Society needs more kindness

There are plenty of people that believe that what society needs is more law and order, so that, those that are misbehaving can be put in their place, and by doing so, society will be the better for it.  While there is a time to impose order upon the population and against certain individuals of that population, we do so find that more law and order, in and by itself, without getting to the foundational root of the problem is not ever going to resolve the issues that need to be addressed more effectively, through the integration of empathy, consideration, and kindness, when so appropriate.

 The crux of the issue with the call for ever more law and order, or basically for more punishment to those that are causing trouble is the fact that to believe that we can hide away our problems by incarceration or similar will resolve all problems just isn’t going to be true.  Further to the point, justice that doesn’t take into account the conditions that make for uncivil behavior is not actually justice but really represents something that conveniently addresses only the visible issue that is considered to be not socially proper, without bothering to wonder why it is still occurring, time and time again.

 A kinder society is always going to be a society that reasonable people do desire to gravitate to, because kindness and the empathy that kindness consists of, help to make for a more inclusive and a more caring society, which understands better that we are all in this together, and together we must determine to resolve the issues of our time to help make society a better place for our good participation in it.  This signifies that the objective of a healthy society should be to do more for one another so that through those relationships, we become more integrated into friendship, and of the lending of a helping hand, where so needed.

 To be kind isn’t necessarily the easy thing, because some situations don’t lend themselves easily to being kind and considerate, especially when we feel that we have been wronged, but nevertheless, a lot of those things that bother us, aren’t that big of a deal, when we get our perspective right, and the more that we can show consideration to the other, even when it appears to be undeserved, the more that we will get those that are struggling with their own issues, to understand that frustration, hatred, and striking out against others, is not conducive for good relationships, whatsoever.

 So too, there is enough history in societies to understand that straight punishment for crime, doesn’t make for a more considerate society but rather serves often to create discord and dissent, because of the perceived injustices of those actions, in many a case.  Indeed, societies have tried to use punishment as a way and means to control the population to its content, but it doesn’t really work all that well – which is why society would be far better served by expressing more kindness and consideration, instead, and it might just find that by doing so, life will be better, in whole.

Violent video games

There are all sorts of violent video games available for people to play, in which, in the playing of the game, opponents are killed, innocent or not, deserving or not, game after game after game.  For a lot of those players, they don’t see the game as being real, but rather see it as entertainment, so that even when they are committing what would be considered to be “bad acts” within that game, they don’t feel any responsibility for those acts, because it is pretend and not real.

 The thing about certain violent video games is that they can conceivably inure someone to where it becomes rather commonplace to kill or to harm a given character within that game, and because of that, this could make them a less caring individual in real life.  Another factor within video games is the factor of the understanding that though one’s character can be hurt or killed we find that because it is just a game, one can always come right back and play the game again, thereby providing the general feeling that a player is in a certain sense, invincible.

 The main crux of the problem with violent video games has got to be that because it isn’t real, people who are participating in that game are never therefore in real danger and because they are not actually in real danger, they can see the game as being both a challenge and fun – but through their relentless playing of the game they very well might project themselves as actually being of courage, cunning, and daring through their pursuit of playing it.  Yet, those very qualities that certain people may feel that they have obtained, are transitory, because it is just a game, of which, should they be in a real situation with real consequences in the real world, their courage that they believe that they have may be totally absent.

 Indeed, violent video games are just games, which means that no matter how violent that game is, the kills so made, or the times that one’s character has been killed, the player who is actually playing the game is not ever in mortal danger, whatsoever, and therein lies the rub, because in this world, there actually are bad guys that do terrible things, which is very real, and signifies that when it is real, it isn’t going to be fun, but rather it’s going to be scary, and how people perform in the real world when they are scared and in danger, is not going to be the same as how they perform in the playing of a violent video game, because in a video game, nothing is at risk; whereas, in the real world, there most certainly is a risk.

 So then, the lesson that never is learned in violent video games is that to put yourself at risk, in which, you could really be hurt or be killed, is not ever going to be fun, but rather it is going to be frightening and uncomfortable, because when it is real, there exists the type of bad consequences that changes your outlook, dramatically.

Guns, guns, and more guns

We find that according to the Small Arms Survey of 2017, it is estimated that American firearms, both licit and illicit are numbered at 120.5 firearms per 100 people, which is not only an absolutely staggering amount of firearms held in the hands of civilians but is a number which is unprecedented within the so-called “civilized” world.  In America, having a gun, or at least the right to a gun, is seen by a significant amount of people as being their God-given right, and they therefore don’t want to give up their right to guns, or the usage, so of.  Yet, what is somewhat forgotten in this pursuit of guns is the fact that as in anything, the overall narrative could change, if American governance was determined to see it be changed, for even long-held beliefs are subject to change, given enough time and energy to move the needle to something more conducive to a civilized society.

 Of course, those who own guns or believe in the right to own guns, don’t seem inclined to give up that right, believing somehow that the guns so owned, protect families and friends.  While, on some level, this may be true, it is basically belied by the fact that no Western nation has a homicide rate at the alarming rate that America bloodily represents.  So too, guns are the very same that can be turned against the gun owner, so that, America is the leader by a considerable amount of those people that use their firearms to kill themselves.  Finally, when it comes to mass shootings, it is America, that leads in this tragic event, as well.  All of this would seem to say, that firearms don’t make us safer, but rather they seemingly lend themselves to a more uncivil and dangerous society, instead.

