Issue 132 Why don't we save money July 31, 2013

I take inspiration for this Issue from "Pacific Standard" March/April 2013 Issue. Article: Why Americans Don't Save-and What We Can Do About It." Well, why the heck don't we like to save our money?

I like to Borrow: The Federal Reserve has analyzed this trend and believes the availability of credit "can explain about 90 percent of the long decline in American savings." In other words, they believe that because it is easier to just borrow money that people see it as an easier way to get the cash they want and thus buy what they want sooner. Saving for a new car does not mean you can get that new car immediately and thus cannot not get that instant gratification. I however, still prefer to save as at least I won't owe anyone anything and I can use that left over saving for more important things like retirement (yea I'm only 24, but I'm already thinking about what I have to do to get there).

Helping the wrong people: Apparently we spend $130 billion each year via America's tax code to encourage savings for the future. But almost all of it (according to the article) ends up in the hands of the rich who were going to save money any way and did not need help in the first place. According to Pew Charitable Trusts "the highest income quintile receives 70 percent of the benefits from these tax incentives." "The lowest income quintile receives only 0.2 percent." It kind of makes you question the point of the federal tax codes rules and exceptions doesn't it?

Living off the grid: About 30% of Americans have no savings accounts and about 8% have no bank account at all. Apparently, when there is no bank in the picture it makes it harder to accumulate wealth. Part of the problem is that banks don't make it easy to get an account partly due to "minimum balance requirements" and "onerous" fees which drive them away. As a result these people turn to payday loans, check cashing services and money orders "whose high cost further erode wealth and potential savings." But for once, our neighbors in Europe have an idea worth emulating. They have special banking systems for these "small depositors" which usually take the form of post office banks which apparently boost savings rates in the neighborhood by "10 percent." Perhaps this is something that can not only help the Post office get back on its feet, but make it more useful and flexible for the 21st century.

We are selfish: That is right, one of the reasons we do not save is because we do not care about our future selves. According to the article (who quoted neurologists) that when we think of our future selves, we look and feel about them as if they were a stranger. As such, we value immediate gain over our future selves. Some have tried to mitigate this issue by showing people what they are to look like in the future (digital versions of course) and as a result of that new knowledge actually saved more toward the future. So start thinking about your eventual crinkly, shrunken selves.

Stop making it optional: Well apparently the more rational of us do not have to worry about retirement as we are probably already doing so (yes I've got a 401(k) and stocks along with bonds). But regular people procrastinate (this is according to the article). They wait till the last minute to start saving. Pensions are going bye bye, and Social security is no longer enough (especially as it is predicted to collapse within my life time). However, while people have access to 401(k)'s and similar, they do not use them because of how they procrastinate. So the article suggests that rather than making them optional to join, the companies and businesses make them optional to leave. Basically you are forced to join with a given rate, but you give these people the option to "opt out or adjust the rate." This apparently causes these people in general to "stay the course" and thus have an actual savings. Aka, we need a push and a shove to actually save.

Conclusion: What I got from this is that people are terrible at saving money and psychologically we are predisposed to not worry about the situation until it is too late. Making people opt out is a good idea as private firms can do this, as working for them it becomes a stipulation for employment. Well all I can say is I agree with pretty much every thing and the ideas to get people to save are sound (at least from my perspective). Hopefully you are thinking about your future self like I am.

Issue 131 Another Approach: A Federal Bank July 30, 2013

What would you think if the Federal Government established a new national bank? I'm not talking about the Federal Reserve type that we have now, but an actual bank that replaces all other banks. Here is the concept broken down.

Centralized Banking: All private banks would be forced to give all their accounts to this national bank. In essence it would take the money out of the private banks hands. Thus, when we draw money we would be drawing it from our federal bank account. All of our income (well the income on the books) would go into this account. This would make it easier for government to tax us based on income (if that is kept) and to see where people derive their revenue. It would also eliminate the need to have money backed by the Federal Reserve in case your private bank failed. Well that is a given because the government bank cannot close down ever.

Welfare recipients: To add a perverse incentive to welfare recipients to get off welfare, those on welfare would have their accounts monitored and limited. What does this mean? This means that every transaction that they do is scrutinized, including how much money they take out and how much "cash back" they get at a cash register. All of this data is used to ensure that they are only buying what they need to live, not drugs and alcohol. A step further would be limiting the whole account (private/welfare) to specific types of items. This again would limit how much a welfare recipient can buy and give incentive for them to get off welfare. Of course, this would only work if the only bank in existence is the government one as it would be the only place to put your money away. Though, some version of this government bank can be made in our current system of fiancé to keep the least honest recipients more honest.

Banks new role: Private banks would have a new role in this system. They would offer ATM's like they do now as a service for people to take out money. People can allow these banks access to a certain percentage of their federal account to loan out to people. Basically what they do now when they make a loan, but the difference is that rather than just interest as a reward for allowing them to do this, you would get a percentage of the profit. (Again, something that can be done independently of this idea). Banks can offer all their usual services, the only difference is that they don't have to worry about storing your money for you, the government does.

The negative: While this idea would take a major burden off of traditional banks and give the federal government an easy way to collect taxes and keep an eye on certain citizens, there is one major problem. The major problem is that the government has control of all of our money. This means they can lock us out of our money at will. If they want to get into the loan business, they can do it without permission. No they don't have to give us interest for keeping money in the bank. Also, let us not forget our history back when we had a national bank (the one President Andrew Jackson killed off because of corruption). What you think it cannot happen? Well did you forget that the federal government borrows from Social Security and Medicare to help fund their pet projects. They already owe the people more than $4 trillion do to their borrowing from those beloved programs. What makes you think they won’t do it again (by the way, the one that Jackson killed off acted in the same way). So all the benefits of this idea are fundamentally mute.

Conclusion: Even if the government can do something, it does not mean they should. While it becomes easier for the government to track our money, punish welfare cheats and eliminate some rules and regulations on some businesses, it does not mean things will be batter. New rules and regulations would replace the old ones, and all that money in one place would be a tempting target to politicians. So while I present this idea as an alternative, I do not find it to be any better than the current system. In fact I find the current system superior and flexible because the current one will be able to innovate as commerce progresses. Yes, this idea was mine, or at the very least I came up with this centralized approach just to evaluate its merits in comparison to our system now (if any one came up with similar separately then it is just that, we came up with it separately). At the end of my comparison, I prefer the private business whom I can take my business away from, than a government whose inevitable power and greed will corrupt them and thus steal my money.

Issue 130 Obesity Myth's!? July 29, July 29, 2013

Well as it turns out obesity is not yet a fully proven science. Though, no science is fully proven because with each new discovery, the rules and concepts and even supposed facts may be completely changed. So let us get started.

A little fat is good: According to an epidemiologist Katherine Flegal who works for the Center of Disease Control and Prevention excess weight might actually be good for you. Her team used data going back to 1971 (this was a 2005 study) and found that in some cases people who were over weight may have been saved from dying early by that extra bit of flab. Her study was disputed and so her team collected data from 97 other studies with over 2.9 million case histories and found that modest excess weight extended some peoples lives. Those people who lived longer had grade 1 obesity (body mass index of 30 to 35). However, those with a body mass index over 35 face "mortal danger."

Fat may not be making people sick: Did you know that obese people are prejudiced against and which may be just as damaging as being excessively fat. Obese women for example are more susceptible to breast and cervical cancers, but that is not a result of being fat apparently (according to a study). In a 2000 study of 8000 women it was determined that patients who were obese were less likely to get a pap smear of mammogram "in the preceding two to three years" (researchers controlled for socioeconomic and insurance status). Surveys have found that "many health care providers consider the obese lazy and weak willed, and therefore consider treating them to be a waste of time." Also, over weight women apparently make less money and are less likely to get married than their "slimmer peers." The science is still being tested on this though.

Fat people won't bankrupt us: Guess what, while it is costly to cover obese people up until age 56, their health care costs plummet after that age on average. The study looked at healthy sized smokers, healthy size non smokers and obese non smokers and found that after age 56 these obese people along with smokers cost less later on in life to treat. As to the reason, well the smokers and obese are not going to like it, it is because they typically die a lot earlier. This complicates the whole obese people costing the nation more money and the whole preventative medicine idea.

