Age and COVID-19

The United States along with most other Western nations, had a very severe lockdown and restrictions imposed upon their population, which did not discriminate in regards to age, when it came to COVID-19.  In other words, the governance of the United States, sold the story to the people, that COVID-19 was a deadly disease, that was no respecter of persons and their age, and therefore all then were subject to the same draconian laws concerning contact with others, movement, and other restrictions.  So too, the United States applied a lot of pressure on people to get vaccinated, of which, that vaccination, did not in and of itself, actually serve as an ironclad guarantee that a person so vaccinated, would not ever contact and get COVID-19 again.

While it could be said that the United States and other Western nations, made serious mistakes regarding how to best deal with this “pandemic”, it has to be noted that history clearly tells us, that the United States fundamentally got it wrong.  The biggest mistake that the United States made was to not comprehend or to understand the nature of the disease, by treating it, as if COVID-19 had the same morbidity and mortality rate, no matter the age or physical condition of the person.  What we find as shown on statista.com, is that out of the 1,134,641 USA COVID-19 deaths, 858,323 of those deaths were of people aged 65 and older, and only 8,607 were aged 29 and younger.  This is a staggering difference in the death rate of these respective population groups and is indicative that COVID-19 was a lethal disease to the aged and those with compromised immune systems or other bad health issues, as compared to those that were young, and pretty much immune to COVID-19.

Because the United States failed to recognize that COVID-19 was discriminatory, it shut down public schools, businesses, and social lives for those that were best suited for those very things, which will have a lifetime effect upon those students and citizens who lost the opportunity to educate themselves and to improve their status in life.  Further to the point, for all those that do not believe in the foregoing analysis, when we take a look at Nigeria, which is a country that has a population about 2/3rd of the United States and is considered by all accounts to be far poorer than the United States, with a healthcare system which doesn’t hold a candle to the United States, we find that in total, as reported by coronavirus.jhu.edu only 3,155 of Nigerians died of COVID-19.  This staggering difference in death rates seems unfathomable, unless, we take into account that in America, the population percentage of those that are 65 and older is 17.6%; whereas in Nigeria that percentage is around 3%.  Further to the point, Nigeria has a considerably higher percentage of people that are aged 29 and younger than the USA, so that, rather than COVID-19 devastating Nigeria, as well as other African nations, it did not, despite Nigeria’s lack of vaccinations and infrastructure to supposedly best deal with COVID-19.

Indeed, at this point, the greatest good that the United States can do for its people is to admit its horrendous error, and thereby make good for those that they hurt the most, which are all those that suffered economic and educational loss, by putting forth a comprehensive program to facilitate such.

Unhealthy emotional detachment

Some people emotionally detach from others, mainly because they are afraid to get close to another, for fear of being vulnerable by virtue of opening up about their real emotions, that at some future point, when the relationship has been damaged or comes to a negatively charged moment – believe that because their true emotions have been previously expressed, this could thereby be used as a cudgel against them, and thereby hurt them.  So, their protection for this possible event is to build an emotional wall that seemingly doesn’t make them vulnerable to being hurt, but at the same time, precludes them from having a healthy attachment to somebody else, which could be quite beneficial, and precludes them therefore from all the advantages that a healthy emotional attachment to another person, presents.

That said, there are valid reasons why we should desire not to have an emotional attachment to a particular person, because the fact of the matter is that not everybody that we meet and know is somebody that is stable, somebody worthy of our trust, and somebody that needs to know that which is very personal to us.  The reason that this is so, is that not everybody has our best interests in mind, which is why we need to exhibit discretion when it comes to our overt emotions, for when the wrong person has valuable personal information about us, this can definitely hurt us, and by that hurting, this can change how we react with other people in the future, by being more cautious about our attachments, leaving us possibly bereft of the benefits of a healthy emotional attachment, for our fear of being betrayed or hurt, thus outweighing everything else.

In truth, life involves not only choices but also risks, so that whenever we clam up about what we are really feeling or hold back from expressing our true feelings, we have let the possibility of uniting with another, and thus the benefits of that additional strength to fall by the wayside, because our concern for our own safety takes precedence over the possibility that the other could be of benefit to us.  So too, when we are reluctant to be our true self and therefore to emotionally attach to the other, we inadvertently are hurting the other, because we are not able to bring the best emotional support to them, because we are not close enough to them, to be in that position.

Indeed, it is well to remember that the only time that the turtle makes progress is when that turtle sticks its neck out.  So too, for better or for worse, in order to have a healthy emotional relationship with another, we need to give a little in order to gain a little.  This doesn’t mean, though, that we shouldn’t be selective and discriminatory in our choices, because those who have demonstrated that they are untrustworthy, unstable, and unreliable, are probably not the best person to emotionally attach to, for their character is probably going to be a character that will not only ultimately disappoint us, but be hurtful to us, and thereby emotional damaging.  Instead, we must endeavor to choose well; by doing so, the result will be a much better opportunity for emotional happiness.

Your actions define you

There are lots of ways to define a given person, of which the fairest way to do so, is to simply look at a person’s actions, for it is through those actions, that people speak most clearly.  That is to say, for all those that say one thing but do another, we, therefore, know that their words, well-meaning or not, should not be our only consideration, but rather it is the actions so made, consistent or not with those words, that fairly defines the person.  So too, there are those who will act without thinking, of which, because the act has been done, reflects fairly who and what they really are.

Indeed, all those who commit acts that they later regret and thereby desire to hide behind their supposed good intentions, or offer apologies, have got to recognize that those of maturity and truthfulness, own up to their actions, and when they have behaved badly, make it their point to make their future actions to be in accordance to what a conscientious and caring person would actually be about.

