Issue 196 School Breakfast and Lunch October 31, 2013

Currently we have a school lunch program in the United States and it has expanded to breakfast as well. The goal is to provide some of the poorer families with the means to feed their children on the cheap without harming the parents’ pocket book. But I have a question or two.

First Question: Why are we using our tax dollars going to the federal government to pay for this? Our property taxes should already be more than enough to pay for a free lunch for all the students in a given public school, let alone a breakfast. So why on earth are we all paying for that again? It makes no sense that we as citizens have to pay twice for the same thing. On top of that, where the heck is the money that is supposed to be going toward our nations children? It is obviously not going to them. That is because it is going towards the ever growing bureaucracy for public education. Our money is spent more on crap and waste then on the school children themselves. Just look at the school parking lot and you can see how well the administrators are paid based on the number of luxury cars in the lot. We have a major problem in our schools and it is not about the schools getting enough money.

Second Question: Why is the federal government involved in this in the first place? As I have already stated, the money going toward the schools are more than enough to pay for kids lunches and breakfasts. On top of this, local governments should be able to take care of the citizen’s welfare within their own districts. Yet the federal government comes waltzing in with their one size fits all standards to make a mess of things. Not to mention the school lunch program is already a mess with it suffering over a million dollars worth of fraud this year alone. If the feds are getting involved would it not be better to say, if you enroll in this program that you as a school need to reform. If the money is going directly to the parents, would it not be more appropriate to have this be included in the welfare package as local governments and the schools in our country are too incompetent to manage their money effectively?

Conclusion: I am making this issue short because this program is a load of bull. How can you run this program and not tell these people to manage their money properly in the schools so that parents will not have to worry about feeding their kids at school. Hell, if public schools were managed correctly then there would be no need to sign up for this ridicules program that is wasting our tax dollars due to both fraud and mismanagement at the federal and local levels of government. We don't need more government, what we need is a government that actually works.

Issue 195 You've been had! October 30, 2013

Wondering what I mean by the title? Well, the reason that you have been had is because the politicians are limiting our choices and we do not even realize it. Let’s go over a few examples.

Candidates: Political parties nominate candidates and then we are supposed to vote for which one to run in the general election. Problem, those candidates are generally chosen by the party leadership. So when you had Ron Paul on stage with Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and the like, you did not realize that there were other viable candidates running within the same party. For instance have you heard of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson? He, like Ron Paul is a libertarian. But unlike Ron Paul, he believes in abortion and the full legalization of drugs. However, we could not hear him speak as he was shut out of the debates because the Republican leadership did not like him and his ideas. It had nothing to do with the electorate within the Republican Party saying they did not want him, but the party leaders. It happens at the local level to. Those in charge restrict those who are running to a select few and make rules that hinder or prevent other candidates from running for office. This was the case with Democrat Jack Mcloy in my district. The Democrats wanted Mrs. Currian over him, and prevented him from running by bringing him all the way up to the New York State of Appeals Court. He was disallowed to run because his petition to run and compete in the primary against Currian was not stapled in the way stipulated by law. Yes, a simple error in where to place the staple is what kept him from running for office. This is how choice is limited in politics.

Food: We are being limited here too. They took salt off the tables in New York City even though only 30% of the people in NYC should not ingest salt. Everyone else was fine. Trans fats were removed even though the majority of people health wise were unaffected by it. Genetically modified crops are banned in some places, but should it not be up to the individual to choose if they should eat a GMO crop or not. Heck they arrest people for eating and selling raw milk even though the risk of any sort of bacterial infection is negligible. People have the right to choose what they want to eat.

Products: Again we become limited by government. In this case, products like toys, games and such face bans for silly things. One silly thing is lead on the drive shaft of an ATV. One problem, the reason it was banned was because they feared people ingesting the lead. If you or your kid was liking a drive shaft from an ATV or any product in general then you may have a problem. What’s more, patent laws also hinder our choices. Do not get me wrong, I am all for patents, but not when they are abused. They let companies like Mattel or Hasbro take out patents, but when a competitor with a similar product comes out they get to sue and shut that company down. The products may be similar, but they are not the same, nor do they have the same brand. Again, choices become limited.

Licensing: Here too choices are limited. By having to be licensed to be a florist, a framer or other job, it limits the market of competitors. Thus it secures the positions of those already in the business with higher pay by making it near impossible to get a job in the field you want (and that's just framing pictures). Same goes for law and medical schools. Instead of being an undergraduate degree, it is a masters or a doctorates degree which is obviously much more money. As such it shuts out many talented students who would excel in those fields if it the education was more affordable.

Conclusion: Choice is one of our essential freedoms, but everything government and their crony capitalist buddies do limits those choices. There is a point in which we are over protected (such as from a florist who sells you a dead plant). Change is needed to be rid of many of our useless and harmful laws that do nothing but harm us. Time to change the system and stop having our freedoms reduced.

Issue 194 Health and Reparations October 29, 2013

Obama care has flopped on its opening day. It provides health care which is twice as expensive as many private plans. Not to mention, it cost over 600 billion dollars alone for the first year with it estimated to rise to one trillion dollars in cost within 10 years. Is there a better way to spend that 600 billion? Well, yes there is. By giving it back to the American people.

The idea: Instead of spending 600 billion dollars on 300 million people, why not just give everyone a health savings account. But not just any health savings account. Take the 600 billion and divide it up between each American citizen. With about 300 million U.S. citizens that means over 2 billion dollars approximately given to each individual American. This money could be used to buy any health care related purchase, including over the counter drugs, vitamins and even health insurance. Of course it would be restricted to health care purchases only to prevent the money from being abused. Not to mention, the money itself would not just be used for the individual alone. It would be used for the family member in charge, there children, their grand children and so on as long as the money holds out. At the same time, the money would act as reparations toward African Americans who had been enslaved or faced discrimination, along with reparations to the Spanish, Native Americans and all ethnic and racial groups that have suffered throughout U.S. history. Basically, pay them back by making it so that they never have to worry about health care for generations to come, especially as most people do not exceed a million dollars worth of health care related costs in their life time.

How it would work: It would work in the same manner as an electronic food stamp card. The card would automatically pay for anything related to health care at the register. So when you pay at the doctors’ office, use the card. At the pharmacy, use the card. If in the super market buying Tylenol, again use the card. But, say you are already a millionaire, then you would not have access to the cards money. Instead, it would act as a safety net for if you or your future family members should ever fall into poverty. Now, the money is shared. So when your mom turns 18, she gets access to the account. But then later she has you, so that when you turn 18 you too will get a card with access to that same account. This allows families to share the costs and eliminates the paperwork of giving newborns access to new billion dollar accounts. Remember, most people never spend more than a million dollars on health care in their life, so a billion dollars lasts an extremely long time. Also, the money in this account may be inheritable. So say you die, but have no next of kin, you can pass the money on to someone of your choosing. Also, say you did not leave a last will in testament, and have no next of kin. At this point the money is taken by the government and passes it onto everyone equally. So everyone gets the leftovers.

It’s also reparations: Yes that is right. Everyone who has entered this country has faced some form of racial, ethnic or religious discrimination at one time or another. As such, we currently provide programs like affirmative action to many ethnic groups and free health care to Native Americans on reservations. But, these programs have there costs and limits. By providing everyone with health care in this way, the government will not have to spend any money to help the sick for well over one hundred years. What better gift to give those who have suffered than the equivalent to free health care for them, their children and even their great great great grandchildren.

