Depression, anxiety and self-medication

In the United States, we live within a construct in which the government is in charge, of whether we are able to legally ingest certain chemical substances into our body or not.  To the degree, that our government, of, for, and by the people are performing their governmental functions for the greater good as well as for the fair protection of the people, then this would thus be considered to be a necessary and worthy duty, nobly performed, on behalf of the people.  However, as so implemented, America seems to have ceded the exclusive control and therefore the allocation of chemical substances to governmental approved pharmaceutical corporations, in conjunction with prescriptions as duly authorized by medical doctors, and has structured some rather severe penalties for all those that have determined that they desire to self-medicate, instead.

It would seem that what one does to one’s own physical body as well as to one’s mind of those that are adults, should be the exclusive business of those individuals, and that then, they should not have to therefore seek permission to ingest or inject only those approved governmental medications, through whatever processes, so mandated, cumbersome or not, that they must then faithfully adhere to.  Further to the point, those that utilized unauthorized chemical substances, are currently subject, in some specific cases, to some rather severe incarceration penalties, for their usage of such, which seems to be a situation in which the governmental mission is one of punishment, as compared to compassion, and the corresponding good utilization of social services for the expressed benefit of the people.

The reason why any individual so self-medicates, has an awful lot to do, with their mind and their psychology, thereof, not being in a good place, and therefore, some of these people are inclined to self-medicate with one thing or another to attempt to resolve such.  For some people, they turn rather easily to alcohol, because of its abundance, its cheap price, and its ready availability -- but not because alcohol actually helps in the soothing or in the resolution of the issues at hand, for alcohol does no more than a serviceable job of helping a given person to forget or to suppress, for a short time, that which is bothering or ailing them.  Then there are those others, that are looking for a substance that will help them to truly alleviate their feelings of depression and anxiety, in which, they thus try different illicit chemical concoctions that have not been prescribed to them, in which, some of these substances, do provide real relief from that which is ailing them, because these chemicals end up re-directing their thought processes in a different way, that thus serves to provide wonderment or relief to them.

The problem with the government, having exclusive control of what chemical substances people can or cannot take, is the salient fact that governments are almost always behind the eight ball, and almost never ahead – and further to the point, when governments only permit certain authorized institutions to service individuals, we often find, a conflict between that which will truly be of help to resolve an issue, in contrast to that which is good for the bottom line of a particular for-profit establishment, above all.  In the sure knowledge, that there are many people, that are suffering from depression and anxiety, one would think, that these people, should have more freedom and therefore more choice so available to them, other than to be restricted by that government, as to what they are or are not allowed to avail themselves of.

The transportation industry

We read at zippia.com, that the United States transportation industry has a “...market size of $1.26 trillion.”  This would indicate that how we move goods and transport ourselves from one place to another, is not only a very big business, but the logistics of such, are of immense importance to the United States.  So too, this implies, that going forward, we have to recognize that just because things have traditionally been done one way, does not necessarily mean that they should or will be done the same sort of way in the future; in fact, there is every reason to believe that when it comes to our transportation industry, that we are in serious need of an actual reset, as to how we think and thus accomplish the movement of goods and people, for now and into the future.

The movement of goods are currently done through land, air, and the sea, but the ways and means of how those goods are transported upon these avenues should be seriously studied, because of not only all of the monies so being expended upon the transport of these goods, but also because the movement of goods, utilizes to a very great extent, a lot of non-renewable energy.  Additionally, we need to seriously re-consider the type of vehicles so utilized to transport goods, as well as to do a better job, of emphasizing those forms of transportation that are more energy efficient, or cheaper in their overall cost in the performance of such transportation.

America is the type of country, that has developed for its people a certain mindset and love affair, with the automobile, of which, a considerable amount of people that utilize their vehicle to get to work, or to go to other places, do so, primarily as a solo driver – often, in vehicles, that can accommodate five people or even more.  This is clearly not energy efficient, as well as seemingly reflecting that America has made a fundamental mistake by not doing a better job of creating or emphasizing the type of transportation that is set up to transport many people at once, instead.  Further to the point, for those that are traveling solo, it seems like a general waste that such is often done through vehicles that utilize a heck of a lot more energy, than other forms of transportation such as e-bikes, scooters, buses, subways, and the like.

America is a big nation, of which, the density of this country, varies from being extremely dense, to be nearly completely empty.  In those areas of the country which are quite populous, this should consist of the most robust forms of public transportation, in order to best move masses of people, around and through that density – in which, public monies devoted to that effort, are thereby well spent.  As for those empty spaces, in which one city connects to another, these should emphasize transportation types that are highly resourceful in their use of energy, so as to take advantage of the fact that there are few roadblocks to preclude a multitude of efficient means for that travel.

In summary, because the market size of our transportation industry is so large, this does indicate that a strong national policy along with meaningful goals to accomplish our transportation needs, should be thoroughly discussed and debated upon, and then subsequently ratified and implemented.

Unholy alliance: Big government and Big business

One might be excused for believing that it's fundamentally good for America, when big government and big business, are in harmony with one another, and therefore are working together, for what ostensibly is for the greater good of Americans.  The main danger, though, with big government supporting big business and vice versa is the fact that what is good for big business may or may not actually be good for Americans, in whole.  So too, the secondary problem with big government, joining hands with big business, is that when big government is on the side of big business, then the general population, is going to suffer for the fact that their government, is not really of, by, and for the people, at all; but rather seems instead to represent an unholy alliance having been actuated between big government and big business that serves, in effect, as an unassailable conglomeration to exploit the people.

