Issue 153 No Middle Managers August 29, 2013

I'll be gone tomorrow and thus be unable to post..as such I will see you all Monday. Enjoy the article and have a great weekend.

What if there was no actual management in a corporation? Would it fail? Well that depends on your business model. Here is how it works.

What is it?: Well the companies that embrace the idea of no middle managers are unique. They do not need people to tell them to do their job. Not only do they do their job, they are already highly motivated and self regulating. And that is actually how the model works. In order for there to be no middle managers in a corporation a company needs people hire only self motivated people who are comfortable with a boss less environment. That environment is also purposely built to work. As such, companies like GitHub (a five year old collaborative software company in San Francisco) or 37signals (another software firm) have it so that its employees may hop on a project in any capacity and then switch roles as needed. Ideas are shared informally and may also go out the door without approval of a lead manager. Sure there is top management, but that is also somewhat informal as well. It does have some advantages as it eliminates pointless titles and bureaucratic bloat in a business which saves money. It also allows some members to work at home as well (especially as software can be made anywhere you have a decent enough computer to use {these are tech companies if you have not noticed yet}). Overall it is based around the same principle as one of 37signals mottos "hire managers of one."

Managers do have there advantages: Professor Ethan Mollick of the University of Pennsylvania's Whaton school looker at 395 companies in the video game industry using 12 years worth of data It found that despite all other factors, middle managers accounted for "22.3% of the performance differences among companies, more than three times as much as the game designers who invent story lines and characters." Basically, middle managers help the bottom and the top of a business communicate which is essential.

Compromise: It has been recognized by companies like Github with its now 200 plus employees that managers are in fact needed in a certain capacity and as such has installed some over site. But they want to maintain freedom and keep out the hierarchy. So the people there avoid the term manager (this goes for the top positions too). Tom Preston-Werner the co-founder and head of Github (what he describes as in name only) prefers words like leader, or the companies acronym "PRP" primarily responsible person." They still allow ideas and decision to go public without approval though as they still hire self regulated people. Some businesses rotate managerial roles amongst the staff where they would keep track of group performance and "ensuring goals are met." The manager of the month would also handle customer-support requests (as this was the customer support section of the business). As such while their smaller counterparts may still be able to get buy without managers, the larger companies are finding creative solutions to maintain the speed and efficiency of the no manager business model (a staffer can potentially overrule his boss on a plan in certain instances in this model). Speed is probably the best advantage this model gives with respect to decision making.

Conclusion: This article comes from The Wall Street Journal "Some tech Firms Ask: Who Needs Managers? Among Smaller Companies, Disdain for Hierarchy Collides With Need for Oversight" by Rachel Emma Silverman. And I decided to show this model (or models) to you all as an alternative some businesses are trying. It seems to work mainly in tech and programming companies as that is where it is suggested that this business model is often used. It is important to note that this model will not work with employees who need that manager looking over their shoulder to make sure they are doing their job. So if you do try this model, be careful to only hire the best and only for roles that they are not only suited for, but who are capable of being their own boss. Good luck in all your endeavors everyone.

Issue 152 Postal Booze August 28, 2013

As the post office is running out of money, they are looking for creative solutions to gaining revenue. This idea was brought to my attention via the Huffington post from CNBC ("U.S. Postal Service Alcohol Delivery Idea Criticized by Merchants").

The idea: The premise is simple, let the post office be able to deliver alcohol and other spirits via the mail. It is a sound idea that I endorse completely. U.S. Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe wants the post office to be able to ship cases of 2, 4, or 6 bottles of booze at a flat rate price. Upon delivery it would have to be signed for by a person over the age of 21 (as proposed in a bill by the U.S. Senate).

Benefits: Money is to be made from this idea. For one, it allows the post office to finally be able to mail alcohol which it was originally banned from doing (they asked people to cover any labels or logos that pertain to alcohol if they reuse a box of spirits). As it stands now the post office lost $740 million in the third quarter of 2013. However, this may help make up for their losses and fund the retirement and health pensions that have become so burdensome to its business.

Consumers are also helped by this as they now have the option to mail beer, wine and others to their friends and neighbors across the entire continental U.S. Let us face it, America likes its spirits and having the option (especially during holiday season) would be worth it to consumers and some sellers. Likewise brewers and wineries would gain the ability to ship their product throughout the U.S. and thus bump up sales. It gives small brewers a chance to be recognized beyond their town boarders, and wineries the chance to attract more people to their brand. Basically you can have your favorite wine shipped directly to your house from the winery rather than go to the store only to find out they do not sell that particular brand. Flexibility becomes key which allows people the freedom of choice (in their glass that is). Many craft brewers already ship through licensed distributors, but this allows them to cut out the middle man.

Problems: Even though it can be done, there is one big problem. State and local laws have to be complied with. A dry county (a district where the sale of alcohol is prohibited to patrons) may prohibit mail order booze. State laws may interfere with times of delivery, or even the type and amount of alcohol that may be mailed and delivered at a given time. Also, it may not be worth the cost to some brewers who may need to hire extra staff just to pack up the boxes and maintain order just to mail the booze in the first place. Beer is "heavy, fragile and perishable" so shipping may actually become a nightmare. Let us also not forget that local liquor stores don't like the idea of mail order booze cutting into their bottom line as it adds more competition. Of course State and local laws may try to protect those local stores from losing money as well.

Conclusion: The Colorado based Brewers Association, which represents 1,797 U.S. craft and larger beer makers has said that certain small brewers with "specialty beers would have an interests in the USPS option." So the idea does have traction and as such will generate revenue for all involved. I can imagine battles in court however over the legality of dry counties and similar laws which may infringe on "interstate commerce." All I can say is that freedom of choice is essential. As such the freedom to buy and sell goods must have no restrictions (excluding prohibited items) to help maintain that freedom. Therefore as a libertarian, I see this as a step in the right direction for the country. Yes I do understand that much of the domestic violence and spousal abuse is due to alcohol and that teens may drive while under the influence, but that is all about personal responsibility. Domestic violence would happen with alcohol regardless and teens driving while intoxicated also will not change as far as I can see. I also endorse reducing the age restrictions on the purchase of alcohol as it has been shown that the younger you are exposed to spirits in general, the less likely you are to drive intoxicated, or drink in excess. So let us loosen up the system and mail some booze.

Issue 151 Principles of peoples war August 27, 2013

I may not like Mao and what he did to his people in China to implement his version of communism, but he did have one thing right and that is the principles of people’s war. Here is how it works.

1. Public relations/propaganda: Here the organization or groups seeking control (terrorist, freedom fighter or both) needs aid by the masses. So they try to make themselves look good through certain actions and deeds. Hamas in the Middle East builds hospitals and schools for people. At the same time they launch propaganda stating that Israel is the root cause for all their problems that their people face. Obviously they won control based on how they now have control of both governments in Gaza and The West Bank. But simple acts like helping the sick or making your enemy look like a monster through information campaigns are effective. Even the U.S. military uses propaganda and public relations techniques to try to get populations to sympathies with them and ally themselves with the U.S. against common enemies even if that is their own government.

2. Guerrilla warfare: In step 2 small raids are carried out on specific targets. These raids are to show that the government is incapable of defending itself and thus put pressure on them. More importantly it is to show that the government cannot protect the people themselves and the peoples fear along with their reaction to it place enormous pressure on the government to do something, including surrendering at times. Basically, the enemy’s power and political will must be reduced as much as possible to make them look and feel helpless. The enemy is therefore forced to react to show their strength. However, as the violence escalates so does the enemy government’s reactions. From there more people side with the terrorists/freedom fighters as they become isolated or become victims themselves of government oppression.

3. All out war: This is the final push. To overthrow the government in "people’s war", it comes down to a swift and violent assault. If the regime is not overthrown then the terrorists/freedom fighters lost. But, that does not mean that the rebellion is over. If the all out war step fails to overthrow the regime, the terrorists/freedom fighters simply go back to steps 1 and 2. Basically, the process is repeated over and over until there is a decided victor. Meanwhile the government in control is either left in a better or worse position than when the conflict first began.

Conclusion: Understanding why and how people fight is essential to figuring out ways to stop violence all together. Thus, today's issue just shows the basic steps that revolutionaries and even terrorists follow to achieve an overthrow of the ruling government. People from George Washington to Mao (who explained/demonstrated the concept in its entirety) have used these steps to get the results they wanted. These steps are a tool so as to achieve a means to an end, but the moral values and the methods and reasons behind it are what determine if the person using the people’s war steps is good or evil.