Benefits: This basically makes government programs like Medicaid redundant. It eliminates the need for financial assistance for the disabled, for seniors, and any other form of medical based assistance. Companies would be able to drop health coverage without fear of making their workers bankrupt due to medical bills. Heck, even the idea of a single payer system becomes redundant, as if needed, after the money runs out another 600 or more billion can be raised to provide health care to all. So why spend 600 plus billion a year when you can just spend it once. Also, those who see the opportunity to extend the life of their money can still buy health insurance to make it last even longer. On top of this, as more people will be able to pay for treatments out of pocket, cost will go down as there will be no need for insurance or government to act as the middle man to pay for the medication or treatments. No longer will the most expensive of treatments be out of reach.

Conclusion: You get the idea. Spending all that money on such a small population of people is ridiculous. In fact, the websites for Obama care cost well above 600 million. That money alone, given to us would be sufficient for many seniors health care needs. So it really does not make sense to spend all that money until you realize that most of that money is not about us, but about the government workers, and compliance costs with the laws. So what’s better, pay once to give the nation health care for about 100 years, or spend up wards of 600 billion to 1 trillion dollars every single year? I think this choice is simple.

Issue 193 Obama Care Good points October 28, 2013

Yes there is a good point to Obama care, otherwise known as the Affordable care act. Well, there are two in total, but they come at a cost. So let’s get to it, the only provisions that would survive if Obama care is ever overturned or replaced.

Ban on lifetime limits: A life time limit is a set amount of money a health insurance company is willing to spend to pay for your health care expenses. Life time limits for typical Americans before the law were approximately one million dollars. Now this was not a negative. In fact most Americans never reached the million dollar mark in their lifetime. Well that was until the costs of health care increased due to inflation and other factors. Soon Americans with the most severe diseases and conditions would meet that limit. This meant diabetes patients, AIDS patients and those who suffered the most debilitating of physical and mental malformations would exceed that limit and thus be dropped by their health insurance companies. All this was due to cost increases in health care (which Obama care did not solve at all).

But, the lifetime limits were good under certain conditions. It was a form of rationing health care that prevented two things. One, it prevented free loaders from overburdening the private health insurance companies. Let’s face it, the insurance companies act in a similar manner to a ponzi scheme. They pool all of the money from the premiums together (save the money to pay their workers, taxes and expenses) and then dish it out to pay for health care. But, just like a ponzi scheme, if too much is taken out then the system collapses. The result is less money to go around meeting demand. This all would have been solved if health care costs have been addressed properly (aka, make it so we do not need the insurance companies). But now we face a financial risk of the health care companies denying coverage more to ration care more efficiently.

Ban on discrimination of pre-existing conditions: Pre-existing conditions have been the bane of many Americans who suffer from debilitating diseases. If you have diabetes, AIDS, cancer or any other disease prior to getting health care, then under the original system the insurance companies might have denied you as a customer (though this was not always the norm if you could pay). The result was the poorest Americans with pre-existing conditions having to use a government sponsored health plan to help pay for treatments. Problem was that the government plans are twice as likely to deny treatment as a private plan. So to stop this, Obama Care banned all forms of discrimination with respect to pre-existing conditions.

However there is a problem with this. Women who typically pay a higher health care cost when they are younger due to them being likely to get pregnant, would no longer have the ability to have their rate reduced once they hit menopause. People who stay healthy by exercise despite their health conditions cannot have their rates reduced. This ban on discrimination also banned positive discrimination. So discrimination that would have saved people money is not allowed. Also, because there is a ban on this form of discrimination, everyone else's costs with respect to premiums, and co pays will rise. The reason is because you no longer can charge more money to a person with a pre-existing condition, so to compensate everyone else must pay more.

Conclusion: Both of these benefits come at a cost. These benefits will inherently raise costs for health care on everyone. As a result, more people will only sign up when they are sick, and then drop coverage when they get better which will result in costs rising even further. What should have happened is a free market of health care where all insurance companies world wide would compete for your business. This competition alone would drop costs dramatically. Then allow for certain forms of discrimination that would allow insurance companies to reduce costs when certain conditions are met. Finally, those who cannot afford the higher costs for health care they need can be subsidized rather than forced onto a government plan that is more likely to deny coverage. But that is a perfect world scenario with the government (Federal and State) getting out of the way. It is due to government that costs have risen as much as they have. States allow only a select group of health insurance companies in creating a monopoly. The tax code incentivizes health insurers to focus on businesses, not individuals. States regulate what should and should not be covered which results in us all paying for coverage we do not need and most likely will never use. Those in the Federal government have made it worse by adding more rules and regulations onto a system that was already overburdened with useless laws. It is time for a change. We need the Free Trade of health care, where only catastrophic coverage is required to be covered, with us the people deciding what we as individuals need. This change alone will drop costs dramatically as approximately 50% of the health care costs alone are due to having insurance act as a middle man. This means all costs will drop by at least 50%. There are more changes that could free the system and make it work. But, we need to first vote in responsible people back into office who are willing to make that change in the first place.

Issue 192 Cloud Computing on the cheap October 25, 2013

Popular Mechanics has provided an interesting guide on how to create your own cloud based collaborative file sharing website. So let’s get right into it.

What to do first: You need to grab online memory for file storage. This memory is used to store any and all information that you need and/or want to share with the other members of a team. DropBox, Box, SkyDrive and Google Drive (listed in the article) give out free space for file sharing. Things like Facebook also provide a certain amount of space for all the information that you may want to share.

Next step: Now you need a group website. There are free templates that offer such a service like Moonfruit, and Weebly. The ones listed here can be used to make an entire website, so Popular Mechanics recommends sites like these being used to support a business or a movie.

If you just need to post text, videos, and photos, Popular Mechanics suggests using a blog type format. So things like Google Blogger and WordPress would be prime examples. Each one supports the ability to allow multiple authors, and have an administrative hierarchy. The WordPress site has a paid version that also grants even greater control.

Wiki's also count as a tool for cloud computing as anyone can add to it, or edit it. So they are to be used for knowledge based, community website or a private site or basically anything that requires constant changes. This format differs from a blog which uses a time line as it instead represents the last user’s way of thinking. Using Wiki's you can create dedicated sites to any particular topic. Wiki can be downloaded easily for free to your computer or server. Add-ons can be applied to allow the installation of various types of programs. Then all you have to do is grant people the right to edit and modify the pages. Popular Mechanics suggests that you can keep the information relevant by hosting group discussions while another person searches the site to look for errors, and maintain style and consistency.

Final Step: Once the site is made, you must find people who will help contribute to it. In the article it says to look for people with similar styles of writing or creative styling. From there you may branch off as the site grows. In general, an individual will take charge when needed to get whatever projects need to get done. So forcing yourself to be a project leader is not necessary.

Conclusion: There you have it, simple ways to share information. Such information may be specialized or be restricted to say music or photos. Other times it can be broad like an encyclopedia (like Wiki). The sky is the limit when it comes to topics or applications, so it is up to you to take advantage of the system. Google Blogger which we are on right now is free. So is Facebook, its competitor. Both have the capacity to share endless amounts of information, but it is up to you to decide what, when and how. Good luck in your own website building and endeavors.

Issue 191 3D printer update October 24, 2013

If you have read my blog since the beginning you will know all about 3D printers. But today is an update to how this fantastic technology is being used. So sit back and enjoy the read.

Recap: 3D printers use a form of manufacturing called additive manufacturing. It layers the material bit by bit to form the object. By bonding the material either via lasers, heat or even glue the object can be formed to your own specifications. The result can be a simple copy of say a mug, or a complex metal using a honeycomb type structure for strength. This manufacturing technique is being used by major industries and manufactures like Boeing, and Lockheed Martin. It has revolutionized manufacturing and production.

Update 1: The first major update is coming from the field of medicine. Schools are using 3D printers with human cells to make hearts, lungs and other body parts for students to practice on. Yes, you read it right. They are printing body parts for hands on practice for surgery. They are even able to print tumors so that students can practice extracting them.

