people.

The truth of the matter is that those foreign agents and nations that hate America hate America for sensible reasons, such as America's constant interference in their affairs as well as exploitation, directly and indirectly, along with the fact that America has military bases positioned all over the globe, including within countries in which those military bases are considered to be not just an affront to the sovereignty of those nations, but an affront to their interpretation of the prevailing religion of their nation.  This then would presuppose that America ought to pay attention to this type of pushback from certain countries and thereby be far more considerate in its actions regarding those countries, instead of behaving as the "ugly American," which will thus create the toxic brew that will breed those that might well be inclined to commit terrorist attacks in response to this consistent provocation.

Finally, and this is very important, President Bush, in his speech, claimed concerning 9/11 that "…freedom itself is under attack," which actually is true but not in the way he meant it, because we find that in America freedom and our right to simply be about our business are under attack seemingly all of the time, in which citizens of this nation are ceding more and more of their freedoms to their government, wittingly or unwittingly.   But this attack isn't from foreign nations or terrorists; instead, it is an attack from within, for they, our government, hate us citizens for our audacity to speak up and to act upon our convictions when this government wants us instead to shut up, or they will shut our freedom down.

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.