Issue 150 Evolution of language August 26, 2013

I base today's issue on "What Language Is" by John McWhorter (2011, Gotham books New York) and a science channel special on language. Here we will discuss the possibilities of how language may evolve (with a focus on English as that is my native language). So let's get started.

Evolution: The science channel special performed an experiment to show how language evolves over time. For the experiment they provided a series of pictures featuring colors, and objects and gave them made up names. Then they had an individual look at each picture, try to memorize the name and then after about 15 minutes of memorization try to look at the picture and say the memorized name. Of course most of what they said may have been wrong, but this experiment was to demonstrate on an accelerated scale how language evolves. So the next subject had to do the same thing in the experiment except for one difference. The mistakes on the names that the first person made became the new names. This process was repeated over and over until the names could be remembered by each following subject. What the experiment proved was that language over time simplifies itself through the errors that the language speakers make.

Using capitols: What if a language got rid of all of its silent letters. An example is "bite" with the silent "e" acting as a modifier to make the "i" say its name. But when we capitalize a letter it also says its name, and as such bite can be spelled "bIt" with the capitol "I" saying its name. That is one example, but how about another. "Bait", as in shark bait. Instead of the "i" acting as a modifier it would look like this "bAt" as "A" would say its name and thus make a similar sound compared to the existing word. It would not be confused with "bat" as the "a" here does not say its name (and is not capitalized to do so). Of course capitol letters may be removed entirely as well, so "bite" may turn into "bi`t" instead with the accent mark making the "i" say its name instead. Interesting right.

Removing silent letters and unneeded letters: "Quite" has a silent "u". So what if we got rid of the "u"? It would look like this "qite". It would still mean the same thing only because "q" comes from the sound that "kw" makes together. Of course "kwite" could also result as "q" comes from the combination of "kw". Thus there would no longer be a need for the letter "q". Likewise the letter "c" or "k" may disappear as they make similar sounds. So our language may remove two of them and just keep the one. Or it may even reassign the letter "c" to making the sound that "ch" makes together as another possibility making words like "channel" become "cannel".

Letters that make sounds they should not: Have you ever wondered why the "ti" in nation sounds similar to the sound of "sh". Well what if we did this: "nashon" instead. Or how about replacing the "gh" and "ph" in words where they make the sound that "f" makes with an actual "f". Part of the reason that English is so hard to learn is that different letters in combination make the same sounds as other letters. So you can spell "fish" as "ghoti" with "gh" the "f" sound from "enough", the "o" sounding like "i" from "women" and the "ti" the "sh" sound from "nation". Basically some people may just make the language more phonetic.

Word replacement: Some times we have words that are spelt the same or even spelt different but ultimately sound the same. So let us use the words "see" and "sea" and "bear and bear". It is possible to substitute words in English with words from other cultures like Spanish or Japanese. The reason is that English is very flexible when it comes to adopting new terms like "ghetto" or the name "Sean" as our culture takes in not just the immigrant but their language as well. So we may for example have bear (for grizzly bear) spelt as "kuma" which is Japanese for bear, while leaving the word bear to mean something along the lines of "bear skin". Likewise "sea" could be called something else entirely or just be replaced by the word "ocean". Though most languages tend to simplify words and thus smaller easier to say words take hold more often when describing something.

Conclusion: Stuff like slang terms from different cultures and groups of people may become common terms like "floordrobe" which has been added to the dictionary (found this out through national geographic magazine). Language is a communication tool that evolves to meet peoples every day challenges, but that is because mistakes made, like spelling "cat" as "kat" may become the new way to spell things. Even letters like "A" may loose its horizontal line in the middle or "K" loosing its vertical line to look like this "<" may occur. We really do not know what the future of our language is or how other languages may evolve along side it (or even fuse together for that matter). All I can say is that the possibilities are as endless as they are fascinating.

Issue 149 Gangs August 23, 2013

A gang is a group of individuals who come together for a common purpose. Or at least that is the least strict in terms of definitions. But what is a gang about, and why do they exist?

Safety: Some gangs form so that they can protect each other. As most gangs sell drugs and extort businesses, they need to protect their area from rival dealers, gangs and the police. So groups of drug dealers and hustlers come together with the common goal of mutual protection. A hierarchy typically develops with some one or a group of individuals giving direction to the rest. That individual or group is now responsible for the safety of the rest and directs how the rest of the gang in how it is to protect itself.

Initiation: Some gangs don't start out as gangs. They start as individuals being friends. A person may be friends with another and thus that friend slowly pulls them into the gang by introducing them to the other members. And this friend who was originally not part of the gang begins hanging out there while trying to get a sense of belonging. Then this individual goes through some sort of initiation. Initiations range from just being accepted, to petty theft, to murder and rape. For some gangs like the Crips, their initiation is to kill a member of their rival gang the Bloods. Though the California Crips and Bloods have generally made peace, initiation rights vary from region to region and from gang to gang.

One other form of initiation is putting the person in debt with the gang. The recruiter will buy them gifts, but then finally have the recruited individual pay them back in some way. Usually this is done by selling drugs, but can include killing and/or kidnapping some one. Once the job is done they are either let go to be arrested by the police or make it so that the only place to turn is the gang itself. From there they become a new member who will do the gangs bidding.

It is all about money: Gangs do not really care about their members. In fact most are expendable foot soldiers that are easily replaced. Not even the other leaders are safe as the gang members are corrupted by greed. Remember that gangs exist to fend off rival gangs and in some instances take territory from other gangs by force. Money is to be made through extortion, drugs, sex slavery and even sometimes an assassination business. Comradely is fictional as long as money is in the picture. Remember, they do not care who you are, for if you are in the way of their money making business they will remove you.

They help the terrorists: Yes these gangs that sell drugs may be involved with terrorist groups. They may be involved with Al Quada, or even government sponsored gangs like MS 13 which is supported by the Venezuelan government. Gangs do not care where they get their product from, they just want the cash. So they will buy and sell for these terrorists to make a profit, while terrorists get money from this partnership to fund their operations. Very scary isn't it.

Conclusion: Gangs are the modern day mafia. They can be as powerful as the drug cartels in Latin America, to as lowly as a street gang. Some are peaceful like the anti-drug groups like "strait edge", but they are an exception not the rule. The only thing they have in common is a desire for money. Members are recruited regularly to carry out new crimes and to act as drug mules. In some cases, if you do not comply you are killed. This is a problem facing every country all over the globe as these gangs no matter there origin corrupt the young and turn them into criminals. Sure we can fight back by legalizing Weed, (60% of the drug cartels revenue comes from "pot") or trying out new policing techniques. However, the only sure fire strategy is to improve education and opportunity. If there is no alternative to the gang that is more appealing, then the members will stay in the gang. We can take our cities and our countries children back from criminality and turn peaceful examples of gangs like "strait edge" into the norm.

Issue 148 Future of Pharmacy August 22, 2013

With how technology is progressing, the pharmaceutical industry is changing. Most particularly, how medicine is made and where it is sold will change. Let's get started.

Doctors, the pharmacist?: With the advent of 3D printers, along with other devices, doctors may try to cut out the middle man in their patient’s life. Some doctors will start producing medicine in their offices and selling it there. 3D printers can print pills customized toward individual patients on demand. Same with liquid medications, they can be produced on demand if the appropriate chemicals are available. This will mean that doctors will be getting raw materials for making pills and liquid solutions to their offices so they can make the medications as needed. What is interesting is that this will reduce or eliminate the need for many forms of prescription drug insurance as the medical portion of the insurance that covers doctors will also cover the cost of the drugs being bought (if made in the office). What is also good about this is that those drugs will be cheaper as they no longer have to factor in the cost of manufacturing the drug itself, just the cost of the chemicals, shipping cost, and the cost of the power used to make the medication.

The Pharmacist: The role of a pharmacist will generally not change. Only hospitals and doctors who have a licenses to make their own medicines (and if they can afford the cost of the equipment) will make custom medication in house. As such, the pharmacist (especially retail pharmacists) will have the 3D printers, and solution mixtures to make custom medications. They will inevitably sell custom drugs along side traditional prescriptions made by pharmaceutical companies. Even then the pharmacist may just have to input data into a computer, to make and dispense medications. They then have to simply know drug interactions so as to avoid any negative effects that a patient may suffer.

Heck, they may even do this through a video phone, but that remains to be seen.

Pharmacy staff: As some one who works as a technician in a pharmacy, I know I will be replaced by a robot. That robot will act in the same way as an Automated Teller Machine (ATM). All you do is put some form of identification in the machine to find your medication (or the medication of the person your picking up for) and then pay for it. Insurance will be scanned with bar codes or radio frequency identification chips (RFID chips) to bill the insurance companies. From there it will tell you your co-payment. As to whether the insurance will cover your medication or not is another matter. From there you pay and take your medicine home.