While it is true that our thoughts often create our actions, there is not necessarily a one-to-one correlation between the two, for there is many a person who has the right thinking, but somehow, through impulsion or anger, strikes out with actions that are unbecoming of good character.  This is why it is vital that each of us, take the time to recognize that we need to be mindful of our actions, especially when those actions, have an effect on the other, for most every action, has a consequence, and when that consequence in the cold light of day, is one that is detrimental or bad to the other, we need to make amends, for we have done wrong.

Then there are those others, that for whatever reason lead lives of inaction, not because they are in constant contemplation, but rather because they are slothful and lazy, and believe because they do so little and therefore harm no one, that this lack of motion, will ultimately somehow get them enough credit to get to the destination that they so desire.  The problem with that type of thinking is that a person who takes no action is the same who seldom makes any progress, and for that lack of action, is someone then who has not been willing to do much of anything to make society better for their participation in it, because they are, in fact, not really participating.

Look, it has to be said, because our actions define us, it behooves us, to first get our thinking right, and then to match our good thinking with good actions, for it is in those actions, that we either help and aid the other, or do the very opposite.  Each of us is meant to do our good part to help make society better, so done through rightful thinking which is consistent with our subsequent rightful actions.  Those then that consistently do right, are the very same that are worthy to be designated as “good and faithful servants” to society, as well as to their Creator.

Revolution and taxation

There are all sorts of reasons, valid and invalid, true or not true, reasonable or unreasonable, that encourage a people to revolt against their governance.  When it comes to America, it has been said, and history has written it as such, that the proximate cause of the American Revolution was taxation, as well as also there being trade restrictions, that precluded or limited the colonists from the interactions that they would prefer, so as to thereby compel the colonists to deal exclusively with, for instance, the British East India Company, and therefore the primary beneficiaries of that trade would be the British East India Company, at the expense of not only the consumers of those goods but also those that desired to compete in that sort of trade.

It might seem somewhat ironic that we currently live in a construct in which, there is plenty of taxation, such as the sales tax, property tax, excise tax, local tax, county tax, estate tax, State tax, and Federal income tax, of which, in theory, the citizens of this nation seem satisfied with this taxation, because though some do moan and groan, there isn’t anything even approaching a revolution to upend our current tax codes or governance, which in fairness, seem to be under the auspices of our representatives and its legislation, of which, that tax code does seem to bend and change with the times.  So then, one could reasonably ask, what the difference was between now as compared to then.

The reason that so many colonists were upset about the restrictive trade conditions and the taxation being imposed upon them, actually does have to do with the fact that the colonists did not have any direct representation or representatives within the English Parliament.  This thus signified that it could be interpreted that as colonists, their right as “Englishmen” to be taxed through their consent had been violated, and instead, replaced by a construct which for all intents and purposes, thus treated those that were colonists, as nothing much more than a people subservient to the British Empire, in which, that British empire to prove that point, sailed the seas with armaments and soldiers to quell the rising spirit of revolution, which would be indicative that the British empire really did see the colonists as being of no more consideration, than if they were classified as a conquered people.

Indeed, while the British Empire had their reasons why they felt it necessary to impose specific trade restrictions as well as taxation upon the colonists, what they did not take into fair account, was that the type of people that would sail the ocean blue, with all those attendant risks, and thereby leave their homeland, are also the type of people that would not appreciate being essentially voiceless and pushed around by a force that they had no representation in.  So too, in an era in which communication was exceedingly slow, from continental America to Great Britain, and with the British Empire not appreciating the nuances of the situation, or the stubbornness of the colonists, led to an armed revolt that really did not need to happen, for sensible minds could have come to a sensible accommodation, but instead, because the colonists held the line, and would not budge, it became revolution.

“Shouldn’t the Judge of all the earth do right?”

We read in the Holy Scripture “…Shouldn’t the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25).  Indeed, our God is a just, fair, and loving God, whose judgments are forever perfect as there cannot be and will never be any error within God.  This thus signifies that for those of us who know that we have done wrong, that we really should tremble that our God is just, for there will come that day, that cannot be postponed forever, in which God will judge us, and those then that are found wanting, will have to deal with the consequences, so of.

It is well to remember that whenever we are not acting in a way and manner that is in harmony with the good that we should be doing, we have to recognize that every wrong step we take gets us into ever deeper trouble. Therefore, it would behoove all of us, to stop doing the wrong thing, and to endeavor to do the right thing, instead.  Indeed, those who will not listen to the wise words of great mentors, teachers, parents, or friends, but insist upon doing things their own way, even when they know that the way they are directing their efforts is categorically wrong, have chosen poorly, and will surely reap the whirlwind of their own making.

While it is true that we cannot change the past, it is also true that we are provided with the opportunity of every moment of every day, to make decisions which are in harmony with that which is just and right.  So too, it is our responsibility to make good on what we should make good on, and even when we run short of time, at least we have begun the necessary process to get back to where we need to go, or even better, to achieve what we need to achieve.

There isn’t any good reason to cry over spilled milk, but rather as soon as we are cognizant that our God will always judge right, we need therefore to amend our ways, and to the degree that we have to lean on others of good virtue in order to accomplish such, that is exactly what we need to do.  In this world, we are ultimately responsible for our actions, for we have been gifted with free will and a mind therefore of our own, signifying that those who spend an inordinate amount of time, making excuses for their behavior, no matter how reasonable-sounding or even justified, need to understand that at the end of the day, we own what we do, for better or for worse.