Of course there is more. 3D printer technology is able to print these organs so that they may be used for transplants. The research is still ongoing to make these organs fully functional, but the technology exists to produce Kidneys, Hearts, and lungs. They have even developed a way to make blood vessels which they hope in the near future can be scaled up to produce more verities of organs and other tissue. Right now they are using 3D printers to even make skin for skin grafts on burn patients. It is hoped that eventually they will be able to just spray on new skin directly into the wound using the printers.

Update 2: Cost is still an issue with 3D printers. As such, researchers want to develop alternatives to using plastics and metals for their 3D models. They have therefore turned to none other than paper. That is correct; paper has come to save the day. With home models starting at $300 and the inks used still be fairly pricey, the use of paper has dramatically cut costs. In this method, the paper is layered and cut as the 3D printer makes its model. Glue is used as a binding agent to secure the layers of paper together. The end result is a material that feels like wood.

Another piece of technology that is making it easy to manufacture objects with this technology is 3D scanners. These scanners can measure out an object in a similar manner to scanning a document into your computer. This cuts down on having to measure the object yourself, let alone wasting valuable time and material.

Conclusion: A lot is being invested into 3D manufacturing. There was even a man who used it to build parts for an entire car (which he assembled and drove). However, the ultimate goal is the creation of a replicator like from Star Trek. That is the dream of scientists who are developing this technology to its full potential.

All these updates are thanks to Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines.

Issue 190 Online Education Advantages October 23, 2013

Online Education has a number of advantages over traditional classroom models. Here I will highlight some of those advantages.

No Bullies: Education done through a computer allows for the student to focus only on their work. There is no need to raise your hand in a classroom. As such, there is no peer pressure to answer correctly, or fear of embarrassment for answering wrong. It also takes the child out of the school environment which for some students becomes a nightmare as children can be very cruel to one another. But as this environment is now absent and is substituted for a home computer in most cases it eliminates the bullying entirely.

Flexible schedules: Because the education is online, a more flexible schedule can be made to accommodate activities outside of learning. So say your child has a dance recital in the middle of the day. Under normal circumstances, your child would miss a day of school. However, with at home online education that is no longer the case. Your child through online education can skip ahead a day if needed, or the learning program can be paused till your child returns. Thus it eliminates missed lectures and allows for parents to bring their children on trips or do activities that would have other wise cost their child a day or more worth of education.

Educational advantage: Students using online education have an advantage over typical students. Traditional students are constrained by a structure that prevents them from going ahead in class. So they are left to wait for other students to catch up. However, the online model eliminates that by allowing students to go as far ahead in their studies as they are comfortable with. So why stop at eighth grade math when your child can be free to go all the way up to 12th grade math and in some cases beyond. No more students waiting for peers to catch up and no more students who need extra time while feeling rushed and maybe even missing information because of it. Basically it is about moving at your own pace.

Parent/Teacher advantage: Whether at home or in a casual classroom setting, online education has a unique advantage over traditional methods. It tracks a student’s progress. Basically it allows for teachers or parents to see how far the child has come in a particular subject. Also, it allows for the teacher/parent to see where the child is struggling. As such, extra attention can be directed toward that student if needed to help them overcome their difficulties. This is all due to it being a monitored environment.

Direct learning: Instead of typical teachers, the online courses allow for lectures and information from specialists. In short, rather than a teacher, you could have NASA scientists helping your child learn about astronomy. Ocean biology can be taught by the top ocean biologist. And the list goes on. It gives students a major advantage when it comes to accessing knowledge.

Conclusion: Online education is an amazing resource, but there is a disadvantage. Some are saying that disadvantage is socialization with other kids their own age. But that is solved through play dates, and extra curricular activities like dance classes, karate and bowling teams. No, the main disadvantage is to students who need a classroom type structure. Online education is geared toward home schoolers and those students who are self motivated. It however, is not geared toward the students who need the authority of a teacher and a classroom setting to enforce a kind of discipline. So, traditional education will not disappear, but it will have competition thanks to school choice.

Issue 189 Online Public School October 22, 2013

The title is just as it says; public schools are turning to the Internet. Even Ron Paul, the Granddaddy of the Tea Party and Libertarians has got into the act with his own online public education resource. But is online public school any good?

Why do online public school?: Originally, home schooling evolved out of parents wanting to include religion in their child's education. Public schools today of course forbid such actions. So the parents said forget about you, I'm educating my kids my way. Later, this want of parents to educate their kids at home would include how polluted education has become with politics. Text books are decided by political committees on their content and what topics are addressed in each. School had become boring to some students to the point that their grades dropped. Other parents were tired of the discipline problems that either their child was having or the bullying that was occurring. Regardless, of the reasons now, parents wanted a say in how to educate their children.

Social Interaction: The biggest obstacle to home school and online education in general is the social interaction. There is no longer a class room that allows students to interact and thus form social bonds. But home schooling has countered that problem. Parents enroll their children in things like ballet, karate and sports teams, while at the same time establishing play dates. Thus they have solved the human interaction problem.

But an online public school: Well if you can get a college degree online, it only makes sense that you can do the same with public education. Teachers are already using "Khan Academy" to help support their teaching either via homework or through the kids learning primarily through the computer with the teacher helping students only when they are having trouble. In fact, the program at "Khan Academy" has been so successful that some young students skip ahead to the point that they are either learning math or science that is two to even five grades ahead. Then there is "Sneak on the Lot" which is an online school for young people aspiring to be in the movie and television businesses. Rather than rely on teachers they use people actually in the field of film to do their lectures. Also, they even support contests and hands on learning by giving students (they have a k-12 curriculum and a college curriculum) step by step instructions on how to make props, film a movie or short, write a script etc. Ron Paul on the other hand created the "RonPaulCurriculum" to replace traditional public school entirely. His goal is to provide a curriculum that sticks to American values: see website http://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com/ . All of it is about giving students information they need without any of the boring old public school curriculums where you have to wait for everyone to catch up with you, or you racing to catch up with everyone else.

Conclusion: I support any form of education as it enhances school choice. By giving students access to these resources will give students and even some parents the resources needed to succeed where traditional education methods have failed. No, this will not replace traditional schools as some students need structure in order to learn. However, this has become a great option for parents who want their kids out of failing public schools, but can't afford a Charter or Private School. So to all those online educators out there, thank you for enhancing school choice.

Issue 188 A New Party? October 21, 2013

With all this government shut down talk, we begin to see the truth behind both political parties. In that I mean, who supports whom, and what ideology. I had previously talked about defunding the GOP, and I do mean that. But could it lead to a new political party, or even the death of the Republican Party?

What has occurred: The leadership in the Republican Party is concerned. They thought they had control over the more Conservative and Libertarian parts of their party. However, the shut down has shown that to be false. Senator Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and others have stood up. These Senators and many in the House of Representatives have begun to speak out for change. Change for them would mean not raising the debt ceiling, but paying the interest on the debt first to prevent a default. Changes that would mean slimming down government. But the leadership does not want that. The Republican leadership wants the big government and has even threatened to pull funding from any member of the Republican Party that gets money from Freedom Works or the Senate Conservatives Fund as they are Libertarian and Conservative organizations respectively. Established members hate these groups because they run counter to the leadership’s agenda and thus want to force them into submission.

Reaction: Many Libertarians and Conservatives see the writing on the wall. People like Glen Beck who runs the Blaze has called for the GOP to be defunded. He has now refused to give any money to any GOP related organization. As he has the third most listened to radio show, the 11th most visited social media site and a constantly growing television network, he has a lot of fans who are going to listen. As such the Libertarians and Conservatives like those in the Tea Party, or in C-pack are also more than likely going to follow suit. Therefore the voices of the Conservative and Libertarian arm of the Republican Party are going to force the issue. Either you stop attacking your own or we are going to just up and leave with all the money.