More freedom: Currently (or at least in NY) pharmacy staff cannot give a person an equivalent drug to a patient if they are out of stock, or the insurance does not cover the medication. The patient needs to get a new prescription to get the other drug. Thus, future pharmacies will be able to dispense such medications if they are the exact formula or in the same class of medication. More so if the insurance will cover the other medication more and the patient is not allergic to it. In fact, insurance data bases, doctor’s medical files and patient drug files may become linked so that everyone at every level of the health care system can see what is going on with the patient. So we at the pharmacy will finally be able to answer the question as to if a certain drug is covered by their insurance. Not to mention pharmacists will be able to ensure that there will be no negative drug reactions as they currently cannot see if you the patient filled at a different pharmacy or not, and what medications you are getting at that other pharmacy.

Home made: Some medicines may be allowed to be produced at home. 3D printers and similar devices may become as ubiquitous as the cell phone. As such, those devices may be allowed to be used to make medications at home. This means more people can self medicate themselves more. There may even be a function that allows you to scan your prescription and input the chemicals into the hopper to make your medications right there and then. It is more convenient, but certain regulatory hurdles will still have to be overcome (not to mention those who will use the technology for illegal purposes).

Conclusion: Most of this is hypothetical. How medicine evolves is really up in the air. Regulations may prevent the spread of the technology. Fear of a computer glitch causing the medicine being made turning into a poison may be too strong and thus shut down the idea completely for a period of time. Also, many businesses prefer to have people working for them at registers and filling prescriptions because of that human element. As such, people will be removed from the positions of insurance billing, and selling the medication if the costs of paying an individual, and other burdens become overwhelming. No one knows what the future really holds, and the field of medicine is slow to adopt changes in practices out of fear of other portions being outmoded. It remains to be seen how our medical field evolves, but when it does it will usually be for the better.

Issue 147 The Tricorder August 21, 2013

If you have ever watched Star Trek then you will know of the tricorder. For those who do not know, the tricorder is a futuristic device meant to take readings on various phenomena. So it could be used to scan for people and other life forms in an area, radioactive material, various minerals and elements along with energy signatures. But the most important version was the medical tricorder. And you know what? The medical tricorder may just become reality.

Behind the scenes: The "X Prize" program has set up another one of their contests to make the tricorder real. "X Prize" is a foundation where a person or business puts up money as a prize for creating a successful invention. In this case a tricorder. The contest rules dictate that the "tricorder" must be able to perform 3 medical functions. With the contest open toward everyone, ideas were a plenty. In fact the successes at the contest have led to interesting innovations.

Results: Some of the tricorder designs were not tricorders in looks of Star Trek, but smart phones with additional functions. One version had an attachment that allowed it to perform a sonogram. Another was able to monitor for a person's vital signs like their heart beat. There was even one that could monitor a person’s blood sugar for diabetes patients (it had a mechanism that allowed the test strips to be inserted). This got many people thinking about how the smart phone can be a true to life tricorder. Other types spawned from the ideas of the "X Prize" teams were an App that acted in the same way as Web MD allowing you to help diagnose your own medical issues. Currently in Africa, a smart phone equipped with a blood sample reader can test for malaria and a few other diseases like dengue fever. Smart phones are becoming a common tool for people to help themselves diagnose themselves or doctors to have access to cheap alternatives to medical equipment. The perfect example of this is the sonogram function which costs $300 as opposed to the one thousand plus dollar pieces of equipment already in service. Also in the works is a smart phone that not only monitors vitals, but has a test tube you spit in. This tube has test strips to test for certain chemicals which only show up when you are sick. So the device will also be able to test for a multitude of deceases at the same time. The result may be a true tricorder.

What to expect: The technology is actually in its infancy. As computers get smarter and are able to store more memory along with processing power they will be able to do more. It will not be surprising to find a doctor taking out his smart phone to help diagnose his/her patients. On top of that, the doctor will be able to send prescriptions based on the diagnosis (which may be aided by, or even done by the smart phone itself). Already doctors are using digitized records with ipads and tablet PCs to save on cost and also to email prescriptions, but with a "tricorder" it may become a whole lot easier to do. For instance doctors do not always know of what new drugs are on the market. But with the "tricorder" they will have access to all the information on all the drugs that will help heal their patient. In fact, they will be able to see which drugs and treatments will be covered by their patients insurance and at what cost. However, patients may take on a greater role in treating themselves for minor things like small colds and fevers. This will disturb some doctors, but that has become the goal for some of the innovators behind real life tricorders. These people want individuals to save time and money by being able to treat themselves when and where they can. Mean while doctors are hesitant about being replaced by a computer. Yes the tricorder will be capable of doing much more with far little cost, but development and approval by agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are slow. So our neighbors in Africa and other nations with not so strict regulations will get to use this technology first.

Conclusion: Tricorders, or tricked out smart phones, are going to be the future of medicine. The goal of creating the ultimate medical muti-tool as seen on Star Trek is just too tempting to pass up given all its advantages. So the real question is how long it will be before your doctor is using one. As a matter of fact, it is a question of how long until you can buy one for your self.

Issue 146 What is a Theocracy? August 20, 2013

 
Well a theocracy is a government that is "blessed" by God. Its rules and conduct are shaped by the religion in which it emerges from. So countries like Iran have Islam (their version) acting as the basis for their right to rule and how the people should act. By what are the qualities of a theocracy?

First Quality: It must have a religion. Without a religion it would not be a theocracy. For within the faith are the rules upon which people are to act. So the religious rules of the faith are then enforced by the government. So if the faith says a persons hand must be chopped off for stealing, then it is chopped off. If you convert to a different faith, but the rules in the theocracy say you can't then you will suffer the penalty. Basically all religious law becomes legal law.

Second Quality: For situations in which the faith says nothing, such as a circumstance not mentioned in the holy books, religious leaders or the head of the religious faith are turned to. So let us say the faith says nothing on how to deal with the punishment of a group of religious adherents who differ slightly from the faith in terms of worship. The religious leaders will then have to decide based on the already established rules if such conduct is allowed, followed by an appropriate punishment. Although, the conduct may itself be ignored.

Final Quality: Typically, a theocracy is a type of dictatorship. The faith and its rulers control people’s lives with an iron fist. Toleration of certain behavior is approved only in the interest of maintaining stability as they slowly remove elements they do not approve of. Basically, those who control the faith control the populace and thus use faith to bend them to their will.

Who rules: There is two methods of government upon which theocracy's are run. They can be run like Iran's government. In Iran they have a religious council that maintains the integrity of the faith and advises how the government should act. The government portion is a false democracy with elected leaders manipulated into power through the religious councils influence. However the government portion will seek greater power.  As such, the government and the religious institution will fight for power and control.

However, the alternative is that the head of State: the president, king, or equivalent is the head of the faith. A good example is the old kings and queens of England who were head of the Protestant Church. Usually, this gave legitimacy to the government as being run by a person directly endorsed by God. Also, these rulers typically could do whatever they wanted in the name of God with all those who disagreed forced to comply or face harsh consequences.

Conclusion: A theocracy is by far not a perfect government. In fact, the morality of faith is ignored by those in charge. The faith is not at fault for the conduct of the rulers, but the perversion of the faith is caused by those rulers. In the United States, the Federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or make rules/ perform actions favorable to one faith or another. This is enshrined in the 1st Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Our founding fathers saw how faith was used as a tool of tyranny over in Europe and decided enough was enough. They would not allow the Judeo-Christian values be tainted by the corruption of government power. As such, no theocracy is safe from corruption and self destruction, in the same way no government is safe from collapsing under its own weight.

Issue 145 A Postal Bank? August 19, 2013

I had previously mentioned in a previous issue (issue 132) about some countries converting their old postal services into banks designed for low income individuals. I personally think it is a fantastic idea that could help many poor individuals have access to a financial institution which they can store and save their money while saving one of the oldest governmental functions the United States government is constitutionally allowed to do. But how would it work?

Step 1: The current postal services would have to be amended. Basically, they would have to allow private companies to be able to deliver regular mail. In the U.S., letters, and magazine/advertisements are restricted to the United States Postal Service. To reduce post offices traditional work load and to make room for its new function, letting private carriers deliver any and all type of mail will go along way to making room. This would also allow businesses to have a cheaper alternative to the post office for delivering their ads and magazines. Traditional letters are slowly disappearing in the digital age especially as you can send an entire presentation digitally rather than through snail mail (this is also part of the reason the post office is failing). However, the traditional mail carrying functions will not disappear as there are still certain parts of the United States that private carriers may not go due to cost. As such the post office will be the letter carrier of last resort.