So too, there are far too many people who believe that they are clever and have therefore figured out their own shortcut to get into God’s good grace, but the problem with such cleverness is that God is first of all, no fool, and secondly, God is no respecter of persons – therefore meaning that those that believe that they can somehow charm or “get over” on God, have clearly deceived their own self.  In sum, we will be judged and that judgment will be true and just, with no appeal to a higher authority, for God is that sole inerrant Higher Authority.

Which country is the biggest threat to democracy?

For Americans, the answer to the above question would seemingly have to be either Russia or China.  Yet, the Latana polling company surveyed 53 countries in 2021, and the country listed as the greatest threat to democracy, at 44%, was the United States of America, followed by China and then Russia.  It has to be recognized that the prism of the worldview that Americans see, is biased to the American point of view, in which drilled into the minds of its citizens, is the dual threat of Russia and China; whereas, when it comes to other nations, they see the United States representing what it really is, which is an empire that as estimated by Al Jazeera has “…around 750 U.S. military bases in at least 80 countries.”  No other nation has close to the worldwide footprint that the USA has, and the military might of the USA rightfully frightens a lot of nations, because they know that not only does the United States carry a very big stick, but that the Americans are quite willing to use it and have demonstrated such, again and again, to those nations that do not bow appropriately and promptly to American desires.

While it is supposed that America could go on a worldwide public relations tour to better its image to other nations, it has to be noted, that all the talk in the world, along with promises, so made, aren’t going to change the fact that America has demonstrated time and time again, that it doesn’t really respect the sovereignty of a lot of nations, of which, when America perceives that it is not being listened to or obeyed by certain of those nations, it will take the law into its own hands, and thereby interfere directly or indirectly in another country’s affairs.  Obviously, these types of actions are not democratic in their effect, so the fact that America proclaims that it is the bastion of democracy, but demonstrates by its actions that it really is not, is thereby reflected by this poll which stipulates that America is seen as being a bigger threat to democracy than either Russia or China.

Anytime that a given sovereign nation, finds itself being squeezed by an outside party and squeezed so hard, that it has to submit to that outside party, which thereby overrides whatever governance that it has, this is not democratic.  Indeed, if democracy is the very best form of governance, it needs no real champion, other than the demonstration by those democratic nations, that their policies to their own people are indicative of a healthy, happy, and free people.  Regrettably, whenever the United States behaves like a bully and insists that what it wants it must get, and then goes about and gets that very thing, so that, for instance, economic markets will be opened to the United States, or vital ports are available for its warships, or the right to oil or other minerals is controlled or dictated by the United States, we find that those nations and the people that make up those nations, suffering under these types of conditions, will be resentful and therefore will fairly see the United States as being the biggest threat to democracy.

"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"

In a court of law, those testifying are required to swear or to affirm, to tell the truth, subject to the penalty of perjury if they do not tell the truth.  As might be expected, when it comes to criminal law, parties of both sides, are going to be prone to not telling the whole truth, because they want their testimony to be structured in a way and manner that this becomes favorable to the outcome that they so desire.  Indeed, to believe that courts of law, are actually ever hearing the whole truth, should be seen as the exception, and not the rule in those courts.

When it comes to a criminal trial, those who are members of the jury, have the task of determining which testimony was the whole truth, or a partial truth, or an outright lie, which is not an easy task, but in order to come to fair justice, this determination needs to be made.  This signifies that the motivation of those so testifying along with the lawyers regarding a case needs to be looked at, as to their priorities and their objectives.  Indeed, it could be said, that everybody involved in a trial, has their own agenda, concerning how and what they are testifying to, of which, it is, for instance, critical for the jury to know, whether anyone so testifying is receiving some sort of quid pro quo, from such testimony, as in a particular governmental witness getting favorable treatment when testifying -- for when this is the case, implicitly or explicitly, such testimony as that, should be seen for what it really is, compromised and not the whole truth.  So too, the motivation of a defense attorney has to be considered, for defense attorneys are in the business of getting favorable results for their clients; whereas, the prosecution attorney also wants a favorable result, for their conviction rate is often seen as the signpost of their overall competency, especially in consideration, that the only cases that should go to trial, are those cases in which the prosecution is convinced that a crime has occurred.  Additionally, witnesses typically have their own agendas, of which, what they have to testify to, is tempered by their relationship to the defendant.  Finally, there is the defendant, who, alone amongst all the other parties, it is the defendant that has to suffer the judgment of the court, which obviously has real consequences, which thereby is indicative that defendants are going to desire to say what they have to say in a way and manner that is favorable to the story that they are telling, and seldom are they going to desire to speak the whole truth, for they want to, make a favorable impression upon the jury, typically, by any means, that they consider to be necessary.

In sum, in a court of law, while those testifying are supposed to provide the whole truth to a given matter, we can take it as a truism, that this is seldom going to happen, so that, any hope of justice, really comes down to the jurors reading between the lines, and understanding the motivations of those so testifying, for those that have the most to lose, will not often hesitate to perjure themselves, whenever they think that they can spin a believable yarn to those that are the jurors.

‘Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects”

The above quotation is from the esteemed philosopher Immanuel Kant.  Kant goes on to say “We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of metaphysics, if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge.’”  That is to say, our perception of what we see or know does not start with the object itself but rather begins with our mind.  It is our mind therefore that brings us forth the reality or unreality of a given situation, and therefore our mind is the progenitor of our perceptions, properly understood and comprehended.

For instance, we could say that a wooden table exists, but the only reason why we believe that a table exists is that our mind has told us through self-discovery or through our interactions and education with teachers, parents, or others, what constitutes a table, and therefore knowing what a table is, and therefore seeing that which resembles a table, we are able to ascertain logically that we are looking at a table.  This signifies that the objects that we see around us, and our interactions with those objects as well as in those other things of interest, are constructs of our mind, signifying that if our mind did not exist, that these objects for all intents and purposes would not themselves exist either.