Genetics: James V. Neel hypothesized 50 years ago that genetics allowed us to get fat so as to account for the possibility of famines which weeded out our skinnier compatriots. But the theory fell short as to why today "two thirds" of American adults don't become obese. Biologist John Speakman believes that this is due to our species need to be nimble to get away from predators. However, as the threat of predators diminished our ability to fluctuate in size increased.

Over eating problem!?: While most people associate getting fat and obese to over eating, too many sweets, un-healthy diets and lack of exercise, there may be another (unproven possibility). That other possible factor is "viral infections and endocrine-disrupting chemicals" in our natural environment. Looking at animals that may be facing the same plight (body size data from captive feral monkeys, chimps, dogs, cats, mice and rats) they found that the fat crises extends to these animals as well. About half the animals studied tended to lean toward the heavier side from "one decade to the next. Interestingly, this is despite "the fact that many of these animals haven't changed the way they eat and exercise." More studies are needed, but being fat may not mean it's necessarily your fault.

Conclusion: Fat science is not exact, and neither is any science for that matter. In this case, fat may not be the main culprit to a lot of our problems and our getting fat may not be our fault. Just thought I would share what hasn't been said by the talking heads of news organizations, and politicians who use facts and "figures" (pun intended) to get their agenda passed. For the actual article that I took this from see the magazine the "Pacific Standard" May June 2013 issue article name "Pound Foolish: The causes and consequences of obesity are settled science, right? Wrong." Enjoy the interesting read.

Issue 129 Data Lockers July 26, 2013

A data locker is exactly like it sounds; it locks away your data. This is a relatively new field of business that entrepreneurs are tapping into to make a profit while giving their customers a unique tool for both protection and even making a few dollars of their own.

How it works: A customer signs on with a data locker service by giving them access to their spending data such as from their bank and credit card. From there the data locker company stores that data for you with the purpose of keeping it private. Essentially, it is designed to keep banks and other businesses from selling your data on your spending habits without your expressed permission. Simple right. It literally locks away your data and keeps it in storage.

How you can benefit: What is interesting about data locker services is that they can get you benefits in one of two ways. The first way is you allow them to sell certain parts of your data that you deem not worthy enough to be private, such as spending habits at a supermarket and then they sell it to make money. In turn, the supermarket and its competitors know what you like to buy and thus will mail you coupons and aids so that you shop at their stores and of course save money while doing so. Similar to the first way of benefiting from such a service is that when you allow them to sell your data, you get a cut of the profits. Say your particular set of data becomes highly valued and is thus bought very often by companies who want your business, thus you become a valued customer to the data locker service. As a result a portion of the money that they get from selling your data so often begins to go to you in the form of a check. That is right, you can profit financially off your own personal data that you want to sell.

Future Benefits: What is interesting is that some data lockers services can sell other forms of information outside of just financial data. For instance, you can allow them to monitor your computer to see what websites you frequently visit and what you search most using search engines. This would allow more coupons and other benefits, such as more customized advertising or special offers by competing companies. Others (if law allows) may sell your medical data for you, allowing you the possibility to get free samples of medicine, get opportunities to try out new medicines and procedures or even find a cheaper doctor or insurance company. What is also beneficial is that data lockers (as some cannot lock all your data away) may sell to companies that normally would not be able to afford to purchase your data such as from big companies like Face Book, AOL etc. So the little guy has an opportunity to get your business as well while you reap the rewards.

The Negative: For one this service must be paid for. It is not free unless they are either making money solely off selling data or are a bank or other institution that offers these services and can afford to make it free. The only other negative is the number of aids that might pop up in your mail box as you are allowing certain aspects of your data (the parts you choose) to be made public for sale. So your mailbox may get a little stuffed. As to any risks, there is of course the same risk with any company that you deal with, that your financial data gets stolen and thus identity theft occurs. Data Lockers can help prevent such things from occurring as they actively monitor what you’re spending, but the risk is and always shall be there.

Conclusion: I always admire people who come up with new ideas and inventions. This one especially as people may now sell some of that information to get good deals on what they like to buy most and maybe make a few bucks on the side. Something tells me though, that as simple as this service is, it has even more potential outside of security monitoring and selling data. What that is has yet to be made clear, but I expect banks and credit card companies to be offering these services on the cheap as a new source of revenue within the next few years as it becomes more main stream. Keep a look out for it as I want to see everyone be able to become a little richer.

Issue 128 Telepresence July 25, 2013

Have you heard of the word telepresence? It is the word being used to describe a person who is using a remote device to be in another location. Basically, it is usually a robot controlled remotely from a station with a camera and an Ipad like device that projects your face in the same way that Skype does face to face phone calls. It has both advantages and disadvantages, but is a growing trend.

Helps the sick: It is helping some people who are sick or have a medical condition that prevents them from leaving their home. This includes children who must go to school but can't. What this technology has done is allow such children to go to school via the robot. They sit at the control station at home and control the robot at school. The camera allows the student to take notes by looking through the camera, and even take a snap shot if they want to keep an image from the board or to help them take notes. It may also record lectures if needed for later play back. In addition, a student may even raise their hand via a light so they can participate while a micro phone allows them to ask questions directly rather than having the teacher or their fellow students have to read off a screen to interact with the person operating the device. It has been tested in a few classrooms and it has been shown that students interact with the robot in the same way they would if the operator was there in person thanks to these features.

Doctors Use it: Some doctors have taken to using it in hospitals to make their rounds with patients. It works the exact same way as the prior example, but in this case the doctor can use his/her office as a command center and get other work done while the robot transitions from patient to patient. In fact, some military doctors in the United States are using it while their patients are in Iraq or Afghanistan. It allows specialists to advice other doctors from afar without ever having to fly into the danger zone.

Via Skype: Still more people are using it to aid people. Some vets and doctors use it as an over the phone, but face to face advise system. People with medical questions can call these doctors to ask for advice on medication, and treatment. However, some have been prevented from sharing their knowledge due to licensing which stipulates that a practicing doctor can only give such device if they see the individual or patient in person.

Other possibilities: At the office, bosses can use the system in the same way a doctor does, by going to his or her staff to check on the progress of a project rather than disrupt work that they themselves are doing. It allows for a face to face, without getting in someone’s face. Possibilities include workers who are inspecting hazardous work sites can use a robot to check a site with specialized equipment to spot for potential problems first. It may let more people work from home, for it allows people to show that they are doing work in the office (which is hard to demonstrate while working at home). Parents may even use other versions of this tech to keep an eye on their kids, to be literally the angel on their shoulder.

The problem: While this tech has great advantages, it has one flaw. That flaw is the human element. By not interacting with a person via proximity, or even touch, it hinders a person’s ability to socially interact. That is currently the only real criticism. Probably the biggest example is with doctors as the robot used can become a force multiplier, the doctor still has to go in and examine the patient more thoroughly to make any proper diagnosis. So it can replace routine interactions, but not the more intimate ones that are required to be truly human.

Conclusion: I support this great technology, for it has major applications. It can allow a brain surgeon in San Francisco to operate on a man in China, and much more. I also agree with the criticism though as basic human interaction is still essential and this technology is not any substitute for that. I anxiously await to see where this technology goes next. I still see a bright future technology wise, but we may need to work on maintaining the human element a bit more.

Issue 127 The 3 robot laws July 24, 2013

Throughout science fiction a standard has been developed on the 3 laws that would govern intelligent and autonomous robots. Let us go over them and explore their faults if any.

History: Before telling what the 3 laws are it is important to know there origin. They come from one of the most famous science fiction authors Isaac Asimov in his 1942 short story "Runaround" (source: "Time" "Rise of the Robots"). Asimov also worked on more books throughout his life including non-fiction books relating to physics.

Law 1: "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm": Basically a robot may not harm a person and prevent them from getting hurt when and where they can. Problem, does this mean that they will try to prevent us from bungee jumping? Would this prevent us from exploring by the robot sabotaging a rocket ship to the moon because their programming deems it too dangerous? This first law needs clarification with respect to a robots overall program. In essence every scenario would need to be programmed with respect to safety in order to prevent a robot from not interfering due to their programming to protect us without harming us. The second law attempts to mitigate this problem, but I think it does so unsuccessfully.