Step 2: Training in the basic functions of banking will be required. So the ladies and gentleman of the post office will also need the same basic training as a bank teller.

Step 3: A certain amount of infrastructure will be needed to alter the current post offices to handle the money such as safes, Automated teller machines (ATM) (which will reduce the number of actual tellers needed) and a bank card to access the account (which could be a State issued driver license or a non-drivers ID). Advantageously, the post office will also be able to gather old money and exchange it for newly printed currency rather than rely on private banks.

Step 4: The basic account structure will need to be created. As this system is geared toward people with low incomes who may not be able to maintain even a minimal deposit, minimal deposits and interest rates that charge people for taking out their money and even keeping it there would be prohibited. Of course a basic checking and savings account will be provided. As most low income individuals are on welfare, it becomes a lot easier to monitor when and where they buy so as to aid in preventing fraud (maybe make it a requirement to have an account in a postal bank if on welfare?). From here a modest interest rate that rewards individuals for saving their money or keeping a certain minimum in their checking account would be needed (I suggest a generous rate anywhere between 1 and 5 percent). In this system however, loans will be largely forbidden. Loans further indebt the poor and as such, either no loans or small one year loans that can be easily paid back with an individuals given income stream will be allowed under this system. I favor no loans as the temptation for the Post Office under this idea to make money off these low income earners is far too tempting.

Step 5: Alternate revenue streams need to be acquired to allow the post office to make the money needed to provide those generous interest rates mentioned in step 4. We already have the traditional role of the post office generating money, but other forms will be required. Therefore license renewals for Federal and State registered businesses and occupations can be done through the post office. Here the Federal and State governments would get their money for license renewals, with a portion going to the post office. In this idea people who are trained in navigating the complex license acquisition and renewal process will act in the same way a traditional bank agent does loans. Passports will also still be able to be acquired through the post office and any licenses or identification will also be able to be acquired through the Post Office bank (at a small fee, or kick back from the Federal or State governments). This would generate a good portion of revenue while saving money in the Federal and State levels of government as their traditional jobs in specialized institutions will be taken over by the Postal Bank. It is even possible to make it act as a small office for tax exceptions and some forms of welfare if needed.

Step 6: To ensure costs do not go too high, money can be saved where possible by hiring private companies or contracting with freelance agents who are paid per client to serve in certain portions and roles in the post office service. Namely lawyers to serve as license navigators who get paid when they help a client successfully get a license or a permit. Basically, it removes the need to provide retirement or health benefits if they are merely allowed to use the Post Office bank by paying a fee. Basically, saving money is key toward the success of this bank plan.

Step 7, the final step: This postal bank cannot be allowed to compete with private banks. If people hear how high the interests rates are (to keep your money in), and how it does not cost anything to use the bank, people will switch in droves to this Post Office bank. Therefore, if your account exceeds a certain amount of money there will be two options, you either leave the bank, or are now going to be charged fees for using the bank. This post office bank is for the poor and impoverished so that they may generate savings, not for the rich. As such, if your income exceeds 150% of the poverty level (currently around $20,000 in the U.S.), you will be charged an interest rate of around .5% to provide incentive for you to get out. In addition, the interest rate for keeping your money in your checking account will stop, and the savings account rate will be reduced to .05%. Likewise, every time you take money out of your checking for cash, spend it at a store or transfer money from your savings to your checking you will be charged .5%. Thus 5 cents of every dollar you spend will be taken out. Also, it is advisable that the higher amount of money in the account, the larger the penalties will grow. All this is to prevent private banks from loosing all their accounts which may in turn bankrupt them and put good banks out of business.

Conclusion: My one concern on this entire idea is that it may cause banks such as credit unions and even some large established banks to go out of business. Those institutions however, serve a purpose to make loans, and provide financial services that Federal and State governments are incapable of doing. If these private banks go out of business, those resources become scarcer and thus more expensive pricing more people out of the market and thus making more people poor. That cannot be allowed, and as such non-negotiable rules/penalties for depositors who achieve over a certain amount of money must be put in place if they are to keep their money in the Postal Bank and those penalties must hurt. With that thought in mind it is advisable that the penalties be actually determined by the private banks that have everything to lose (rather than my flimsy penalties suggested in step 7). Incentives are essential, and the best one is pain for keeping that money in. I am a libertarian, I want business, no matter how small to have a chance to thrive and grow, and as such financial institutions must be protected no matter what forms they come in. Yes, we can help the poor save, but at some point they may become dependant on that help. That cannot be allowed, for when that happens we no longer have poor people, but freeloaders.

Issue 144 National 401K August 16, 2013

What would happen if we created a national 401K? Would it help people to have a better financial safety net? Let us review the cost and benefits.

Benifits1: What is good about a national 401K is that it is an investment. Basically it is taking money and investing in businesses on the stock market. This allows for a high rate of return when it comes to investments (especially risky ones if done early on). A 401K type retirement system is already in place in Galveston Texas where they on average have a larger payout greater than if they would have been in the traditional Social Security system. Of course theirs is managed in such a way that they will almost never lose money on the market due to the use of safe investments like mutual funds and bonds. Of course riskier investments can be done early on before a certain age to maximize your financial investment in the short run. Then it would be converted at a certain age, such as 10 years before retirement, to avoid losing all the money. Here it is insured that you will get lots of money.

Benifits2: A second benefit is that by investing in the stock market through this approach you actually help businesses grow. Basically you now have an entire population investing in the market which in turn increases the amount of capitol a business has access to. As such the business grows and in turn raises the value of the stock, thus raising the amount of money an investor makes. As everyone would now be invested in the market that means everyone gets more money when the business expands and does well. It becomes a cyclical relationship. The more you invest, the better able a business can expand and thus make you more money.

Benifits3: Another great benefit is that your money is in an actual account and as such the government cannot take away your money like with the Social Security system in the United States. By the way, the money in the Social Security system does not actually belong to you, which is why they can do that (see Supreme Court case: Flemming versus Nester for details). Also, it does not take much to run this system as it would use the tax code to put a portion of your taxes into the 401K account and would be group managed with everyone else’s investments to insure finical security through a singe body of "experts." A very simple system indeed.

Costs 1: The investment can still fail. Even though the money to be invested will be divided up among a large group of investments, a market crash can still cause a lot of problems. Thankfully, such crashes usually occur twice in a person’s life time and if you are switched to a safe investment within the age window prior to retirement then you are less likely to be hurt, and also well in a position to recover. We as investors will also have to deal with poor performing businesses and bad management of a business, but with diverse investments, financial loses can be easily mitigated. Such financial collapses and bad CEO's can be hard to deal with and some money will be lost, but through stock diversification and changing over to safer investments as you get older help to reduce much of the risk involved our retirement money will be very safe.

Costs 2: We have one big issue however. It will be the government managing the system. As such it will be a compulsory system which you probably cannot opt out of. In addition, the experts needed to run the system may not be very good. Let us face it, politicians suck at picking people to run different aspects of government. Poor management can be mitigated by having strict standards for experience when finding people to run the system, but they are bound to make a mistake at some point, or face political pressure to invest in certain businesses that may riskier than what even private investors will not touch. As such it will need to be insulated from politics and that means full autonomy. Therefore the only possible true negative is that the government would make it a compulsory system to save. But if you are willing to live with that, then it should be a fairly safe system.

Conclusion: This idea is not entirely out of the realm of libertarian thought. But I am against it unless it is used to replace the current Social Security system along with those groups of people who are exempt like the rail road workers who have their own unique system. Government workers would also be forced to use this system as their sole retirement system as offered by the government so as to insure that their own self interest keeps our money safe both in the stock market and in business in general. They will not want anything to threaten their chances of a major payout at retirement. This may be the only viable replacement to any Social Security type programs as discussed repeatedly throughout multiple presidential elections in the U.S. So the question is do we switch to a system that costs almost nothing to run, with some risk for a high return, and run by government while the money belongs to us, or do we stick to the status quo? Your choice.

Issue 143 Moral Capitolism August 15, 2013

I have read Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments or at least a condensed version. It was designed to be the first book in a series of four with the Wealth of Nations being the remaining three. Basically it analyzed human behavior and conduct in such a way that it acted as a manual for how laissez-faire capitalism is supposed to function in a moral society, or at least one that is supposed to follow certain morals. I will now summarize those morals as best I can as it is the blue print for a moral and just society under capitalism.

