School administrations: Outmoded!?

Have you noticed that money we pay in taxes to public schools seems to not go anywhere near the teachers or the students?  It makes me question what we are paying taxes for in the first place.  We got these Superintendents in some places making in excess of $300,000 dollars a year.  I mean come on.  If you see the documentaries "Waiting for Superman" and "The Cartel" you can see why I am questioning the very existence of school administrations in the internet age.  So what would a modern school using internet technology for governance look like?

Ok, here is the hypothetical 21st school governance model.  Schools will be run by their principals and vice principals.  They are supported by secretaries who handle accounting, budgeting, human resources, and procurement.  Accounting, budgeting and procurement secretaries will work together to insure that all school supplies are stocked and maintained with money being given to teachers if necessary so that they can secure the supplies they need for their classrooms.  Human resources will handle monitoring of sick days, logging clock ins/outs, and provide for the hiring of all school personnel including teachers, and payment of janitors for jobs students cannot handle (students will clean their own classrooms so that they have a vested interest in a clean learning environment).  Students will even serve each other lunch in shifts so as to not interfere with classes with them cooking for fellow students (for children of younger ages or those who need monitoring lunch personnel will be hired by the school and paid by them just like with janitors).  Teachers will act as career/guidance counselors to students and be the primary source of discipline over students, with principals/vice principals taking over if the child is beyond the teacher's ability.  The school basically runs itself with these key members in each school (some positions being combined if it makes more economic sense and does not interfere with children's education).  

However, you may be asking, "what about our tax dollars?"  "Where and how is that monitored?"  Simple, County level government officials will collect taxes on behalf of the schools and give them the money, but the county government will have complete oversight over how that money is spent, and all school spending will be public knowledge in addition to all school personnel's salaries.  Additionally, the county government will also perform the background checks on school personnel and has the ability to veto the hiring or firing of any school official.  Not to mention, the teachers’ salaries, and the school principals vice principals and secretaries salaries will be handled by the county government, not the school itself.  The schools themselves will be able to hire out contractors to fix school buildings and equipment that is beyond that of janitors or students themselves, but the county has the right to interfere if they suspect that the school is not getting a fair deal.  Also, any leftover tax dollars that the school does not spend in a given year can go into extracurricular activities for students, additional special classes like shop class, or photography, or even special field trips.

Now, school education standards and classes will be created on a case by case basis.  The schools personnel, its principal/vice principal and secretaries, the country government and the State government will develop these standards.  At no time will teachers ever be told how to teach, but instead on what to teach. As such, what classes provided to students will be dictated by the State government, county governments will be responsible for funding these classes and adding additional subjects/classes they feel students will need to know and the equipment needed to teach them. The schools and their personnel will decide how those classes are to be taught, as the teachers who will teach the subject will be the ones developing the curriculum themselves (this includes tests and quizzes).

Conclusion:  The idea is to give the schools the autonomy they need to succeed on their own.  They only really need the teachers, the secretaries overseeing specific aspects of the school, and the principal and vice principal guiding them and ensuring everything runs smoothly.  Basically, the administration is integrated into the schools themselves by allowing them to essentially run themselves, but with appropriate over watch from county level governments.  I don't know if I am forgetting anything, but if I am, those roles can easily be taken on by the schools themselves, the county government, or even the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) if the school needs/wants to do fund raisers or provide for special events.  Schools can even gain additional revenue from showing movies in their auditoriums and other special events like school plays with students taking on roles like ticket taker and other jobs so that they can get a taste of working experience.  I am sick of these school superintendents and the school boards being nothing but paper tigers and wastes of space and money.  It is time for a change, and the aforementioned is one possibility.

Selling Debt

Did you know that banks and other institutions actually sell peoples debt?  Some of you are thinking, what the heck is this guy talking about.  Well apparently banks group bad loans together with some good ones and then sell them off to other business or people to collect the money instead.  In short, banks do not want to deal with people they know will probably never pay back their loan and then sell the debt to someone else to recoup some of their losses.  