Law 2: "A Robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the first law": Notice that we can order the robot around like a servant, but it has the exception about violating the first law. The idea that I imagine behind this law in combination with the first is that a robot will not be used as a weapon against other people. Problem, a military robot will not have the first law and be programmed to obey only those who are military personnel from a particular country (remember, we are discussing semi-intelligent robots here). Robots are another piece of tech that is designed to make tasks easier to do. In the military a robot built for land, sea, or air is designed to fulfill what ever type of mission that falls into one of three categories of work "Dull, Dirty, and Dangerous." Thus we have robots doing photo reconnaissance, mine sweeping, bomb disposal and pre-raid surveillance. In the civilian market, robots do those too, but are braking into the helpful aid category by acting as robotic assistants in emergency rooms and in factories. Aka, R2-D2 type devices (minus the cool personality and looks) are beginning to appear.

Law 3: "A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second laws": In other words we can order them to battle each other or do a hazardous job. This seems to be the only law without any problems, unless their programming rules that their mission is to protect us and that they can't do that if they must beat each other down on our order. Basically, what we program into them is what we get. If you remember the movie "I Robot" (based on Isaac Asimov's books) robots take over because of their 3 laws. We could not tell them to stop because they deemed that our removing them from people’s lives would put people in jeopardy because we had become dependent on the robots and that to protect us even from ourselves they must control our lives. That is actually a distinct possibility when it comes to the 3 laws in combination. Do these laws together make a moral code for robots to follow, sure. However, I believe Asimov really wrote them for people to follow as people can distinguish danger and conflict naturally, while a robot cannot. Even with that possibility in mind a person and a robot they program is fundamentally flawed. Thus if people follow those same laws, they may respond in the same way as the robots in the movie, by protecting us from ourselves any way they can while becoming nothing more than another type of oppressor.

Conclusion: The three laws are flawed and are unlikely to be installed in any basic robot as each task they are used for varies where those laws may interfere in the robots basic function. From the military to the factory, from the bottom of the sea to our households, robots are here to stay, but they will always be only as good as their programming.

Issue 126 Ethics of the Press July 23, 2013

You have probably noticed that most news programs and print media side with one side of politics or another. These so called reporters can no longer be considered as reporters due to their biases. Thankfully some have the moral aptitude to call them selves’ reporters to ensure that people know that they are giving opinion based on fact, not 100% fact with their own personal analysis. But what standards must a reporter follow to be truly ethical in reporting of fact. Let's review below.

They must be Historians: Yes that is correct, they must act like historians. They must collect information, put it into a time line of events, and then serve it up to the public. A reporter does not alter the facts of the information they collected, they just regurgitate it for their readers. Un-edited data is essential for people to have facts and then form their own opinions of the subject matter, whether it is health care to a murder trial.

Opinion is separate: Opinions of such reporters are allowed, but they are not commentators. When a reporter gives opinion it is only given with key words such as "I think that....", "from my perspective...." etc to show that it is separate. Others provide that opinion in the opinion column of the news paper or segment of a news report. Commentators on the other hand give opinion throughout an article or show which distinguishes them from reporters.

They don't give up sources: A reporter’s source is their life blood. Sources are people who provide information (inside information) about what goes on in a government, a group, a religious organization or anything in between. If the source is found, that person may suffer prosecution, expulsion or in some places death, thus at all costs a reporter keeps their source secret.

They don't hold back: When it comes to asking questions, a reporter does not hold back. They ask the hard questions to find the answers that they seek. If the person they are questioning does not answer the question, they ask it in several different ways to try and pry the answer from the person they are asking questions of. Sometimes they will ask the same question in a different way just to look for inconsistencies in the answer, as they cannot just accept a strait answer from the person.

They are respectful: A reporter, even when they are ambushing some one for an interview is respectful. They do not run up to a person and start berating them with questions, as they introduce themselves first and the news program they are representing. From there the interview begins (some times unwillingly) with questions asked in a polite and respectful tone. If the question is personal, then it is explained so as to not elicit a negative response that the reporter does not mean any offense when asking the question and it may be repeated several times for emphasis. Then the question is asked while providing context as much as possible without jeopardizing the reporters or the news paper/news outlet they represent, especially as they may want to have additional interviews with their subject.

Subjects may run away: While a reporter may give chase, the person being interviewed may end the interview at any time they wish. It is up to the reporter to decide if they should press their luck or not in an interview and if they can get away with a few more questions (even if those questions are uncomfortable).

Conclusion: As you know, I am a commentator on my blog. I give opinion based on fact and sometimes the analysis and opinion of others to see a situation from as many angles as possible. My particular blog is modeled after the Drudge report where information is taken from as many places as possible to show what I think is important or interesting. So I am not a reporter, especially as I am reliant on other media like "The Economist" or "Fox News" for information. From there I judge the information being given and check to see if that source/information is worth including whilst risking my reputation of giving opinion based on those facts. Ethics are essential to being a trusted name, as without ethics what good am I as a news source.

Issue 125 Sequester Idiots July 22, 2013

Well, the sequester has begun to hurt people in the United States. However, not in the way people might think, and all of it done in the name of politics. Let's have at it.

The Cuts: Rather than cut excessive spending and overlapping programs, the government has cut the pay of the members of the National Guard. They took an entire day off their weekly work schedule which amounts to at least a $1,000 pay cut. Mean while the Pentagon has failed every audit it has ever had. But instead of cutting bad programs, they give furlough to Pentagon workers. Some of these workers play crucial rolls in the national defense, but instead of cutting party budgets, they cut them.

Excessive spending: We have already heard of parties being thrown by the office of management and budget, but have you heard what other agencies have done. The IRS makes mini movies that could have been made in someone’s basement for a few hundred dollars, but they spend over $50,000. A Pentagon conference hires a party planner that cost $75,000 to hire. Over the course of 10 years, the IRS alone has spent almost 2 billion. They have knockoffs of Sherlock Holmes, Star Trek, while others have line dancing classes and expensive clowns. Thousands down the drain that could be better spent on cracking down on tax cheats, investigating terrorists, or even just fixing broken programs.

Cuts to come: Listen well, there are more obnoxious cuts coming down the line and they will not be pretty. Some agencies may purposely delay payments like social security, and others may shut down loved programs like Tours of the White House (which by the way does not cost a single penny, because they are done by volunteers). The reason is because these departments and agencies want this all to hurt. They want to be seen as victims by the American people so that the sequester can be stopped and they can continue getting their pork budgets. Do not feel sorry for the government bureaucracy as they are in fact evolving into an all powerful blob with more power and control than Congress and the President put together. Why is that so? This is due Congress and the President differing to the government workers to write the more detailed aspects of laws (regulations). As these government agencies have so much control, they can purposely make a regulation that is terrible to make both the Congress and the President look bad politically and ruin their political careers. In other words, the so called "G-men" now have control.

Conclusion: Our government is de-evolving into a false republic slowly but surely. This is due to politicians not wanting to take responsibility for their own failings and thus the "G-men" becoming much more powerful each and every day. If you think about it, the IRS did not go after the Tea Party Groups because of politics (they did not even need that motivation), but because the Tea Party wants smaller government and that means getting rid of parts of the government bureaucracy. They are anti thesis to each other as the government wants to expand exponentially. But here is your motivation to make government smaller, bigger government equals more taxes, and even if you try passing it all onto the so called rich, they are going to tax you too, or at the very least make it so costly to live in the United States everyone will become a member of the working poor.

Issue 124 Legal Corruption: Voting 2 July 19, 2013

Many of you are familiar with the concept of an absentee ballot. It allows someone to vote in an election despite that person not being able to vote on the day of an election. You fill out a form, sometimes a few months in advance, and then submit your vote. One problem, this is another form of legal corruption.

Why it is corruption?: The reason that absentee ballots are a form of corruption is based on how and when they can be submitted. With them being sent in so early it becomes easy to add additional absentee ballots later on, because they can be submitted up to a certain day. This means, based on an absentee ballot count, these public officials have in fact calculated the outcome of an election and thus know the winner and the loser. As such they have additional absentee ballots ready and waiting to be filled out to give a boost to their losing candidate. Also, some absentee ballots are conveniently "found" in "storage rooms" which are later used to pervert the integrity of the vote. In essence, the entire concept of a democratic election fails due to corruption.

Immoral votes: Absentee ballots are also in a sense immoral. They have a person vote prior to hearing out both candidates. People really don't know who a candidate truly is until right before the day of election, so how can they make truly informed vote weeks prior. While some places may let people change their absentee ballot vote, the hurdles to do so and the possibility that their previous vote may suddenly reappear for their original vote are always in play.