 This signifies that all of the tragedies that occur in America, and that continue to occur, will keep on occurring year after year, tragic event after tragic event, until the end of time, unless America takes the principal stand to do something constructive about all of the gun ownership in civilian hands.  It isn’t so much that America needs to rip up the Second Amendment, but rather it has a lot more to do with coming up with alternatives to gun ownership, by presenting to Americans, that just having a gun, is not, in itself, going to make people safe and secure.  Rather, we would find, that less lethal weapons or other viable choices in the hands of the people would lead to less tragedy and less deadly events.

 At some point, Americans need to begin trusting one another, thereby believing that safety and security do not truly rest with the barrel of a gun, but rest in civility, kindness, consideration, and respect for one another.  As it stands, gun ownership hasn’t made America safer or a better country, so it would seem to be high time to embrace alternatives that would help to end the tragic cycle of too much gun violence in this nation, which is why we need to rethink gun ownership and to rediscover or to rebirth the better angels of our nature.

The endless pursuit of the “bad guys” and the continual erosion of our freedom

We live in an age, in which, the governance of our nation seemingly insists upon seeing the world in a very simple construct, of people and their societies, being either good or bad, with nothing in between and therefore no nuance, whatsoever.  Indeed, this prevailing worldview might be okay, if it applied only to helpless children, who need direction and structure in their lives, to best keep them out of trouble, as well as to impress upon them, the importance of doing the right things as opposed to wrong, but it is wholly misguided when applied to adults, for adults best understand the world, as being far more complex, with far more nuance, and therefore have graduated from a simple binary viewpoint of this is wholly good, and that is wholly bad.

 It is unfortunate that the highest levers of power within this nation desire to simplify our outlook upon those who have different views or come from different cultures, or have different priorities, in a way and manner, that those who do not adhere to our Western values, as defined by our Western governance, are thereby subject to often being seen as being bad, as contrasted to those true believers of the Western mindset as being seen as good, echoed by the pages of history as taught and espoused, that reinforces such.  So then, when it comes to American interference in regards to other sovereign nations, our actions are typically viewed as being good, done on behalf of liberty, freedom, and democracy, of which, therefore we perceive ourselves as being liberators, though, in truth, we are often not.

 The hypocrisy of America is demonstrated again and again, by virtue of the fact that in order to make our own citizens safe and secure, in our pursuit of bad actors, it is therefore necessary that the Constitution of this nation take a backseat to the prevailing recognition that some of our freedoms and liberty, need to be sacrificed so that our governance can more readily pursue and neutralize bad guys, all done on our behalf.  This is why, our citizenry is monitored at a level in which never has any governance known more about its own citizenry than today, of which, through that power, the choices that citizens have are being limited, and the freedom of those same citizens to dissent from the orthodoxy of the present day, is constrained.

 So then, anytime that the government insists that if we are not in accordance with it, then we, by default are one and the same with the bad guys, then we are clearly not living within a construct of a government that is of, for, and by the people.  Instead, we are living and being governed by a government that is insistent that it has the right to supersede our liberties and freedom, on the supposed behalf of eliminating badness, done through the government exercising its dominance or the threatening of such, in order to control and to mold the population, of which, very little of this is done for the good of the country or its people, but rather this is done for the benefit of those that desire to exploit us for their own power and profit.

China has not fought a war since 1979

America fights all sorts of wars, even when it claims it does not, or has not authorized that war through Congressional action, of which, America fights those wars because it is essentially an imperialist power that insists that it needs to control or to mold the world in a way and manner, that is supposedly to its advantage, in one form or another.

 The thing about unnecessary warfare, even when such appears to be valid or victorious, is that there are significant costs, both direct and indirect for that warfare, over and above the inconvenient fact that war can cause a considerable amount of blow-back, that might not be seen for many years, or even for decades.  Those who fight wars, have to use personnel and armaments, of which, the cost of such is both direct as in the monies that must so be allocated as well as the deaths and physical injuries that occur – in addition to the more hidden costs, as in the debt incurred to finance these wars, that may take years or decades to be repaid, if it is ever repaid, as well as the psychological damage done to the soldiers that have been an integral part of that warfare, not to mention the strong possibility of civil unrest and protests by the people about that warfare.

 That is to say, there is a definite cost to war, and therefore, those nations that spend inordinate amounts of money on warfare, of which, year after year, those wars either continue or new wars are engaged, take a definite toll upon the people and the nation.  On the other hand, nations that don't go to war, and make it their point to avoid warfare, are not only going to see significant savings in monies, but also the people of that nation, will not suffer the ill effects of debt incurred or domestic military personnel having been killed or injured.

 The above signifies that in this modern age those nations that avoid war, are going to devote more of their time and energy to that which is often more constructive for their nation and thus their people, as opposed to those that are constantly involved in warfare, which in its totality, is debilitating to the people, because the cost of war, is paid by the people through the debt incurred, which thereby takes monies away from valued domestic programs, and reallocates such to being paid to the military-industrial-technology complex, as well as to the dominant banking consortium, that the monies so used for warfare have been borrowed from.

 So then, part of the reason why China's economy, as well as other nations in the ascendancy, have been able to take global market share away from America, has to do with the fact that China does not permit itself to get involved in warfare, though it could; whereas, America insists it needs to be get involved in an endless amount of warfare, thereby stretching itself ever thinner, without seeming to comprehend that its warfare is actually weakening America and making it more vulnerable, because whatever that is being supposedly gained from such, is outweighed by the negatives, which thereby permits countries such as China to become ever more relevant and stronger, at America's hard-headed expense.