True Self Interest: This true form of self interest is that of wanting to be admired and loved. Usually it is the path of least resistance and thus is generally immoral. A modern example would be the people on the show of the Jersey Shore who get drunk and sleep around for the entertainment of others. Another would be the likes of Paris Hilton and her ilk who get famous for sex videos. Those are the easy ways to become rich, but are ultimately soulless. True fortune comes from hard work and determination. True blood sweat and tears are shed in the creation of riches, and as such goes unnoticed and usually is never paid attention to. The true self interest to get rich is to benefit oneself without harming others. Instead your work is the basis for others to build upon and succeed such as inventions like the car and the factory system by Henry Ford and the light bulb and telephone by Thomas Alva Edison. Each invention was built upon to lead others to success. Variations of the car, telephone and more were used and improved upon. But few remember those humble origins or the inventors themselves save we choose to remember. Everyone benefits in a true self interested society where getting rich off of your own hard work leads to others building upon it and getting rich as well. As such, the poor in modern day America have an equivalent wealth to the kings and queens of the middle ages. That is what it means to have a true capitalistic society, where the poor do not starve and everyone is risen up through each new invention and improvement.

What not to do: Rules to follow in this system are simple. Do not do anything that would make you despised by your self, your family, your friends and society. Basically, be aware at all times you are being watched and that what you do reflects those who raised you, who you hang out with and the community you come from. You do not embarrass them ever. Sure you can challenge the social norms like Elvis Presley did with his rock'n roll, and even change how society does things despite resistance such as the internet. The goal is to benefit society through your work, not using people as stepping stones. As such fraud or any form of lying is abhorrent. It leads to people despising one another and even theft. If fraud is the norm, then honest business becomes impossible and everyone suffers the cost whether that is through the price of goods, or even the inability for business to even be productive. Next is theft. Unfair deals and out right bullying are an absolute negative. Again it harms business, productivity, and the people who would have benefited from your labor. How would it make you feel to be pushed out of the market place by a competitor, not because your product is inferior, but because your product was superior and you were crushed by a more powerful opponent with an inferior product? This is what happens in bad deals, especially when government supports one business over another. It destroys businesses, and puts people on the unemployment line. If there was no such bullying, then small business could grow with the sole reason for failing or extinction being that they had a poor business model, or they could not adapt. That is a true and fair system where you are free to fail or choose to be bought out. By following the moral rules of not wanting to be looked down upon by those you care about and society as a whole it becomes much harder to fall to the human condition known as greed. Basically factor into your business model how people will think of you when you and your business do something. There is a reason why businesses avoid firing workers unless it is absolutely necessary, and even then, they may very well try to hire those workers back if possible.

Conclusion: There is much more to Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments. It discusses anger and revenge. How people want to punish those who wrong them, but are unsatisfied if they are punished for a different wrong. It discusses how society values justice, generosity and other aspects of admiration in contrast to those that society despises like fraud, falsehood and violence. It looks to understand the overall human condition to such a point that society can govern itself so long as morality is kept intact. Something that is arguably missing for people today. We think of what the consequences are before and after we act with a bias toward our own behavior, but never forget your moral code. If you do that, then capitalism will rarely turn back toward greed and envy, the human conditions that plague every society no matter what form it comes in.

Maybe if we taught morality in schools, those that we all share, our society may better than it is now.  Perhaps if people stopped to think how their actions would not just impact themselves, but how it would impact those around them they may be less likely to commit a foolish act.  Maybe it is wishful thinking, but surly it is better than allowing the status quo of selfishness and foolishness to continue.  Better than corruption being supported by a government that has helped to ruin fair play and equality in the market place.  And perhaps better than the false capitalism we have now.

Issue 142 The Payroll tax is bad August 14, 2013

For those who do not know, the Pay roll tax is actually two separate income taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Tax (FICA) for both Social Security and Medicare. Together they act as a flat tax to support the United State's Social Security and Medicare welfare programs. However, the tax itself harms the poor. It also hams businesses as well. So what can be done?

It Harms the poor: The payroll tax harms the poor in a couple of ways. For one it is an additional tax on their earnings. This means that on top of being taxed through the usual income tax, you are also taxed on your earnings again for Social Security and Medicare. As a result the poor are taxed more without any hope of reaching the yearly limit and thus having more of their income taken from them on a yearly bases. In contrast, the richest members of the United States pay off this yearly tax and thus have a chance to get a kind of tax break for the rest of the year. For those who don't know, the American Payroll tax has a cap so that after you are taxed up to a certain amount of money; you then will stop being taxed for the remainder of that year. Basically the poor are being kept in there place through a tax that is supposed to help them later in life for when they retire. Again there is a problem, the money that the poor get when they finally reach retirement age is minimal as they are taxed so many times that very little is contributed to the system (your welfare benefit at retirement is determined by how much of the tax you pay throughout your life time). Statistically speaking this hurts the Black and Hispanic members of the United States the most as they are usually the lowest income earners.

Harms Business/Poor together: What’s worse is that the payroll tax makes employers biased against the unskilled poor. An employer provides a matching amount of money toward a persons Medicare and Social Security taxation. So the employer will pay the same rate to the system on behalf of their employee. Thus, the problem. An employer is not going to dish out that money unless the person is very good or is highly skilled. The result is the employer skipping over many people who may be good workers for the most skilled ones or holding off on hiring all together. Therefore many of these poorer people lose the chance to acquire skills on the job due to this bias. Basically, if you are not worth the cost of training and later employment, then you are not worth hiring.

Businesses on their own are harmed because they have to comply with the paper work to pay this additional tax. It takes time and money which could have been reinvested into the business or even a new worker. Any expense causes businesses to make hard decisions so as to meet their bottom line. If a business does not get the necessary amount of profit they usually shut down making more unemployment. Because of these costs an employer may loose a chance to hire a new worker who may help his business grow and expand. Basically, when a business hires some one, they profit and the worker benefits through getting pay and acquiring new skills. Overall, employer, employee and the poor who may have gotten a job are harmed.

The fix: It is rather easy to fix this problem. You simply have to do away with the payroll tax in its current form. Instead use the current income tax code to provide the money necessary to fund Social Security and Medicare. To do this, a certain portion of your normal income tax would be marked off to go toward those programs. You do not have to change the current rate, but maybe eliminate certain deductions so as to ensure enough goes into the system. Basically you remove all current income taxes save the main one and have it so that a portion of that tax money goes toward Social Security and Medicare. No more double or triple taxation. Employers would not have to contribute the matching rate under this plan as all individuals would continue to pay in regardless of income. Basically there will be no more yearly caps on contributions, but at the same time everyone gets a tax cut. It would still probably need to be coupled with a means testing type system to insure only those who need it get the welfare benefits, but that is a small price to pay for a safety net.

Conclusion: Yes we harm the poor more through our tax code and keep them there because of it. Or at least it contributes to the problem. By eliminating this tax and using the existing code with this one minor addition it ultimately gives the poor more money in their pockets in the short term. As such they can afford a higher standard of living and maybe even not have to go on welfare. Due to this, those on the cusp of poverty may never fall into poverty and will have more money to invest in a better job and thus get a higher income which in turn creates a better safety net as higher pay equals a larger amount going into the system. Basically you encourage people to move up in income as it becomes in their best interest to earn more pay and thus have a better welfare benefit when they retire. No more double taxation, less poverty, and a simpler system that allows people to keep more of their income. Defiantly better than the status quo in my opinion.

Issue 141 Race in America August 13, 2013

Now that the Zimmerman trial is over, and for the most part the race baiters have put down their swords, I feel I can do a little retrospect on the whole issue at hand. That issue is that racism is alive in America, but it is being upheld by its victims more than its former oppressors.

Tragic: If you have been following the trial you will know that George Zimmerman shot and killed Travon Martin. Zimmerman was a member of his neighborhood watch in an area that has been victimized by buglers in the recent months leading up to that night when he would shoot Travon. Travon with his hoodie was walking close to the neighbor hood homes in the area to try to get out of the rain and thus looked like a thief casing houses for later. Zimmerman saw him and followed, all the while calling 911. Zimmerman was not supposed to follow Travon, but report suspicious activity to the police and then move on. The 911 operator told Zimmerman to stop following Travon and move on. Zimmerman as far as we can tell moved on. But then Travon would appear later on to apparently confront Zimmerman. Here is where everything gets hazy. Zimmerman testified that Travon asked him (I paraphrase) "do you have a problem" before attacking Zimmerman. Whether Zimmerman did anything to provoke Travon beyond following him moments before is questionable. At this point, Travon is onto of Zimmerman who wants to go for his cell to call for help. He perceives that Travon sees the gun he has and apparently they both go for it. I think it is possible that Travon thought Zimmerman was reaching for the gun in the first place and went after it in fear of his own life. But Zimmerman got it first and shot Travon once in the chest. There was never any question about whether Zimmerman shot Travon; it was the circumstances in which he did so. Thus, I believe they both thought they where in danger and both instinctively went for the gun to protect themselves with a tragic result. However, the media then taints the entire trial.