Possibilities: What could happen is one of two things. Either the Republican Party capitulates and goes in a more Libertarian/ Conservative direction or we get a new political party. The Whig Party destroyed itself by ignoring its anti-slavery arm which would eventually become the Republicans. Now it is happening again to the Republican Party. As to whether the Libertarians/conservatives take over or split off into a new party remains to be seen. However, if either should occur, then the Republican Party as we know it is dead. Also, you will see a mass exodus of the old guard of the Republicans shift to the Democrats. This will moderate the Democrats further as it is felt by even some of its own leadership that it has gone a bit further to the left than it had desired. So which occurs remains to be seen?

Conclusion: I like the idea of multiple parties. It keeps people from reaching a consensus too quickly which could lead to a detrimental result. I would not mind a third or fourth party, but others do mind because they feel chaos may ensue, or coalitions that breaks with values may be formed. If the GOP dies I will not weep. I'm not even a Republican in the first place. I have no party, and I like it that way. I had hoped Occupy Wall Street would become a third party and the Tea party another, but those hopes were dashed as groups attempted to hijack Occupy and the Republicans made every attempt to either eat or snuff out the teas. However, it is revenge time. Time to defund the GOP.

Issue 187 Green Tea Party October 18, 2013

Here is a twist. The Green Party and the Tea party have found common ground. Not only that, but they have teamed up to try and make the world a better place. Here is what they are up to.

The common ground: As you all probably know, the Green party wants clean energy production. They want the complete removal of fossil fuels from the world and replaced by renewable and cleaner fuels that do little to no harm to the environment. The Tea party wants open and free markets that let people choose who and what to buy from. This of course includes energy production. So the Greens and the Teas saw an opportunity to work together to allow for an open market in energy production. So they are battling big energy and their government sponsored monopoly on energy production.

What they want to do: It all started in Georgia when Debbie Dooley (Tea party leader) got fed up with her town’s energy company. A 40 year old ban on energy companies donating to political causes was overturned and the energy company Georgia Power and its parent Southern Co. raised rates to pay for their new nuclear power plant before it was finished (she saw something fishy going on). She teamed up with the Sierra club and they started looking to diversify the energy market in there area (particularly by adding solar panels to the mix of energy producing resources). But this was just an example. Barry Goldwater Jr. has taken up the clean energy/alternative energy cause in Arizona along with other Tea party groups in other States. Tea party members see it as a way to protect ourselves from terrorism on our national infrastructure and diversify a market that ensures a form of self protection against natural disasters as well. The Sierra club sees it as getting their agenda for cleaner energy through to the masses. As such their dream for a cleaner world without negative environmental effects may become a reality.

Should we support this?: This is an opportunity. Two groups that normally would never agree on anything have come together to push for a common goal. A diverse energy infrastructure that is safe and has little to no environmental impact is crucial for the future of America's energy production. By diversifying the market we gain access to better services through competition. We can feel safer by knowing that if a tree hits a power line we will not loose power. It comes down to safety, security and the freedom of choice which is hoped will end the government sponsored monopolies of the power companies.

Conclusion: A diverse energy infrastructure is a good thing. The overall goal should be eliminating the need for power utility companies for our electricity. Basically, I think we are all tired of paying the bill for power companies who each year charge more and more for the same stagnant services they gave us since they started. Let competition bring forth diversity and quality, and as such support the Green Tea Party.

Side note: If these two opposing political groups can find common ground, then why can't the Republicans and Democrats do the same? Well that is because they both want credit for the same successes, but none of the failures. May be we should have the Greens and the Teas running D.C. instead of the fat cat politicians we have now.

Issue 186 Free the Parks October 17, 2013

As part of the government shutdown the national parks were closed. One problem, many of those parks require zero federal funds to run and operate in the first place. As such, by closing them down the government is spending more money than it would to just allow people to go in and enjoy the parks natural vistas.

Those they shut down: They shut down Yellow Stone, Mt. Rushmore, and even the WW II memorial in Washington D.C. However, this is a problem. Places like Mt. Rushmore, and the Grand Canyon do not require any money to operate. Also, the WW II memorial is entirely maintained by private donations (including those from my own family). But the bureaucratic arm of the federal government wanted to make the shut down hurt. So they tried to block off the memorials and parks. They even went as far as chaining swings to the bars in parks in D.C. and attempted to shut down some State run parks. It has become ridiculous.

How they are enforcing this?: Unfortunately for us, they are enforcing this by having police officers block off these sites. They have even tracked down joggers who have skirted the parks on their morning exercise just to write them a ticket. In some cases, they have forcefully removed people from their own private property if that property sits inside a federal park. This includes seniors like on the Island that sits in Lake Mead (you can read about this more in detail in the "Washington Times" or at "The Blaze").

What can be done?: Simple, we need to let the parks loose from the grasp of the federal government. It is obvious that those in power are trying to force as much pain as possible on the American people, to put pressure on the Republicans in this case, to forcefully end the shut down. So we need to let the States have that land back. The federal government owns about 1/3 of the land in the United States with some States having well over half their land under federal control. As such, let us petition government to give the parks and the unused federal land back to the individual States. It will not take any money save the price of the paper and ink to write up the legislation. Once this is done, States can own the parks and operate them as they see fit (which will generally be free just like before) and the unused federal land that becomes State property can be used for any number of purposes. Such purposes include more parks, nature study areas, places for scientific research, mining and industrial purposes or even another launch site for the growing private space flight industry. All federal park rangers and personnel will be transferred to the State governments so they don't loose their jobs. A simple solution to an oppressive government that thinks it can make us do what it pleases.

Conclusion: A federal shut down, like the one that just occured, did not have to shut down a single park. Many of the facilities and even some of the businesses on them can or already are run privately or are supported through private donation. We do not need the federal government to maintain parks like Glacier or Arcadia. And we most certainly do not need them closing down any war memorial let alone the WW II memorial in D.C. So I say free the parks now!

Issue 185 Defund: National Endowment for the Arts October 16, 2013

You thought I was done after yesterdays issue didn't you? Well, I am not. There is more savings to be had in government. This time I wish to be rid of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Again, I have my reasons which I will explain right here and now.

We don't need it: The NEA's mission is mainly to support art projects whether that is in the form of a painting, music or even literature. Grants are given to various groups in support of these projects that are considered by government to be worthy of our tax dollars. Problem, art is in the eye of the beholder, and why are we subsidizing art in the first place. I can understand the cultural aspect, but one person’s art may not necessarily be what another considers art. Also, who decides what art is worth helping out and whose art is not. Overall, art is art, but some of the artists who get this money have no other job. They are full time artists who use our tax dollars for their own purposes. Art does not need government aid to be created, let alone to decide what constitutes art.

If we want a statue we'll commission one: One of the NEA's responsibilities is national initiatives. This may range from inspiring young artists, to helping in the transformation of a park. But we are forgetting something very important; the local municipalities can pay for an art project themselves. There is no need for the NEA's support or interference in such matters. Not to mention, charities and other organizations can fund the projects and works of the artists themselves. Promoting the growth of art, or an artist in general is not something that is needed as all we have to do is let people engage in their own pursuits. If that is done, the artists and their art will begin to permeate society naturally.

Crowd Funded art: Yes, crowd funding can support art too. It helped get the "Veronica Mars" movie that fans wanted. So if it can get a movie funded, then it can get all sorts of art funded too. What need is there for a national foundation when we can just ask the people to donate towards the art they want to see.

A risk in keeping this agency: Back in 2009, the NEA was under fire because one of its members wanted artists to make art that promoted President Obama's agenda. This may have actually happened if it was not made public. As such, it is important to remember that many of these artists rely on their art for income, and that includes money from the NEA. As such, they may be easily manipulated into making propaganda simply by putting them under threat of loosing their funding. It does not matter the administration, or what political party is involved, but it is a risk.