Food insecurity

We are told via the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), that 47.4 million people in the United States were living in food-insecure households in 2023.  While, there exist various programs to address this food insecurity, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Special Supplemental to that, designed for women, infants, and children, we still have millions of Americans who are considered to be, food insecure.

 We live in a modern age in which America is considered to be the “breadbasket of the world,” which thereby signifies that the governance of this nation should be able to alleviate a significant percentage of those who are currently food insecure, by providing the food and the logistics for the distribution of that food to the very people of this great nation.  Indeed, it could be said, that the programs in place, have done a fairly good job of providing food to those that are most in need of such, but still, at the end of the day, it could do better, for to be food insecure, especially for vulnerable infants and children, should not still be something occurring,  because America has an absolute obligation to take care of its own and its most vulnerable, first.

 Look, it has to be said, that undoubtedly a meaningful percentage of those that are food insecure, rests at the feet of those people, themselves, for not doing more to provide for their own, by their efforts, but what of it?  Indeed, so many of those who are food insecure, are the same that have significant issues with unemployment, lack of opportunity, ill-education, living in “food deserts,” and lack of capital, all of which thereby signify that they don't live in prosperous areas of this nation.

 This thus signifies that American governance can look upon people like that, as not only welfare and charity cases that need a helping hand, but also as a people that need a viable foundation that will address the systemic problems and issues that preclude so many of these people, of having lives of merit, value, and decency.  That is to say, the food insecurity that so many people suffer from has a lot to do with this nation, not providing a meaningful floor to everyone that is part and parcel of this nation, that thus provides those people with the ways and means to live a decent life, and because of that,  America has a persistent underclass that is under-served in virtually every area of importance, such as food, healthcare, education, and community safety.

 Therefore, the measure of this nation could be fairly evaluated by how many are food insecure, because those that are food insecure are clearly those that do not have a good toehold upon the wealth and opportunity that America at its best, represents, and therefore there is the seminal need to address those persistent problems in a way and manner that this governance doesn't just take care of these issues from the perspective of doing what it can daily, but must therefore help to create a more inclusive America, that will do all that it can to see that far fewer people are actually left behind, by addressing forthrightly the issues that are systemic in nature, seemingly intractable, that need to be corrected to thereby give as many as possible, hope, food, and opportunity.

“It's better to suffer wrong than to do wrong”

The above quotation is attributed to the wise Greek philosopher Socrates. This quote is as apt today as it was back then, for two wrongs are not ever going to make a right. Those who listen to and are in compliance with their moral code are the same who understand that to violate that code, as in some form of retribution, or as a means to take advantage of some situation, have done wrong. The doing of wrong, is not ever a pathway that continued upon will result in things somehow becoming right.

 While it is true that to suffer wrong might well make us feel aggrieved, we need though to comprehend that to give in to that temptation to retaliate by committing actions that are themselves wrong, in the attempt to overcome the wrong so done to us, is not right.  Indeed, in this world, we are going to be tested, and tested again and again, of which, the very principle behind those tests, is to see whether or not we are a fair-weather believer in what we espouse to others as to what we should or should not do as a person of principle -- and all those that decide that when they have been wronged, that enough is enough, and therefore an unethical response should be seen as being appropriate to match what has been done to us, have failed their test, because whenever a moral code, has self-serving exemptions and exceptions to it than that code as modified, is wrong.

 We should not wish to harm others as our response to being harmed because we should not wish to behave in a manner in which “tit for tat” is somehow justified, for a world like that represents a zero-sum society, of which, progress is not thus being made for that society, because we are far too often intent on retribution as opposed to contribution; which signifies that those who lack the courage to make a principle stand to do what is right, have failed to properly understand that suffering for a good cause, has its necessary place.

 To suffer is not ever going to be something that we would gladly wish to have happen to us, but suffering is part and parcel of what so occurs in the world whenever society fails to consistently adhere to civility, justice, and consideration, one to the other.  Indeed, there will be wrongs committed one against the other, of which, to the degree that we can right those wrongs, we should do so, and to the degree, that we must suffer from those wrongs, we must not thereby respond to having been wrong, with wrong actions, ourselves.

 Each of us is meant for a higher purpose, and those who recognize that purpose, understand that to suffer a wrong, provides us with the opportunity to validate our true character, of which, those who endure through that suffering are the same that will have developed deep roots, that though batter about by the stormy winds of hate, injustice, and ignorance will though shaken, remain standing, and stand for that which represents that right will not ever bow to wrong.

Horses and horsepower

One of the seminal problems with America is that its educational system doesn't nearly do a good enough job of educating its students, so that, things such as horsepower, which is a term commonly used to describe how powerful a car engine is, are not properly defined to those students, and because that definition is lacking, many people thereby assume that a car with 300 horsepower, must mean that the engine of the car at peak performance is therefore the equivalency of 300 horses at peak performance, which simply isn't true.

 The thing that we need to remember about horses is that horses are big animals, that can weigh about 1000 pounds, and that certain breeds of horses can run at over 40 miles per hour, though they aren't able to sustain that speed for very long, which clearly indicates that horses are magnificent animals, that generate a lot of power and strength.  Therefore, one might logically think that even just one horsepower must be pretty darn impressive, but in actuality, when it comes to what horsepower actually is, that isn't the way that horsepower is defined.