The people who buy the debt do not buy it at its full amount, as some people can buy someone’s debt for as little as $50.  I guess the debt that banks sell are ones they made most of their money back on and the sale of that debt makes up for the remaining loss.  However, the person who owes money still owes the full amount they have to pay, but this time to the new owner of their debt.  So you get a loan from Bank of America, then they sell it to Citibank.  You now owe the full amount of what you were loaned to Citibank and not bank of America.  An issue arises where you could be still sending checks to your debts original owner, which they will gladly take, but it will still not pay down your loan as you now legally owe it to someone else.  As such people have inadvertently become delinquent on debt payments ruining their credit scores and preventing them from taking out new loans or lines of credit (I think the term Zombie loan is used to describe this situation).  The icing on the cake is that many States do not require a license for people to buy a person’s debt and thus becoming the equivalent of a loan shark.  

What can be done?  John Oliver of "Last Week Tonight" actually bought a bunch of people’s debt and forgave it.  As such, you could even potentially buy a person’s debt and then say they no longer owe anything anymore.  Another is a business that negotiates with the current debts owner and the debtor.  In this case the business agrees to buy the debt from the current owner.  From there the business now owns the debt, but rather than collecting, they charge a fee to the debtor equal to what they paid to buy the debtors debt plus an additional amount of money so that they can make a profit.

Other problems with this system are that people are not always properly notified of the transfer of ownership of their debt.  As such, the people who buy the debt typically notify their new debtors, but the original owner sometimes doesn't do so.  Therefor people discard the notification as spam mail or fraud.  You can figure out what problems occur from there.  But this can be solved if the original owner of the debt (the seller) notifies the debtor of their debts new owner.  This could help to alleviate some of the confusion people have when paying back their loans.

Final Thought:  So we got a business model and a charity model to forgive peoples debt.  We can help people in debt in a way that many probably did not think possible before.  It is amazing how selling debt, something that helped contribute to the financial crisis that ushered in President Obama can now be used to help end debt crisis for millions of individuals and businesses suffering from punishing debt.

Brexit repercussions.

Now to the impact of Britons exit from the EU.  Obviously if you watched the news then you saw that the stock market tanked.  So our 401k's, stocks and anything that relies on the stock market lost a lot of money.  So oops, British citizens just screwed a lot of people.  

With the British pound no longer supporting the Euro, Americas money just gained value.  In short, Americas Dollar can buy nearly any foreign goods on the cheap.  However, this makes American produced goods more expensive as they now will need more American money to produce.  As you can see the value of money is not fixed and can causes prices to fluctuate massively and alter the dynamics of international trade.  Something a single vote just made happen.  

Another major impact is that President Obama has stated in his reactionary speech that he will put preference on trading with the rest of the EU and its larger economic block and its trade rules rather than trade with Britain.  Economically it makes sense as the EU and its trade rules give America and other countries access to trade with 26 nations rather than Britain which is a smaller market.  

Additionally, Scotland and Northern Ireland are going to be holding their own referendums to become independent from the rest of Britain.  With more than 60% of Scotland voting to stay in the European Union it seems likely that Scotland will leave Britain behind and then rejoin the EU as an independent country.  Northern Ireland on the other hand may reunite with the rest of Ireland and thus be part of the EU once again as well or join as an independent State as well.  This leaves England and Whales as the only remaining members of Britain save a few foreign territories.  

And finally, David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Great Britain has resigned.  He pinned his leadership on the outcome of this election and he lost.  Now Great Britain, or what soon will remain of it, will get a new leader and thus world relationships will change as the men and women set to potentially take power in Britain are much more conservative and nationalistic.  It would not be surprising if Britain turns toward Russia, another country embracing its nationalism, as it seems the rest of the world is marginalizing Britain in the wake of this vote (my opinion).