What should be done: Only one solution can eliminate this problem that has plagued U.S. elections since the absentee ballot was first invented. The solution is to eliminate the absentee ballot altogether. Some of you may be saying that I am denying a persons right to vote based on this solution. However, a person who chooses not to be around to vote on the day of an election has voluntarily given up their right to vote in that election. I am not denying anything, for they are denying the privilege of voting to themselves. It must be understood that elections are unto themselves a privilege to participate in, and that absentee ballots are a human invention that were actually designed to sway an election in the first place. Basically they where designed to boost a candidates chances of winning by letting voters vote as early as possible especially when they cannot show up on the day of an election (as intended). But they still violate the integrity of the vote, irrespective of the corruption involved. So by getting rid of this modern flaw in the system of elections we restore at least some integrity to the electoral system.

Conclusion: We as Americans have always claimed the moral high ground, but we ourselves at the political level have become hypocrites. With the system as corrupt as it is, we cannot afford our elections to become rigged any further than they already have. The vote should be on a single day and only that day per year. All votes are counted thoroughly to prevent any chances of error. Once counted it should be as simple as announcing the winner. But in today's politics, it is far from simple. So we have to get back to that simplicity that affords integrity, with the winner of an election winning on merit, not some absentee ballots conveniently found in a back room.

Issue 123 Legal Corruption: Voting July 18, 2013

There is a form of legal corruption that prevents turn out on election days. We are not talking about Presidential elections, but all other elections that occur in the United States.

How they do it: What happens is that they have an election or a vote on a day other than a general election. So say there is a school budget vote, but they want to prevent turnout so the budget passes. Thus, they hold it separate from all other elections and votes that may be going on. In other words, if there is a sanitation budget vote and a vote for a seat in the local legislature, each will be held on a different day so as to prevent high voter turnout.

Why small numbers equal victory: It's simple really, only those motivated to vote will show up. People who want to vote or want their candidate or budget to pass will come and vote to ensure victory. Meanwhile everyone else is busy with their lives trying to make a living. These same people may not even know that a school budget vote is going on because they don't have kids, but will know about the local legislatures vote and show up to vote for that one. If they were held on the same day, then the person would have a chance to vote on that issue, but they are not. Thus, the people never actually have a chance to exercise their freedom of choice in certain votes due to them being uninformed.

Current elections: In the United States, the highest voter turn out is during a Presidential election. You can expect almost everyone to come out and vote on that day (the first Tuesday in November). However, the political primaries prior to it are almost anemic. Only a few people (at least from my experience) bother showing up to vote in the primaries which decides who the candidates for President or other political office will be. I tend to think of that as a problem as the people who win the primaries end up being one of the two possible winners in an election, including that of the President of the United States. I find it hard to fathom how my fellow Americans do not see such a vote as important (though I can't vote in any primary in New York State for I do not belong to any political party). Ladies and gentleman of the world, the United States has a problem.

A solution?!: What needs to happen is that these votes need to happen on certain days in the year that is both convenient and has all of the votes together. This means school budget votes, elections for sanitation commissioners, and even Presidential votes should happen on the same day. It would actually need a constitutional amendment, but the vote for a President should be moved to the second Saturday in November as Saturday is more convenient for the voting populace to come and vote. All votes, with the exception of primary and special elections would happen on this one day each and every year. This will insure the highest turn out possible for an election or vote.

As to primary and special elections, they should be held as late as possible to ensure candidates are vetted by debates and such. So my recommendation is that such an election or vote should occur on the last Saturday in July. Why the last Saturday of July? Simple, if all the primaries are held on the same day more people will come out to vote. I have worked as a poll inspector on two occasions in primaries, one for Republicans and Democrats during the contest between Obama and Romney and the other a primary for Independents. 21 people showed up for the Republican and Democrat primary, while only 3 showed up for the Independents primary. Special elections may garner more, but I have yet to work one myself, but I was paid $180 to work from 6 am to 10 pm to sit and do almost nothing all day. Holding them together, or in some cases in combination with special budget votes or even general budget votes and elections will increase turnout and actually make those elections count for something other than a select group of ideologues.

Conclusion: We need a change (unfortunately) in our election system. Many Americans just don't want to find time to vote as they either can't get off work, or are too tired to even bother. America has lost the idea of how valuable a vote is. Sure when working as a poll inspector I was working a small section of the voting establishment, but the numbers that come out each year on how many people come to vote is frightful in my opinion with less than 75% coming out to vote. Should it not be 100% as every vote affects us financially let alone our general lively hood? Increasing turnout can help to solve this issue, but more change is required. Can we fix the system and make things right?

Issue 122 Election Sabotage July 17, 2013

With the current Supreme Court ruling on the Voting rights act (see Issue 120 for details and reaction) I thought it best to show what some of the voting rights act seeks to protect against and punish. Let's begin.

Grand Father Clauses: This is an old method of abuse that requires a person to show proof that their grand father was a lawful citizen. However, many people especially Black Americans could not prove that because for a long time, their grandparents were slaves, and thus were not considered citizens. Such tests were also used to prevent immigrants and certain groups of whites along with people of other races colors and creeds from voting. It was a control mechanism to ensure only the interests of the residents of a particular area are represented.

Rigged voting: In this case, the people who are counting the votes add or subtract votes to insure that their candidate wins an election. It is mostly seen in totalitarian States like Iran today, but still does happen in America on occasion in certain voting districts (done by both Republicans and Democrats).

Moving the time and place: A time tested and proven way to manipulate the vote, the times and places for an election are purposely only given to one side while the other side is given the wrong information. Just by moving the polling place or giving the wrong day can obviously affect turnout of an election and guarantee a victory for the candidate.

Literacy Tests: A simple method of preventing people from voting, the test aims to use the basic English language (in the case of the U.S.) to make it almost impossible to pass for people with less than a high school education. This prevents the poor, and people who lack any form of proper education like immigrants from being able to vote.

Intimidation: The easiest form of voter manipulation is intimidation. Back in the late 60s Whites, Blacks and others were threatened that if their candidate did not win that they would be lynched. Similar happens today with threats of violence being the most easily seen. However, if the intimidation is coming from government such as with the recent IRS scandal targeting Tea Party, Libertarian and Pro-Israel groups, then it is harder to stop.

Conclusion: These are simple ploys used by both people and government to manipulate voting to ensure the success of their candidate’s victory. From there it is really up to the government to actually enforce the law.

Issue 121 voter ID's July 16, 2013

Is it racist to ask for an ID at the Voting booth? Is it racist to ask someone to actually have an ID to vote at all? Well some think so. So let’s go over why.

The Corruption Crowd: One group that is against voter ID's are people who want to ensure certain people and groups can vote multiple times for the same candidate. They also want it so people who are not citizens of this country can vote for their candidate as well. The Corruption crowd manipulates voters and twists messages to make their candidate appear better than they really are and gives favors toward the non-citizens in the candidates name. While the candidate may not have anything to do with this, these non-citizens are being pushed and in some cases paid off to vote for that candidate. Groups and individuals like this are, from my perspective, go against any law requiring people to learn English for it makes it easier to manipulate a person when they do not speak the native language. Also, preventing voter ID's allows some individuals to vote more than once, or even pose as Adolf Hitler or Mickey Mouse to vote for their candidate of choice. It is also why some dead people seem to come back from the dead to vote on occasion.

The One world Crowd: This group does not believe in national boarders. For them, living in a country for a set period of time means you automatically become a citizen and thus should be allowed to vote. A group like this is an amalgam of libertarians who want open boarders, and people who want a world government. The members may not always agree, but they want the right to vote to go undaunted no matter where someone lives.

Anti-Totalitarian group: Anti-Totalitarians fear a fascist or even a marxist regime. Any perception of a police officer asking for your papers to identify yourself reeks of abuse by government to them. So they oppose any form of national identification that they fear will lead to any form of police state. Just for reference, this group is bi-partisan as people on both sides see it in this manner.

Is it racist crowd: The final group sees any need to present an ID at a voting booth as racist. They remember the days when blacks and people of other races, colors and creeds where not permitted to vote based on law. So any infringement that could prevent their voting is seen as a possible injustice. However, this is all based on if the group or groups are singled out so as to prevent them from being able to obtain an ID, which in turn prevents them from voting.