The thing about corporate big businesses, is that they are relentlessly driven to get ever bigger, and to make ever more profit, year after year, in perpetuity.  This signifies that big business, has every incentive in the world to desire to not just get along with the governmental institutions of this nation, but rather, they strongly desire to "game" the system, so that they need not have to worry about their business model being assailed by their own government; and when the natives thus get nervous or clamor for reformation, the end around to this type of call for regulation or similar, is for those big businesses to construct and to influence such regulation in way and manner that ends up either favoring their interests or mitigates any real material threat against them.

Now, the thing about big government, is the fact that it is the government that makes the laws and subsequently enforces those laws; so then, whenever that government is enacting laws that are favorable to certain business interests, then quite obviously, it is the people that end up holding the "short end of the stick" from those biased transactions.  Further to the point, the government has an absolute obligation to first defend and to aid the people of this country, as opposed to first aiding and abetting artificial corporate for-profit creations of the state.  That is to say, because big government has made a conscious decision to purposely align itself with behemoth multi-billion dollar corporate enterprises, then what hope does a regular worker have, that somehow, things will get better for them, in the future?

America is a super wealthy nation, but a significant amount of that money is not held by the collective millions of people that represent the middle and lower classes in America, but rather the major wealth is clearly held or controlled by two massive institutions, which are: big government and big business.  Together, they have or control the lion's share of the economy so as to share between them and thus carve out an ever greater share of such for each of these perpetual institutions; and since the government has seen fit to harmonize themselves with big corporate power, this signifies that more and more wealth will continue to be siphoned from the pockets of the middle and lower classes-- and there apparently isn't a thing that they can do about that.

Decisiveness vs. gradualism

In life, there are plenty of people, that protest and clamor for change, and of which, few of those people so protesting, are really interested in some sort of gradual process for that change.  In other words, people that want change, because of a perceived injustice, or for progress, or for this or for that, want such to happen in a decisive and clear-cut manner; and, of which, one of the strategies of those trying to forestall such dramatic change, is to preach to the people so protesting that a policy of gradualism is a sufficient enough pathway for the cause – in other words, they are trying to sell what often amounts to an illusion that such change will come, but it just can’t come right here and right now. 

In truth, those that are in chains, want their freedom in the immediacy; whereas, those that control those chains, typically have their reasons upon why there shouldn’t be any real hurry to change such.  When it comes to America’s Civil War, we do so find that in the aftermath of such, that the Reconstruction Amendments, which are the 13th, which abolished slavery; the 14th, which gave citizenship to all those born within this nation; and the 15th, which gave people of color, the enfranchisement of the vote – could not conceivably have ever passed the House and the Senate, if the South had simply never seceded from this Union of States.

In point of fact, in 1861, there were thirty-four States, of which, nineteen of those States were free, and fifteen of those permitted slavery to exist within their State.  This thus signifies, that there was zero chance that the votes so needed to pass the 13th through the 15th Amendments could have ever occurred in that particular time period, because a Constitutional Amendment, necessitated a two-thirds majority both in the Senate, as well as in the House of Representatives.  However, when the South seceded, they thus failed to exist as States in good standing of that Union, and further to the point, when so defeated, they had to first petition to the government of, for, and by the people, for re-admittance to that Union, along with the salient fact that those so representing those Southern States, were initially, no longer the elite of Southern aristocracy, but in certain instances, people of color.

So then, as it has been said, opportunity favors those that are prepared – signifying that those progressive minds and politicians that had been clamoring for the abolition of slavery, would, in fact, have their day.  Indeed, not only did slavery end up being abolished, but those human beings of color that had been previously adjudicated by the highest court of this land as being considered to be nothing more than property, that “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect”  -- found that these Amendments, thus gave those people their rights.

So too, it has to be recognized, that there so came that time when the colonists in America, decided that enough was enough, and did not themselves preach gradualism, when they so signed and declared that Declaration of Independence.  So then, those that side with gradualism, are pretty much those that are happy with their lot; whereas, those that preach decisiveness, represent fair-mindedness and justice.

"By God and my country"

The following statement was utilized back in former times in Europe, signifying for those that were facing a judicial trial, that they had a "choice" between being judged by "God," or by being judged by their fellow countrymen through a jury. Obviously, as much as some people might well desire to be judged by God, the structure of such, wasn't ever going to be beneficial for them -- for whenever those in authority were the ones to determine as to how best to interpret God's judgment, it wasn't typically going to end well for those on trial. On the other hand, being judged by a jury of fellow citizens, could conceivably produce a more satisfying result.

Those that are citizens of a given nation, are always vulnerable to being charged with a crime, and especially so, in those countries in which, the rule of law, is ever shifting – so that, the last best hope for those so accused of a crime, is probably going to be held in the hands of those that are one's fellow citizens, as opposed to any other choice, so presented -- because there are, in fact, no appeals, ever to God, that would conceivably work in a court of justice, in this material world, for God in that construct, ever remains silent.

How people are judged for a given crime when so accused of such, is very important, of which, one way that governments have forever kept their people down and in their place, is to impress upon the people, that they, as in a king, for instance, have been directly appointed to their position, by God – therefore then, whatever decision that they so make or render, is God sanctioned. Since, we know that God is without error, this seems to imply that decisions so made by God's representatives upon this earth, must then, always be correct, if we so believe in the validity of that premise; yet, the results of this type of justice, clearly show that this could not conceivably be true, in fact.

What we so find is that as humankind has become more literate, and therefore wiser, they thus know, that to appeal to God in a human court, so ruled by humans, is not an avenue that is ever going to produce a divine or a perfect decision. This signifies that the only conceivable way to get justice is to be judged by someone or something that is going to, at a minimum, first admit that they are not God – which, therefore signifies that decisions so made will be, by definition, subject to being fallible, but they could also be found to be fair and correct. This indicates that an honest admission that our justice system is susceptible to error, thus provides the avenue for societies to, if they so desire and concentrate upon such, work towards providing a judicial system which actually serves to seek justice, above all, and therefore is worthy for all those that appeal to their own country, to treat them with the respect, due to them, as citizens.

