Coming of age and the inconsistency of sex/gender change

The “coming of age” for those that live in the United States, is set at eighteen years of age, of which that coming of age for those that turn 18, signifies that a child has now transitioned to being recognized legally as an adult, with all the incumbent rights, thereof.  The thing is though, within the United States, there are exceptions to this coming of age, of which the most notable exceptions would be the consumption of alcohol, so set at 21, as well as that being the same age set for the smoking of cigarettes and vaping; and in those States which have legalized cannabis, that minimum age is also fixed at 21.  So then, strange as it might so appear, that while 18 is age that one can join the military, and thus fight for their nation and risk their own life in doing so, they aren’t able to legally smoke or drink.

In our modern era, there are a small subset of people that are interested in transitioning from one sex/gender to another one.  As might be expected, the age of consent for doing so, is basically set at the age of 18, but there are exceptions to this age, which thus permits at an even younger age for puberty blockers to be issued for children, as well as for hormone treatment, and there are even recommendations by certain organizations such as The World Professional Association for Transgender Health that as reported by apnews.com, which are now stating that puberty blockers may be appropriate to prescribe as early as the age of 14, and some surgeries should be done as early as the age of 15. 

Whether or not this seems to be sensible, should be answered by the understanding that there is nothing much more that could be more life changing, than the changing of one’s sex/gender so done through the usage of puberty blockers, hormone treatment, and medical surgery.   This would seem to indicate, that we have a great deal of inconsistency in regards to the salient fact that certain aspects of adulthood are not legal until the age of 21, but somehow we find that those that are the greatest proponents of sex/gender change are pushing for the age of consent to be ever lower, for that which would seem to be literally life changing.

Further to the point, to somehow believe that young adults, or those that are not even legally adult, know what is always best or wise for them, seems seriously misplaced.  So too, to believe that everyone within the medical profession always has the best interests in mind for those that they engage with, is also misplaced, as appallingly demonstrated through the typically hidden history of errant human medical experiments or procedures, wittingly or unwittingly performed upon fellow human beings who thus then have suffered from the ill effects of that which harmed them.

The powers that be in America, have demonstrated in recent history, that they believe that those that are legally adults should have some restrictions placed upon them, in regards to their personal choices, so of.  One then would logically think that when it comes to a given person’s sex/gender change, that the Federal government would want to step in and have in place, appropriate restrictions, so done on behalf of these young adults, or soon to be adults, as a sensible protection for them, because the long-term effects of such, positive or negative, is not definitively known.

Placing a political bet on both horses

Although there are a multitude of minor political parties in America, what we so find, is that virtually every elected official, Federal, State, county, or local, is a member in good standing of either the Republican or the Democratic party.  This thus signifies that those that donate to either the Republican or the Democratic party are going to, more times than not, be backing a candidate that has at a minimum, a reasonable shot of being elected; though there are those contests, in which, because of demographics or similar, the candidate so running from just one particular party, is actually a shoo-in to win.  One might think, based upon the above, that those corporations and individuals that make large political donations would, all things being equal, simply back whatever candidate from whatever party that they personally favor, and thus be done with it.  But that, alas, is not how those with deep pockets and are quite savvy, actually prefer to operate, for it has to be noted, that those that only back one horse, while thus reaping the benefits, so of, when their candidate wins, will also correspondingly reap the whirlwind and disadvantages when their candidate loses.

So then, in reality, what happens in the political donation field, with those that are very influential donors, is whether such is out in the open, or far more discreet, is those that make such donations, make it a point to donate to both of the major parties, thus putting them in the good graces of each of the parties; so that, whether the election results or heads or tails, they thus pretty much win, for political actors of all stripes, have an endless need and desire for significant political donations, and seldom turn away anybody or any organization, that ends up putting money into their political bucket.   So too, as in many a thing, those that make sizeable donations, typically have at a minimum, some say to match up with the donations so made – and even if a particular elected official insists that this is not so, we do find, that at least subconsciously, it will play upon that politicians’ mind.  After all, those political figures that are absolute in their unwillingness to bend or to play ball with certain donors, are perhaps susceptible to a more concerted effort to have them be defeated in a future election, which most elected officials, would obviously prefer to avoid, and hence then, they are typically amendable to a reasonable accommodation with major donors, whether publicized or not.

That said, it might be reasonable to surmise, that those that make sizeable donations to both parties, would be seen as being two-faced or hypocritical in their actions, and thus perceived as being opportunistic, or worse.  The reality though, is that money is money, and each party typically believes that they know how to utilize the monies so donated to them, in the more effective manner, and thus do not overly concern themselves with the fact that the other side, also got their fair share, as well.   In short, politics lends itself to strange bedfellows, in which, morals, ethics, and integrity, seem to take a permanent backseat to the exercise of power, be it by those that make the donations, or those that receive such.

Are we mere animals or human beings with a conscience?

Some people are prone to point out that we as human beings are animals; but while that is most certainly true, human beings are more appropriately seen as sentient beings with free will, high intelligence, and a conscience.  That is to say, humans have been gifted with the capacity to understand the ramifications of their decisions and their corresponding actions, as well as intuitively knowing the difference between that which is morally right and that which is morally wrong.

When we study animals in their natural environment, what we so notice is that there are the inevitable battles between the same species of animals in order to have better access and thus to assert their dominance or desire for vital things such as for food, for sex, for territory, and therefore to establish their place in the social hierarchy of their species.  That truly is the nature of the beast, so presented in the natural world, of which, animals have to prove themselves in battle against one another to gain that which they are so determined to have, in which, there are most definitely winners and losers within that domain, and even those then that are the winners, are always susceptible to losing their dominance to another opponent, at any given time.