 In actuality, horsepower, is a unit of measurement for steam engines, that James Watt coined, of which, one horsepower is defined as a “single horse lifting 33,000 pounds of water one foot in the air from the bottom of a 1,000 foot deep well.”  This thus signifies that horsepower isn't really about how fast a horse runs, and isn't even a true technical term that equates perfectly to vehicle engine power, but rather is used as a measurement to provide perspective to how powerful a car engine is at maximum performance, of which, horses themselves, if defined by that same method would in their speed, be defined as being capable of running at fifteen horsepower, at peak performance. 

 So then, horsepower and the power of one actual horse is not one horsepower and never has been.  Additionally, there are plenty of people nowadays that aren't really able to conceive of how powerful a horse is, because they have never ridden a horse, or actually seen a horse, close up, and because of that, aren't able to conceptualize how powerful and big a horse in reality is, even though, horses have previously been used as the primary means of superior transportation for hundreds upon hundreds of years by human beings.

 The thing is that nowadays, with the basic exception of true cowboys, people who ride horses are typically doing so only as a weekend activity and not as their primary way to get from one place to another, and if not that, they are utilizing a horse for actual work duties, so that horsepower, even when incorrectly perceived, is not something that “city slickers” are all that familiar with.

 Indeed, it would be beneficial if students were educated in a way and manner, that they would know what horsepower actually meant, technically, because it doesn't mean what a significant amount of people logically think that it must mean, which is one of the reasons why we end up saying and thinking things that are wrong, and expressing such as if we know what we are saying, when in actuality we haven't a clue.

Censorship is a tool of the powerful to crush dissent

Many people believe in the appropriateness of having some reasonable form of censorship, which will cut down therefore significantly on hateful, spiteful, and damaging expressed beliefs that are perceived as not being of value or of benefit to the people.  In other words, there are those people who believe in censorship as a tool to stifle the voices of things that they not only don’t want to hear but don’t believe that the person expressing such a view has the right to express.

 Unfortunately, that sort of mindset is like putty in the hands of the elite that often represents the hidden power that runs the governance of countries all over the world, because those that are the power brokers of societies are typically big proponents of censorship, sold under the aegis that censorship is necessary in order to have a more caring and a more inclusive society; whereas, the real reason for censorship is to crush dissent, and to thereby control the narrative in a way and form that will be beneficial for those that control those levers of power.  After all, when censorship is permitted or seen as necessary, this allows those who are in positions of great influence to silence those voices that they consider to be a nuisance, with the hope that things not said, are in tune with things not thought.

 While it might well be nice if we all just got along, it really isn’t healthy for any society, when we think and act in the same manner, which signifies that conformity is thus held in the highest regard; whereas, diversity would thereby be considered to be something abnormal and deserving of being suppressed.  This would signify that with censorship being embraced, that freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom of assembly wouldn’t be of any effect, because when all of speech is in conformance with the orthodoxy of the day, that isn’t freedom, but rather that is obedience, which is at odds with freedom.

 So too, for necessary change to occur, there needs to be an avenue for dissent, which means there need to be forums in which people can express their opinions and viewpoints, and when that is effectively silenced, then what is occurring, is that a small elite of well-positioned personages are determining what the people should or should not be believing in, which is a construct which is anathema to freedom.

 To be free is to be uncensored, subject only to sensible laws that circumscribe free speech, only from the perspective that those who cross the line into imminent violent anarchy or obscenity beyond the pale, are subject to laws that address these issues.  However, what should not be censored should be opinions and viewpoints, right or wrong, which is the prerogative of having free speech, and for all those that insist upon “safe spaces” or the like, as a fundamental need of society, they need to understand that censorship is not becoming of any free-thinking individual, nation, or the governance of such, because each of us is equally entitled to having our say.

America: Land of the multiple cars

In consideration that automobiles cost a lot of money and that they take up space, one would generally think that people would only own cars that they are going to basically use, but that isn’t true, at all. There are plenty of families and people that own more than one car per household member, and while this might well make sense for those that have lots of money, or more than one home; what we do so find is that in certain areas of a given enclave, in which, that enclave seems to be somewhat rundown, that some of these people clearly own more than one car, of which, none of the cars seem to be all that spectacular, as well as there being cars that give every indication of being abandoned, yet those cars remain there on their property, day in and day out.

The primary reason why this is so is not going to be something practical, such as having one vehicle for going to work, and another car for going to a really nice event, but seems to be, in many a case, a situation in which cars are just adopted over time, and once owned, the people that own them, are not desiring to let them go. Perhaps they see these cars as being valued backups to their main vehicle, or they represent an investment to be occasionally worked on, and perhaps too there is the dream to one day fix a given car up, to make it look real good, and so on.

Yet, probably, the most reasonable explanation as to why so many people who don’t have a lot of capital, but have their own property, which has room enough to store cars, is the very fact that because they own their property, along with the salient fact that the annual registration of vehicles is typically inexpensive, collect these cars because the cost of ownership is quite low, and they might well use these cars for something, at some future date.

Additionally, there is the fact that the structure of a vehicle, can last for quite a long time, and because cars are in this modern age so damn expensive, it might even make sense to collect a bunch of cars, that don’t really cost a dime, as spares, in case the main car breaks down or gets into an accident because, for a certainty, cars aren’t getting any cheaper. So too, just the ownership of a car provides for some people, a source of pride, in which, though a given vehicle might not be driven, it could be bragged upon, or seen as a project that might be addressed at some future point.

Finally, some people have a tendency to accumulate things, or as a favor to a friend, to store things for them, and once a vehicle is parked, it just seems to become part of the landscape, never really to be noticed, because back in the day when land was a lot cheaper, home lots were a lot bigger and because cars have value and are visible, it’s a way to demonstrate to others, that they own things of value, or are seen as having value, such as a car.