Atheists and those that insist upon being blind

As humankind has gotten increasingly more knowledgeable about their perception of the origination and the creation of the world, along with their more comprehensive understanding of how the scientific principles of that world work in conjunction with one another; this has seemingly enacted a corresponding lack of real faith or belief, that God is actually our master creator, or that we should even be concerned about such. That is to say, for many a person of significance in society, God has been relegated to a mythical status, and thereby, effectively perceived as a non-entity of no real importance.

For some intellectuals and scientific types, to be atheistic, is somehow seen as some sort of badge of honor. Yet, truth be told, there isn't anything unscientific about believing in God, and there isn't any sensible reason to ever believe that out of nothing, something as sophisticated as a human being could ever have evolved. Then there are all those that have a poor habit of desiring that God not exist, because for them, to believe in God, is something that would frighten them, or that they would be fearful of, because of who and what they really are. Then for others, they don't believe in God, because of all the ugliness and hate that occurs, day-after-day by humankind, that they thus believe could only exist, because God doesn't exist – as if human beings' free will, doesn't actually matter.

The excuses that atheists use to not believe in God, are endless; but in their defense, perhaps it is fair to say that part of the blame for that non-belief, lies at the feet of all those that believe fervently in God, but by their behavior, or by their oppressively constrictive creed, or by their misinterpreation of what God really is, effectively make such a poor case for God, that those that might indeed be open to accepting God, simply shut that door, because they don't want what that other person is espousing or proselytizing.

Still, at the end of the day, each of us has a sacred obligation, to desire to live to the truth; and that truth is all around us, if we would only make a sincere effort to find it. Those then, that claim that they cannot believe in a God, because they cannot see that God, or because their wishes are not granted to their satisfaction from what they think God should be doing for them or for others, are clearly not comprehending correctly the concept of God.

God does not bend to our commands or dictates, and never will, because God is never confused, wrong, or arbitrary. Our God is a God of absolute perfection, omniscience, and wisdom – thereby signifying that what we so want from God must be in symphonic harmony with what God actually is. So too, God knows that humankind is curious, and represents, to us, in a way, the greatest of Master Craftsmen – of which, God has crafted together this world, so as to provide us with the opportunity to not only to puzzle it out, but also through our insatiable curiousity, to find that which is the Originator of it all. So then, those that do not believe in God, and compound that error, by not bothering to rectify such, have blinded themselves from seeing and thereby really knowing the only pure Source that truly liberates us from our delusion.

Africa as the new breadbasket of the world

The United States is considered to be the breadbasket of the world, because it grows, harvests, and supplies the necessary grains so needed to feed people, throughout the world. As might be imagined, the necessity of food, is something that is nothing to be dismissed as being trivial; because a population that is not being fed is going to be both hungry and uneasy, of which, countries that cannot reliably feed their people at a reasonable cost to those people, are in danger of something tragic happening to those people or to stability of its governance, or both.

We read that McKinsey & Company report that "sixty percent of the world’s uncultivated, arable land lies in Africa." This is very good news for Africa, for Africa is not only a continent young in age, but it also is a continent that has an awful lot of mouths to feed; and, of which, should Africa properly develop the land that is currently arable into their version of the breadbasket, this thus becomes beneficial for the people of Africa, as well as also being of needful benefit to the people of the world.

There is a general belief that whoever today's leaders are in a given industry, will also, somehow, be the same leaders tomorrow, and that this, thus goes on forever. In reality, that isn't the way that this world actually operates, because industries do rise and industries do fall, and those established insitutions that have not taken into proper consideration that other countries are themselves also quite capable of generating goods and foods that have previously been performed competently for lengthy periods of time by the historical leaders of such, and thus, believe can't be duplicated or challenged by anyone else, have got it terribly wrong.

For instance, America was once a nation that did a whole lot of domestic manufacturing, but in recent decades a significant portion of that domestic manufacturing has been outsourced to other nations, because those nations are clearly more cost efficient for that manufacturing. This thus signifies that a continent, as in Africa, that is just beginning its economic rise, is more than capable of undercutting in price just about everything that the United States so produces as the world's breadbasket of choice -- should they so choose to concentrate upon that. So too, they could, alternatively to that, at a minimum, make for a viable second source choice for the world, at large.

There is something to be said for the value of being self-sufficient, such as in energy, water, shelter, and in food. Those then, that are able to feed their population very efficiently and reliability, have provided their people with the necessary foundation, which will thus allow those people to be better able to concentrate upon all those other industries and endeavors that will best advanced those peoples. The march then for Africa to continue its progress for its people, will be aided and abetted, by the abundance of its future domestic breadbasket production, closely followed by the export of the excess of such, for profit, to surrounding nations.

The people need to have the power to hold their government, accountable

The Declaration of Independence, makes it clear that a legitimate government of, for, and by the people, derives its just powers from the consent of the governed; which is the people of that nation.

Yet, how many people, can honestly say, that they believe that virtually anything that the current government does under their name or for their supposed benefit is actually being done through their consent?

Perhaps this type of governance as presently practiced, would be okay, if the government, essentially acted as a worthy proxy for the people, but far too often it does not – and some of the time, it clearly does not. This thus signifies that the only possible way to have better governance is for the people to have the power to actually hold that government, that acts on their behalf, actually accountable for its actions.

After all, whenever a government, essentially exists as an institution, in which, it is not reasonably held to a fair review or to a full account of its actions, by the people, or through the people's duly elected representatives, then that government, is going to have a strong inclination to act and behave in a manner that benefits those that are its true actuators and hence its true beneficiaries. Whether or not, people in America, are satisfied with their government, can best be answered by whether or not, the people, themselves, are well pleased.