While we would like to believe that because of our understanding of what is right and what is wrong, that societies are always then built upon the solid foundations, of harmony, justice, fairness, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness; what we so find, though, is that many of humankind’s societies, in actuality, have an uncomfortable amount in common with what we so see in the animal kingdom.  In other words, many a society, is not really based upon fairness and justice, but instead seems to have a lot more in common, with that society being structured around whomever has the dominant control of such, in which these powerful people and dominating institutions seem to bypass good social niceties and replace such with the various guises of the use of force, so as to have their way, and to thereupon get far more than their fair share, from the people, by the threatening of, or by the use of force, directly or indirectly, against them.

So then, when we take the time to study our history, or to fairly evaluate what is actually occurring all around us, we will see, time and time again, that it is governmental force and the power behind such that reflects how the law is truly actuated within this nation and without.  For instance, America is the preeminent military power, asserting its supremacy all over the world, by utilizing a very heavy stick upon recalcitrant countries, so as to have its way; while also displaying the same type of force domestically, through its militarized police force.  So too, the people themselves, in this extremely well-armed country, are prone to dealing with their issues and problems, by the use of force, one upon another, in which, all of this combined, seems to tell the story, that America is not so civilized, but rather, seems to behave more in a manner of an animal trying to exert its control and dominance over others. 

Regrettably, this seems to indicate, that rather than humans using reason, wisdom, intelligence, and one’s good conscience to deal with one another, that in so many respects, all that is often set aside to assert, instead, one’s dominance of the other, much like we so see in the animal kingdom.

Vice taxes

A significant portion of the citizens of America, have a propensity to want to spend part of their money upon vices, of all sorts, such as prostitution, illegal drugs, lottery tickets, gambling, and alcohol, in which revenues are thus collected for the government through an implemented excise tax by the respective Federal and State authorities upon those vices which have been legalized within America and are subject to that tax.  The thing is, though, while it is estimated that billions of dollars are collected by those Federal and State agencies upon those vices which have been legalized and regulated, there is a significant portion of monies, of the illegal drug trade, along with prostitution, and various other vices, in which, because these are not legal or have been ignored, aren’t taxed at all. 

The first mistake that this government makes is that when a certain percentage of the population, for whatever reason, indulges in vices such as illegal drugs, and of which, the policing arm of the state, seems incapable of interdicting such to any meaningful extent, is that, not only will this type of illicit business continue, but because this underground economy, isn’t taxed upon the revenues that they are so generating, which probably amounts to billions upon billions of dollars, what we so have, is the tax paying public being stuck, then, with the considerable expenses so generated to police such, without much benefit incurring to that general public, which thus amounts to being the second mistake,

Whether or not this government, desires to continue to put together well-meaning but simple messages, such as “just say no,” or whether this government, will admit that after fifty years of futility in a drug war, which has been an unmitigated failure – that logically then needs to be answered with some sensibility, is that it has to be admitted that we are at that decision point, of which the decision to be made seems pretty straightforward. That is to say, it would probably behoove this government to decide to legalize and then to regulate a significant portion of the illicit drugs so being currently consumed within America, and then to subject such to an appropriate vice tax – much as we have so seen with legalized marijuana in specific States.

The advantage of adding more items subject to vice taxes, is first of all, the added revenue from the updated list of those vices that these people so indulge in, and the second benefit, is that by legalizing that which is current illegal, it thus means that the businesses that manufacture and then distribute these now legalized drugs, would be subject to all the taxation as well as regulations that corporations must so adhere to, in order to do business.

Of course, there are going to be a whole lot of people, that will decry the legalizing of what they perceive to be dangerous drugs – but, what of it; for the bottom line is that whatever America is currently doing has not worked and in all probability is never going to work.  So too, people’s bodies are their own, and if they so desire to utilize substances which may be detrimental to them -- seems to be by all rights, their own personal choice, and the only real question, then, is whether this government wishes to tax them for thus having that privilege bestowed upon them.

Is this a government by the people or by the rich?

It’s important to look at society as it really is, as contrasted to simply blithely believing whatever that is being sold to the American public.  While America loves to extol the virtues of its capitalism as well as the inherent greatness of its institutions, the bottom line is that a nation should be evaluated upon how its people, in whole, are actually doing.  Further to the point, the direction that this nation is going in, reflects whether that nation is progressing or regressing in its affairs.  So then, what we so find is that in the 21st century, we have distinctly moved into a new gilded age, in which, those that are at the elite top in wealth, have all of the wonderful benefits and accouterments exclusively attached to their respective names and businesses; whereas, those that represent the middle class of America, find themselves, instead, working ever harder to just maintain their position, and are thus ever more vulnerable to losing their respected status, to those that have relentlessly squeezed them from it.

Now then, since there are so few that have so much, and because there are so many, that don’t have all that much, one would think that in a governance in which the people clearly have the vote, and of which, in theory, the representatives of those people, have the people’s best interests in mind, that this government would make it its point and principle to thus utilize its power and its authority to see that the people got their fair benefits, and lived thus within a construct in which they would always have fair opportunity, and equal justice.  Yet, that is seldom the case, in America; for the decisions made at the highest echelons of governance, at the present time, consistently match up well with the actual desires of the rich and powerful, while leaving those without such access to that power and influence, with nothing but scraps to live upon, instead.

The upshot is that vote or no vote, democracy or no democracy, progressive taxation or not, is that our eyes do not deceive us, for a significant portion of Americans have to continually tighten their belts, as well as to suffer from their lack of fair opportunity, debilitating discrimination, unsecure employment, poor educational facilities, and a general hopelessness that their lot will not soon improve for them, or for their progeny.  The fault for this being the present case, lies at the feet of our governance, for whenever that governance favors the rich, connected, and powerful and thus kowtows to their desires – then all those that are not part of that favored class, will suffer the effects of being cheated out of their fair share.