Far too many of us, see that which exists, as therefore being the ultimate reality, but what has been forgotten is that this reality comes through the prism of our mind and that without consciousness, these objects would not be part of our reality, at all.  In life, what we perceive is done through the process of our mind, and the knowledge that we pick up is stored in our mind, so that what appears to be reality is real to us, as long as we have a mind that is actively and correctly working, and if that mind should fail us, the reality of our perceptions will invariably change.

In this world, there is a necessary hierarchy, of which, it is to our advantage to understand that hierarchy so that our interpretations of this world and the society that we are an integral part of, make sense and are consistent with who and what we really are.  We see what we see because we have eyes, and those without sight do not see the things that we see but are still able to perceive the reality of objects through their other senses, as well as also through the knowledge that they have garnered over their lifespan.

Indeed, all those things that seem impossible to us and that can’t seemingly defy some natural law, are possible to overcome, when we comprehend that the reality of what we know, is not held within the objects that we perceive, but rather is controlled by our mind, which is the master of all objects.  To believe somehow, that the most real things in this world are the objects of this world, is to somehow believe that objects have a life and consciousness of their own, when their existence is actually dependent upon the perception of our mind, and without the knowledge of the mind, this so-called reality does not exist, for it is actually more akin to a dream, instead.

The abiding principle of the Rule of Law

This isn’t any doubt that societies must have a Rule of Law, for in the absence of such, there is tyranny, oppression, and pretty much those who have power taking advantage of those who are powerless.  That said, not just any law is a good and just law, for those laws that are not fair, logical, purposeful, meaningful, and are both equally and consistently applied, are therefore considered to not be in harmony with what the Rule of Law is constructed around.  Indeed, the Rule of Law necessitates the basic premise, that nobody, and no institution, is above that law, for it applies equally to all, high or low, well-connected or not, and further to the point, those with power, influence, and money, are with a vigorous and vibrant Rule of Law, definitely accountable to those same laws.  In other words, the Rule of Law, in order for the people to have respect for it, and therefore obedience to such, must consist of laws that are sensible, fair, necessary, and are also no respecter of persons.

Regrettably, there probably isn’t a society in which the Rule of Law, is actually equally applied to all, for people and institutions have a habit of creating good laws, but within those same laws, there are certain people and institutions, that are treated more favorably and therefore differently than the general public, which thereupon is detrimental to the good governance of those same people, for whenever a specific law is applied in one way to one person, but another way to another person, in which the upshot is that there is a distinct inconsistency between the two when it comes to the justice of such -- that therefore the law is thereby being capriciously interpreted, so done in a manner in which those who are outside the power structures of the day are, for instance, treated far more harshly than those, that are within that power structure, thus signifying that the Rule of Law isn’t operating correctly.

We live in a society, in which we are told to obey the law, but that law is unequally applied, of which, for all intents and purposes, some seem to have impunity to certain aspects of the law and are thus never held to account for it. This, therefore, signifies that the law is basically being used as a cudgel against certain elements of society, while not being enforced against others.  In a just society, there is a Rule of Law that applies to everyone, and all those who are accustomed to favorable treatment or believe that their status provides them with a perpetual “get out of jail” card, should recognize that whenever the law is not being appropriately applied to them, then it shouldn’t be applying to anyone else either, for at least then, it would be consistent.

The abiding principle of the Rule of Law is that nobody or no institution is above the law – for when that sensible rule is broken there effectively is hypocrisy, dishonesty, injustice, and unfairness, which makes for a society that will not respect the law because the law does not respect them.

Catholic Labor Schools

There was a time in America, in which, the government, especially through the leadership of FDR, was actively involved in the promotion and the recognition of the necessity of labor unions so that by advocating for better working conditions and better pay for those laboring, there would be far less civil unrest and far more civil satisfaction. This signified that those who labored honestly had therefore the fair opportunity to gain for themselves the opportunity for home ownership and a good life.  In other words, the government recognized that extreme income and wealth disparity was not good or healthy for a democracy, along with the salient fact that the corporate profits should be more equally distributed, and thus take into account, the mainstream employees of those corporations.

In the recognition that in numbers there can be strength, and further to the point, that in the education of the worker's legal rights, there is the strength to face one’s employer, we find that the Catholic religion understood the value of workers being organized as well as the need to know their union rights and the importance therefore of a vibrant union so as to put teeth behind the Wagner Act, which guaranteed the right of private sector employees to become unionized, as well as to engage in collective bargaining with their employer, and as necessary, to take united action as in a strike.  Further to the point, American governance permitted individuals and encouraged them to organize themselves into unions, so that they would in unison, have a seat at the table with their employer, so as to better negotiate with their employer, for fair worker compensation. So too, progressive Catholicism believed that their constituency deserved an opportunity to be fairly compensated as well as to know their rights to a union, of which, Catholic labor schools were a material aid in helping workers to know and therefore to effect those rights for their benefit, and the benefit of society, overall.

In truth, powerful corporations do not need any governmental agency or mass media to champion their cause for profits, for they already have enough power and influence to begin with.  Rather, those who need to get a piece of the action, are those un-championed workers who are employed, and who require such employment in order to have some reasonable hope to achieve the American dream, of which, the best way to accomplish such is to take governmental laws created for this very purpose, in conjunction with organizations such as the Catholic labor schools, to effect the change which would make their lives better.  Indeed, it is one thing to preach the Word, and it is another thing to recognize that the Word, in actuality, is not going to be good enough to feed, shelter, and provide gainful employment -- so Catholicism understood well that because an individual looking for a job, or already working at a job, would not have close to equal power to that which would employ them, that only collective bargaining, and an engaged union, that asserted those rights on behalf of present employees, as well as employees of the future, could provide these employees with the overall pay package which would fairly compensate them.  Therefore, the Catholic labor schools did their part to be an integral part of this happening and contributed in their own way to the rise of labor unions which materially benefited the middle class of America.