Conclusion: The NEA supports artists of all kinds. However, it is not worth the cost with respect to deciding whose art is acceptable or funding people to do art work that may in the end hold no value. As a amateur photographer myself, I know it can be fairly difficult to get any money from your hard work, but that does not mean tax payer dollars should be used to fund it either. It is another additional cost that is unneeded in today's government.

Issue 184 Defund: National Science Foundation October 15, 2013

Yes I want the National Science Foundation (NSF) defunded. It is an agency that I find very little use for when you look at the overall function of government. Government is to make and enforce law with respect to protecting our freedoms, not sending out grant money to various projects that may not bear any merit in the long run. So here are my reasons why.

It's already being done by someone else: While the National Science Foundation gives out grant money to support many non-medical related scientific research and initiatives, they are not the only ones doing that job. Other government agencies also give money for various scientific projects. One such agency is the Department of Defense who does research into new engine technologies and fuels. NASA also has its own labs and will contract out for various projects and studies as well. Overall, the NSF's main job is to support scientific study, but it is being done by other agencies in the first place making the agency redundant.

They study that?!: Some of the things the NSF help support/study are either useless or needs no funding to begin with. One example is political science. The NSF gives grants to universities to study political science, a "soft science." If you have ever studied politics as I have, you will realize that the study of politics is not about furthering scientific discovery and while useful to some, does not warrant any amount of money from the government. Another example is the studies on things like computer sciences, or even sociology. Since when is it necessary to fund such research? Tech companies are already far ahead and develop new computer skills and technology without any help. Many of the countries greatest brands even started out in the garage of tech pioneers and you can be sure there will be others. Sociology is another soft science that looks to find out why groups behave in certain ways based on environmental stimulus. However, does government actually need to study such information? Is it necessary for government to know how we behave, let alone pay someone to study it? I think not. This is just the very tip of the iceberg...or maybe the shrimp as it was made to run on a pint sized treadmill to see how long it would take to die whilst running. Yea, our tax dollars paid for that.

Funding alternatives: As some people may question getting rid of the NSF, I will tell you that there is another way for these programs and scientific initiatives to get funded. One method is through the University. If a University thinks your project has merit, then they will pay for your research. This of course is one of the more traditional types of funding. Another is if the research you are doing is important enough to draw in people to want to support you. The best examples of this are cancer fighting treatments (as we want that eradicated) and space technology (as space is looking to be the next big business opportunity). But what of the smaller projects you ask? Well have you ever heard of Crowd Funding? Basically it is a way for people to donate toward a cause of some variety like they do a charity. The difference is that it could fund anything. Crowd Funding has been used to fund movies, the building of schools and hospitals and of course scientific research. It is all about convincing people that your idea has enough merit to the point where they will give you a bit of their money (and in some cases a part in the movie). Crowd Funding removes the need for the big time universities, businesses and government from having to fund what would be considered small scientific projects. With Crowd Funding the people decide for themselves what projects are worth looking into.

Conclusion: The NSF is one of those agencies from a bygone error. It was originally developed to help coordinate between the various departments in government’s scientific research in WW II. Later it would evolve into an agency that funds various projects, but is rendered redundant by later agencies with respect to technological advancements. The DOD, NASA, National Institute of health and others have made this agency obsolete. As such it is time to let this one go. Let us save some tax dollars by removing government overlap and redundancy by defunding the NSF.

Issue 183 Defund the GOP October 14, 2013

Don't you think it is time to remove the Grand Old Party (GOP) from power? This group is the Republican Party that has lost its value and its use with respect to American Politics. The following are my reasons why you all should give up on this now defunct political party.

They don't represent us any more: The GOP has become an elitist institution filled with the same ideologues in leadership that the Democrats have. In fact, the GOP leadership would find itself very comfortable in the Democrat party. The reason is that they share the same ideology. We no longer have two political parties in America, but one party with two different names. They support causes that would fly in the face of traditional Americans, such as the removal of certain social freedoms like our right to buy and sell to whomever we choose. While it was once about free market capitalism, the GOP has switched to the controlled economy mantra. As such, they will impart any and all regulations or laws they see fit even if that regulation or law is unenforceable, has zero effect in stopping something like a market crash, or detrimentally harms the economy. So many members of the Republican GOP establishment vote for a law just so they can vote against it latter. However, that may be too late.

Progressive disease: The ideology that has over taken the party of freedom of choice and conscience is progressivism. This ideology was a byproduct of socialism. Today it manifests itself as an ideology to progress mankind to the next level. Problem, this means going off to war to "export democracy." It is an ideology of war and control. If say the republicans want you to choose between one out come and another, they will insure that only the outcomes they want are to be chosen. They do this by masking or restricting the other options available. This is done during elections such as when choosing candidates, or when legislation comes out where they choose ways for it to be written that allows them a back door, but us the American people are left holding the tax bill. Don't get me wrong, this is not just the Republicans, but the Democrats too who have become equal in their war mongering and control over peoples freedom of choice.

They shut out debate: This GOP does not wish for people like Ron Paul, or Garry Johnson to have political traction. It is the leadership’s way or you loose all your support from the political party. So in this they prevent anyone from speaking out or up against them from their own party. Ideas that run counter to their progressive ideological culture such as being anti war, anti war on drugs, anti stop gay marriage and the like are looked down upon even though there is those in their party that want change.

Conclusion: The GOP like the Democrats has become totalitarian in nature. Their ideology of progressivism has altered these two once respectable political groups into those that would march America’s soldiers back into the hell of war. As a libertarian who saw economic freedom as the key to the American dream, I generally voted for this political group. But as I learned of their tyranny and how they are simply a twin of those who lost their way in the Democratic Party, I have lost faith in them entirely. As such, we can either form a new party or defund them in order to force them into submission. It is time to strike back and show them that the true leadership is the American people, not the party leadership.

Issue 182 Christian Jobs October 11, 2013

Today I give my opinion on what classifies a Judeo-Christian job. These are characterized by how they give more to the individual than to the person accomplishing the job itself. In other words my working in that job benefits everyone else first before it benefits me the individual.

Doctors and pharmacists: These professions are primarily designed to help people. They advise people on how to stay healthy, and help tell individuals what they need to do to get better. Doctors diagnose diseases, mend bones and perform lifesaving operations. Some also act as therapists for the purposes of recovery after an accident or to help a person cope with a loss or mental disorder. Pharmacists know how drugs interact and help to ensure that people do not take drugs that would cause them harm. They also prepare medicines that help to heal us based on what a doctor prescribes.

Volunteers: Volunteers get their rewards based on participating and the individual feeling like they made a difference. So when you help out at a food kitchen, aid in disaster relief or help out people who are in trouble you are rewarded with the feeling that you did something to make someone’s life a little easier. Being a volunteer is like giving to charity, but it does not use your money to accomplish its goal, but your willingness to take the time to help people.

Running/being part of a Charity: Running a charity, or being part of a charity is similar to being a volunteer, but instead you run an organization in a similar manner to a business to help organize those volunteers or to direct charitable donations to where they are needed most. As such these organizations act like a church with respect to helping and sheltering the poor. It is all about helping people in the best way possible that will help them out of poverty or relieve them of their burdens long enough to raise themselves out of their situation.

Librarians, Historians and Scientists: Yes these are also a form of Christian job. Librarians and those professions derived from it store and maintain data. This information is and can be used to help further man kind as it progresses as a society. By storing data they also keep it so that future generations can build off of it and learn from it. Historians and Scientists are those who seek out new information on our natural world and while contributing to the information stored by librarians and archivists they continuously seek out more discoveries and answers. Even the church has supported science such as astronomy and biology to help us better understand our natural world (there is a telescope in the Vatican).