The only entity that could conceivably match up well against the rich and powerful, is actually a strong and determined central government, and when that government consistently acts at the behest of those that are the rich and powerful, then there is little or no hope for the improvement of the conditions of the people, in whole. Regrettably, in this nation, we find that so many of those in government, while certainly talking a good game, have with their subsequent actions, fairly reflected that they have sold the people out, and done so, deliberately, as well as for their own personal benefit.

What you desire and what you really need are not the same thing

In certain conversations, there are plenty of people, that will tell you all about the things that they “need” – without really understanding that in a lot of instances what they really need seems to reflect more what they really desire, instead.  There is a distinct difference between our needs, such as food, water, shelter, free will, independent thought, and the right to be about our business – as compared to desires, such as to have a really nice home, a comfortable life, a nice car, a satisfying job, good social status, as well as us wanting plenty of other various material things.  So then, desires and needs are not the same thing, of which, it is important that in our governance, that our legislators make it a point to focus upon helping to provide us with or secure for us, those vital things which represent our needs, and hence, leave that which are actually desires, to our own volition and responsibility.

A person’s reach should exceed their grasp, for it is in the trying that we are best able to accomplish those things which are of importance to us.  Yet, fundamentally, what we are so often reaching out for, is typically our desires, which perhaps we have re-configured as representing our needs,  thereby leading to a lot of people suffering from the inevitable frustration when they don’t have all of their desires met to their lasting satisfaction.  Rather, the first order of business in life, is to see that our needs are being met – and then, after that, to go after our desires, to our heart’s content.

So then, a lot of the troubles that people experience in life, has often a lot to do with confusing one’s desires with one’s needs, and therefore, because people aren’t getting what they claim that they must have, they then are susceptible to taking actions or making decisions which may have damaging aspects within them, such as in those that overspend on unnecessary but desirable material things, perhaps because they feel that in order to maintain their social status or its equivalency, that this is pretty much mandated for them to do; forgetting though that monies spent for that which is desirable, but not really needed, can play havoc upon a person’s budget as well as impacting negatively monies so needed, for those necessary things.

Indeed, when people take the time to truly reflect upon their lives, and thereby are honest with themselves, they will thus find that the confusion between desires and needs is something that they need to forthrightly address – especially in the recognition that commercial enterprises along with the advertising that they utilize is structured to entice consumers, of which, these companies are very good at exploiting the vulnerabilities that so many of us are vulnerable to.  That is why, it’s important to understand that our first order of business is to concentrate upon seeing that our real needs are met, and understanding then that while desires have their place, we shouldn’t though permit those desires to overtake our good common sense, leading thus to our own destruction or regret.

The government needs to do more on behalf of labor

The unionization of employees, especially in the private enterprise sector, seems to be in terminal decline -- and for a certainty the fight for union representation, for the laborers that make up the industries, that would certainly seem to benefit from such, suffers from the apparent futility in trying to accomplish such a long, arduous, and interminable process.  The blame for why there is so much difficulty in establishing present-day unions, is mainly because corporations are provided with all of the tools that they so need to successfully counteract union activity, fair or foul, and are subsequently very effective in the implementation of such; while our government, of, for, and by the people seems to idly just sit by, and to do little or nothing, in return, to help, the common laborer.

The importance of unions being able to provide its members with better pay, better benefits, better job security, and better overall working conditions should not be discounted, for that is the very thing that will help those that struggle the most from unsteady income to firstly stabilize their lives, and secondly this will provide them with the good opportunity to thus improve their lot in their respective lives.  One would think, then, that this government, would actually be on the side of the common laborer, or in lacking such forthrightness, would be, at least, at a minimum, desiring to see that the rights that each one of us is fairly entitled to, would be well represented, in the workplace -- but that does not seem to be the case, at all.

If unions are not to be of any real relevancy in the United States, then the replacement for the lack of having those unions, has got to be the Federal government.  The first step that this government needs to therefore make is to establish a living wage as the new definition of what a minimum wage so represents, and further to that point, to tie that wage, so of, with the annual cost of living index.  The second step is to see that employee hours are actually consistent week to week, and therefore not subject to being at the beck and call of management.  That is to say, full-time employees should be entitled to a minimum of thirty-five hours of work each week, of which, the hours so being worked should have an established schedule, and of which, hours worked outside that established scheduled, should be paid at a wage of time and a half of one’s stated pay.  The third step is for this government, to actually enforce the laws that are on the books in regards to work and safety standards, overtime, and discrimination.

The fact of the matter is that those that do not have union representation and work within industries in which, their voices are effectively silenced as well as having no say in regards to the overall working conditions that they are a part of, must be aided and abetted by their government so as to reduce substantially the exploitation that they so suffer from, so that they thus can have a fair hope of achieving some reasonable semblance of the American dream.

The free exercise of religion

Our First Amendment to our Constitution, reads in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Another way to translate this seminal Amendment, is that each individual is entitled to the freedom of their conscience to believe or not to believe in whatever religion or faith they so choose, without governmental interference, or even to be required to ask permission from that government, to hold their respective beliefs.  That is to say, our conscience is wholly our own, and therefore any subsequent laws or enactments that infringe upon that conscience are in all candor, probably unconstitutional, as well as being not in keeping with the principles of what this nation was so founded upon.

A free conscience is our unalienable right, and for a certainty, governments are instituted amongst the people, in order to secure our unalienable rights, and not to thus trespass upon them.  Regrettably, though, there are many a person, that believes that their religion or their faith, should be the prevailing view that all should hold, and those then that do not also hold such beliefs are considered, by them, at least, to be something lesser than those that do conform to their particular doctrine. In truth, more people need to take to heart, that the motto of the United States, is E Pluribus Unum, which means “out of many, one.”  That is to say, that those that are true to what the principles of this nation represent, are the true patriots to that nation, for they recognize that each of us are fairly entitled to our own conscience, as well as understanding the importance that in order to have harmony amongst our peoples, there has to be a strong core foundations that we all agree upon.