"A slave is he who cannot speak his thoughts"

The above quotation comes to us by Euripides the great tragedian of classical Athens.  Though Euripides lived some two and a half thousand years ago, his wisdom is as timely today as it was back then.  It seems that most of the time when we think of slavery, we picture such as the physical control and thereby the suppression of the body by the other, and not so much that those who control what we say and attempt to control what we think, are effectively also making slaves of the sovereignty of our mind.  We live in a day and age in which humankind has innovated to the stage in which individuals are subject to relentless social pressure, social norms, propaganda, social monitoring, and social controls of all sorts so that many of us are being manipulated into behaving and therefore thinking in a way and manner that conforms to those that desire that groupthink be impressed upon certain members of society, as contrasted to having to deal with the cacophony of individual sovereignty.

We are, as individuals, entitled with the unalienable right to think the thoughts that we wish to think, and further to the point, to freely express those thoughts, and when those in authority make it their point to suppress such, then we have lost the most important freedom that we have, for a human being that does not have agency of their mind, is no longer truly human.  So too, the nature of freedom is such that because we are created with free will and free thought, it signifies that all that we think, say, and do, is not going to be necessarily in conformance to that which orthodox society desires, or of that which the governance demands and wishes.  That though is the nature of living in a society in which we are entitled to express ourselves through our free thinking, and for all those who wish to live in a construct that does not infringe upon our free-thinking, then that construct must be constructed in a way and manner, that foremost protects and defends our right to think our own thoughts.

Indeed, just because we are created to be a free-thinking individual, does not necessarily mean that we can’t have a harmonious society, for the truth of the matter is, that those who believe it cannot occur, are the very same who utilize suppression, coercion, and force in their attempt to control the minds of the people, which because of this structure, necessitates therefore the sacrifice of freedom for conformity.  Rather, a far better way, along with this way being in conformance with our unalienable rights is to provide the avenue that permits people to voluntarily come together for the betterment of not only those people but for society, at large, which because this alliance is freely given, supports not only physical freedom but the freedom of the mind.  It is vital, therefore, that any time that we see that our ability and our natural right to speak our own thoughts are being suppressed, that this should be seen for what it is – an assault on our sovereignty, and an infringement upon our unalienable rights, and all those that support these actions, are those that believe that dominance should trump free expression and free thinking.

It takes a family

When we take a careful look at society as it is at present in America, it’s important to ask the question as to whether or not our society is getting more civil, more caring, more just, and more compassionate to one another, or if it is becoming more uncivil and worse in its behavior.  The answer to that question leans heavily to the appearance that the civility in our society is in a steep decline and that the dysfunction in too many of our relationships is getting ever worse, which begs the question as to why.

The seminal reason why civility is on the decline has got to be the fact that our family structure has gotten progressively more stressed and worse overall -- so that never have there been so many children brought up in homes, which because these are primarily single-parent households, who often are under financial and workplace stress, find it difficult to be the parent that they really desire to be, because they have more than enough that they need to handle, already.  This thus signifies that the support that a healthy nuclear family is structured around, is typically frayed for those who are single parents, as well as this being the case for those who do not have a caring relationship with their significant other.  So too, that lack of cohesion of the adults within a family structure, is detrimental to the security, warmth, and love that children require so as to best become well-developed young adults.

Those children then that are brought up in environments in which emotional support is lacking are obviously going to have a more difficult time being a good and productive student, and the way to address this issue is for this nation, to make it their point, therefore, to concentrate on being of real aid to families, no matter their structure, so that the family atmosphere will thereby be more conducive to developing a vibrant and healthy household.

Further to the point, when any family structure, struggles to provide their children with the necessary accouterments for their emotional and educational success, in addition to the infrastructure that surrounds them, not being of the quality that supports such success, then the end result is going to be the type of disappointment that we see far too often within America.  So too, the problems that families have in bringing up their children will spill over into society, itself, for those children that do not have the emotional support and guidance to direct their energies into that which is beneficial for themselves as well as for society, are going to ultimately present that society with the task of correcting or dealing with it, instead.

Those who are born into a good family structure, are the very same, which are presented with the best opportunity to develop into productive and good citizens, which thereby makes the point that this nation needs to put forth the effort to understand better that the best environment for a child is going to be a loving environment, which is best enabled when the parent(s) have the necessary tools and aid to accomplish this on behalf of their children, by pro-actively supporting families, so done for the greater good of society and our nation.

“The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society”

The above quotation comes from President Kennedy's address to the Newspaper Publishers Association in April 1961.  Somehow, in the ensuing years, this nation has forgotten that its purpose is to be a nation of, for, and by the people, which thereby signifies that the people have the inherent right to know what their governance is actually doing on their behalf. Indeed, the people need to know the actuality of what is so happening, so that they can thereby debate the merits or demerits of such.  Instead, we live within a construct, of which, never have there been more secrets, more opaqueness, and more deceit by our government, than we so see today, and because of this, the people for the most part, not only do not have the full information that they need to ascertain and to make an informed opinion about this, but they are for the most part, being deliberately left out of the equation, and considered therefore to be an irrelevancy.