The Taint: Instead of waiting for the facts, the media looks at Zimmerman's skin color in comparison to that of Travon's and automatically concludes the shooting is based on race. However, Zimmerman is a white skinned Hispanic, not actually white. This gets the attention of the race baiters and activists who go off and start protests and make Travon a symbol that racism is not over in America complete with pictures of Travon from when he was around 13 or 15 wearing a hoodie. Travon was actually some where closer to 17 or 18. Travon was at the time when he was killed 6 feet tall and muscular. This guy was no weakling and certainly not a kid anymore, but a fully grown man. However, the younger photo stuck and was used to garner out rage, while Travon's photos with guns, when he was high, and with jewelry where ignored. Zimmerman's actual race and his accomplishments as a tooter for disadvantaged kids, along with his friendship to members of the black community was also ignored. What was wanted out of this tragedy was not justice or the truth, but a ratings hike for failing television news outlets. Even the President got involved, saying (paraphrased) "I could have been him" and "If I had a son, he would have looked just like Travon." Last I checked a President is not supposed to get involved with any such incidents due to how it could create an unfair trial. In fact the pressure by these race baiters, and media forced pressure on the local police to arrest Zimmerman and caused the State of Florida to rush to trial before all evidence could be properly collected and analyzed. Who knows what verdict would have come out of the court if these fools looking for money and power did not corrupt the trial. But we know the result, Zimmerman was declared innocent.

Conclusion: The reason why race issues live on in America is because stupid people in the media and race baiters want to keep the lens of race alive. They do not want hero's that preach true and lawful equality, or people who say it is time to work and show our kids the right way to live. A race baiter and the media that supports them want these people in squalor, and subject to things like welfare so as to manipulate them when the need arises. Sure race as an issue will continue to exist, but don't keep people as victims for the rest of their lives, and don't take the death of a young man and turn it into your symbol for another round of blame whitey for all my problems for if you do that, then you are the same as the KKK and the Neo Nazi's who blame blacks and other people for their troubles. Don't be like them, rise above and see things for what they are. And as far as I am concerned, the Zimmerman and Travon case is a tragedy brought about because of fear and misunderstandings. No one deserved to die that night.

Issue 140 Is there a culture war? August 12, 2013

I believe there is a culture war happening right now. Not just in America, but throughout the entire world. People are fighting (not literally) for their cultural norms, against what is counter to those norms. Let us look at what these cultural battles revolve around.

Treatment of Gays: Yes, one of the biggest battles in the culture war is how a society treats its homosexual populations. Many societies in general suppress these individuals or have a cultural norm that tolerates them, but then they are expected to marry and have children anyway. In America, the treatment of this community along with transgendered, and other groups who challenge the traditional male/female sexual roles has garnered many conflicts. At this point however, Gay members of American society, with their compatriots are not just tolerated, but have in many areas of the country become accepted. This is a good thing as they after all are people to and what happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom. But there are still those who are squeamish when people of this community and their allies in the bisexual and transgender community challenge traditional forms of dress. In other words, some people don't like it when a guy tries to look too feminine or a girl too masculine. However, dress code battles are a non-issue and thus I personally do not care if that battle is lost. So long as you cover your privates and maintain decency (no sex in public, which includes straight people to) then I really do not have a problem.

Marriage: This is mainly an issue in countries that have traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Groups like the Gay community want to redefine marriage to allow gay marriage. There are also those who want polygamy and its associated forms such as one woman with a number of men, or even women and men being married to multiple other woman and men at the same time, even if not with each other. Legally, gay marriage is winning irrespective of the fact that marriage is a religious sacrament that the U.S. Constitution forbids by way of keeping government out of the faith based institutions. So this battle has yet to reach its ugly head when those who want government to return what belongs to faith and those who want all the governmental benefits of marriage collide. How it works out is anyone’s question as traditional faith and religion erode.

Religion: Religion is also apart of this culture war. People are in general faithful, but are not religious. They generally do not attend church, but will still believe in God. Even the non-believers categorize as being spiritual, but not faithful. The churches are trying to get their congregations back into the pews, but they are having trouble. Pope Francis has helped bring many Catholics back into the fold with his powers of persuasion and humility as he attempts to fix the wrongs in the church, but he faces an uphill battle. Other faiths are not so lucky and face more obstacles. Some institutions turn to preaching hatred about being disadvantaged and blame others for their plights to maintain a congregation, which of course contradicts Jesus’ and Gods teachings (Christian Churches in general). Faith based institutions want their congregations to come back and they are trying things like rock'n roll and other ideas to make church exciting and fresh whilst keeping the faith. But religion will still struggle on until it is needed once again.

Traditional Values: The values of hard work, thrift, compassion and love are also apart of the culture war. Certain values are timeless, but people who seek to change the world around them are rejecting these traditional norms in favor of whatever they deem more important socially. So compassion may give way to barbarism in respect to treating those who find themselves in the poor house. They may blame the person for being in the situation that their in as a stereotype over helping them out in their time of need. Hard work has taken a back seat to the quick fix, as people want short cuts to success of which there are none. People don't save their money so as to save it for when it is really needed, for they want self gratification. Even love has devolved in some instances to quick sex and pleasure as an escape from reality. However, these values while old help protect us and maintain us in our times of need and are compatible with any and every change society decides to make. If we followed these old school traditions which are really morals on how to be successful, be a good person and maintaining a successful relationship with the ones you love, then maybe we would have a few less problems than we do now.

Conclusion: A culture war does not discriminate, and every society is going through it. Some may be dealing with issues in their culture that confound outsiders, while others face cultural battles on a smaller scale with things that other people take for granted. I cannot hope to discuss them all here as I am only capable of looking at the larger scope of this usually non-violent war and mainly through an American lens. But if you feel your countries values are slipping away causing your fellow people to become unrecognizable, know that you are not alone. Everyone knows that change is inevitable, but what kind of change is really up to us and our fellow countrymen to decide.

Issue 139 Is there Global Warming? August 9, 2013

Count me as a skeptic. I am not sure if it is actually real, let alone a proven science. From my perspective based on some climatologist’s testimonies, this is the natural cycle of the planet. Here are the problems I have with this "science."

Climate Gate: This was what first got me thinking that this is a fluke. Two British scientists, the ones responsible for the hockey stick model that apparently "proved" global warming turned out to be to con-artists. Don't get me wrong, they are still professional scientists, but a hacker hacked into their accounts and found out (to the hackers delight) that they made up the entire model that "proved" global warming. They overlapped two separate graphs to create the model. These scientists as it turns out are funded by the British government along with other government entities who wanted proof that global warming existed. How else are you going to keep getting research funds in a science that is not exact?

Polar bears: There is a claim that their numbers are shrinking. It is claimed that because to northern ice cap is melting the polar bear is starving for a lack of means of finding and catching pray. One problem, the polar bear population is actually up and growing. This means there is plenty of food.

Faulty science: Scientist, out side of the ones in the climate gate scandal, have done tests themselves claiming that global warming exists. But their science is not yet complete as they took measurements at specific locations and those locations where not sufficiently measured over the course of time to get an accurate reading of the changes in climate. In other words, more locations need to be monitored and over a longer period of time to get the best and most accurate results.

Global Cooling?: Apparently in the 1940s they feared global cooling, then the 60s, it was global warming, then the 80s it was global cooling again. Now we got global warming once more. Every time, science backed the idea that the planet was warming or cooling. Is it any wonder that they started saying climate change rather than global warming?

Storms: The zealots claim that the horrible hurricanes, tornados and other crazy weather like Hurricane Sandy and its Nor'easter brother Nemo were all caused by climate change. One, the last time weather like Sandy hit New York and the upper eastern sea board was in the 1930s during the global cooling hype. If you talk to scientists like Joe Bastardi who study weather for a living, however that kind of weather is 100% natural when certain weather conditions are met. The tornado's, the hurricanes and the rest of that wicked weather happen in a sequence with the natural cycle of the planets weather cycle.

Final Nail: For me the last piece of evidence was when the spokesman for the climate change movement (former Vice President of the United States Al Gore) bought a beach house. Not just any beach house, but one in the so called 200 foot flood zone when the water level rises due to glo....excuse me climate change. If your own spokesman is buying a beach house in the same place that is supposed to flood, then a lot of red flags are going to begin to pop up saying something is wrong here.