While most of us, when we consider property, think of material things, it has to be understood, that our mind and therefore our conscience is also our property, and this thus should be considered to be the most valuable type of property that needs to be well protected by that government, of, for, and by the people.  Indeed, we are not meant to be a nation of sheep, for a nation of sheep, is one in which a demagogue can lead such into all sorts of trouble.  Rather, we are meant to be free thinking individuals, entitled to our own opinions, our own thoughts, and our own objectives. 

How each of us wants to relate to our faith, is our individual business, of which, we are freely entitled in this country to exercise our conscience in regards to the religion of our choice, along with being permitted to freely change our religion, if we are so inclined to.  For those that believe, that there is indeed life beyond this material world, then the importance of having the freedom to express our religious belief is of even more value -- for each of us, when the time so comes, has to answer in that undiscovered country, for our actions and deeds so done here, to our Creator, and no one else or any government can do that for us.

Human understanding and confirmation bias

Confirmation bias occurs when we have a given viewpoint or opinion, and the only information that we subsequently take into our evaluation, is that which confirms what we already believe –  thus effectively ignoring all that of the opposing side which could be of relevance, as being viewed as immaterial, suspect, or of no import.  The problem that so many of us have, is that we don’t like being wrong, ever.  This means, that when we take a position, especially a position in which it is publicized and/or strongly held by us, that we will, for the most part, always remain steadfast to our position, come what may, and therein lies the rub.

While it is true that there are those things that we need to make up our mind about, and hence not be wishy-washy about – or else, we could well become someone that changes our mind, depending upon how the prevailing wind is blowing on that given day;  it has to be taken into full account, though, that not everything that we so dearly believe, should forever be a closed book, never to be examined or investigated, ever again.  After all, there was a time when we all believed that Santa Claus, existed, but at some point, we recognized the fallacy of that belief, and subsequently got over it, and went about our given lives.

So too, there are grave dangers for those that suffer from too much confirmation bias, in which, because they have a set opinion about something, they thus discard any viewpoints that oppose such, indicative that they are not open to a fair evaluation or re-evaluation of all that is going on.  For example, we find that especially with those that are in high positions of judgment or are major decision makers, that if their minds are already made up on a given resolution or decision, that this error will thus compound upon another error, for that is the danger of not taken into full account, all of the actionable information, so required, to render or to make a fair and wisely calculated decision.

What a lot of people may not consciously recognize is that so many of us, suffer from confirmation bias, and in absence of us trying to rectify this, by first of all, acknowledging at least the possibly of that bias, and then secondly, by making needed adjustments to overcome such bias, then we aren’t going to make any real progress or improvement upon those necessary things.  Recognize this well, those that are being judged for their character, for their job position, and for this and for that, should, if they are well qualified, desire to see that their merits, so of, are fairly evaluated.  On the other hand, those that know that they aren’t well qualified, are the type of people, that desire to specifically deal with a biased person, and as long as they know what that particular bias so represents, they will thus try to therefore conform to what that biased person is so seeking in another.

The minimum, that we owe one human to another, is to at least listen openly to what the other person has to say, and therefore give them a fair chance to state their position, before we thus render any sort of decision, or make a response to them.  Perhaps by doing so, we will end up making better decisions, so of, or at least, less biased ones.

The 21st century rise of economic rent seeking

For the average layman, when they hear the term “rent” they might well typically associate it with the amount of money that people pay for their monthly rent.  When it comes to economic rent seeking, though, the best way to define such, is the extra or excess profit obtained, for example, by the manipulation of the commercial market through governmental favoritism, or the consequence of having substantial market share or the effective control of such, and basically the “gaming” of the system for the exclusive benefit of the entity that incurs the gains from that rent seeking.

As much as people sing the praises of capitalism as well as of competition, it has to be taken into fair account, that a significant portion of those corporations that are most profitable, are corporations that in one form or another, are able to exercise some degree of rent seeking into their business model.  That is to say, when multi-billion dollar corporations are somehow able to convince municipalities that by moving to their city, that this will create all sorts of jobs and revenue for that locale – but they also insist, in conjunction, upon receiving in return, massive tax abatement from property taxes and the like, this is a form of rent seeking. So too, corporations that are permitted to buy out their competitors so as to consolidate that business into fewer and fewer players, are typically doing so, not to benefit those that are its customers by thus having better products and better service, but for the most part, so as to reduce competition, or potential competition, so that they can therefore make more money by that rent seeking.

The salient fact that has to be taken into full account, is that many people as well as corporations, prefer to minimize the financial risk that they have to deal with, as much as possible.  In other words, people that are trying to make some extra cash on the side, or corporations that have a Board of Directors and stockholders to answer to, desire to do everything that they can do, to reduce the amount of risk to their bottom line, that they have to deal with, while correspondingly trying to find ever more lucrative ways to make the money that their salaries and bonuses are dependent upon, quarter after quarter.  This signifies, that no matter how good a given corporation is run, or how solid their product line may so be, that these corporations are always looking for any avenue that will be ever more secure for their revenues, ever more profitable, and they thus will do all that they can do to eliminate or mitigate those things that thus stand in their way of getting as much as they can in the way of that easier money.

So then, the way that we know that rent seeking is on the rise in the 21st century, such as in America, is as clear as day, for we are able to see that the distribution of the wealth within America, is being relentlessly skewed and specifically directed towards the upper 1%, which is why we not only continue to have so many people that stubbornly remain part of our underclass, but also why those of the middle class, find that they are struggling so hard, just to get by, far more frequently. 