No nation can progress as a free and independent republic, when the very people that such a government is supposed to serve, are not forthcoming to that public.  To believe, somehow, that those who are in authority know better than we, the people, is to discount the value of the people, and to thereby take away their democratic voice, and in conjunction with that, to vacate the very unalienable rights which are theirs, in perpetuity.

In today’s America, we would be hard-pressed to have any President address their dismay at the secrets being kept from that society, but this seems to be the standard practice of the day, enabled further, by a compliant mainstream press, which does not desire to engage the administration by probing questions of import, but rather seems to serve, often, as an echo chamber, for the administration.

When the public is consistently left in the dark, about those matters of most importance, then those who are its citizens are not really citizens, at all, but rather are better defined as subjects, who are meant to keep their noses to the grindstone, and basically to obey what those that are the pinnacles of power, tell them that they must do.  Further, the people of America, seem to be in an unenviable position, in which they should trust that their government is acting on their behalf, without having actionable information to verify such or to even examine its merits.

The people are the conscience of the nation, and deserve to have their voice, for those who are our representatives in this governance, are supposed to serve the general public, for the general welfare of that public, but whenever the people are precluded from really knowing what is going on, this then becomes a situation in which the government that we believe that stands for certain valued principles, has been overtaken by an overly secretive counterfeit government, which has no Constitutional legitimacy. To have a free and open society necessitates that the people are cognizant and vividly aware of what their government is up to, by that government being not only transparent to the people but also by that government, recognizing that its true validity can only occur when a well-informed public has its say.

Daily worker pay

We read in the Holy Scripture: “In his day you shall give him his wages, neither shall the sun go down on it…” (Deuteronomy 24:14).  Indeed, as much as those back in the day, both needed and desired to get paid their wages at the end of the day, we find that there are many Americans that need and desire to get their wages at the end of the present day, as well.  After all, as it currently stands, the vast majority of companies pay their employees either weekly, bi-weekly, twice a month, or even just monthly – yet, people have bills and responsibilities to attend to that would seemingly necessitate their fair and reasonable need to the wages of the work that they have already accomplished so that they can attend to this very thing.

Fortunately, we live in a day and age, in which smartphones, in conjunction with computers, payroll programs, and banking institutions, are quite capable of being coordinated together, so that, those with the correct smartphone application, and an employer who has set up a process that employees can draw into, permits these same employees to use that application tied to their smartphone, which is thereby connected to their bank as well as to their employer, that permits these employees at their discretion to transfer their wages or a portion, so of, earned during their shift to their bank account, that very same day.

While there is always a concern that people taking advantage of getting their daily pay, will thus find themselves dismayed that their weekly paycheck, no longer contains much of anything, they need to understand, that those who do the work, deserve to be timely paid, and to the degree that employers can readily accommodate those that are their employees, then in fairness, it could be said, that they have done right by their employees, and how then those employees thereupon spend their money so earned, wisely or unwisely, is not really their concern.

Indeed, another way of looking at daily pay, as compared to getting a weekly or bi-weekly paycheck, is that this provides the employee with the money that they have already earned promptly, and therefore provides that employee with the option to do with that money whatever that they so desire, of which, many a time, employees find themselves being caught short in regards to a particular bill, of which, daily pay can circumvent them, therefore, from having to borrow money from a friend, or even much worse, from some short-term loan application company.  So then, in fairness, employers should desire to do their good part to accommodate their employees, and if those same employers feel the need for employees to go through some basic daily pay video, that purports to point out the advantages and disadvantages of such, let that so be the case, for at the end of the day, people who have labored, should rightly be entitled to the money that they have earned, for in all candor, it is the employer obligation to those employees, to pay them in a timely manner and when this can be done through a process that the employee controls, appreciates, and values, so much the better.

Our quest for self-esteem

Most of us desire to have positive self-esteem, and because this is true, we find that when our self-esteem has been hurt or damaged, we endeavor to try to fix it, so that we can feel better about ourselves and our situation.  Therefore, when we have done wrong to someone and internally recognize that wrong, but are unable to receive from the person that we have hurt, that they subsequently forgive us, or are willing to work with us to correct such so as to work things out, this damages our self-esteem because we often feel that we cannot get back our self-respect, if the other person doesn’t value or respect us enough, to give us the fair opportunity to return to the level that we had previously been accustomed to with them.  This is why it is essential in any interaction, that has gone wrong, of which, we recognize that we are the ones primarily in error, that we are to a large extent, at the mercy of the other, for we seek their forgiveness and acceptance, that when received, will thus reinvigorate our self-esteem and get us back to the place that we desire to be.  Indeed, this is why it has been said, “to err is human, to forgive divine,” which represents the seminal fact that we yearn for acceptance from our peers, especially when we have let them down, and desire greatly to be accepted again, to be therefore back in their good graces, as if no wrong had been committed.

So too, there are those times when we do not receive forgiveness or pardon for the errors and wrongs that we have done, and when we believe that it does not seem possible that we will ever get that forgiveness so that we can re-obtain that self-esteem -- a part of us will often wish to avenge this loss, by striking out therefore against society in a way and manner, in which we can re-validate ourselves so as to get our self-esteem back.  In other words, when we have done something wrong, and get no sympathy or forgiveness in return, there is a tendency for some of us, to only mope about for a finite amount of time, before determining that because society is so unforgiving, that we may as well do what we have to do, to make our mark upon that society, to our satisfaction.

To believe that somehow self-esteem isn’t all that important is to misunderstand human nature.  Because we are social creatures it is vital for just about all of us, to be approved by the society that we are a member of, and in consideration that all of us are imperfect and that learning is a process, that can easily entail missteps and mistakes, we yearn to be a member of a society, that will take into consideration that though we may have done wrong, that we are not always in the wrong, but have within us, the capability of doing things right, and when we receive encouragement to do the right thing and are not judged too harshly when in error, this thereby provides us with the room to grow, and the opportunity then to reclaim our self-esteem for our benefit, as well as this being of benefit to society, at large.