For example, America, is a very wealthy nation, so one might reasonably assume that in consideration that America has so much wealth that such wealth would be distributed or re-distributed in such a manner, that the people, would therefore have securely in their hands, all that they would reasonably need to lead a satisfactory life. Yet, what we so find, is that America, is a country that seems to reflect that this is a nation of the few that have so much, and quite a few, that have so little.

One of the most significant problems that America has, is that despite its Constitution, and thus the division of its governance into the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, that a significant amount of those representatives of the people, don't seem to have a lot in common with a lot of the people that they ostensibly represent, on either the issues or in their respective lifestyles Further to the point, for a certainty, most of the time in regards to the issues that are of most relevance to the people, this government or its representatives seldom answers to the people, at all, or when it does so, it is often done, reluctantly.

A government that was actually accountable to the people, would behave a whole lot different than our present day government does, because any time that any institution, is subject to being audited and has to answer those inconvenient questions that are asked at inconvenient times, then that government is going to have a strong tendency to behave in a way and manner, more in conformance to the desires of those that are holding it accountable. So then, as it stands, right now, this government is not being held accountable by the people; though, truth be told, it is for a certainty being held accountable to those that are its true masters.

Alienation and crime

There are a lot of reasons why crime is committed in any country, of which, certainly the basis for many a crime, has to do with the fact that the person so committing that crime, feels alienated from society in a way and manner, that they feel like they do not belong to such, or consider themselves not to be a member in good standing of that society. This thus signifies that the more people that buy into society, and desire to be a member in good standing within that society, are the very type of people that will commit less crime – therefore, it behooves society, in general, to desire to reach out to those that are on a pathway of alienation, or appear to be alienated from that society, to help them to improve their outlook,which thus becomes beneficial overall for that society, in whole.

It certainly makes sense, that those that are satisfied with their life, and therefore are happy with their circumstances, aren't the type of people that, for the most part, are committing criminal acts. This would clearly indicate that people that are happy with their lot, or are on the pathway to such satisfaction, aren't going to be tempted or to be susceptible to the contemplation or the execution of a criminal act – whereas those that aren't satisfied, and don't believe that they can find such satisfaction are going to have a strong tendency to want to strike back at that society, because of their frustration and dissatisfaction.

So too, life is consistent to the world that we live in – so that, those that are themselves the downtrodden of society; will typically find themselves, because of their weak position and their low social status, subject to often being treated unjustly, as well as to being exploited, by their lack of social standing. They have, become victimized – and clearly are not being valued by society as something of real worth, but rather they have been devalued by that society, which serves to create a clear divide between those people and that society, and therefore alienation from it.

It has to be recognized that those that are especially violent and criminally minded, are people that feel like they don't fit in with orthodox society, and because of that feeling, along with often the hoplessness of their situation in which they perceive that their voice is unheard and unrecognized, they thus take to committing acts that are ultimately going to be heard and will be recognized. That is to say, those that believe that they do not have the ways and means to have a constructive life within the framework of society, are going to, because of their lack of viable good options as well as their lack of perceived fair opportunity, do what they need to do, in order to obtain, if just for the moment, some self-respect.

So too, modern society, adds pressure to this situation, by all of the wealth and material possessions that are considered to be the markers of real success – thus, those that are covetousness of such a marker, and feeling that there are no legitimate pathways for their own personal success; believe then, that they will best relieve their frustration and alienation, by their forthright engagement in criminal acts.

The moral high ground

It really isn't possible to teach anything of lasting value from a moral perspective, if we, ourselves, represent a contradiction to those higher morals, or when we are inconsistent to such. The thing about morals, is that if we don't live to the heart of their structure, we have, in essence, betrayed them. In other words, it isn't reasonable to believe that we can help to effect positive change upon anyone, when we aren't able to stay in harmony with the righteous moral value that we are thus espousing.

The test of any ethical system, is how it reacts, when it is really put to the test. That is to say, when everything is going well, and we are getting along with everyone, then it's relatively easy to be civil and accommodating; whereas, when we are challenged by something that upsets us, or is insulting to us, or is very annoying to us, then how we so react to this potential provocation says a lot about whether we are actually true to our espoused values, or whether we are in fact, no better than those that appear to be so inconsistent and confused. After all, wrong or right, those that are at least, consistent in their persona, are representing what they really are – as opposed to those that are not, who seem to change with the circumstances so presented to them, or to give in to their moodiness or error.

In order to effect change for the better, we have to demonstrate in action, that in regards to our ethical values that mean so much to us, that we are true to such. For a certainty, those that know which road that they should take, and then fail to consistently walk the pathway of that road; have to themselves and to those that they interact with, committed a wrong. To stay upon the high road, we have to continue to walk upon it; which signifies that whatever obstacles come our way, must be dealt with upon that road, and done so successfully, or else we have fallen down and have slipped away from that good pathway.

If, in the end, there does not appear to be much difference in the ultimate action so taken, between one guiding philosophy as opposed to another -- because those that preach the most considerate words and ethics, can't themselves live up to those words; then many a person, isn't going to bother to see either as being much different than the other. We are what we actually do, which means that it is our responsibility to live up to that which we know to be the right and the better way, and of which, it is therefore our responsibility to rise up to the commitment so bestowed upon us, if we desire to be considered as someone that is actively working to make this world a better place for our involvement in it; by recognizing that in order to do so, we must acknowledge in our actions between one another, that we are ultimately all one big family, and therefore we must embrace the best of family values, which are best represented by consideration, patience, forgiveness, generosity, and love.