Conclusion: There is a major lesson to be learned here. If the government is paying for proof of something, they will find it, especially if they are funding that research. Let us also not forget, they will not let a good crisis go to waste. Those in the climate change movement are supporting certain politicians and as such parts of the green agenda come through as policy. While I don't mind solar panels, wind farms, and other green technology, don't do it at the expense of people tax dollars. Also, don't lie to people about a problem that has been conjured up. Sure we should keep our planet clean, because no earth, no us. But convince us rationally and for those who aren't convinced, show them how to get rich being green.

Issue 138 Ryan Plan: the updates August 8, 2013

 
As promised I have read through the Ryan Plan, the conservative budget proposed by Republicans in the House of Representatives. Keep in mind, the U.S. still does not have a working budget. Paul Ryan had initially come up with his plan for the 2010 through 2012/13 time frame which I wrote about in issues 26, 27 and 28. So when I say it is the same as the previous plan, you can go to my summary in those three issues. Let’s get started.

The same: The idea to means test people’s income and finances to determine their benefits is the same. He seeks to reform Medicaid by block granting money to States which would give them flexibility on what benefits they provide especially when combined with the work requirements that would be re-instated under this plan. It is believed that by allowing this flexibility that it would support upward mobility by removing barriers (and certain benefits) to keep people poor or incentivize them not to work.

It would consolidate job programs and shut down failing job training institutions funded by or run by the federal government. With respect to taxation, the goal is still to remove taxation from a number of areas while creating a two tear tax program with the lowest rate being 10%, and the highest being 25%. In addition, spending caps would be put into place just like in the original.

What's different?: The plan deals with energy independence by opening up federal land and ocean to drilling for both oil and natural gas. However, it does not say if oil and gas will receive government subsidies and how many if any subsidies for "green tech" will be reduced. Also, the plan will block the Department of Interior from getting 70% of monies generated from the land being used for drilling and set it towards paying off the federal deficit, rather than allowing the money to be used to buy up more land in the United States.

Under this plan the military and the Veterans administration (VA) will be fully funded. The soldiers will get a budget in excess of $500 billion to develop technology to defend our nation from "threats" and redeploy where needed. As to the Veterans, well apparently the VA is underfunded, but I don't put much stock in that. I feel that it is more likely that the VA is inefficient due to government regulations on how to take care of veterans, aka, it lacks flexibility to both treat veterans with custom care, or to outsource to cheep but equally/more effective charities who may be able to do the same job for less.

Ryan want to eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the home mortgage giants that have a monopoly on the U.S. housing sector, while fixing flawed regulations. He also want to update accounting rules for programs and departments, cap pell grants while eliminating barriers to education that restrict innovation (like online teaching). This includes eliminating duplicate and failing programs in the Department of Education (currently 82 programs already are in operation). I would eliminate this department as it limits innovation (as Ryan pointed out) by preventing innovation. But the department exists to send out money to schools and students if they meet certain requirements (either through loans or grants) but only serves to restrict how that money is spent and placing conditions on schools that cause school taxes to rise unnecessarily.

In a move to save money, Ryan wants have all members of the federal government pay more toward retirement as their total compensation (an elected and unelected members pay, retirement and other perks) is 16% more than the private sector. It is estimated that it will save at least $132 billion.

Finally, a board will be created staffed by members of bi-partisan watch dog groups and government auditors who will decide where to cut and how to do it. This is Ryan's alternative to letting the heads of the federal agencies cut spending as part of reconciliation as they have been purposely not cutting waste such as their party budgets, but seem intent on cutting everything else. The board’s decision will be final and will be implemented.

Conclusion: I agree with getting government out of the way. In addition I want America to be prosperous, but I do not agree on spending more money. The federal government is too slow to adapt to the changing job situations and thus cannot successfully make any job program work properly. It should be cut, and given to the private sector who will after a period of time innovate to make job training quick and efficient. With respect to schooling, the government is equally as inept in its adapting to changing market trends. It will further stifle education even with reforms that try to slim the system down. In this situation it is better left to the local government and their welfare offices along with private scholarships to help children go to college. I agree, Fannie and Freddie's hold on the housing market must disappear, and I like the commission idea (so long as they are not paid to do it). I am troubled by how the plan still spends more that what we as a nation have financially despite all the cuts (not taking into account accelerations in economic growth). Overall, it is an "OK" plan, but it needs more government out of the way rather than trying to help but gumming up what works.

Issue 137 Obama Care: Really??? August 7, 2013

I will tell you that I never supported the Affordable Care act, better known as Obama Care. The reason is due to the fact that it was a law that I knew would fail from the outset, and that is disregarding its use of legal force to make the American populace buy health insurance. By the way the use of force to make some one buy a product from any company violates the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution with respect to the freedom of association derived from the peaceable assembly clause. Simple solutions could have been implemented that would have avoided all this mess and corruption that resulted, but I'm not here to discuss those today. I'm here to tell you why else it is a bad law.

Selective enforcement: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has the discretion to give certain groups and businesses exemptions from specific parts of the law. And they have been giving out a lot of exemptions. Exemptions that have been given out so far are to Unions, big businesses that have the money to lobby the HHS and businesses and groups that supported President Obama. More and more people are trying to get away from as many of the mandates as possible. But here is the real problem beyond this selective enforcement of the law. It punishes small to mid -sized businesses so that they have those extra costs placed on them that hinder their growth to the point where they cannot grow to become big businesses. Let us face it, small businesses don't have the money to provide health care via insurance. There are alternatives popping up here and there (see past issues) but they are not enough to save the majority of these businesses and still act as a hindrance to growth. I am not saying providing health insurance, let alone health care is a bad thing, I am just saying the way it was done and how it is enforced in the law is corrupt, especially when the true goal of politicians should be dropping the costs of health care to the point that insurance is not required.

Constitutionality: As I said prior, this law is unconstitutional based on it violating our right to the freedom of association. That is right, the freedom of association expands to private businesses as well otherwise how are we be able to boycott a business without such a right. The penalties that force people to buy health insurance are also unconstitutional irrespective of the Supreme Court ruling that was handed down. A penalty is not a tax in any way shape or form, but the court ruled against the people in a 5 to 4 decision. However, there is a loophole that can be exploited. The U.S. Constitution lists exactly 4 types of taxation. They are Impost, Expost, excise and income taxes. Impost and Expost have to do with the import and export of goods while excise taxes are taxes on goods and services in general. Income taxes are obvious. So it can now be argued that the Federal government can only tax the American people with these 4 types of taxes exclusively. So as I said, it is another possible out.

They could have just spread the wealth: Obama care is going to cost over 1 trillion dollars. That is a 100 million billion. A very large number. But guess what, if the Federal government collected just 311 billion, they could have made each U.S. citizen a billionaire. As it cost well over a trillion, the U.S. can afford to give every single person on the planet at least 1 billion dollars. Does it make sense that it costs so much to insure and enforce a law that is made to make people buy health insurance, or to provide them with health insurance in the event they cannot afford it. Heck, some Native Americans, Blacks, Latinos, and other ethnic groups claim that the government owes them for what occurred during slavery and for when they were discriminated against. This could become the ultimate form of reparations. But no, we are spending billions to provide health care and enforce a law for an estimated 150 million people (those who can get insurance, and those who cannot afford insurance combined). It does not make sense at all does it?

Conclusion: Obama care is a total flop. It has provisions in it that have nothing to do with health care such as the usual pork barrel projects like shrimp on a treadmill, bridges to no where and studying the sex habits of drunk Chinese prostitutes (don't laugh, the Federal government actually paid for those programs). On top of that, Obama care adds taxes on medical devices, and other parts of the health care industry causing costs to rise. I have seen personally in New York, co-pays alone rise on prescription drugs. Namely Eye drops, Ear drops, and inhalers, along with selective increases in women's birth control medications where one is completely covered for a few months, only for coverage to switch to a different birth control medication later on, and then change again a few months after that. Our health care costs are rising, and that even includes health care premiums like that in California and Maine where cost have risen well over 15% and even broaching 65%. Can you see now why we need to repeal this law, and even some older ones with it to start from scratch?

Issue 136 predictive policing August 6, 2013

Did you know that police are now able to use software to predict where some crimes may occur? Apparently crimes committed in areas form a pattern. This data can then be used to figure out such things as when a crime is likely to occur and where it might occur.