Conclusion: As I am sure you will all agree, the corruption crowd and the one world crowd cause problems for the rest of us as they allow for the corruption of the vote. Mean while the anti-totalitarian group and the "is it racist crowd" must be assured that it will not come to a police state or a return to the days of fear. A national ID is a good idea that can be used to aid everyone depending on how it is used and what functions are added to the card itself. But most of all, it prevents a lot of corruption. As such I am in favor of the card so long as it is given to everyone at no cost to prevent racism and that it is only asked for when your identity needs to be known, not when the government demands.

Issue 120 Voting Rights Act July 15, 2013

Did you know that the Supreme Court overturned Section 8 of the Voting Rights act? The voting rights act was put together to protect all Americans from abuses with respect to being denied their right to vote. So any change or perceived change is going to be met with fear. But what exactly did the Supreme Court do to change the law. Read on to find out.

What is Section 8: Section 8 deals with States and territories of the United States that have traditionally been abusive toward black voters in the United States. These States include Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Alaska, etc, along with some specific counties in certain States. Section 8 contained a formula which determined if such places would be subject to federal jurisdiction when they wanted to change their voting laws. In short, these places needed to ask the federal government if they could change any laws with regards to voting, with the federal government deciding when it will no longer be required to administrate over these States and counties.

What happened: Just recently the Supreme Court ruled that the current version of Section 8 was invalid. It was a decision made in a 5 to 4 vote with the swing vote belonging to Justice Kennedy siding with the conservative faction of the Supreme Court. Therefore under court order the States no longer have to abide by Section 8's standards. This makes every State in the entire U.S. equal with respect to autonomy to making and enforcing their own voting laws. However, there is a catch. The Court also said that the Congress must update the formula in Section 8 to meet with the current treatment of racial and ethnic minorities of the current century. As such the Supreme Court rather than legislate from the bench told in an off handed way that congress if they feel a need to, can update and change Section 8. So Section 8 is still there on the books, but cannot be enforced in its current form.

What’s ahead: It is highly possible that Congress will update section 8, but I personally doubt that Republicans will allow it to happen under President Obama's watch. They, I feel, don't want any law that can potentially have the Democrats being able to control the laws on voting in traditionally Republican leaning areas of the country. So Republicans may wait and see who is President by the next election.

As to the issue of possible racism at the voting booth. This also seems like a very unlikely scenario. Our country has thankfully evolved from a nation of hypocrites and bigots to a more tolerant nation (though that is so long as we as human beings keep finding new targets to character assassination). So the possibility that black Americans and other people of different colors other than white will feel any form of voter manipulation or intimidation by government is from my perspective very unlikely.

Conclusion: We now enter a game of wait and see. Will congress update the law? Are the last vestiges of racial discrimination in the voting booth going to rear its ugly head? Only time will tell. Though I think we are going to be just fine without Section 8.

Issue 119 Citizenship Classes July 12, 2013

Should Immigrants have a citizenship class? To be honest, I'm not sure as to yes or no. So at this point I believe it should be optional with it being offered by the State Department (for a small fee) to be used to help immigrants accumulate points (under an ideal immigration system [issues 115,116, and 117), or to aid in the process of migrating to their new home in the United States. So what would be needed to become a "good" citizen?

Language: Teaching immigrants how to read and write in English is essential. It prevents them from relying on other people to interpret for them what a politician or a boss is telling them. Thus it helps act as insurance that they are being treated fairly by a boss and not being manipulated by a politician or anyone for that manor. Also, the ability to communicate in the native language aids in allowing the new citizen to interact with their new communities. This helps break down racial and ethnic barriers while preventing the formation of ethnic and racial ghettos as well as stopping social isolation due to the inability to communicate. Getting such immigrants to at least an 8th grade reading level is best as this will enable them to communicate while giving them the ability to learn and enhance their knowledge of the language as they live in their new country on their own.

The Constitution: Each immigrant must know the government and how it operates, starting with its core (the Constitution) and the reasons behind why people fought and died to establish and preserve that document. Knowing how the government works also prevents them from being misled by false promises of politicians as they will know the limits of power the government has. Within a Constitution, the basic God given (or natural rights) are put forth and should also be taught to the new immigrants. By knowing their rights and privileges as citizens it gives these new citizens the same knowledge and power that all citizens already have, while preventing any sort of oppression by government or their now fellow (or soon to be) citizens.

Where to go if in trouble: The immigrants will be made aware of who to call in case of an emergency or if they are in danger. Basically teach them to call 911 and what to do on the phone to explain to the operator in as fast and calm a way possible what is happening. Some may think this is simple, but some immigrants are coming from countries where the police are bullies and are abusers, so learning to trust is paramount. This is also why these immigrants should learn the language as the time it takes to find an interpreter is precious time that is wasted not getting to the scene of an accident or to a crime in progress.

Basic culture: Learning basic culture of the American community can also help. Meeting people from other countries and learning to get along with their unique customs is a lot like dating, you’re only going to tolerate so much. So knowing what may or may not offend the local community and ensuring the new immigrant knows to explain why they do what they do helps to reduce the possibility of friction from the new immigrant and the community that is adopting them and their family.

Conclusion: Yes, despite everything I said, it is best to make this sort of class optional. Some of the immigrants may already know most if not all of these things and making them take the classes is redundant. However, it is my belief that those who actually wish to know will take the classes (so maybe I would not mind offering this free on my tax payer dime in this case). I want all people who wish for the American dream (their American Dream) to come to America. I want these hard working and generally honest individuals to come to the United States.

Issue 118 Boarder Fence?! July 11, 2013

Does a boarder fence deter illegal immigration into the United States? Does it actually reduce the amount of people coming in without permission? Well the answer is yes and no. Let's review.

When it works: It works when the fence is built effectively. The most effective types of boarder fence are double walled. This means two walls/fences with a space in between. Why is it more effective? It is more effective because the two walls make it harder to cross as while you may be able to get over the first wall, it takes time to get over the second and patrol officers use the gap in the middle to patrol the boarder.

When they don't work: The ones that don't work are the ones that illegal migrants can simply cut through, or clime over to get to the other side. Others are simply vehicle barriers that people can cross on foot to meet an awaiting vehicle. Basically, when ever they can simply cut, clime or walk right through, then the fence does not work.

Electronic Fence: This idea of using surveillance cameras to track when someone is crossing is a good one, but with a flaw. If no one is there to stop the people trying to cross then what the heck is the point of wasting the money on all those ground and motion sensors. There is no point to a fence that cannot be used to enforce legal immigration.

What is needed: We do need double fencing as it works especially in high population areas where cities of two countries are right next to each other. To act as a further deterrent, the space between the fences can have a kind of razor wire to tangle anyone who manages to get over the first wall. There will still be space for a patrol vehicle between the walls, but these walls will double as vehicle barriers with pilings to help deter enterprising individuals from digging drug tunnels.

From there we take advantage of natural barriers like the Rio Grand on the boarder of the U.S. and Mexico. In areas of high water currents place vehicle barriers in the water where boats can potentially be used to load cargo and people and ferry them to the other side. In unpopulated areas vehicle barriers along with natural shrubbery that hinders people moving by foot would be best. In this case a double vehicle barrier spaced enough with dense shrubbery or other plant and obstacles where it becomes too tedious to try and cross between by foot from one side to the other by foot.

The remaining component is having each part of this type of fencing wide enough to ensure that it is effective. If the double wall only lasts till the end of the city limits, then all the illegal migrant(s) has to do is drive to the end of the barrier and get picked up there. So spacing it out where it becomes too expansive to accomplish is the key. Basically make it so difficult that coming into the country legally is easier to accomplish (maybe combined with an ideal immigration system: see issues 115, 116, and 117).

Conclusion: An effective wall can work as in certain spots along the boarder illegal crossings have dropped by 75%. How much that is due to how the economy is doing or the fence itself is still in question however. What needs to be done though is replace boarder patrol with the National Guard. The National Guard troops are under direct control of the State Governors, but are equally adept at enforcing a boarder and following federal laws. Boarder patrol, which is controlled by Washington D.C. and its bureaucrats, becomes ineffective beyond immigration check points. This from my perspective is due to politics and how boarder policy can be used to manipulate certain groups in the election season. The Coast Guard already guards our boarders at sea so why not the National Guard on land, and the Air National Guard aiding this effort in the air. We do need a fence combined with an improved and effective legal immigration program to provide an alternative to the failed system that either remains unenforced or ineffective as we currently have now.

Issue 117 Ideal Immigration part 3 July 10, 2013

The final part of the program is a system so that people who cannot get sponsorships may become United States Citizens. It is based on a point system with some benefits to make it easier to immigrate to the United States.