The reality of reality shows

There are a considerable amount of shows that purport to be “reality” shows, of which, those that are participants in such, are in theory, being shown to us, as they really are, within the construct of that show.  The main appeal, then, to those that watch and are engaged in those types of shows, is the impression that the viewer has, which because they perceive these people that they are viewing, as being real and therefore relatable to them, thus allows the viewers of such to believe that they are getting an inside view of those participants, and hence often a vicarious pleasure from it.  For a certainty, the show producers, want the audience to feel either a kinship with those that they are viewing, or in absence of that, then for the audience to feel a superiority to them, because the viewers would feel that they are, despite their own personal flaws, of superior character to these “reality players.”

What the audience typically doesn’t know or perhaps doesn’t really care about, is how much manipulation is being done behind the scenes which they are not privy to, when it comes to them viewing the thirty or sixty minute show, which has literally seen produced hours upon hours of video for each episode  --that has subsequently been heavily edited and manipulated by those that are the producers of that reality show.  The very first thing that producers of reality shows know, is that they aren’t interested in a show in which there isn’t any conflict or drama, because that isn’t going to get an audience engaged or absorbed, whatsoever.  This thus means, that when it comes to the actual participants, so of, producers are looking for characteristics that are more akin to narcissism, selfishness, two-facedness, impulsiveness, and the like, for that makes for good conflict and a captivating drama.

So then, in reality shows, positive characteristics, such as kindness, empathy, niceness, and generosity are always meant to take a back seat to greed, personal gratification, aggrandizement, and deceitfulness.  Additionally, because reality show producers aren’t interested in showing the mundane, especially in consideration that so many of the audience viewers live themselves lives of mundaneness, commonality, and sameness, they make it a point to thus accentuate that which is more out of the norm, than what most of us experience, in our everyday lives – so that, for those members of the audience that perhaps fantasize about this or that, they can thus take some vicarious pleasure in seeing such, actually enacted by someone else, in their stead.

So too, the producer of these shows have an additional duty of often selling to the participants that they themselves are always a disinterested and neutral mediator, looking out for everyone’s best interests, when often, the point of their private conversations with participants, is to successfully exploit people’s vulnerabilities and weaknesses so that the “reality” of what so subsequently happens makes for a better viewing show and for a better drama -- for without necessary conflict, trickery, duplicity, and spitefulness, from those that are the reality show participants, the reality show is in danger of its viewership tuning out, from boredom.

The misguided assault upon free speech

Those that are unable to freely think whatever thoughts that they are so inclined to think, and therefore to freely speak what is on their mind, are by definition, not free.  The history of humankind, is regrettably often a history that suppresses the right of the people to freely think, to freely criticize, and to freely be about their business.  Those then, that are up in arms, about “hate speech,” disinformation, fake news this and fake news that, have basically got it fundamentally wrong – for what is left unsaid, is that those that are incapable of successfully countering what appears to be false or hateful, with an argument that is sound, sensible, and fair to thereby support their given point, are perhaps less right than they so presume that they are.

Those that want to live within an echo chamber, don’t need to go far, for a given room within a person’s house, can serve that very purpose for people like that.  To believe, somehow, that we learn best, by simply having other people always being in agreement with us, or we in agreement with them, is regrettably the pathway that leads to ever diminishing returns.  We are meant to challenge, at least some of the time, what is so often taken for granted as being conventional, or right; so that at a minimum, we devote some of our resources to examining such – for those that will not bother to look beyond the orthodox, are doing an injustice to the free thinking capacity of their mind.

It's important that each one of us has an opportunity to speak our mind, and while we might wish that such will always be done in a civil manner, that isn’t always going to be the case.  That is to say, so many of the systemic problems that society suffers badly from, essentially comes forth from people that do not believe that they have been given a fair shake, a fair vote, or that anyone or anything is paying fair attention to them – they thus then often strike back through actions which are hurtful, all because nobody has bothered to validate them, by listening to them, as if they actually mattered.

All of us, deserve a free voice, whether or not anyone else so desires to listen to us, is best left though to that other person’s personal volition. So too, those that overly worry about the people being fooled about this, or tricked about that, need to understand that the best way to assure that the people are knowledgeable about what is truly important and vital for them, is for that governance to support wholeheartedly the freedom of the press, free speech, and the value of people reasoning and thinking through things by their own selves, rather than always credulously believing whatever is being sold to them.

Those then, that wish to suppress free speech, because they do not believe that the people have the right to sprout nonsense, misinformation, lies, or hateful expressions -- in addition to those same people also desiring to suppress minority viewpoints, unorthodoxy, inconvenient truths, and unconventional wisdom, need to understand that meaningful change typically comes forth from those that challenge orthodoxy rather than blithely accepting such, and further that every one of us has the unalienable right to say what we wish to say, subject to the most minimal of sensible restrictions.

Less weapons, less war

The inverse of less weapons leading to less war, is more weapons leading to more war.  So then, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that when a nation such as America, insists upon having a military budget that is well-nigh approaching an astonishing $1 trillion, that those that are the actuators of such a budget, are going to do just about everything in their power to see that such a budget as that, is not only justified, but that it is also utilized in a way and manner that seems to prove its enduring value.  That is to say, the manufacturing of weapons is one thing and one expense, but to just have all those weapons sitting idly in inventory, and hence going unused, is not only going to make it problematic to thus receive future funding at the same high level, but it also is a clear reflection that the money so having been spent upon those weapons, was not actually necessary or prudent.  This thus signifies that the more monies spent on “Defense” the more “defending” that a nation is going to have to do to justify it all.

So then, as simple as it might so sound, the less money so spent on Defense, the less foreign excursions and warfare a nation is going to get itself involved in.  For instance, we do so find that the whole purpose of arms negotiation talks done with Russia and similar, is so that each side would not only devote far less monetary resources as well as research and development upon the manufacture of weapons, but also because of having less weapons, this  would make for having less warfare.  To believe then, that there will be more peace, by virtue of spending more money of weaponry is senseless and has no place in a world in which the destructive power of nuclear weapons can already end the world as we know it, virtually instantly.