“No right is held more sacred…”

The following quotation comes from the Supreme Court ruling of 1891, of Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Botsford, of which, the opinion of the Supreme Court stated the following: “No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.”  That is to say, each one of us who lives in America, is in control of their own personhood and therefore has the right to be left alone, subject to no interference from others, unless so superseded by that which represents the clear and unquestionable authority of law.

Yet, somehow we live in a day and age, in which our right to privacy and to be left alone seems to be assailed by not only secretive and not-so-secretive governmental agencies but also by invasive private enterprise corporations, as well.  Therefore, this signifies that the belief that a man’s home is their castle, or that an individual should simply be permitted to be about their business without having to justify or explain such, and to thereby not be monitored, nor to be regulated, seems to no longer be part and parcel of the American experience, whatsoever.

Indeed, those who do not seemingly have the right to their own sovereignty, are by definition, not free.  While it is true that people can relinquish whatever freedoms that are theirs to other parties, this though needs to be done without coercion and voluntarily; for it is always true that our freedom to our own personhood, is our unalienable right, that should not be assailed by any other entity or governmental agency, except under the exigencies of the law, properly applied.

We live in a day and age in which the people are constantly ceding ground of that which is unalienable, through the invasive ability of high-technology monitoring to know just about everything about us, either unwittingly or wittingly.  While it is bad enough, that this information is being stored and perused, it is even worse when such information is interfering with our privacy in a way and manner that we are compromised or exposed or coerced so as to be possibly placed in the unenviable position to conform with whatever governmental agencies or other enterprises desire from us or suffer the ill consequences, so of.

To be free from interference from others, and to go about our business as our personal business, without meddling from outside agencies, should be our protected right, as American citizens, and further to the point this right is unalienable, for if we do not have the right to be left alone, or to have our privacy, and to thereby own our thoughts, then we are certainly not free.  This is why it is important that appropriate legislation be passed that protects the general public from governmental agencies of all sorts, as well as from private enterprise, so that in its effect, we, as a people, remain the unquestionable masters of our identity, and that all those who interfere in such or intend to interfere, are thereby held accountable, for the lasting protection of our own personhood.

"My body, my choice"

When it comes to pro-choice slogans, we find that “my body, my choice,” is mainly known for women believing wholeheartedly that they are the masters of their own bodies and therefore, the choice of abortion is theirs to make, and should not be precluded by governmental interference, whatsoever.  It should be added, that for all those who truly believe that their body, therefore provides them with the choice to do with their body what they so desire, that this then would obviously encompass many more choices than just abortion.  For instance, those who claim self-ownership of their body would logically believe then that what we so choose to ingest into our body, that is either licit or illicit is our choice as well.  So too, for those who determine that they no longer desire to be in this world, that choice would be theirs to own.  Also, for those desiring to monetize their body by the presentation of such, or in consensual engagements with another for a monetary price or its equivalency, would own that right, too.

In other words, my body being my choice, must include the complete autonomy of that body, and the decisions that we make, good or bad, wise or unwise, that we thereupon decide to do with the body that we own is at our discretion.  While society certainly has its role to play, and whereas that society is definitely entitled to weigh in as to what it believes is the best usage of our body, it does not though, trump our own individual decision-making as an adult, because as long as what we do with our body does not clearly interfere with or supersede another person’s unalienable right, then our ownership of our body trumps whatever society may seemingly prefer for us to do with it.

Indeed, this world would be better off if more people actually believed that their body was their choice, for to believe that it is not, reflects that our body is subservient to some other entity, such as the government or society, and therefore it is up to these entities to determine what we may or may not do with our body, which should clearly be seen as an infringement upon our sovereignty.  That is to say, either we are the masters of our own bodies or else we are not, for there cannot be any in-between or equivocation upon this important issue.

It is vital to remember, that our existence did not come forth from our government, nor did it come forth from society, but rather all of us were created by the very same Creator, of which, that Creator has gifted each and every one of us with the free-will to be about our business, and therefore what we decide to do with our body, and the decisions that we make, is entirely within our domain and remains our lifetime responsibility. In life, people and societies are entitled to have their say, but at the end of the day, it is our body, and therefore our choice, what we will or will not do with such, and those that recognize this are the very same that understand that with this awesome freedom, comes consequences, that we are therefore the accountable owners of.

Carried interest is not taxed appropriately

When it comes to our progressive income tax structure and taxation, it must be said that our tax system is fundamentally failing the American public, for the very wealthy entities that should be paying a much higher percentage of their monies into our tax system, are the very same, that are quite gifted at avoiding paying their full freight.  What is especially annoying and very telling, is that a tiny portion of Americans are able to take advantage of the carried interest loophole to pay thereby not even close to what they should be paying in regards to a fair and appropriate tax. The entities taking advantage of this carried interest, are private equity associations, venture capital groups, and hedge funds – which represent not only people and entities that the vast majority of Americans are not intimately familiar with but also represent the very institutions that could readily pay their fair share in taxes but do not, because of this carried interest exception.

The long and short of carried interest is that the compensation that these hedge fund members get, is somehow re-categorized into representing long-term capital gains as compared to ordinary income, of which, ordinary income for hi-income people is at a substantially higher tax rate than capital gains.  So, because the maximum long-term capital gain is a mere 20%, whereas ordinary income is taxed as high as 37%, those that are in the hedge fund business are somehow permitted to have their income categorized as a capital gain, which thereupon provides them with the savings in aggregate, of billions of tax dollars.