As Stated in part 1: Just like in part 1, allow applicants must go through a background check. It is just that simple. This background check aids in determining the number of points the applicant has. A persons affiliations, like to a church, or a charity provide positive points for the person, while a person with negative affiliations such as ties to radical groups will cause points to be subtracted. However, when it comes to being tied to radical groups or other negative influences like a gang, at least 5 years of separation from such a group must be required to remove any negative effects on the application process. This does not mean the individual will not be under close scrutiny, but by not having contact with the group or its members it shows you are no longer associated with them and thus less likely to commit a crime, or be an enemy of the State.

Good Points: Points will also be awarded for having already established a living place in the United States, being able to speak English (8th grade level), being able to write English (8th grade level), having a college degree and whatever else is deemed a positive by the system. If you worked under a workers visa, or business sponsor, or went to the United States under an education sponsor, but did not decide to become a citizen at that time, points will be added to your score. At no time will it be held against you for not wanting to be a citizen at that period in time, but will be in fact rewarded later for having been part of those programs. Also, if you already have family in the United States, that will also add to your total score.

Bad points: If you were a gang member, committed a violent crime, or are associated with a radical group linked to terrorists, you will be barred from all entry into the United States save the five years of separation clause for being a member of such groups and having contact with said members. Violent crimes exceptions will be on a case by case basis and all court records must be made available along with any evidence presented and evidence omitted to determine if an exception will be given. This is less about points and more about public safety.

How points add up: The total score needed to reach is 100. And each positive adds up to that score, like being able to read and right in English gets 20 points, a home/living arrangement an additional 10 and a job established another 10. Having been involved in a sponsor program, previous work experience or already having a college education gets you another 15 points each. So you can start out with over 50 points. Additional points may be awarded for being able to speak an additional language outside of English and your native language or already have family living as a citizen (wife, child, husband etc.) gets another 5 each. Being a person in good standing based on the background check gets an additional 10. Additional points may be added depending on wants and needs of the nation. But the idea is simple and it is easy to acquire points. If you apply, but don't reach the 100 points you will still be in the system and can add points over time. So say you got 75 points, but do not have a college education, you can add an additional 15 points by getting a degree equivalent to an associates degree in the United States bringing you to 90. So you can keep accumulating points as you go.

Family: If your children are age 18 and under, they will be immune to the points system as long as they are determined to be in your custody. Adopted children to people who are already citizens are also immune unless they are over the age of 16, where they will have to go through a points system, but must only achieve a score of 50 under the points system. A person’s immediate spouse must go through the background check but also must go through the point system, but must achieve a score of 50. It is a lower score for children (who are being adopted) and spouses because in some cultures education is repressed or hard to achieve, as such it makes it easier to ensure the whole family is able to come (I will not allow families to be broken up). However, the primary person who is applying will have to achieve the full 100 points for their family to come to the United States. If the spouse fails to achieve the 50 points, then the whole family will not be allowed to come to the United States. If a child being adopted (who is over the age of 16) does not achieve the full 50 points then they will not be allowed to enter the United States as a citizen.

Conclusion: The system is designed to be easy to achieve and understand, and as such a better alternative to trying to cross the boarder illegally. People cross illegally due to the system being so hard to understand and navigate. So this offers a simple alternative to coming illegally. The only bad part is that a quota system will be required so that the economic system is not overburdened by a mass influx of people and ensures both citizens and non-citizens alike have an equal chance of finding a job as more job opportunities are created. This also limits the possibility of new citizens ending up on welfare. Also, it must be based on a first come first serve basis, as such whoever reaches 100 points first gets first dibs to those coming in who achieve 100 points after them. As such some people may have to wait a year or more to get in based on the quota. But to save time and make sure these people do not loose their living arrangements or jobs, a limbo visa may be issued to an individual and their family on a case by case basis.

So this is it, an ideal immigration system that is meant to be simple and effective. I want people to come seeking their American dream and I hope that a system like this is created to give them the opportunity to do just that.

 

Issue 116 Ideal immigration part 2 July 9, 2013

Well part one was all about the basic requirements to get into the United States. Today is about who sponsors people to come in. Don't know what I mean? Read on and find out.

Farm/construction Sponsors: Basically, some people just want to come to a country, work for a short period of time and then leave. This includes migrant workers on farms and construction sites. Rather than just have a random number of people show up to want to be hired by a farmer/ Foreman and risk not having work, we can have a guest worker program. Each farmer/ Foreman determines the number or workers needed to help harvest their crops before the season starts and they give this information to the United States State Department. From there the State Department takes applications from those who wish to work such a job up to the total asked for. Then they hand the individual applicant a workers visa which allows them to stay in the United States for 9 months. Then if need be, transportation is provided to the now confirmed worker to the job sight. At the end of the 9 month period they will be picked up to be flown or driven back to their country of origin or a country of their choice. During the farming/construction season, the farmer can ask for additional workers if needed and the State Department will accept new applications based on the farmers needs. Also, the person with the workers visa will be able to come and go as they please with them simply going through the verification system to show that they left and when they return, but they can only do this through that 9 month window. If a worker is fired, the State department brings them home, but the farmer must provide a reason for their firing. If the worker was determined to be lazy or some other negative fireable offense, then the worker will not be allowed to work on any farm or other business for whatever time remains on their visa, and be suspended from being allowed to work next season. But if the firing was due to having too many workers, or the inability to pay, or some unreasonable reason, then the worker will have be allowed to have first dibs on any openings in what remains from the 9 month season, or be given first dibs at work next season. After working using such a visa for four times in a 6 year period, the individual will be allowed to become a citizen along with their immediate family (wife, husband and children).

Some of you are wondering why I would have the State Department bring them to the area for work and then fly them home. Simple, we want them to be able to get directly to the job and also make sure they take no detours that would allow them to get "lost" amongst the American populace. The cost savings of not having to find them later will be well worth the cost.

Business Sponsors: Both large and small businesses may sponsor people to come work for them. It works in the same way as a workers visa for farmers, but the length the individual is allowed to stay is increased to a full 2 years with the ability to renew or become a full citizen (along with their immediate family) once the two year window is complete. In this case however, the business pays the cost to ship the individual or individuals to the United States. There is no need to be selective about who comes to the United States or for the government to determine skill requirements as the individual businesses will know the exact skills they want. So this removes the governments need to figure out who has the skills the business world needs and saves us taxpayer dollars trying to figure it out. Also, Business can be more selective about whom they want and thus can name individual people that they wish to work for them, as such it eliminates the need to have long application lines like with the workers visa for farmers. Again, they will be allowed to come and go as they please to their country of origin during the 2 year window, but if they should be fired for any reason they will not have the opportunity to come back unless they find new employment or try to become a full citizen (discussed in part 3).

Education Sponsors: Here we have something similar to Business sponsors. People from foreign countries that are accepted into an American college will have their names given to the State Department and be allowed to come for the full duration of their educational career. If that education lasts at least two years then they will be allowed to remain in the United States as a full citizen (no family, unless they are already married, or get married during the two years). Like the business sponsor visa's, they will be allowed to come and go as they please to their country of origin during the length of their educational career, but if they should be kicked out of school for any reason they will not have the opportunity to come back unless they find another education establishment to attend or employment or try to become a full citizen (discussed in part 3). We want educated and talented people for the businesses we wish to support and so that these young men and women can start new businesses. Therefore having them become citizens once they complete their education is a wise and healthy option. (Note: the education sponsor and the business sponsor may be combined as the requirements are similar and it is not unheard of that businesses will sponsor a person’s education and hire them later.

Conclusion: By having these sponsorship programs it makes it easier to come and work in the United States and simplifies immigration. All the individuals will be mandated to go through the background check and be verified that they came into the country as well as when they leave to go home to their country of origin. Also, each version provides an opportunity to become a citizen of the United States after a certain period of time. The sponsor program is designed to take as much of a burden off the immigrant as possible so as to insure ease of the process and provide a sensible and easy path to citizenship if the person so desires.

Issue 115 Ideal Immagration part 1 July 8, 2013

Immigration is the hottest topic amongst politicians in all western countries. Why? Because immigration defines what jobs are taken, how the country progresses forward and even new political leaders. I write today a 3 part breakdown of an ideal immigration system. Let's get started.