In truth, it would then behoove the nation that leads all other nations by a country mile, in the amount of money so being spent and devoted upon its military, to take the first step in seeing that its expenditures are reduced, forthwith, by not only negotiating this with other nations such as Russia, or China, but with virtually any other nation, in which such negotiation would lend itself to less monies being mutually spent upon the instruments of war, as compared to that money being spent upon that which is beneficial to the people’s need, in whole. 

We live in a known world, in which sovereign nations are entitled to their own rule of law, in which, should we so desire to get involved in another nation’s business for humanitarian reasons or similar, we should responsibly pursue first a diplomatic course as well as other civilized means,  before even considering the utilization of our force of arms.  So then, if we are going to become truly civilized, the very first step that we need to take as a collective people, is to first put down our arms, and thereby treat one another with the courtesy and respect that each person or nation is fairly entitled to.

The advent of semi-monthly credit cards

The Credit Card Act of 2009, stipulates that credit card companies need to allow at least 21 days from the time that a credit card bill is mailed for the recipient to make a payment upon it – in addition to the fact that the due date for each credit card issued must be on the same day every month.  This would seem to indicate that the current practice of monthly credit card bills is something that isn’t subject to change; but the thing about laws is that those that lobby hard enough to change a given law or to make an exception to such, especially when that exception is under the guise that this will be beneficial to the credit card consumer, signify that those very same laws are thus subject to change.

In consideration that the vast majority of employees are paid on a semi-monthly, bi-weekly, or weekly pay period, this would seem to indicate that not everybody would be adverse to paying a credit card bill semi-monthly, rather than monthly – though, of course, the benefits of such would have to be clear and obvious to the consumer.  The main selling point for consumers would have to be a lower interest rate, as compared to a credit card that stipulated a monthly payment, and of which, that lower interest rate would certainly seem to be a win for consumers.  Of course, the question, might well be asked, what is in it for the credit card issuer?  That answer has a lot to do with their perception of the good intentions of a given consumer as compared to their actual behavior.  That is to say, semi-monthly payments, would provide for credit card issuers, twice the amount of opportunity to charge a late payment fee, an over the limit fee, a return check fee, and any other pertinent fees so attached to that credit card.  In addition, the more frequent the payment period, the lesser risk that a credit card issuer has, in regards to perceiving better those that are going to be problematic in the collecting of anything from them, anytime soon.  Finally, all credit card issuers have an ungainly amount of terms and conditions, of which, buried deep within such, could be terms that would permit that credit card issuer to raise the interest rate for all those that are delinquent upon their account.  The bottom line is that credit card issuers are not stupid, and before they would roll out a nationwide semi-monthly credit card offer, they would first test such within a given community over a long enough period of time to determine whether a semi-monthly structure would be more beneficial for them or not.

In truth, a semi-monthly credit card structure could also be beneficial for certain consumers, because if properly structured, it would allow them to keep their credit card balance lower and because of a lower overall interest rate, this would definitely save them money.  In addition, with the credit card bill showing up more frequently, consumers might well adjust their spending habits to be more responsible about their expenditures.  It is well to remember, though, that current credit card debt is nearly $1 trillion, so for a certainty, because the major banks are essentially in the business of making money, any legitimate way that they can, that it is only a matter of time, before the waters are tested for this very thing.

21st century slavery

Western nations have a right to be proud of eradicating chattel slavery.  Yet, having done so, many of these same western nations, have within their borders at the present time, what appears to be an updated and insidious form of slavery.  We have to keep in mind that we live within a very big world in which the wealth, so of, is not even close to being equally distributed.  Further to the point, the governments that many people live under, are in a lot of cases, repressive, non-democratic in actual form, as well as lacking foundational good educational facilities and/or decent employment opportunities.

All of this basically means that in war-torn countries, be it civil war, or wars between nations, or in those lands of internecine narcotic wars,  and similar, those that are simply trying to live a decent and wholesome life, are placed in the unenviable position of having to consider outlets that may well be outside their township, or even their country, such as a foreign land.  After all, in a situation in which a family doesn’t see any good possibilities for themselves, while also desiring that their offspring have better opportunities then they have so had, they are going to be susceptible to being enticed by sketchy outside recruiters, as well as through their own volitional thinking, that the grass truly is greener on the other side.  The fact that they believe in that, isn’t even wrong, for western nations, typically have a stable rule of law, as well as better educational and employment opportunities, but alas in a lot of cases, that picture, in reality for those so immigrating, through illegal means, is often just a very tempting mirage.

The problem with a capitalistic system, or any monetary system, in which the lure or need of money is the overriding desire of a given entrepreneurial person or corporation, is that the unrelenting lust for that profit, above virtually everything else, addles the sensibility of what is good and fair.  So then, the fact that there are so many people that have illegally crossed the border, one way or another, and typically owe those that have helped them to cross that border a considerable amount of money, in which the clock is ever ticking upon them – in conjunction with the material fact that there are actually millions of immigrants without proper paperwork, within those western nations, already, leads to those illegal immigrants being exploited, time and time again.

So then, wage laws in regards to a minimum wage, overtime, age of the person so working, and so on and so forth, is something that is going to be subverted time and time again, by those that deliberately employ people that they know have questionable “legal” rights and debatable “legal” status.  So too, when it comes to the actual work and working conditions, those that hire almost exclusively illegal immigrant labor for certain job positions, are going to often circumvent those rules, in order to see that the work so being done is being accomplished in a way and manner that favors the man so paying for that labor.  In short, chattel slavery has been effectively replaced with those that have come to western nations looking for liberty and opportunity, but have found instead, a bastardization of such.