The crux of the problem with carried interest and why it needs to be eliminated posthaste is that the percentage of Americans that are able to take advantage of carried interest is minuscule, but the fact that these institutions are able to utilize carried interest to substantially reduce their taxes, represents as reported by ourfinancialsecurity.org, “between $1.4 billion and $18 billion annually,” of savings in taxes -- that private equity companies, venture capitalists, and hedge funds are able to circumvent, to the ultimate unfairness of ordinary Americans.

Indeed, for all those who want to know as to whether or not our tax system is fair, look no further than to the carried interest loophole, in which the very few are the beneficiaries at the expense of the people and this government of, for, and by the people.  The fact that this is so, clearly represents that those who have lots of money and influence are able to get their way, again and again; whereas, those who play by the rules are burdened ever more with taxes, and the deficits that this government consistently runs, are placed upon the shoulders of the current generation, as well as generations, yet unborn.  In truth, when it comes to tax reform, it is an absolute certainty, that if the carried interest exception cannot be eliminated from our tax code, then a tax code that is fair and progressive does not truly exist, for in this nation, because of all the tax exceptions so made on behalf of the biggest and most powerful corporations, as well as to individuals of massive wealth, these privileged entities do not pay their fair taxation share.

Should Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) at .08% be per se DUI?

In October of 2000, President Clinton signed into law that the new limit of .08% BAC would be considered to be per se impairment with significant penalties for all drivers that were at this limit or exceeding such.  The first thing to be noted is that because the law states that .08% is impairment, it does not matter, nor is it relevant, how well that a given person conducts themselves, or demonstrates their control of their faculties because per se means “the thing speaks for itself.”  So then, drivers who have a blood alcohol level of .08% or higher are Driving Under the Influence (DUI).  The second thing to note is that back in the 1970s, the BAC rate for impairment was .15%, which bespeaks the question as to how did it come to this current point of a DUI being considerably lower.

When it comes to per se impairment, the very first thing that needs to be determined through scientific tests that accurately measure such is whether or not, .08% is actually impairment, or whether or not that number should be adjusted either higher or lower.  That is to say, as it currently stands, impairment is .08% BAC but since this law was passed in 2000, and scientists and institutions are always in the process of improvement and advancement, it would certainly seem to be high time to determine or re-determine what is or is not impairment because the legal definition of alcoholic impairment should be accurate and without equivocation.

It could be said and it should be said that alcohol is going to affect different people in different ways, but ignoring that, for the simplicity of a blood alcohol test, is perhaps fine, as long as there has been a series of tests, consisting of a control group who have had no alcohol as compared to the test group who have achieved a specific amount of a certain blood alcohol level, of which, this testing measures specifically that which is pertinent to the nature of driving.  That is to say, if we conclude that the scientists or legislators back in the 1970s were clearly unqualified or unscientific or just plain wrong on what actual driver impairment was -- which is why .15% was considered at that time to be impairment, as contrasted to something considerably lower, then it has to be taken into account, that the current limit of .08% may not itself, be any more true or accurate.

Indeed, the way that the DUI law seems to work, is that there has clearly been a concerted effort to lower the DUI rate to .08% not so much because the roads will be safer, but as a means for those who believe that drinking a little alcohol and then getting behind a wheel, should not be permitted and that the punishment for those doing so, should be significant – when, in fact, when it comes to impairment of any sort, the very first thing to figure out, is the true dividing line between impairment and non-impairment and to believe that the line is .08% should be scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and not presumed.

“Safety is our number one priority” and other lies

We are told through media of all types from some of the biggest for-profit corporations that, for instance, our safety is their number one concern, or that protecting our credit is their highest priority, or that their care for the environment is their priority number one, and so on and so forth.  Yet, as sweet as those words may sound, they are fundamentally not in accordance with the reality of the situation, especially in consideration, that the largest corporations in America, have not only a Board of Directors to answer to, but also the stockholders that collectively care a heck of a lot more about profits and growth, and not so much are concerned about safety or any other activities that would seem to take away from that profit and growth.

In a capitalistic society, the tradeoff between money and safety typically leans heavily to the profit side. Therefore, those in management want only to do what they have to do, to maintain some semblance of being safe in their activities. Though they may well have a department that addresses such, that department does not run the company but must itself toe the line within the company or else its funding or relevancy will be compromised.  Indeed, the call for safety as being the number one priority is often no more than public relations, in which, the hope is that by saying the right words, or in being apologetic, or in promising to do better in the future, that this will make what has occurred, to be perceived as nothing much more than a one-time thing or considered then to be a tempest within a teapot.

It is vital that companies have values, and that these values have a necessary balance between the lust for profits and doing the right thing by society, and thereby protecting the general public, as well as the employees of a given corporation from undue harm.  However, when it comes to gross margins, bonuses, stock options, and the focus of a company’s energy and effort, we find that again and again, that which could be done to bring forth more safety, safer products, or greater concern for environmental hazards created by corporations, and so forth, that doing the right thing, almost always takes a back seat to profit.  This thus signifies that governmental agencies as well as journalists have a responsibility to hold to account these mighty corporations, for when they do not, all we get are apologies, and seldom do we get, the changes that are required for these corporations to actually be a good member in standing for society, at large.

Indeed, the more that we hear about how safety is the number one priority of a corporation, the more that we should demand of that company the proof that this is not only the actual mindset of such, but also all the evidence that would substantiate such, for when this is lacking, it is only fair to state that the words so being spoken, are empty and devoid of substance, and therefore these words are no more than misdirection and in their effect, an insult to the general public.