The democratic vote: isn’t all that

At the founding of the United States of America, voting was basically only held in the hands of land-owning males, of which, presently, we find that the vote is now in the hands of just about anyone who is of legal age, which therefore includes women, minorities, and essentially everyone. One would think that property-owning males would vote differently than other groups of people, and we do so find that this is true, and in consideration that there are far more people who are non-property-holding individuals, it would seem logical to believe that never has there been a better time for democracy and the democratic vote because that vote is truly held in the hands of the people, which would signify that their desires would thus be met.

Yet, even though so many are eligible to vote, of which, a significant percentage of those people do vote, when we look around at this nation’s laws, legislation, equality, fairness, and opportunity, it has to be admitted that just having the vote, doesn’t seem to make all that much difference. Indeed, never have so few had so much in material assets, of which, we can’t ignore the salient fact that not only is there a huge subsection of Americans that are in poverty, but there also is a significant percentage of Americans that pretty much live paycheck to paycheck, and have no savings, whatsoever, in their bank account.

This doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense, because America in aggregate, is the wealthiest nation in the world. Still, the distribution of that wealth doesn’t seem to reflect a healthy democracy, but rather seems to reflect a democracy that doesn’t have any real power, and therefore those with the democratic vote, aren’t effecting much meaningful change, whatsoever. This thus signifies that all those who clamor about how important it is to vote upon this or upon that, and how every vote matters, are either delusional, or simply unable to see America for what it truly is, which is a nation of the few that have everything that could be imagined and then some, with an impoverished lower class that has nothing, and a middle class, once healthy, that is now typically uneasy and overextended.

So then, the only fair conclusion that can be drawn from the preceding is that those who are the power brokers and the power makers of America have clearly figured out a way that voting doesn’t much matter. Therefore, this often hidden power can insert itself into everything of import within America, so that they can continue to ride high, at the expense of ordinary Americans. This means that those who truly want change, and therefore want their voice to count, need to understand, that simply having the democratic vote is not nearly good enough, but rather, they need to find a way to both diminish the unelected power that suppresses them, while also seizing that power into their own hands, for the good and benefit of the people, in whole.

Divide and conquer

It is somewhat surprising that even though so many countries are democratic in nature, that they are effectively controlled oftentimes by a small cabal, and that therefore what the people desire, should it be in conflict with what those elites desire, won’t therefore come into effect. The reason why a small fraction of the population can control an entire nation has a lot to do with employing the strategy of dividing the people, and through that division, maintaining one’s control of them, and therefore essentially conquering them.

The fact that so many consistently vote against their own interests is amazing, followed by the fact, that there are a multitude of laws, that are unequally applied, signifying that the government through its law enforcement can pretty much arrest anyone that they have been instructed to target, done under some dubious charge, of which, the people, are going to be fearful that this thus might well happen to them. So too, when the policing force of the nation doesn’t ever answer to the common man, but rather answers to those that empower that force, then the people are going to tend to be more compliant than they would desire to be, because of that fear of punishment.

Still, because there are so few that have so much, and so many that have not enough, it doesn’t seem to make sense that the change that the people desire, doesn’t seem to happen all that often. The reason that this is so, is those that who hold power are quite adept at exploiting differences between people, regarding their racial characteristics, background, education, religion, wealth, employment, and so on. Those who control the power levers of society do this because they correctly perceive that they are seriously outnumbered, but by seeding dissent between parties that would logically be joining together, they can repeatedly keep down those that should unite, from uniting.

Indeed, the change that we see in any nation, seldom comes from the ground up, though that does help, but rather typically comes from a powerful leader, who insists that something needs to be changed, and has a powerful faction in their control, that thus implements such, and if necessary, thereby relaxes the hand that would normally divide the people, to bring them together, for a time, but not for long, because whenever a nation has an elite that owns a gargantuan size of the nation’s wealth, they cannot afford to allow the people to remain united for long, because their very power could eventually be assailed.

To divide and conquer is a tactic that has been around forever, and will continue to exist, as long as humankind believes that their own aggrandizement is more important than doing the right thing by the society that they are a member of. Those then that have power want to keep the people uneasy, and at one another, because their weakness is necessary for their continued strength, and if that should ever change, society would be all the better, because those that are united in a good purpose, would reap a much healthier harvest, that would be more equally distributed.

The right to dissent

There seems to be a commonly held belief of those who are our leaders, whether in government, corporations, or of orthodox society, that those who dissent from the prevailing view of the age, are somehow a danger to the community, at large. In other words, all those who protest, in one form or another, are therefore directly targeted as enemies of the state, or as an undesired agency that should be monitored, infiltrated, and eventually neutralized to the best of the ability of those who do not see dissent as any legitimate right, whatsoever.

It isn’t so much that dissent is always feared, though it often is, rather it has a lot to do with the status quo not wanting to budge an inch because that status quo is quite satisfied with the way things are. Yet, just because one segment of society is satisfied, does not justify that other segments of that same society, should not have a fair opportunity to have their say. Still, we find that dissenting voices are often marginalized, ignored, or suppressed.

The great contradiction that countries such as the United States have in the suppression of dissent, is that within its own Constitution, is ingrained the right to free speech and to free assembly, but it seems that the powers that be, aren’t interested in those rights being freely expressed, whatsoever. Indeed, the attitude of our governance today seems to be consistent with what the attitude was of the British Empire, of which, those who were the colonists of this land and did not have an effective voice within that British government, determined that through their dissent of words and actions, they would thus fight for their right to independence.