Capital Punishment and the theatre of the absurd

Indeed, there are all sorts of things that America, which claims the moniker as being the "leader of the free world," does to its own people and to others, that are absolutely absurd. After all, America's own Declaration of Independence, makes the sensible claim, that "life" is one of the unalienable rights that all are equally entitled to – which signifies that when any agency so takes away a life, there needs to be some sort of inquest, as to the justification or legitimacy of such. Most people, then, do agree, that those that deliberately and under premeditation take away a person's life are best classified as murderers. Those then, that do so under the passion of the moment, or in a state of some inebriation, are also guilty of murder, but have some extenuating circumstances, that may be applicable to take thus into consideration, for each respective case. Then there are all those that accidentally kill someone, who aren't even necessarily classified as murderers, but often are more appropriately classified as having committed the crime of manslaughter. So, no doubt, not every killing, is a murder, though it is clear that a premeditated and deliberate killing of someone has the clear markings of what makes for a murder.

America has an awful lot of criminals, in which, some of these criminals are murderers, and thereby may be subject to themselves paying the ultimate price for that murder, which, in some places, is the death penalty, and therein lies the rub. The one thing that we do know is that somebody that has been killed, cannot come back to life, no matter what – this thus indicates that to punish the murderer by killing then the perpetrator can only be appropriately seen as a form of retribution, which thus leads to the next question -- which is, in consideration that the deliberate and premeditated killing of another, is a form of murder, then how is this state action, not itself, classified as an act of murder?

The typical answer of the state, runs along the lines, that all those that have been found guilty of a crime, which is thereby subject to capital punishment, and of which, the due punishment, so being imposed by that jury, has been determined to be an execution, then the State thus has the obligation to carry out that sentence on behalf of the people. This would seem to state, that there are exceptions to the general rule of murder; and therefore capital punishment, by the state, is one of those exceptions. That though, certainly doesn't make it right, from a moral perspective, because those that carry out state-sanctioned executions, are by their actions, deliberately taking the life of another, in cold blood, which actually appears to be the marking of a sociopath, and not that of a responsible, advanced, and civil society.

That is to say, to believe that to end killing, the state needs to kill, as well – basically, means that every citizen within that country does not really have the unalienable right of life, because the state, has itself, risen above that unalienable right, and is the ultimate determinate of such. In other words, when the state is allowed to kill its own citizens for what seems to be justifiable reasons, then clearly the lesson so being taught, has no sound moral grounding, because the state appears to be saying, that the premeditated and deliberate taking of another human being's life, is legitimate, as long as it is done through the auspises of the state

American Indians, African-Americans and the reservation system

Before the white man took over dominion of what became known as the United States of America, there was said to have been, about sixty million American Indians on this land. Yet, somehow, centuries later, the Census Bureau tells us that, as of 2020, there are about only 6.79 million American Indians, in this a land of 329.5 million peoples. What happened to the American Indian, could be best described, as systematic annihilation, and a litany of broken promises -- in addition to American Indians suffering from virulent and often deadly viruses, typically brought to them through the white man, that they had no natural immunity to -- all thus serving to decimate their population.

The present status of American Indians demonstrates that a significant portion of them, are confined to, or live within American Indian reservations – which to the uninitiated might even sound like a pretty compassionate idea, in the sense that these reservations, are nominally self-governing as well as providing to these American Indians land that they either individually own or our held in the hands of the Federal government, for the expressed or implied benefit of those American Indians. The problem, though, with reservations, for those that have surveyed or visited such, is that the conditions within those reservations, are often that which represents poverty, dilapidation, neglect, and an overall despondency. That is to say, one of the reasons why American Indians are placed onto reservations, is something akin to the attitude of “out of sight, out of mind."

When it comes to African-Americans, there never has been, nor is there anticipated to be, reservations so set aside for those African-Americans. While there were indeed, discussions held at the highest echelons of government, of what to do with African-Americans, before, during and after the Civil War --in which the hope from some of those of influence, was to repatriate them back to Africa or similar, is the inconvenient fact, that most African-Americans that were already in America, saw America as their homeland, and therefore did not desire to leave; but rather what they wished for instead from that government, of, for, and by the people was a fair opportunity to achieve gainful employment, home ownership, as well as to receive a good education for themselves and progeny.

The decision by African-Americans to basically be assimilated into American society, as opposed to some sort of reservation system being set aside for them, has for the most part, been the correct one; of which, in recent decades we so find, that African-Americans have more commonly been judged upon the content of their character, as opposed to the color of their skin. Whereas, we find that American Indians that live upon reservation lands, have been provided with an inferior shadow American experience, which has placed them into a world in which they are treated primarily with “benign neglect,” which thus does not provide them with enough material aid or the wherewithal to ever advance themselves, from a rather precarious situation, in which, though the white man no longer directly harasses them, that same white man doesn’t do much constructively to aid them, either – thus leaving American Indians in a perpetuity of poverty, without any realistic hope of ever advancing from such.

Order before safety

There are plenty of those that profess that we need more public order, so as to best assure that the public will therefore be safe. While on the surface, this does appear to make eminent sense -- the reality of the situation is far more complicated; and so, what we find is that the actual practice of public order being enforced on behalf of the good of the safety of the people, is often unsatisfactorily so done, and in particular, very unsatisfactory to a certain subset of those people. In other words, in a lot of instances, in which, for example, the public has gathered in a form of protest, the policing arm of the state, have been instructed to, above all else, enforce order upon those people – an act oftentimes considered to be necessary in order to protect, defend, and to assure order for that which is perceived to be in jeopardy – which thus by virtue of such an action, often ends up infringing upon the people’s safety, that are so protesting.

Again, it must be stated that those that profess the loudest for more order, under whatever guise such order is seemingly justified upon – are essentially doing so, to protect their vested interests, above all else. In other words, in general, the lack of order and discipline is bad for business and normality – so that, when this disorder is thus permitted to occur again and again, it has a way of destabilizing that which is considered to be the norm for a particular community or business, which essentially interferes with the habits and inclinations of that community.