Know who goes in and out: One of the key pieces needed for modern 21st century immigration is a system that monitors when someone from another country comes into a country. This can be done through a passport or even electronic finger prints, but it also must be applied when the person leaves as well. The reason is so that we know that they actually left. There are thousands of immigrants who come here to the United States legally and they simply disappear into society. The result is that we never know if and when they leave. So by tracking these people as they come in and out we will know whether we have to find them or not. As an added bonus, we can also track where they go when they leave to better help understand population movements and use it as a form of intelligence if say they happen to be an enemy of the State.

Back Ground Checks: With all the data mining going on, background checks are becoming very routine. Thus, we can easily apply it to those visiting the United States and those who want to become American Citizens. So what do we look for in a background check? We look for what groups they are affiliated with (economic, ideological, religious, etc). This helps determine if they may or may not potentially be spies or terrorists. Job history and family history also aid in determining if the person is right for society. There will be two tiers of classification though. Tier one are those who are visiting for a vacation which can generally last 2 months. As such government officials will look at the type of tickets they bought (one way, two way, for how many people, etc.) and their other purchases such as hotel rooms and intended places of travel. This is a type of profiling to aid in determining if the person is a possible threat, but vacations are short and only require more modest scrutiny such as basic affiliations. Those wanting to stay longer will require a full and lengthy background check to get a clearer picture of who they are.

Those who come in illegally: It is hard to police those who sneak over the boarder (and they are not just Mexicans, they are Irish, Russian, African, etc.). Any new immigration policy will attempt to deal with them in some way, shape or form. Problem, if you try to determine if they were born to illegal immigrant parents or not, it is almost impossible without a birth certificate. As such if they do have a birth certificate they should become legal citizens right away. But for those without then they will have to apply like everyone else. I offer no penalty save deportation if it is determined that they have no job, are homeless and may have gang or other negative affiliation. Those without such affiliations will be allowed to stay, and receive a small $1,000 fine. Why such a small fine? You're not going to take back taxes from them, or give them additional punishments? Well, no as that would not solve the problem at all. The small fine works to pay for the costs of them becoming official citizens if the want (those who do not want to be citizens will have the fine used to buy them a plane ticket home). Jailing them just costs too much and makes no sense for a person who committed a non-violent crime, and taxes that they should have paid if they came legally are nearly impossible to determine. So I will not bother wasting time on something so expensive. But these illegal migrants will be required to go through a background check. As to those who are deported, they may re-enter after 90 days if they are determined to be a person in good standing through the background check, and this time we know who they are and when they leave.

Conclusion: By making the system requirements easy to understand and go through, you limit the hard ship and incentive to seek an alternative rout such as illegal immigration. Keep it simple, yet effective. Once done, the only ones left crossing will still be those who wish to dodge the system for what ever reason. If and when caught, they will go through the same process as an illegal immigrant who is already in country, a background check, a small fine and possible deportation. We want immigration, and we want them to come in the front door. Sure the above is not ideal. Some may want all illegals deported, or want more penalties and fines, but those cost lots of money and the crime is almost always victimless. There is no sense jailing some one for a crime if their punishment is better served like a traffic ticket, and that they still must go through the same process as everyone else. The ideal is not ideal, but it is better than the status quo.

Issue 114 Pirates always win July 5 2013

Ever wonder why industries like the music industry and television always try and fail to protect their owner ship of songs and shows. Because Pirates on the internet always find a way to get that information and offer it up for free. Even more so, hackers (modern internet pirates) are taking other wise secret or proprietary information and bringing it to the public eye. And you know what, they cannot be stopped.

Dumb Government: Governments have always thought that they could control the airwaves, but they failed to account for pirate radio. These pioneers of radio found unused or hijacked signals to broadcast their music (and that of others). Sure it is illegal, but it did not stop them. If a pirate station would be shut down, then another would take its place. The internet made this easier as now sites like YouTube could broadcast anywhere all over the globe. Many times these pirates would translate foreign television and post it too. Thanks to the internet, bootleg versions of shows with quality equal to the original could be brought before the masses. As a result, laws changed. Copyrights became loosened up allowing people to see and sing what ever songs they want by different people without fear of being sued for copyright infringement. That’s right you can sing a Green Day song on YouTube or similar sight without the government coming after you (at one point people were being sued for singing songs as advertisers would post ads which gave those individuals money). Basically, government gave up.

The movie and CD industry: Bootlegs (illegal copies of the original) are common. Any knock off can be bought off a street corner for less than half the price (quality is a different issue). Entire villages in China make money from bootleg products. But the industries were forced to adapt. Some conscripted these bootleggers to make copies of their music and shows for them. Others release the CD's and videos as soon as the movie completes its run in theaters. Basically they try to head off the bootleggers before they can profit off their illegal bounty. But others still just move on. They stopped fighting these pirates and just let them do as they please. Companies make money from the first airing of a show, movie and song and then let the fur fly as bootleggers scramble to make cash on the product. Companies make their profit and then move on accounting for the bootleggers speed to bring products to the market. So companies know they must offer something better to entice people to buy more than just the movie. That is why some offer behind the scenes looks and mini shorts as part of the package. Bootleggers will get those too, but they have to rip the information out of a CD or DVD first that may be encoded. Thus, the industries buy time to make a profit while we enjoy better entertainment for a reduced price. In other words consumers reap the rewards.

Intellectual property: Hacktivists and others want more information to be made available to the average person. They are fighting copyrights laws to end monopolies on numerous journals, and articles and even patents. The result is hacktivists and other sights providing that content for free and making money based on site visits from advertisers or small downloading fees. The internet has allowed information to spread like wildfire and even if you manage to shut down one site thousands stand ready to take their place. Like wise government secrets are not safe either and thus we now know not just those we are being spied on but how they are doing it. This is thanks to these hackers and whistleblowers (regardless of their motives) providing us with the ability to watch our government and react to its abuses (in some respects the hackers are replacing the press in this role). As a result, governments are forced to re-evaluate themselves and are forced to change to fit their illegal programs within the framework of proper law that still protect our rights. So thank you pirates.

Conclusion: Pirates have existed in one form or another throughout history. They challenged social norms and pushed boundaries often forcing change. Today’s pirates (hackers) and bootleggers are doing just that. They have become de-facto protectors against corporate monopolies, corrupt governments and over priced entertainment. The pirates will continue to win, and they are unstoppable.

Issue 113 Keeping Secrets July 4, 2013

How do you keep a secret safe from prying eyes in an age of computers? Well, there are a few ways how to do just that.

Cryptography: Basically encrypting the messages digitally with only the receiving person or persons having the key to decode the message. This can be as low tech as a cereal code or a piece of digital tech. One group intends to offer up a service that encrypts all your calls. They have been using this program in Iraq and Afghanistan so as to protect Soldiers phone calls to their families back home from terrorists tapping in and targeting their families. Basically it uses the internet to create a link between the two individuals talking. The entire communication is encrypted so that only the two individuals have access to the content of the call or message. It is important to know that the same program must be used by both persons in order to talk for without it the content of the message or call cannot be understood. As an extra security measure the data from the message or call is deleted once the call is complete leaving no trace of contact between the individuals ever having been made. It is not an alternative to the phone company just yet and the service is a simple monthly fee (based on the interview with the individual) but essentially it works like Skype but with security devices installed.

Speed: Communications go very fast. As a result we can talk to each other across the globe. But that speed is not enough. Apparently, communications being delivered faster can prevent intercepts by those trying to listen in. Currently in testing, quantum communications which use photons to communicate are seen as the next big thing in communication. The information moves so fast that no listening device can catch the signal. Current prototypes are wired but future ones will be wireless. On top of being fast, many communications using this still experimental technology are encrypted as well. Reason being is that technology will not remain stagnant and a quantum interceptor may be eventually developed. However, these devices come with another unique feature; you can tell if your communication is being tapped into. So you can instantly drop the call in that instance. It does this by reading any disruptions in the signal (those disruptions are those accessing the call) aka, the photons in the communication are being disrupted. So speed in communication is now life when it comes to keeping a call safe.

Low tech: Others may simply have to remove themselves from as much of the tractable world as possible. Social Networking sites and search engines track your every move. GPS devices in phones keep tabs on you and the government or clever hacker can turn them on even when they are off. Mot to mention call logs are always recorded. The internet though has more privacy so long as you know which services to use (ones that conceal and protect your private information) or have the right program.