This would presuppose that America has forgotten its very roots, and while it celebrates its revolution with fireworks and parades on Independence Day, each year, it doesn’t seem to understand that this government is supposed to be of, for, and by the people, with those same people being entitled to having a fair voice, as part and parcel of having freedom, and that these rights are the people’s rights per their Constitution.

In consideration, that not everyone thinks the same, and further to the point, it is better for society to embrace the diversity of free-thinking individuals – we find that governments and the powerful entities that are aligned with that government, don’t seem to care so much for dissent, of which, that dissent often represents the exposure of an inconvenient truth, exposed by those that disagree with the prevailing orthodoxy, which is seemingly perceived by powerful personages as not being good for business, and in consideration that the business of America is business, this is a seminal reason why those that dissent are typically seen as entities which are not welcomed.

The fact of the matter is that our Constitutional rights are only as good as they can be executed within the society that we are members of, and those that are on the side of suppressing dissent, are the very same, that are themselves, not in conformance with that Constitution, and thereby are in betrayal of our right to freely express ourselves, so done via dissent.

Pursue service, above all

There are a lot of people that can’t really figure out what they should or ought to be working on, regarding their life’s purpose or their personal goals. To live in this modern age presents challenges of all sorts, of which, one of those seminal challenges is the feeling that so many have, that they must at least, at a minimum, keep up with the Joneses. Regrettably, those who think that way have not only set their sights upon a target that is far too low, but more importantly, don’t seem to understand that this world is a proving ground, and what we are supposed to prove is whether or not, we are going to be just about ourself, or whether we will recognize that there has to be a higher purpose in life, than simply taking care of our own supposed needs and desires.

While it may well feel quite good to do that which gives us pleasure or brings us some degree of satisfaction, it isn’t going to in the scheme of things, bring us that lasting satisfaction, when our pursuit is simply trying to get our fair share of the material things and the accouterments that go with such, as the driving goal of our life. We are meant to lift our heads up and to try to figure out our good purpose in life, and that which leans toward selfishness and self-aggrandizement isn’t going to be the correct or best choice. Indeed, the better choice is to find that which provides a valuable service to not only those that we congregate with but also to do our best to uphold the good values of our Creator, by our good actions and good deeds.

To believe, somehow, that we are meant to be part and parcel of an unending rat race, is to clearly miss our good purpose in life, for an endless race, such as that, should be properly seen as a distraction, and should not be recognized as the prime purpose of our life. It is important for each one of us to recognize that pursuing that which is temporal at its core, is not going to be the best usage of our abilities. Rather, we are meant, to take in what the meaning of life really is, and when we comprehend such, we will better understand that this world is designed to test our character, through the adventures and misadventures that our life entails. Those then, who ignore this sage advice are the very same that though they think they are making progress, are more accurately just spinning their wheels. Instead, we are meant to comprehend that we are all in this together, and only when we work together, towards a noble goal, will we collectively make the progress that we need to accomplish, so as to truly make society a better place for not only our participation in it, but also because when given the choice between service or selfishness, we chose the better path, and in doing that, this thus makes all the difference.

There is a natural law above all humankind’s laws

There are plenty of people who believe that one should “obey the law,” which sounds quite straightforward and might even make sense if governance was consistently in accordance with natural law, but history tells us, that governments are often corrupt, wrong-headed, and discriminatory to those that they govern. Indeed, there are all sorts of laws that modern-day sensibilities tell us that these previous laws were wrong, such as in the slavery of fellow human beings, but this was the law of that time, and therefore those that were in obedience to that law, were said to be in conformance with the law; whereas, those that did not obey that law, were seen to be lawbreakers.  Therefore, for a certainty, humankind's laws which are always subject to change, or misinterpretation, or are fundamentally wrong should not be the prevailing law that one should obey.  Indeed, the only laws worth obeying without question could only be that which is natural law, of which, natural law is defined as being in conformance with the ethical law imprinted upon our minds by our Creator.

 The peace and justice that so many people and the governments of those people clamor for can only come forth from a system of ethical laws, in conjunction with justice equally applied, that are together in conformity with sound moral principles, of which, these principles are not subject to change, because they are universal laws, respecting that the Lawgiver, cannot ever be in error.  Of course, there are going to be many a person, or governance, that claims this or that, as being what the law should or ought to be, but a sound law, is a law that is not only true and fair, but true and fair for all-time, which signifies that it must be universally applicable, no respecter of persons, and consistent with enlightenment, above all.

 Our duty, as human beings, is to be in conformance with natural law, as well as to adhere to that natural order which we have been created to recognize and to be obedient to, and live therefore to that precept. Each of us is provided with a conscience, which encourages us to do the right thing when we thus listen carefully to and obey that still, small voice within.  Those then that insist upon ignoring that ethical voice, or to deaden such through drugs or drink, are the very same, that will veer off course, and of which, laws are created and enforced to help those that have lost their way, to get back onto the true path that will lead them faithfully to the ultimate sanctuary.

 So then, to obey the law is only going to be a worthy calling when the law so being obeyed is natural law, because that which is consistent with God’s handiwork is that which we all need to aspire to be harmonious with, and when natural law conflicts with humankind’s law, the law to obey is that which is eternally correct, and not that which is misguided, misapplied, and wrong.