What most nations want, and therefore what most people desire, is for the “trains to run on time,” because whenever things are disrupted, this makes everything that needs to be accomplished on a given day, more problematic and cumbersome. Further to the point, most governments, do not desire for their people, to overthink anything at all, or to ever consider on their own volition, the contemplation of changing the status quo; but rather the elites want the general public to go about and get done what these elites need to see get done, which is often collectively far more beneficial for those that represent that elite status quo at its highest level, than it so represents for the general public.

The best way to ensure public safety is to first recognize that the actual safety of the people, is more important, than enforcing order. That is to say, those that are typically designated with the responsibility to enforce order, are often going to do so, with the abiding purpose to utilize whatever means that they believe will take care of what is disrupting that order, and to do so, in a way and manner that has a strong inclination to be overzealous, while also typically lacking nuance, concern, or care for those that must be re-ordered. On the other hand, if public safety was more important than simply mandating and thus enforcing order, than the policing arm of the state, would be more cognizant that people that are being disruptive or are being a nuisance, should be best treated in a way and manner, that would nobly attempt to deescalate a given situation, and if something more than that is needed to rectify, to do so with constraint and consideration, above all.

Health care and the screwing of the American public

One could say, that without health, there is no life – so therefore, good health is something of not only personal importance, but also of national importance. The thing about for-profit health care is the salient fact that those that are in any business for profit, are clearly going to, concentrate upon that profit, above all, especially when they are publicly traded companies that have to answer to a responsible corporate board as well as to its stockholders. What many people may not realize, is that health care seems to be the type of business that has serious economic moats that thus keeps the bigger players, quite satisfied, because they are in the type of enterprise in which the returns and profits are enviable, without seemingly having to unduly worry about their business model ever being disrupted by any upstarts.

In fact, as written in Forbes magazine, the five biggest health care corporations in the world, are all American, and are respectively, United Health Group, Johnson & Johnson, CVS Health, Pfizer, and AbbVie. United Health Group was founded in 1977, Johnson & Johnson was founded in 1886, CVS Health was founded in 1963, Pfizer was founded in 1849, and Abbott Laboratories which became AbbVie was founded in 1888. This thus means, that the five biggest health care providers are all themselves, institutions that have been around for decades upon decades, if not for over a century. Additionally, each of these corporations had profits in the multi-billions in 2021 and there isn’t any reason not to expect that to continue for each of them, well into the future.

The thing about health care, is quite frankly, people are going to pay directly or indirectly whatever that they need to pay to maintain their health – for the alternative to not doing so, can be rather catastrophic for them. We see ample proof of this by the fact that United States health care spending in 2021 was a staggering $4.3 trillion. Clearly, this amount of money in play, would be incentive enough, for anybody or any institution, desiring to get ahead, to want to try their hand at getting some of what is clearly a gargantuan amount of money. Yet, what we so see, is that the biggest health care companies, do not appear to be ceding much ground, if any, to rivals.

This would evidently imply that the way that health care is currently structured through our capitalistic system, is consistent with the belief that truly competitive capitalism for the biggest companies in the health care industry, appears not to be functioning the way that such was intended to be. This thus signifies, that this government needs to take into serious consideration, that in lieu of all the monies exiting the pockets of the people as well as the government of that people, that thus goes into the hands of these corporate behemoth health care companies, that such needs to be fully examined and then re-examined, instead. One way to investigate this, is to question as to whether a for-profit health care industry is actually beneficial in its structure for the health of the people, in whole – especially in consideration that the overall health of Americans in comparison to other western nations is indicative that not all is actually well within America – though it must be said all is quite well for these gargantuan health care companies.

Partisan politics

In order for any society to make the most progress for that society, there has to be some sort of reasonable consensus that those that are the people of that society, so agree upon, and therefore it is those policies that the people should collectively engage upon, in order, therefore, for that progress to best occur.  That is to say, while each one of us is going to have our own ideas about what we so desire or wish to occur for society – we have to take into fair account that other people are equally entitled to have their say, as well.  This thus means that having a debate or a discussion about public policy, most certainly has its proper place, along with the fact, that governments should indeed have politicians or something similar in form, which fairly serve to represent the people in regards to that governance, in whole.

It seems that what we see far too often in today’s political atmosphere, is not only a lot of anger and incivility expressed from one person to another, or from one position point to another, or from one political party to the other – but that the political atmosphere of America has devolved into factions, with major political parties that seem to be at loggerheads with one another, on a daily basis.  Perhaps this is the way that it has to be, in the sense, that those that feel strongly about something, should be reluctant to cede ground to anyone or anything.  Yet, in consideration that the government of this country, is supposed to have been created for the expressed benefit of the people of this nation, and of which, those that are our political leaders, have a Constitutional duty to be in lockstep with the consent of the people of such actions so taken; then, it could be argued that partisan politics would seem to add unnecessary drama to those thus truly seeking, essentially, a construct that provides them with fair opportunity, justice, and liberty, above all.

A nation that has lost its vision, is quite clearly not going to know where it really is, and often doesn’t even know its true destination.  In other words, there needs to be some abiding document, that represents the guiding light of all that those that governed this nation, can agreed upon – of which, that document is the Constitution of the United States, along with its Declaration of Independence, which was the impetus for the creation of this nation, to begin with. 

The thing about partisan politics, is that far too often, those pushing for one thing over another thing, aren’t really concerning themselves about what is good for Americans, in whole, but rather seem to be fixated upon what is good for them and those that support them, above all.  So then, what we so have, in reality, is a situation in which there is play of power and position, to favor certain interests, that when thus enacted, are beneficial to those specific interests, often at the expense of the public good.  Those then, that by their direct involvement in partisan politics should thus seldom be seen as patriots, but should be seen for what they really are, opportunists that are out for themselves and their clique, and virtually never for the public good.