Get security: Cyber security firms are a growing business. Former government officials and hackers are getting into the act. Even former spooks whose job it is to find people are now switching roles to enable certain people to disappear. They know the governments along with others are watching and now they want you to pay to keep your secrets and your personal life safe. So expect more services similar to companies like life lock, or hacktivists looking to make a quick buck to come to your aid.

Conclusion: With the thought of people looking at your private email and postings on the internet, people are feeling violated. And I don't blame them. Probably the simplest thing to do is to either limit your use of the search engines and the social networking sights or do like I do, don't post anything or search anything that can potentially be used against you. It really is that simple. Don't post or search what would embarrass you, your family or your friends. Hope you find this information helpful. Good luck.

Issue 112 Fuel from food July 3, 2013

We have all heard of bio-fuels like ethanol and bio-diesel. But why is it good and why is it bad? Let's analyze.

The good: Currently we use "fossil fuels" like oil. These fossil fuels are limited due to the amount we are able to access and the amount we have yet to discover. And thus is not considered a renewable resource. Bio-fuels on the other hand are renewable. They are made from plants like corn, switch grass and even oils from animals slaughtered at the slaughter house to make our hamburgers. We basically grow the fuel we need to run our cars and power our homes and appliances.

Neutral: It has been proven (or at the very least debated extensively) that these bio-fuels are no cleaner than there fossil fuel counter parts. Basically they put about the same amount of pollutants in the air. Environmentally speaking, they still cause ecological damage as these fuels are extracted from crops. This means cutting away at forests and other parts of the natural environment to grow them. So it can be just as bad as an oil spill in some instances.

The bad: The biggest issue is that these fuels take more energy to produce than they put out. Think of it this way, it takes a full gallon of gasoline to make just a half gallon of bio-fuel. As such, bio-fuels while bio-degradable have less power out put. On top of this, growing bio-fuels can be considered a security threat. By using more crops to make fuel rather than food you limit the food supply. It is great for the farmer as he makes allot of cash, but it means that to meet out food requirements we have to get it from other countries. This may inadvertently make us dependant on food from other countries and thus controllable. Don't think it has happened before; well it has to small island nations during the age of imperialism. The Dutch East India Company had islanders grow cash crops and forbade the growing of food crops. This made the islanders dependant on food from the company. If the islanders rebelled, then the company simply cut off their food supply. But a more pressing issue may result. Food being grown for other purposes will inherently make food prices rise and may result in people being priced out. Basically, they cannot afford to buy food. This has happened in Ireland (Great Irish Famine) and Nepal. The result was an artificial famine despite plenty of food.

Conclusion: Are bio-fuels worth it? Maybe not. However, the fact that we are considering alternatives is a good thing. Currently wind and solar are still developing but are not efficient enough to work large scale. Natural gas is just as polluted as gas despite the larger number of sources from which it can be obtained. Hydrogen can defiantly work, but it has no infrastructure to take advantage of the "clean" technology. Whatever the solution to our energy woes, unfortunately bio-fuels are not it.

Issue 111 Data collection and spys July 2 2013

Data collection or data mining is a practice of accumulating data and then putting all that data together to make use of that information. This information is your phone records, your tax records, surveillance camera footage from anywhere. The list goes on and on. So I'm here to tell you that big brother is always watching.

They know what TV you’re watching: When you turn on your TV, the cable provider knows through the box that you are watching a particular channel at a given time and thus knows what show you are watching. Same thing with certain forms of radio, they know you are tuned into a certain frequency and thus what you’re listening too. It is disturbing to know that they know your likes and interests. And guess what, it is all used by the companies to sell more ads and thus the information is up for sale. In fact this information was used by the Democratic Party to help President Obama win his second term in office by looking at who was watching what and when so they could buy ads and commercial time so as to get those likely to vote out to vote for the President. The republicans lagged behind but their strategists predict that in the next election such information will play a crucial role.

They know what you’re searching: Just like with the cable providers, the internet search providers and social networking services know what you are searching and how often you view those pages. These are primarily used to sell ads so that they make money. Think this is wrong, well you agree to them collecting your data when you downloaded their technology to use on your computer. Again, this information is up for grabs and in fact does not require a warrant by police to view as it is not considered by law a personal conversation. Civil rights activists are up in arms however to make such information require a warrant as per the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

They are watching you: Public cameras are also used to gather information. They can know when you passed through a red light or with just a simple search program can track you from your house to your work place. Adding in simple devices like easy pass and membership cards like a cvs card or a discount card as per your exclusive membership enable them to also know what stores you stopped in and what you bought in each of those stores. You are being tracked everywhere you go.

Data miners: A data miner finds and collects all this information, all without the need for a warrant to get a clear picture of your habits and interests. Such people work for both the government and for private agencies for spying, for locating missing children, to just selling advertisements. It even helps with public relations with respect to getting a president re-elected. Your information is no longer yours to keep.

Conclusion: You are being watched by literally everyone. They know when you use your cell phone and what number you’re calling. The only thing at the governmental level they cannot do is listen to your actual conversations or read your mail (physical and electronic) with out a warrant. Civil liberties activists are suing the government to make all such data apply to the forth amendment so as to protect citizens from any more intrusions by the government with some going a step further to stop private companies from collecting and keeping our data as well. Be aware, big brother along with everyone else is watching.

Issue 110 State's ripping off our healthcare July 1 2013

Did you know that the State and local governments in the United States are reaping the benefits of our high priced health care and are in fact making it more expensive? Well, that is exactly what they are doing according to the Forbs article "How State Governments Raise Costs and Rip hundreds of Billions off the Federal Government using Health Insurance Premium Taxes" by Avik Roy (posted 5/25/2013.

How they rip us off: The article used Ohio as an example to demonstrate how States raise costs on health care. Ohio charges a 5.5% sales tax on Insurance premiums with an additional 1% state health insurance tax. In 2011, the average employer based plan for a single person is $5,025 which resulted in the average Ohioan spending an extra $327 a year just in taxes alone. Yup, that’s our money that we thought was going to health care that isn’t.

It gets worse: The Federal Government spends $300 billion a year (approx) through the tax code to subsidize employer sponsored health insurance. With Ohio being 3.7% of the U.S. population that means $11.1 Billion of that subsidy flows through Ohio and then gets taxed as part of a person’s individual insurance tax. This results in Ohio collecting an extra $721.5 million a year in tax revenue just from the federal money going to subsidize these plans.

Yup it gets even worse: Medicare and Medicaid are also affected. $50 billion is spent on Medicare part D and another $200 billion on Medicare advantage. Over half of Medicare enrollees are in private managed care plans accounting for around $150 billion a year. Using the same math the federal government spends $400 billion on privately managed Medicare and Medicaid plans with $40 billion a year that States collect in tax revenue by taxing those premiums. Altogether that is about $75 billion a year to State governments due to an accounting trick.

Yea, we dug our own grave: These costs and the amount of money that States are going to rip us off in taxes are only going to increase and that is partly due to subsidies in Obama care (the affordable care act). This accounting trick was used to justify Medicaid’s expansion. As a result, with the overall Expansion State revenues will increase by 1.6 to 1.7 billion over 10 years. Ohio Medicaid expansion is an additional 2.5 billion, but 1.7 billion will be paid in taxes with possibly the whole amount offloaded onto tax payers through the same accounting gimmick.

The States are not alone: Counties, cities and towns may also tax premiums and services. In 2012, the total combined State and local sales tax rate in the U.S. was 9.61% leading to an extra 29 billion (approx) being spent by the federal government to make up the costs. If you add taxes specific to health care premiums and that number is raised to 30 to 35 billion in spending. Let’s face it, we are being ripped off.

Hospitals are not immune: Provider taxes are paid at the hospital and are passed onto consumers by charging higher prices. These same taxes are used to rip off Medicaid subsidies because States set their own reimbursement rates for Medicaid and thus States increase the rates equal to the increase in taxation allowing for the hospitals to come out revenue neutral at the end with the federal government paying the costs in taxation through the reimbursement from the federal government.

Conclusion: So what is the answer to this major spending increase that is ripping off taxpayers and increasing our health care costs? Simple, we have to stop taxing health care premiums, services and hospitals. Apparently these taxes alone increase the health care costs on over 180 billion Americans with private coverage and make it costlier to subsidize the coverage for the poor. That is over half the U.S. population being affected by higher health care costs and it is time we eliminate this extra expense that harms the poor, the elderly, the uninsured and the average American who just wants to get and stay healthy. This is why certain taxes should not exist.