The need for a heart-to-heart conversation

People have conversations all the time, of which, more than a few of those conversations, aren’t really all that important or of substance, and not enough of those conversations serve a real good purpose.  While it is our prerogative how we wish to communicate with one another, far too many people are making an error, when they don’t seemingly recognize that meaningful, in-person conversations are crucial to not only our understanding of one another but help us to grow closer to other people, because the more that we can relate to one another, the stronger our feelings will be to each other.

 The greatest mistake that any of us makes is not saying something positive and uplifting to those we admire and love when given the opportunity to do so, time and time again.  For instance, when someone close to us, looks especially good, or has done us a fine favor, or lent us a helping hand, or accomplished something of significance, we should actually take the time, to let them know in a meaningful way what they represent, and what they have done, means the world to us, for whenever we don’t express this in words or deeds to the other, this signifies that the other has not heard or seen our appreciation for them.

 So too, while it is true that we are busy with many a thing, such as our education, our job, or dealing with duties and tasks, we need to make it our point, to spend quality time with those that we are close to, and not just spend that time, but utilize some of that time to express ourselves in a meaningful way, such as in a heart-to-heart conversation.  The reason why we should desire a heart-to-heart is because not only will we learn more about one another, but it allows us to say things that are on our mind that we wish to divulge to the other, and provides us with a format that brings us the satisfaction of communicating in a way and manner that we learn more about one another, and therefore often will appreciate one another, at a deeper and a more caring level.

 It is somewhat ironic, whenever people get together at a funeral, and all sorts of kind words are spoken about that dearly departed, in which, it is wondered whether or not when that person was alive, were they then the recipient of those same kind words, or perhaps these words, regrettably, were left unsaid. The time to tell someone that you love them, and that you care about them, is in the here and now – which therefore means the time to get to know those that we should desire to know more about and to hear their stories, their triumphs, their battles, and their failures is in the present, because by doing so, we will not only know them at a different level, but we will appreciate that all of us, do have stories to tell, that we desire to be heard by those that we are closest to, because life is meant to be lived with a purpose, and part of that purpose is to pass onto one another, that which fills the heart with love, appreciation, and resolution.

The reason to self-censor

All of us, censor ourselves to some degree because if we did not, we would be speaking in a constant stream of consciousness without any forethought of whether or not what we were saying served any good purpose, or any purpose, at all.  We censor ourselves because not every thought that comes to mind is worthy of speaking about, and further to the point, not every thought is worth expressing.  So too, none of us really desire to hear someone else speak a bunch of nonsense, for the very principle of communication is to convey thoughts, ideas, and information that are seemingly worth conveying, and that which isn’t, should not be conveyed.

 It has to be admitted that if we did not self-censor, the amount of trouble that we would get into would increase substantially, in addition to the fact, that we would probably unnecessarily hurt the feelings of others, for no good reason – and by doing so, our own feelings would probably be hurt in turn, when we suffered the blowback for having said stupid things.  A good mind recognizes that there are appropriate things to say, and inappropriate things to keep to ourselves, and those that fail to recognize this are the very same that will find it difficult to sustain and maintain not only good civil discourse but also will have trouble in the keeping of good friends, for life is tough enough, without having people that we think care about us, tell us stuff that hurts or annoys us.

 Then again, there is the type of self-censorship that reflects that the world that we live in, does not embrace free speech as much as we believe that it should, in which, we are afraid to express our true feelings about something of import to us because we fear that the consequences of saying what we say, would be ultimately bad for us.  That is unfortunate, for in order for change to occur, it is important that ideas of merit that are not in conformance with what is perceived to be orthodoxy, are expressed, so that not only those that secretly support us can agree with us, but also as a way to bring to attention things that should be discussed and debated upon.

 Another very valid reason to self-censor is that when we are distraught, some of us have a strong tendency to hit back by saying words that we know would be hurtful to the other, and that consequently will not easily be forgotten or forgiven, of which, if we simply held our tongue, the crisis that we thought was so important to respond to, would have dissipated enough that we now would know the error of our ways.  Those then who can control their emotions and control their words are always going to be in a better place than all those who don’t understand discretion.

 In sum, we should appropriately self-censor because it’s not only better for us, but it is better for others, as well, because as they say, when you don’t have anything positive or of real merit to say, it is typically better to say nothing and make therefore our default to be a person who thinks first before actually speaking their mind.

The reformation of law enforcement officers

There are plenty of people that decry all the abuses that are suffered unduly by the people because of law enforcement officers, using their power unjustly against them.  Then again, plenty of people appreciate the implementation of a powerful law and order mindset, to thus keep those who wish to be uncivilized, to become civilized, or if not, to pay the price for their disobedience.  While it would seem that the twain shall never meet, there is a way to make the policing of the people, to be more per what a civil society should desire, when applying law enforcement upon its citizenry.

 The first thing that needs to be noted, is that police officers have a lot of discretion as to what they will or will not do, when confronting what would appear to be trouble in the streets, in which, how law enforcement officers react to such has a whole lot to do with who and what entities that they answer to.  In other words, when police officers have explicit or implicit quotas that must be filled regarding arrests, tickets, or engagement with the public, we do so find that a portion of those police officers are going to suffer from the urge to find those who are the most vulnerable, defenseless, and powerless, thereby concentrating the full arm of the law, upon those people, because they make for easy targets, and further to the point, are the type of targets, that aren’t typically championed by those that wield a lot of power and influence.  In other words, police officers have discretionary power, and because of that, they don’t desire to bite the hand that feeds them but rather prefer to concentrate on those people who would appear to be a visible nuisance, instead.