The law in action is not always in sync with the law as written

In America, there are all sorts of rules and regulations, along with laws upon laws upon laws.  In truth, there are so many laws that have been written, of which the interpretation of some of these laws, varies from one judicial court to another, while also having a strong inclination to vary from one era to another era, in which that law is so adjudicated in.  That is to say, not every law is absolutely fixed and certain for all time – so too, and  further to the point, not every law, is equally applied to all, equally.  Rather, it could be said, that the law as written, does not necessarily accord to how that law is thus applied in action, and therein lies the rub.

While it’s nice to have laws that are clear, sensible, and seemingly fair – that doesn’t necessarily mean that every one of those laws will actually be applied in a way and manner, that such was intended for -- when it was first debated and written upon.  In consideration that there are an awful lot of lawyers, and in the sure knowledge that the thing about lawyers, is that a fair amount of them are rather clever – whereupon, we thus find that therefore when these lawyers are provided with an assignment in which their pay or their prestige, depends upon them stretching the law, or seeing the law as being in shades of gray, they are going to do their absolute darndest to find a given pathway so as to come up with a novel interpretation of such, that thus favors what they are so trying to accomplish for their client.  After all, a lot of clients are themselves quite aware of the law in question, and in short, don’t care to be compliant to it, and therefore are quite desirous of legal acumen that will interpret that law in a way that is favorable to their position, above all.

This thus signifies that the law in action is not necessarily the same thing as the law as written, of which, quite frankly there are plenty of people as well as institutions that are powerful, connected, or wealthy enough, who are willing then to pay just about any price to see that the law as applied to their particular case, is applied in a manner, that is favorable to them.  In short, well-intentioned laws, that are also well written, and so enacted for a specific purpose in order to exact fair justice, are actually subject to being interpreted by a court of law, in innovative ways, or even basically being ignored as a non-entity, which signifies that the law in action is not always in sync with the law as written.

As much as we like to believe that the law applies equally to all, and is therefore no respecter of persons – this simply isn’t the case, in reality.  In fact, when we take a comprehensive look at the law in action, we are able to see, time and time again, that the law in action, treats those that are well connected in a diametrically different way than those that are not – indicating, that the law in action often serves to protect and even to enhance the elites of society; so done at the expense of all those that aren’t themselves in that same catbird seat

Fair comparison

It seems like human nature to want to compare who and what we are, to other people that we meet, including friends, family, and peers.  Those so doing that comparison, often do so, as a way and means to determine whether they believe that they are in the better hierarchy of achievements and success in comparison to those other people.  Not too surprisingly, many people, are dissatisfied with their standing, which in the best of cases, serves as a meaningful prod to get them to thus go out and to do better in order to get to the place that they so desire to be.  Yet, whether satisfied or not, the comparison format that a significant amount of people, so utilize, is fundamentally flawed; for in truth, a fair comparison really shouldn’t be how we do or do not fare against another, but rather how someone else that was in our shoes, would themselves fare in our stead.

That is to say, as much as people want to believe that we all start at the same place, with the same conditions, the same opportunities, and the same this and the same that – this isn’t true, and even the most cursory of investigations, demonstrates this, conclusively.  In fact, some of us are born with all of the advantages and some of us are born with all of the disadvantages; so that, as in a game of golf, some of us have a very low or no handicap -- whereas, others, have a significantly higher or high handicap.  This thus signifies that in fairness, we need to take into full account the true situation of a person’s circumstances, in which, those then that are provided with the most favorable terms and conditions, should achieve far more than those that have not been placed into those same good circumstances.

So then, for all those that perhaps are overly proud of their achievements, or of their education, or of their status, or of their wealth, need to acknowledge that how proud that they should or should not be, is more fairly weighed by how well or how poorly someone else, under the same sorts of conditions, would fare, instead.  This then, is a fair test, because those that are born under the most trying of circumstances, shouldn’t be expected to reach the same sort of level, than those that are born with a silver spoon in their mouths so achieve – for to discount social status, connections, money, and the like as somehow not having any real meaning or merit to the subsequent success or lack thereof of a given individual, is unfair.

Each of us should indeed be judged upon our own merits, but extenuating circumstances and the acknowledgement that some circumstances are clearly far more conducive to success than others, needs also to be taken into full account.  After all, it’s easy to look down upon someone, especially when we have never lived a day in their shoes -- because having failed to take into fair consideration the circumstances of their lives, in regards to their obstacles, challenges, and injustices, so faced, we have been uncharitable to their character.   Sure, comparisons may have their place, but those that are most honest, don’t need to look any further than to take into fair consideration, how someone else would have done in their stead and if they then feel a sort of emptiness or disappointment inside, when reviewing such, they thus need to seriously endeavor to do better

“The ultimate measure of a man….”

The above full quotation is as follows: “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy,” and this pithy wisdom comes forth from our American Moses, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr..  It must be said that just about everyone is in a very good place when times are good and when they are also feeling comfortable, because pretty much life is going their preferred way, and because of that, most people that meet those individuals that are in that good place, are going to like or at least easily tolerate that person because of the fact that these relaxed people are in their “comfort zone,”  thus reflecting to these others no pressure and no tension within their persona, making then these very comfortable people apt to be rather personable and friendly.  On the other hand, not every day is going to be a good day; and further to the point, not every situation is going to be a good situation, in which, we do so find that the person that had been feeling real good in one environment, may feel an incredible amount of stress in another more taxing environment.