The relentless evisceration of the middle class

America desires to take pride in all sorts of achievements, some true, some mythical, and some absolutely false.  That is to say, to actually believe that America is the land of opportunity is at best, a half-truth, for that opportunity in this modern era, is certainly not equal for all of the people, whatsoever; and seems instead to be distinctly skewed towards favoritism to certain types of persons, certain types of corporations, and certain types of circumstances supporting those that are connected or well positioned.

A case in point, is the labor share of income, in which we read at mckinsey.com, that when it comes to the status of the labor share in America, we thus find that, “…three-fourths of the entire post-1947 decline occurred between 2000 and 2016.”  Further we are told, that all things being equal, if the labor share of income had remained at the level it was in 1998, that “…average worker pay might be higher in real terms by roughly $3,000 per year,”  which is a sizable amount of money to not have -- for those of the laboring class, who would most definitely want to have those funds available for them in order to aid them in taking care of those necessary things.

The bottom line is that the monies which historically would have gone to the laboring class, has not actually disappeared, but has been re-allocated to mainly those that are in the executive positions of certain corporations, as well as in the hands of those that are the investors, in such.  In other words, while the laboring class, continues more and more to struggle within a construct in which they are clearly regressing, those that are the masters of that labor or are investors in corporations, of such, have never had it better. 

All of this is reflected in the material fact, that America, though immensely wealthy in aggregate, is becoming, day-by-day, more unequal in how that wealth is so distributed, and we do find, that never have so few in number, had so much.  Not too surprisingly, in a nation, in which the rich have the lion’s share of the resources, and a massive underclass has pretty much nothing of worth held in their name – that leaves essentially only the middle class to truly represent what America actually is, in substance; and of that middle class, they are struggling, cause quite frankly, being shorted $3,000 annually, is a big deal.

If this nation, actually cared about its laboring class -- rather than its national representatives consistently doing the bidding of the superrich as well as kowtowing to the well connected, then this nation would take it upon itself to do two fundamental things.  The first would be to establish a national living wage, with an annual cost-of-living adjustment attached to it, and the second would be to actually enforce a progressive tax system, which would through its robustness eliminate all the tax dodges and workarounds, so used to great effect, by superrich individuals, as well as behemoth corporations.  Until then, things will continue to get worse for the laboring class, before they have any hope of them getting any better.

Towards a national vehicle registration fee

Each State has its own rules of the road, as to how they thus figure out the amount to charge for vehicle registration each year, which varies from some rather complex programs, such as in California, to many a State which simply has a simple flat fee.  The thing is, though, most vehicles are capable of crossing State lines, and many a driver does so.  Further to the point the Federal-Aid Highway Program supports the State highway systems and it would seem that in order to contribute monies to more Federal funding that a national vehicle registration fee should be imposed by the Federal government. forthwith.

Additionally, it has to be kept in mind, that there are many types of vehicles on our roads, of different vehicle weights, of different fuel sources, of different engine sizes, of different ages of the vehicle, as well as a different amounts of miles so being driven by each  one of these vehicles, annually.  It would seem then, in consideration that this government has an obligation to help do its good part to encourage the usage of fuels and vehicles that are more energy efficient, or less polluting, or both, that they would want to put into place, a national vehicle registration fee program, which would impose upon those vehicles that are most abusive of our limited resources, or are more prone to polluting, a higher fee so being charged, than those vehicles that are more in conformance with the national goals of energy efficiency and other pertinent transportation desires.

In addition, the current way of assessing fees, does not take into account, how many miles a given driver, drives each year.  In other words, just like a buffet, it’s one price, for as many miles as a person so desires or needs to drive.  Yet, the thing is, the more that vehicles are driven in aggregate, the more energy that is being utilized, the more potential pollution is being emitted, and the greater the overall wear and tear is going to be effected on our roads, so of.  This would then reasonably be something in which, there should be tiers of what a national vehicle registration fee should be, not only depending upon the actual vehicle characteristics of that vehicle, but also the amount of miles so driven in a calendar year.

After all, the more that a person utilizes a resource, in fairness, the more that they then should be charged, depending though upon other material factors in regards to the nature of the actual vehicle, itself.  Further to the point, a national vehicle registration fee, could have some of its funds so being collected, earmarked to benefit and sustain public or alternative transportation of all types, because quite frankly, the United States does an overall poor job in encouraging its people to avail themselves of public transportation, perhaps because that choice is often not a particularly desirable alternative.

Sure, Americans love their vehicles, and they also love their freedom, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have to pay a fair and sustainable price for having that freedom in the first place.

Death, taxes, and the superrich

It has been said that the only things certain in life, are death and taxes.  Yet, for those that stand to inherit bucketloads of money we do so find that the current exemption, as of 2023, is $12.92 million for an estate of a single individual, and thus the current exemption for a married couple is an astonishing $25.84 million.  This signifies, that for those that are married and have assets of nearly $26 million that they are able to thus legally pass that wealth onto their progeny, with no estate tax being assessed against those inheritors, whatsoever.  Further to the point, those that have estates far exceeding $26 million, have no doubt, created tax strategies that will enable that money to be designated to individuals and organizations with an absolute minimum of estate taxation being assessed against it.  That is to say, we read at cnbc.com, that “Just 0.2% of U.S. adults who die have owed estate tax in recent years… …That’s lower than the historical 1% to 2% share.”  In fact, cnbc.com, tells us, that there were only “… 2,570 taxable estate-tax returns filed in 2019.”

When a country is too frightened or too stupid to tax the very entities that have all of the money in the first place, it is only fair to assume that those that are our legislative representatives in this nation, have themselves been “captured” by the superrich.  After all, think about it, the amount of people that have assets greater than $26 million are all people that are in the upper decimal of the top 1% of such familial wealth accumulated in the United States.  The bottom line, is about half of the people in the United States, have no net worth, which would seem to indicate that they would appreciate the superrich, coughing up a heck of a lot more of their wealth, upon their demise, so as to redistribute such to those that really need it, in the present.