 In consideration of the foregoing, it has to be said that the best way to reform what law enforcement officers do on behalf of the people, is for police officers to make it their point, to actually be a part of the community, with the community knowing what the police officer’s purpose is within that community.  That is to say, firemen are known for putting out fires, as well as providing medical services to those in need.  So then, police officers could be known as being representatives that make it their point to see that the body politic is behaving in a way and manner that is consistent with the good attributes of a healthy civil society, and to the degree that they can help to maintain good civil discourse, so much the better. This would signify, that the more comfortable a given enclave is with police presence, and the more that the people see the police as being “honest brokers” the better the communication will be between these parties, so that, those things that need to be dealt with, can be dealt with in a manner, that is suitably fair for those that are members of that enclave.  That is to say, the ideal police force responds to the concerns of the citizenry, who know who these police officers are, and the police officers know who they are, thereby building trust and making for better interplay between the two. 

 After all, people do want to feel safe and secure, and police officers can aid in that process all the more if rather than being perceived as an occupying force, they are seen as being reasonable, fair, and doing what they have to do, only when such is really merited.

The perfect government

The fundamental problem with our governance at present is that the people of this nation as well as all those that are the representatives of that government of, for, and by the people don’t seem to understand what governance should really be about.  After all, government could be about helping the unprivileged, providing a necessary infrastructure for the people, instituting a robust educational system, and so on.  Whether it should be those things is, in theory, up to the people and their representatives, in conjunction with having to comply with the highest law of the land, which is its Constitution, along with all this needing to be in harmony with our unalienable rights.

 There is more than one way of looking at what a government should be about, and one of those ways, which is probably the best way, is that the government of the people should make it its principal point, to do all that it can do to defend, to protect, and to augment the unalienable rights that all are equally entitled to.  That is to say, our religious freedom, our freedom of speech, our right to live our life, our right to privacy, and our right to just be free to be about our business, as long as we are not interfering with other people’s unalienable rights, should be ours, subject to not only no governmental interference but rather protected by that government, above all.

 Indeed, a government that is structured around protecting the unalienable rights of all would definitely be a government that would have the strongest of ethical foundations, because if on the other hand, our unalienable rights were actually subject to the government infringing upon them, then our unalienable rights, would not really be so unalienable, but rather would appear to be under the beck and call of the government, which would thereby fairly indicate that our government wasn’t about defending and protecting our unalienable rights, but rather was a power onto itself, or a power enthralled to certain personages who would be above the law, and thereupon essentially a law onto themselves.

 Each of us, without exception, is meant to enjoy their unalienable rights, for these rights come to us, from that which first created us. All those that would infringe upon such, as in a government, or other entities or people within a society, are thereby violating our unalienable rights, which in a fair world, would have consequences for those so in violation.  This thus signifies that the perfect government is that government which is in most accordance with our unalienable rights, and the worst government is that which clearly and consistently infringes upon those same rights, of which, the wakeup call for any government that claims to be of, for, and by the people is whether or not that government is making its highest priority the protection of our unalienable rights or whether it has other agendas, good or bad, that it addresses as a higher priority, instead.

 So then, at the end of the day, just as people are judged, so are governments, and that government which is best, is that government that does all that it can to uphold our unalienable rights, and thereupon leaves what we do or don’t do with those unalienable rights as our responsibility, and not the government’s responsibility.

I owe, I owe, so off to work I go

 There is a multitude of reasons why people work, but certainly one of the most important ones is that especially in Western nations, we need money in order to procure the things that are necessary to live, such as shelter, education, healthcare, food, and sundry other items.  That is to say, we work because if we don’t work we won’t have what we need to live a reasonably satisfactory life.

 It would be one thing, if work, consisted of a workweek of a guaranteed forty hours, which was thus part and parcel of our nation, but what we find is that not only are jobs seldom guaranteed in duration, unless they have been written into a contract or labor agreement, but obtaining forty hours in a workweek, is typically not guaranteed, either.  This means that very few of us can count as an absolute certainty, that we will work as many hours as we desire to work while having a guarantee that our job will always be there for us, and further to the point, make enough money from our work to live a decent life.

 The very first thing any job should provide to us in this modern-age world is enough income that people could live a decent life, and when that seemingly isn’t certain, within those nations, that have an abundance of money and prosperity, then something is wrong with the system and needs to be fixed.  No doubt, it is a two-way street in which people just can’t assume that showing up for work, is good enough to be paid, but it does mean that workers who are contributing their fair amount to the company that employs them, should be compensated at a fair and living wage.

 Additionally, there is the nature of work itself, of which, not every job is going to be the type of job, that little kids imagined themselves that they would obtain when they were growing up.  This thus indicates that within the jobs that we perform, there should be a recognition that the people performing these jobs are human beings, and therefore any job, in which a human being is essentially treated as a cog in a machine, is going to after some period of time, have a tendency to dehumanize that worker, which is why those types of jobs, should have a high rotation rate so that in the end, workers are treated overall as human beings of value, rather than seen as nothing much more than an instrument to get work done.

 Ideally, a job should provide to its workers some degree of autonomy, of which, their participation provides an opportunity for them to not only take responsibility for the work that they help to produce but also provide that worker with some degree of satisfaction of having done a job well.  Indeed, to simply have a job that permits us to pay our bills is not the final step of what those who labor need, but rather represents the fundamental floor of what a job should entail, of which, jobs should themselves inherently provide all workers with opportunity, as well as the satisfaction of knowing that their work is valued, because it is of value.