A lot of who and what we really are, is regrettably, situational dependent.  That is to say, when all is good, most people are rather benevolent in their attitude and behavior; but then, we have those situations in which things are not going well, and how a given person reacts, depends not only upon that situation, at hand, but has an awful lot to do with the content of the character, of that individual.  So then, while we might well think we know somebody; a truer test to such, is to see how that person reacts when they are not in control, and are under serious pressure, when adversity so comes –  that in a nutshell, serves to show who and what they are made of.  For the challenges that each of us faces in this world, represent our proving ground, in which those fires that we so face through stress and controversy, serve to burn off the dross of our outer shell, to thereby expose who we really are, at our core.

While it might well be our preference that everything should always go our way --  it must also be said, that many people desire for the world to revolve around their desires and their wants; but that isn’t the way that the world actually works, for invariably there is going to be conflict between one person and another, of which, each desires a thing different from another, and of which, to get what they each so wants, will involve confrontation between them.  So then, how a person of supposed good character, reacts to a situation that is not favorable for them, says a lot about who and what that person really is.  For all those that preach toleration, but are themselves intolerant, in those situations that really matter, are definitely wrong for that.  So too, those that preach, “peace, peace” but are only too willing to draw the sword when they are denied something that they really want, have clearly shown their true colors.

For a certainty, it isn’t necessarily easy to keep calm, when everyone around you is losing their cool; but all those then that are always able to stay focused upon that which represents justice, fairness, and empathy, are going to do a whole lot better job of representing well the character of someone worth emulating and being, for they then have stood tall through both the good and the trying times.

Understanding unalienable rights

Each of us, without exception, throughout the entire world are accorded unalienable rights – which thus signifies that each of us, is gifted by our Creator, or by virtue of our humanity, specific unalienable rights.  An unalienable right is a right that cannot be legitimately taken away from us, by any government, or by any other institution; and of those rights, none of those unalienable rights have been gifted to us by any government or institution – rather, governments and institutions can provide us with additional rights, but these additional rights, are not themselves, unalienable.  In other words, our unalienable rights are innate to us, and each of us then is equally entitled to those unalienable rights.  Some examples of these unalienable rights would be life, liberty, independence, free thought, the pursuit of happiness, as well as the fair means to the ownership of property through gainful employment.

Additionally, it has to be understood that unalienable rights always apply to everyone, at every time – as opposed to such only applying to some of the people, some of the time, and only in some situations – and thus not applying in other situations.  In other words, during wartime, we are still entitled to our same unalienable rights, and in fact, there are no conditions in which we are ever disentitled to those unalienable rights; nor is there any situation in which we are subject to losing or forfeiting those unalienable rights.  This doesn’t mean, though, that we thus are not subject to fair punishment for crimes so committed, but rather what it does mean is that any government that infringes upon our unalienable rights, by denying us due process, or through coercion or through injustice or through unfairness, have violated our unalienable rights.

So too, all those that are rightly proud of their unalienable rights, need to recognize, always, that every unalienable right that is ours – must for a certainty be the very same unalienable rights that are for everyone else, as well.  In other words, there is not some hidden hierarchy of unalienable rights, which applies more to some, over others; or applies more to those that are educated over those that are less educated; or applies more to those of western nations over those of developing third-world nations.  it is important to recognize this truth, that when it comes to unalienable rights, those rights are for everyone, so equally applied, and so equally enforced.  Those then, that demand for their own selves, their specific unalienable rights, but will not accord the very same construct to their greatest foes, are hypocrites and are thus wrong in their mindset.

That which is good for the goose, must also be good for the gander; or else, unalienable rights have no real meaning or purpose.  We are all equally entitled to those unalienable rights, and therefore none are entitled to more than another.  This doesn’t mean that the end result of us all having the same unalienable rights, is that we will all be the same in our material possessions, or in our spiritual aspirations, or in our education or in anything – but rather what this so signifies is that we are all equal in the unalienable substance of who and what we really are.

The stickiness of first impressions

As it has been said, a person only gets one chance to make a good first impression, and therefore it behooves that person that is up for that interview or similar, to try to present themselves in a way and manner in which that first impression will be good – thus placing that person in a much better position, than if that first impression was not so good.  While there are all sorts of ways to make a good first impression upon another, the foundation of doing so, has an awful lot in common, in basically meeting what the perceived expectations are of the person that we are meeting with for the first time.  That is to say, if we look the part or act the part of what that person so wants to see, then the first impression that they are going to have, is often going to be rather favorable; and once a first impression is imprinted upon a person’s mind, they have a strong tendency to stick with that first impression for as long as possible, because as much as we like to think that most people, do not render a decision, until they have taken in all or as much relevant information to the subject at hand that they are able to – in fact, we find that a lot of people have a distinct tendency to take shortcuts so as to make up their mind about the other person, long beforehand.  This thus signifies that first impressions are rather sticky, in the sense, that once a person has made their decision, they are often reluctant to backtrack and thereby to change such, of which part of the reason why this is so, is their hesitation to admit that their initial impression, was fundamentally flawed.

While it could be said, that society might well be better served if we were slower to rush to judgment, whether that be of a first impression, or in the judging of a particular situation, or in regards to a perplexing problem – the thing that has to be taken into fair account, is that indecisiveness is basically considered to be a character flaw, so that all those that seem to be taking an interminable amount of time to come to a decision about something of importance, are often seen to be part of the problem and thus not part of the solution.  After all, many a person believes that it is more important to make a decision, rightly or wrongly, than to endlessly debate it back and forth – for at least when a decision has been made, there is now something of substance to accomplish or to work upon or to work with.  

Therefore, first impressions have a way of being rather sticky, because from the viewpoint of having made our judgment in regards to our perception of a particular person, we now have a strong tendency to suffer from the bias of subsequently seeing things from the perspective that favors our first impression, and thus to discount all those other things that are not consistent with such.  So , in effect, while each of us would like to think that we are at our core, fair-minded people,  the truth of the matter is, that many of us, have a strong tendency to be impressed by those that appear to be in harmony with our mindset, and far less with all those, that are not.