How it works: By taking data from how often crime occurs in an area and the times in which they occur along with the likely target of a particular type of crime police can send out a patrol to deter that crime before it starts. When police receive a call, they operate as normal, but other wise they are placed in a spot where crime is likely to occur based on the software which takes into account broken lights and unsecured property that may encourage crime. By using this data, they can in certain instances have police cars driven through an area by trainers as the symbol of a police car deters crime to begin with.

It currently works best against burglary and theft of vehicles and their contents, as the historical data is very extensive with respect to these types of crimes. Adding details such as road maps and road networks enhance the effectiveness of the software. According to the Criminologist Shane Johnson at the University of College London a criminal offender likes vulnerable targets that are easy to spot, with easy access and can make a quick getaway. Thus, the data aids in finding those spots criminals like best. Even such things as when people get paid, the weather and local events affect the out come of the predictions.

Problems: This tool of law enforcement if not capable of stopping crimes root causes. It just helps with deterring crime. It positions police in a crime hot spot, but does not stop a criminal seeking out a less likely target in an area that was not predicted to be a crime hot spot.

Another issue is that if the data is misused or overused in a way other than intended, it may create a bias toward certain areas and the people that live in them. This may mean that police may become more active in rich neighborhoods rather than poor ones where the most crime typically occurs. Though, these same numbers have the potential to eliminate prejudice as well when it comes to deciding if some one should be paroled rather than deciding by stereotypes.

It starts a conversation: It makes people decide what they want from their justice system. For instance if you want to curb people from becoming repeat offenders authorities have to define how tough they are going to be on high risk and low risk parolees. But there is a fear of the justice system becoming too reliant on this technology and thus garner the same problem as the justice system has already with the CSI effect (thinking evidence has to be present to convict someone or exonerate someone irrespective of reason).

Fear: So far, the software developed has been used to target criminals and even to predict their future behavior. However, the Department of Homeland Security is using it to detect suspicious behavior, while some law enforcement is using it to see if parents using social services are likely to abuse their children. But it does not stop there as information like this can be used to predict our behavior from such things as social media. It has the potential to tell government what patterns we make as we go about our daily lives. Even if you use it to predict if a person is likely to commit a crime for the first time, how do you distinguish from the show boats, the load mouths and people just blowing off some steam. And guess what, social media has their own software doing the same thing to alert investigators to a potential threat, but unlike police they don't need a warrant.

Conclusion: There is some great potential in this technology. It has the power to reduce the most pervasive of crimes and may even be useful in arming citizens with information that they can use to batter secure their property. However, privacy concerns and misuse are still an issue. How much information are you willing to share for safety and security? Questions like these must be asked if this technology goes beyond just predicting crime hot spots.

For more see the article in "The Economist" magazine July 20th-26th 2013 issue, article name "Predictive Policing: Don't even think about it."

Issue 135 FDIC reform!? August 5, 2013

Have you ever heard of a Re- Insurer? It is a concept that Conservatives came up with as an alternative to the current Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) current form of bank insurance. Basically, this change would be used to save money in the event of a financial crisis like the one that started back in 2007. Let's get started.

What is the FDIC: Created in 1933, the FDIC is a quasi government agency that protects all bank accounts in the United States in the event of financial crisis. They insure that each account is covered so that if you loose money due to a financial or bank collapse you will still have money so as to prevent you falling into poverty. Interesting to note is that you do not have to be a United States citizen, or be a resident of the U.S. to have your money insured as the FDIC protects depositors who deposit money in U.S. banks, and only that. If your bank should fail the FDIC insurance will insure up to the first $250,000 with only a few exceptions getting more depending on how they deposit their money. The FDIC also has a role in managing failed banks helping to ease the transition of failure or even being bought out.

Current: Right now however, traditional insurance companies have take over much of the role of the FDIC. During the financial crisis, they provided money to banks that were failing to prevent their collapse while insuring the money of the banks depositors. In some instances protecting (insuring) more money than the FDIC's $250,000 limit. During the financial collapse however, some of these private insurance companies ran out of money (some of them even had the money they were sending out insured as well). Once they ran out of money, the banks collapsed despite the FDIC stepping in to help. This is where the idea for change came in.

The change: It was felt that these private insurers did a better job at keeping these banks open and may have contributed to preventing a worse situation during the financial crisis. So the idea was to have the FDIC switch from insuring bank accounts, to insuring a banks private deposit insurance companies instead who would only access the money in a financial collapse and they ran out of money themselves. Thus the creation of the term "re-insurer" to provide financial backup to insurance companies that run out of money. Basically, it help keep the government from having to bail out individual accounts and even getting involved until it is absolutely necessary while having the private insurance companies protect peoples accounts first. As to whether traditional FDIC insurance being necessary in this new role is questionable as private companies tend to be more efficient at cost savings, have a penchant for innovation and generally provide better benefits and do a better job. So it is imagined that the old form of insurance would disappear.

Conclusion: The financial crisis hurt everyone back in 2007 and is still impacting us even today. It is believed that if this new concept was implemented at the governmental level (depends on which political party or ideology you talk to) that more banks would have been saved and less people would have lost their money (both rich and poor). So from my perspective it is a concept worth investigating further to see if it can help protect us from a future financial collapse.

Issue 134 Another Approach: Health Care August 2, 2013

There are 2 alternatives to health care that have not been looked at properly. The first is a health care savings account (HSA) and the other is eliminating the insurance company entirely from the health care equation. Interested?

What is an HSA?: An HSA is an actual account that is used solely for the purpose of health care related purchases. Depending on what rules the government places on it, it can be used to pay for doctor’s visits, medications, vitamins and even pay your monthly premium to the insurance company of your choice. The ideal version of this system is an HSA account that is portable so that if you leave one job for another, you don't loose that health care coverage. Currently, most HSA's are set up by an employer where they take a certain amount of money and place it into the account for the employees use with regard to health care. It does not force an employee (under most circumstances) to use the health insurance paid for by the employer. An HSA also frees up the employer from having to provide health insurance thus they also save money.

Under an ideal HSA: In this "ideal" system, your bank would have a special HSA savings account which you would give your employer access to so they can deposit a certain amount of money in monthly. You, the owner of the account can have the bank set aside a certain portion of your paycheck or a percentage of your account to go into the HSA account if you don't want your employer depositing money directly into the account. Under the second scenario, you decide how much is put in, but say you need that money for something else? In order to transfer money from an HSA to a regular savings account or even a checking account a certain amount would be allowed to be transferred at any given time. So you might be able to take $20 a day and put it into your regular account without any further penalty.

What is good about an HSA is that it would earn interest over time so that you can save up for what medical costs you might encounter as you age. It under the ideal scenario will be able to pay for health insurance costs, doctor visit costs, and all medicines with some over the counter medicines. But, unlike traditional insurance where we cannot see the costs, we can see them under this system. As such we can endeavor to save money for only the necessary procedures rather than spend on elective costs that would drain the account. Will it solve the entire problem of health care? No. But it will help in solving the issue of people going bankrupt due to medical costs if they should loose their jobs.

Eliminate the middle man: There is one additional idea that is ignored, and that is making a monthly payment to the doctor instead of an insurance company. In this type of health care, you have your primary care physician and you pay him/her a monthly fee to treat you when you are sick regardless of the costs to treat you. Why does this work? Well that is due to the fact that all money that would have gone to the insurance company is now going toward your doctor instead and as such every treatment and test that your doctor does (and even his/her partners) is covered by that monthly fee. The only time you are charged however is if you walk in without an appointment and that is really the only time. This idea I got from a doctor interviewed on the show Huckabee, hosted by former Governor Mike Huckabee. The doctor interviewed owned his own hospital and charged his patients $75 a month with that number slowly decreasing as more people signed up for this alternative to health insurance. If his patients were a walk in (came in without an appointment) he would charge them something like $16 dollars. This interview occurred in 2008 after President Obama was elected and conservatives were looking every where for innovative alternatives to the system that the President was proposing, of which, this idea was one of them. While it may not do anything for drugs, unless the doctor’s office has its own pharmacy, it is a great alternative to health insurance which may limit what procedures you are allowed to get and at what cost.

Conclusion: These two ideas may be used in tandem, and for the most part, the HSA one is a reality, though is limited by certain rules and restrictions. By freeing up the HSA system and allowing more doctors freedom to team up and offer an out to the insurance companies, we may see a drop in health care as apparently if health insurance goes away, costs may decrease by as much as 50%. So let us get back our freedom of choice with respect to health care, and make it personal again between the us and our doctors. All we have to do is free up parts of the system to make it work, while getting the insurance companies and the government lackeys who manipulate and are manipulated off our backs.