Teachers: These men and women take the data and information and help students to take that knowledge and process it so as to help them form their own conclusions. Basically teachers teach students to think, but not what to think. The more educated a person is, the more likely they are to succeed in life.

Conclusion: These professions in my opinion are jobs that are very Christian. They give more than they take. Each and every one of these professions impacts people and future generations as well. It was Thomas Jefferson in writing a letter to his son that said "God prefers inspired questions than blind faith" (I paraphrased). So basically we are even allowed to question Gods very existence. These jobs do test us as we see the horrors done in the name of religion and what man kind has done to each other. We question why God lets people suffer. But when you look at what we are capable of, then you may understand that we can prevent such things from happening through knowledge. We even are able to help others when they finally hit bottom and are ready to bring themselves back up. All these jobs help accomplish this and as such I label them Christian jobs.

Issue 181 Soldier pay a different way October 10, 2013

What if a Soldiers pay incentivizes a soldier to stay without ever having to be promoted? Well it would take a re-organization of how the military is organized to do it.

Status Quo: Currently soldiers are organized on a complex rank system. This includes non commissioned officers (NCO's) then warrant officers (WO's) and finally commissioned officers (CO's). Do to the want and need to keep soldiers inside the military the ranks in the WO and CO category have become top heavy with instances of officers in a command position, but with no men to command. The only exception to this happens to be the Marines as they have more NCO's leading Squads than they do CO's, but they do suffer from this problem to a degree as well. This is in part due to pay being linked to rank. However, there are other forms of pay like combat pay and specialist pay, but the main pay comes via rank.

The alternative: Pay soldiers based on how long they stay. So say you have a recruit (you pay him/her $20,000 during their one year of basic training), when that recruit goes into their second year in the military their pay rises to $30,000 for staying. Then after about 2 additional years their pay goes up by $5,000 which culminates to them getting $40,000 dollars a year after about 5/6 years. Then if they move up in rank they get an additional bump and the pay goes up again. This continues all the way up allowing the grunts to get significant amount of money without any need to move up in rank. But if they do, then they automatically get the new base pay of that rank plus the increases in pay. So a recruit after 5 years has a $40,000 a year salary at which time it is frozen, but a Corporal has a $45,000 a year base which will increase to $60,000 after all the increments in pay increases. So they still have the incentive to move up. But, a new recruit that shows promise can be promoted earlier on and jump from that $25,000 to that of a Corporals $45,000 base pay if they are promoted. So the financial incentive to stay is there while the incentive to move up in rank is maintained. Of course the pay is increased with changes to the dollar due to inflation.

To make it work: An entire re-organization of the rank structure would have to occur. You would have recruits followed by Corporals which would be followed by Sergeant’s (their top pay being $80,000). The traditional roles in the military would not change however. Warrant Officers would be deleted from the military as the intention would be to make such positions redundant. Then you go into the Officers. With Lieutenants (top pay $100,000), Captains (top pay $120,000), Majors (top pay $140,000) and finally Generals (top pay $160,000). Under this system all the pay increases are included. A Lieutenants role remains the same, but a Captain's and a Majors role becomes more involved with respect to leadership. Generals will be the war planners like always. The heads of each branch of each service will be Commandants and get a top salary of $180,000. So we loose all those other ranks and the complicated functions of the promotion system in favor of a simpler system. Also, this system would require that promotions will only occur if a spot is available, thus eliminating the top heaviness of the current military with respect to Warrant and Commissioned officers.

Conclusion: This is an idea. It is not meant to be much more than an academic exercise in looking for ways to incentivize soldiers to stay in the armed forces longer, and eliminate the top heaviness of the military with respect to too many people in the warrant and commissioned officers classification. It would also follow that a harmonization of the Uniforms and rank system between the branches of service would also occur. The biggest fear though would be the loss of the individuality of each service and thus if this idea was ever seriously considered then it would be vehemently opposed. As such this is why it is an academic exercise and nothing more (although in the long run it may actually save the tax payers money). Keep brainstorming ideas everyone as when you come up with an idea that works, it may just change the world) though mine will probably sit on the back burner for a while.

Issue 180 Unfaire Government October 9, 2013

Have you ever wondered why politicians are paid so much more than or soldiers or even the average every day citizen. Well I think it is time for a pay cut.

The Soldiers pay: The average starting salary excluding benefits for a soldier is about $20-30 thousand. They go into harms way whenever Congress and the President see fit. But is it fair to give them such a low starting salary. I say no. They should be paid much more.

Average Citizen Income: We the people on average receive an average income of about $40 to $50 thousand a year. But this is just the average income. Only 10% of our nation has an income greater than $250,000. Also, almost 50% of the populace is on some form of government assistance (welfare). So we are left to struggle. According to the "wall Street Journal" Americans will not reach financial independence of $30,000+ until they are in their 30s. Back in the 1980s that age was around 24.

Congress: Here is the unfair part. The U.S. Congress gets $175,000 a year excluding perks. With perks this extends to well over the $200,000 mark. On top of this, Congress is exempt from things like Obama Care. They have special government organizations which build them custom desks, give them hair cuts and even a tailor. All this on the tax payer dime.

Now that you see the unfairness: So what should be done? At current the 27th amendment dictates how pay changes to members of congress shall occur. Basically, any and all changes occur after an election. So they can vote to increase their pay, but must wait till after an election to see that pay rise. So they can indefinitely increase their salaries while we have to try and get by with a ridiculous tax code that benefits the rich (which includes congress) more than the poor.

Conclusion: Let us make it so that a member of Congress can only receive pay equivalent to the current national average each year. If it increases then their pay increases, but if the national average decreases then their pay decreases. That means (if that law were in effect) that Congresses pay this year would be $57,000. A big pay cut that they deserve don't you think. This will give them incentive to keep the economy booming (which may also increase the buying power of the dollar which makes everything more affordable and thus decreases the number of the poor). An idea like this uses a Congressional members own selfishness to make them want a stronger economy. So they would be more inclined to fix the tax code and remove negative and unnecessary legislation and regulations that do nothing but become a hindrance. To insure no funny business, the national income will have to be measured in after tax dollars kept by individuals (this includes not just federal, but State and local income taxes as well). Also, the treasury will decide how the national average should be measured, not Congress to help insure that no accounting gimmicks are added in. They will have to do it through a select committee chosen in secret by the leading members of the treasury department. That select committee will decide any and all formulas in regards to this pay scheme for Congress. Thus it will be insulated from politics for the most part and thus prevent a good amount of corruption. Yes the military should be paid more, but I have another idea for that which you will see tomorrow.

Issue 179 Entrenched Politicians October 8, 2013

Entrenched Politicians are a special breed. They think they are essential to the government and people and as such they do not ever want to leave. But what truly categorizes an entrenched politician.

The run for office forever: It is true that these individuals just keep running for political office. They will always try to be re-elected because they think that they must hold onto that seat of office and the power it contains (unless of course they can achieve a higher office). Here is the reason that we have people like Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Chuck Schumer in office. In order to keep their positions they will give kick backs to their constituents to bribe the populace to continuously re-elect them. Meanwhile the populace is none the wiser that the challenger with fresh ideas was probably a better pick. In other words the population chooses free stuff (which they actually pay for with their tax dollars) over true change.

Positions of power: Almost all the politicians who are entrenched hold some sort of seniority in their political organizations or are in select positions. Examples of such people are Republican John McCain who has a post on select committees that govern national security or Democrat Charles Rangel who sits on the committee that governs changes to the tax code. Men like these think they are needed to keep these organizations running smoothly. Unfortunately it is these same men who stagnate thought and debate. John McCain is set on his Neo Conservative views of exporting democracy to the rest of the world (a fool’s errand). Rangel on the other hand is a progressive that inaccurately believes that by maintaining a progressive income tax and making it even more progressive to the point where the rich just up and leave. As a result we middle class and lower tax payers are forced to pay off these stupid government programs. Basically, all we have are these political flops. McCain seems to actually want to go to war and Rangel drive out the countries bread winners that pay over 75% of the total income tax revenue that goes into the Federal government. Despite these obvious failings in logic, they are supported by the party leadership and all those who go against them are attacked.