It would be one thing if in this modern age, America was becoming a nation in which its labor class was capturing a fair share of what they so produced for those that they work for – but in actuality, the labor class, has been steadily losing ground in the 21st century and that ground has been almost exclusively lost to those that are the superrich or well off, instead.  This means that the superrich as things are so currently structured, have never had more money in their hands, then they so have today; and somehow, for whatever spurious reasoning, they are being taxed at historic low rates on not only an annual basis, but also upon their death.

A nation that won’t tax the superrich appropriately when they are amongst the living, and insists upon not taxing them upon their death, is a nation that has no interest, whatsoever, in seeing that there is a process in place to accord a fairer distribution of the wealth, of this country.  Those then, that truly believe that wealth concentration is good for a nation and its people, have surely got it all wrong – for that is the very thing that Europe was known for, before America rose up to assert its independence, back in 1776.  Yet, regrettably, America has itself become a nation of dynastic wealth, so having been accomplished upon the backs of its own working class.

Turning back the clock and abortion

In many a nation, this is still a man’s world.  When it comes to western nations, though, the primacy of males has basically been replaced with a more collaborative understanding between the two sexes, which makes then for a better society.  Yet, the United States, seems to have taken a major step back, in regards to the equality of the sexes, through its overturning of Roe v. Wade. While the actual Supreme Court decision, was itself, a stretch in its reasoning at the time, it had been, though, the established law for the entirety of the nation for nearly fifty years, and to thereby replace such with decisions now to be made by the State legislative branch or of subsequent laws enacted within an individual State, makes then for a whole lot of inconsistency, confusion, and stress, for those thus desiring to be in reasonable control of their reproductive rights of their own sovereign body.

We are taught to have respect for the law, but when an important law is substantially different, depending upon whether a given individual lives in one State or another, then respect for that law, as enacted, thereby, is going to be reduced, significantly.  Of course, it has to be taken into account, that for those, that truly believe that life starts at conception, then the safe access to abortion, or the legitimacy of such, becomes, for them, a moral crusade.  Still, the counter-argument to that, is that each one of us, should be sovereign in regards to our minds and of our bodies, and so it logically follows that females should be accorded the respect that they deserve, to make whatever appropriate decisions that they feel is best, for a fetus that they carry 100% inside of them, subject to reasonable restrictions, such as the viability of the fetus, on its own.

Further to the point, there is the law on the books, and then there is the actuality of the law in practice – in which, many a law is blatantly violated again and again – such as we see in people that indulge in marijuana, which still remains a Schedule I Federal crime.  This thus indicates that even when abortion is stamped illegal, or is unavailable within a given State or county, that this does not, in and of itself, prevent abortions from happening, one way or another.  In short, what so happens in those places in which access to a safe abortion is precluded, is that most of those people that have determined that they want an abortion, are going to find a way to accomplish that task – with the significant difference for them, being the risk of the procedure being unsafe, the expense, as well as the possibility of criminal penalties that they or others so involved, may be susceptible to.

Sure, the United States, can turn back the clock on abortion – for indeed, in certain States of this Union, it has already done so; but that is not going to take a medical procedure which happens hundreds of thousands of times each year, alongside medical pills that can induce an abortion on its own, being actually reduced significantly or ever trending towards zero.  To believe that this is going to happen, is insensible – what will happen, though, is that the most vulnerable and marginalized amongst us, will unduly suffer for their lack of fair access to be in control of their own bodies, which is discriminatory and fundamentally wrong in every conceivable way.

When the public sector is not public

We’re supposed to be governed by public servants – which signifies that those that are our representatives in government, have an inherent obligation to be open and transparent to the constituents that they so publicly serve.  In actuality, though, few people are credulous enough to believe that our public servants are being as transparent, public, or open that they could be, and in a construct such as that, this thus means that those that are the citizens of this nation, do not truly have the resources that they thus need to be able to judge fairly as to whether or not, what is so happening under their collective names, is firstly consistent with the principles of this nation, and secondly whether this reflects the desires of those that populate this country, of, for, and by the people.

All those that are our public servants, whether elected or appointed, have a responsibility to be accountable to the citizens that they so serve.  The fact, then, that so much of what so happens of importance on behalf of the people, is secretive, or deceptive, or unaccounted for, is unacceptable.  Additionally, it is problematic for the general public to actively desire to participate with their governance, when that public doesn’t have full disclosure of what is or is not actually going on, on their behalf.  That is to say, civic service duty, voluntarily done by the people, is always going to suffer, when the people don’t feel that their voice is heard, and further to the point, don’t have the knowledge to ascertain whether those that represent them are actually being forthright and true.

So then, in fairness, whether the news is good or bad, those that are our public servants, need to keep foremost in their minds that when they are dishonest or purposely deceptive with the people, that the people have truly been cheated of what they are deserving of and have a right to know.  Those that are up to no good, are always those that prefer secrets that are not disclosed to those that are not in the know, as well as favoring labyrinths of all types and sizes, in addition to utilizing constant misdirection – thereby providing them with the cover that they need to perform those dirty deeds, so done by American public servants, but not willingly disclosed to the people of America.

A government that is not open and honest with its people, is, by definition, not going to be a good government, nor is it going to be a government that is actually in harmony with its governing documents.  The primary reason why there is so much disharmony, conflict, tension, and unhappiness within America, has an awful lot to do with the fact that the people don’t have a fair say, and they also don’t know what is really going on, behind the scenes.  In truth, the people of America are currently being disrespected by their government, and it is those very same people, that have to thus pay the price, figuratively and literally, for that governmental deception and malfeasance.  The answer, then, to this current mess, is for this government, to become far more forthcoming and open in its public activities, or simply admit to the people that this isn’t a democracy, in any fit, form, or function, and never will be.