When they finally leave: Well most leave (from my point of view) when they want to finally retire or die. But sadly this is not the case (well the retiring part, not the dead part). Many of these politicians, who leave office, whether by being unelected, or choosing to leave, typically end up richer still. This is because they end up as lobbyists at various political organizations and businesses. In short they become part of the crony capitalist support system. OK, they were always part of that structure, but now they get a chance to receive a larger paycheck beyond their current $175,000 a year salary. These politicians who leave office may not even leave Washington D.C. As once they become highly paid lobbyists they will need "access" to their former colleagues as they grant their new bosses “access” to various people in power in the government.

Conclusion: These men and women never leave. In D.C. they constantly lobby for one issue or another. I would not even be surprised to find that they will literally represent anyone so long as they are the highest bidder. So what is an answer to all this? Well it is the same answer that people have been asking for, for years. That answer is term limits, and in some cases the elimination of the 17th amendment to the Constitution as well. We cannot predict if this will eliminate all forms of lobbying, but it will at least make a dent in the entrenched ideologues that make up the party leadership. Yes, we can all agree (except the politicians) to wanting to kick the bums out.

Issue 178 Political Party Fakes October 7, 2013

The political parties of any country are tools for getting candidates they choose elected. But, the parties themselves are fictitious. They do not represent a singular ideology, but a coalition of ideologies that find mutual agreement on certain issues. As such they are a bunch of fakes who pass themselves off as something more than they truly are.

The puppet masters: Those who control the parties are the ones who decide who runs in each election. These men and women use their power and authority to control which candidates are acceptable to the public at large so as not to appear too radical. Yes, some parties have votes to decide who will represent them, but those in the election are carefully selected by the party leadership. Did you notice that Ron Paul in the Republican Party primaries back in 2012 was ostracized by the party? The leadership did not like his brand of libertarianism or the fact that he was not as "progressive" as the leadership desired. As such his own Republican party (as libertarians, his true party, are still a fast growing minority) attacked him. So if you do not stick to the party line then you are predisposed to fail or at the very least be attacked from all sides.

The ideologies: A great number of people make up the members of each political party. America is no exception to there being a vast number of varying views and ideas with respect to political parties. But these groups tend to pool themselves into groups who they can either leech off of or at the very least share a similar goal. As such in the Democrat party you have the Communists, Socialists, Some Fascists, Some religious fascist on the most extreme end. Then you have moderates which include members of the Green Party, the Climate change groups, Lawyers, advocacy groups, Unions and the like. For the Republicans you have Unions as well, but you also add religious rights groups, and other progressives that you would find in the middle of the road Democrats party. In other words Progressives in the middle who want to advance the country in the way they see fit. Finally, there is the small government crowd, Tea Party groups and the Libertarians. If you look at it closely enough you will see that the Democrats have the most radical groups which they keep a tight leash on. This is accomplished through effective leadership and careful messaging which gives them what they want to hear or parts of legislation they want in order to keep them voting Democrat. The moderate Democrats and the middle of the road Republicans are the progressive group. Here, these groups tend to contain the party leadership. These people sound the most reasonable and generally stay in power the longest. Everyone else, like libertarians, are the third portion. Libertarians exist on both sides of the isle depending on which party will make their goals come true first. That really is what it is. It is these ideological groups joining together to get their agendas passed using these fake labels like Republican and Democrat.

Conclusion: I was no fool. I new the parties would not represent me at all. As such, when I registered to vote I checked the undecided mark when it came to deciding on a political party. The undecided mark is not even a political party like an Independent. It is a complete divestment from the party machine. So I can vote in an election, but I just surrendered my authority in choosing a candidate for either side. Let us face it, no one likes to be used and by being a member of the political party you let yourself become their puppet. Parties are nothing but Umbrella organizations that can disappear and no one will miss them. My goal writing to you my dear readers today is to remind you of that. The only essential component of government is a strong foundation through a Constitution and the people who support it. Parties can be tossed out with the trash.

 

Issue 177 The debt ceiling October 4,2013

The debt ceiling is coming. Currently, the debt "ceiling" as it is called is set at around $18 trillion. If it exceeds that amount of money, then the government will be forbidden from borrowing any more money. Many of you are saying good as they know that our current debt is $17 trillion and is going to reach that $18 trillion very shortly. But not everyone agrees.

Those who want to borrow more: The President wants the debt ceiling raised. I do not know if it is because he wants to keep borrowing to support certain programs, or he feels that more debt is the key to paying off what America owes. He just wants it raised. President Obama has even erroneously said in speeches that if the debt ceiling is not raised then the United States will not be able to pay off its debts. It is funny logic to pay off debt with debt. Does that not just increase your debt burden in the long run? What ever the case, the fools in D.C. consider borrowed money as a form of income. This money is always spent on whatever they "feel" is needed to help the country. This includes money to universities to study a shrimp running on a treadmill, studying drunken Chinese prostitutes, money to successful businesses, and even money to China which is not even being used to pay off our debt to them. Basically, the borrowed money is used to support the status quo currently going on in D.C.

What would happen if they could not borrow?: Well, then they would have allot of unfunded mandates. The government will be forced to either pay up or let things go bust. Yes there is a potential for bankruptcy at the federal level, but what most people do not know is that the treasury can prioritize paying off the national debt and as such all money will go towards that save the essentials. Thus, we will be safe from bankruptcy so long as the politicians don't get in the way. Also, the federal government will be forced to sustain itself on the money taken in rather than borrowed. As such Congress will have to pass much smaller spending bills that do more with less. So the government will finally be living within its means.

Conclusion: People like me are exhausted by the elaborate spending, and trash that the politicians put out. There are people who actually need help and yet 75% of welfare ends up helping the richest and most elite in this country. And you know what, many of that elite work in Washington D.C. When the market crashed, the only city to not be affected was D.C. They barely suffered at all, and in fact experienced growth. The more power that gets concentrated there the more corrupt it becomes. We do not want that beast fed any longer. It must be starved of its financial means that is being used to bankrupt our nation. I want the debt ceiling reached and the government to be forbidden from borrowing. We all should want to have the government live within its own means by rooting out corruption, eliminating overlap and reducing laws and regulations that serve no purpose. It is time the government goes back to being responsible. I hope it is time that the government understands that its spending spree should end.

If you agree with this, then contact your Senators and Congressmen and tell them "let us live within our means."

Issue 176 Another Shutdown!? October 3, 2013

Well another government shut down has occurred. The Republicans who control the House of Representatives will not comply with the demands of the Democrat dominated Senate and President Obama. The republicans are going to use this chance to do their best to get rid of bad government programs (or parts of them) like Obama care. In other words this is another game of chicken sponsored by the Republican Party. You know what? I say this is great!

Why is it a good thing?: The reason why a government shut down is good is because it will block Obama cares final initialization. Congress has yet to allocate funding for programs that require money to be authorized each year. As such, it is not just Obama care, but other programs and agencies that will not be able to function. This is great for libertarians like me as it blocks spending that could have been better spent in the hands of individual Americans.

What it does not do: A government shut down has no affect on entitlement programs or the military. Those programs are not discretionary, and as such they get the budgets they need before all other spending takes place. So seniors do not have to worry about not getting their Social Security money or being covered by Medicare and Medicaid (Medicaid is also partly run at the State level). Our soldiers will also be there to protect us along with all the other defense related agencies like the CIA. So only the essentials are unaffected by a shut down.  Also, those personnel sent home are those who have been deemed non-essential.  But do not worry as they will be paid once they return to their jobs (including back pay).  However, I would love to make it so that these non-essential people move on to other jobs outside of government as they are unneeded.

Is it bad to shut the government down?: Not really. It just means they are spending less money. Only people who need to be on Capitol Hill will actually be there. Everyone else just stays home. So the government is saving money through a shut down. The only real time you will not like it is if you are part of a government pet project as you will not be given any money at all. It is basically the same as when Newt Gingrich shut down the government when President Clinton was still in office and when it was shut down during the Obama administration during the last "budget crisis." From a libertarian’s perspective, money that is better spent elsewhere is just going to sit for a while. If there is any negatives to a shut down then it is with the political reputations of the individuals involved. The Republicans and Democrats, depending on how well they handle the situation will either look better or worse in the eyes of the American people. President Obama is already loosing popularity and if he comes out on the bottom of this, then he will become toxic to the Democrats in the next election cycle.

Conclusion: Depending on your perspective, a government shut down can be good, or it can be bad. Libertarians and conservatives will see it as good. Conservatives may see it as good for the same reason that libertarians do, the government is not spending our money on smut. But they may see it as good because liberals are their antithesis and thus are happy to see them squirm a bit. Liberals will see it as bad because they cannot get their agenda's passed. Nothing moves and as such nothing that they value can get done. Although it is unfair to place labels on people like liberal and conservative as the lines between them have blurred. So if you see the government as an answer to your problems, them a shut down is bad. If you see government as the problem, then a shut down is good. Well I think it is good as I do not want more government smut intruding on mine or anyone’s life. We are taxed to the limits of reason and beyond. Our options limited by government bureaucracy and corruption. A shut down thankfully gets the government monkey off our back at least for a short while. So Republicans!!!! Shut the darn thing down!!!!

Issue 175 Company College October 2, 2013

College is expensive here in the United States. I have to say I was lucky to have my parents as I paid a year of college myself with the remaining three being paid off by my parents. As such I graduated with zero debt. But my fellow students at Hofstra and other universities were not so lucky. They owe in excess anywhere between $30,000 and $180,000. On top of this, colleges are not training students in the skills they need for the work place environment. Students often get retrained by their work place in the skills they need for them to be successful in the company. As such, companies want to cut out the middle man.

What Businesses are doing: Due to the lack of job skills coming out of colleges, companies are offering their own online degrees in the courses that they feel best prepare a person for a job. Well, the course prepares the person for work in their own company primarily. However, many of those skills transfer over to other related business disciplines and as such make an individual just as marketable as if they went through another company’s online college course. Yes that is correct; the courses offered are college level equivalent. As such you take a course online in the same way you would if you were taking an online college course. Plus the course is recognized to be at the college level. So it looks just as good on a resume as if you went to a traditional college. The only difference is that a company offered the course as opposed to a college who offering the course.

Advantages: For one, the primary advantage is that it is cheap. The cost of these company level courses is smaller in general to the traditional college courses offered. In addition, it is a company offering a course that is geared mainly for preparing you in skills to work in the field that the company is in. So a tech company will offer relevant tech courses based on what they need and projected future needs. This is the same for all disciplines of business who want people prepared to do the job as opposed to them having to waste their money retraining people with the skills they require. So there is less need to worry about no being able to do a job as the course has trained you to do it already. Also, the training helps you to prep to work in other businesses in the same field and as such you are not restricted to working for the business who originally offered the course.

Disadvantages: The main disadvantage is the lack of traditional networking that occurs on campus. Brick and mortar colleges allow for you to meet strangers who could possibly one day land you a job. No, your normal social life will not suffer as you create your own from home. But your networking, unless you use various forms of social networking, will be limited. As to other disadvantages, there are certain courses that can only be accomplished in person. Some interdisciplinary courses like art, literature and such may require an actual school. So you will need to seek one of those out to acquire such forms of study.

Conclusion: Online courses are the wave of the future. They will not remove the traditional schools from their position with respect to certain forms of study (like being a doctor), but schooling will most likely get cheaper. Businesses offering such courses though will mean more competition which will force colleges to either offer better courses or lower their prices to compete. This of course is a win for everyone either way. But this revolution also helps the people with a lower income level as college is now becoming that much more affordable. This means less loans will be needed and as such less burden upon the individual once they graduate.

Issue 174 Right to die?! October 1, 2013

Do we have a right to die? Well I am conflicted. As a libertarian I should be in favor of letting people commit suicide if they so choose or of having assisted suicide if they feel they can no longer live in pain or other circumstance. As a Catholic, I am opposed because you’re not supposed to die by any means save a natural death. So let us discuses both sides as best we can.

Those who say we have the right: For one, it is your own body. You are allowed to jump out of airplanes, dive down to the depths of the sea and even clime mountains. We do many dangerous things that risk our lives. So why is it that we are allowed to risk our lives doing such things but not allowed to take it? Then there is the fact that people are suffering from diseases that are terminal. Some of these unfortunate people are in severe pain. Do they not have the right to end their own suffering when all manor of medication fails? And what if they cannot kill themselves but need the life support turned off for them? Why can't they have a doctor flip the switch for them that will end their suffering? Some States have already passed laws allowing people to have assisted suicide. This of course is better than traditional as the other person can at least insure that this is what that individual really wants. There are even seniors who want to be euthanized because they feel they are nothing but a burden to their own families. Of course this is sad, but it is also their own bodies. Do we as individuals have a right to decide this? We are given that choice when we appoint health care proxies to determine if to attempt resuscitation or not. Of course this is a person dying on there own and it being determined if they still want a chance at living. But for some, there is very little difference between choosing to die by not being resuscitated and having some one help you.

Libertarians ask themselves these very questions. They wonder about how many rights I personally hold over myself the individual. As such, because it is my body and I am not hurting anyone else "physically" then it is ok.

Those opposed: The people opposed to such things remember what it is like to loose a loved one. They hated that feeling with a passion. As such, a friend or family member choosing to die of their own free will is foreign to them. Sure they will praise the soldier who jumped on the hand grenade as a hero. But that is because the suicide had some sort of meaning. It was not senseless to die to save others. However, choosing to die for selfish reasons (no matter how benign) just turns many people’s stomachs like mine. I do not want to loose any of my friends and family in such a way. I love them all dearly irrespective of how often I get to see them or feel about them. With regards to faith, suicide is like spitting in the face of God because you are murdering yourself. You have taken Gods only other role in your life (deciding when it is your time) and finished yourself off. Then there is the emotional content. What of the people you leave behind. Do they not have a say because they love you? Then with respect to assisted suicide, doctors are supposed to save lives not take them. How does that meet with the Hippocratic Oath and come out on top?

These are the reasons people who cannot see suicide as anything but a cowardly act feel. It is also how people of faith feel when confronted with such an issue. As such there is no easy answer as we really do not know how we will confront the issue when we are faced with it.

Conclusion: It is a hard topic to right about. I myself have only thought about suicide in the concept of what it would be like without me. What would happen to my parents, my family and my friends? What would my death do to them? Would it make one of them commit suicide, or break up the family? What ways could it be done? I have access to knives and guns, and when I really got creative I found that there is an infinite number of ways to just kill yourself off. It actually scared me how detailed I had gotten in thinking about it. But after that time I never really thought of it again. I wanted to confront the world’s problems that were put in my path with every ounce of strength and vigor I can muster. Am I afraid to die? Yes I am. But I prefer a natural death to one that I impose on myself. As such I personally am against suicide. I hate the very idea of it all. However, I cannot speak for everyone. As such I have to come down the middle road on this and say that I would allow for assisted suicide for people on their death bed. But that is all especially as you cannot stop a healthy person from killing themselves if they really wanted to die. So this is how I feel. Again thanks for reading and I hope you get something good out of this too.