Final Thought:  This is going to be interesting.  If Britain can eject themselves from the EU, then so can others.  But, at the same time it means there is a power vacuum in Europe and other nations may try to seize some power.  Also, other countries in Europe have issues with national identity which may cause countries like Belgium and Spain to break up into smaller countries as they embrace regional nationalism.  Some analysts believe that this nationalistic fervor is a reaction to Islamic nationalism.  But I disagree.  I think it is deeply rooted in age old identities that have been smoldering for years.  As to whether this leads to the EU's collapse or not cannot be determined, or it could instead lead to it solidifying instead and making it that much stronger.

Brexit!!!

So the British have left the European Union.  Their nationalism has taken hold and said no more to open boarders that leave them vulnerable to terrorist incursions.  No more to subjecting themselves to other European nation’s political agendas.  And most importantly they embraced their pride as British citizens.

Note this vote was close.  Super close.  So much so in fact that the losing side wants to hold an additional referendum because they feel that the 50% plus one majority is not enough to make this decision.  However, the vote was fair and square and the losing side is just being a spoiled sport.  

I personally think this vote needed to happen.  Britain was always independent from the EU because they kept the British pound as opposed to switching to the Euro.  They supported the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush Administration whereas the rest of Europe either sat back, gave token consent or denounced America.  Britain is still a world player and it is flexing its conservative roots.  Basically, they never needed the EU, but as to whether the EU needs them remains to be seen.

Final Thought:  The EU has been expanding and changing itself since after WWII.  It started as a means to prevent future wars in Europe and then expanded into a faceless bureaucratic monstrosity that barely has any semblance to democratic ideals.  British citizens didn't want that and thus they are out (my analysis).  See you tomorrow for my analysis on the Britain's exit.

Eliminating the Payroll tax!

The payroll tax is a tax all Americans in the U.S. pay.  This particular tax is a name for the two taxes that are used to pay for Social Security and Medicare part A.  So how could they get rid of this tax like so many Presidential Candidates in the current 2016 election have promised?  

Basically, candidates like Ted Cruz, Trump and former candidate Rubio would integrate it into the regular tax scheme.  Basically, you would be taxed at the current tax rate with no payroll tax being taken out.  This allows you to keep more money in your paycheck and apparently could mean the elimination of tax returns as the payroll tax is taken out first and causes issues math wise with the IRS.  But what about actually contributing to Social Security and Medicare part A?  Well, the IRS would take a percentage of what you pay to the government in taxes and pass it on to Social Security and Medicare part A.   This is much easier to do as you are still contributing by you paying taxes with just the exception that the IRS takes the money out of the total amount you pay in taxes rather it being two separate (three technically) taxes.

However, if the Candidates really wanted to do the right thing, they would eliminate the income tax with the payroll tax and switch to a national sales tax.  We would get to keep all our money, but we get taxed when we buy stuff.  The more you pay for something the higher amount of taxes you pay per year.  Under this system, just like the income tax system, a portion of what you pay in taxes will go toward Social Security and Medicare part A.  The only difference is that you don't have to file for income taxes any more, and illegals, criminals, foreign visitors and others all contribute to Social Security and Medicare thus adding more money to the system.  

Conclusion:  Obviously I want the income tax gone, but I'll settle for just the payroll tax going away for now.  Reason being is that Social Security and Medicare will still get funded, and it saves time and effort with respect to filing taxes.  Eliminating taxes is a good thing as it frees people up monetarily so they can buy the things they need (or want).  Still, I think a sales tax makes more sense, but this is just my take on the issue and why I'll be voting Republican in the United States 2016 Presidential election. 

Monuments to evil: What do we do about them

I was reading the Economist and there was an article about old Confederate monuments and monuments to Southern heroes who are by all respects and purposes racists.  With the Confederate flag controversy and its removal from government land, should such monuments be removed as well?

The answer is not clear cut.  Some can be removed and some should never be removed.  The Economist writer believed that such monuments should have a plaque added that performs an educational function to inform people of our country's past and to serve as a reminder to future generations that we should not commit such atrocities and evil ever again.  Basically these monuments to segregation, slavery and massacres are artifacts and thus can become a learning tool.  

Another idea was to place monuments that countered the original message of the current monuments next to them or replace them altogether as a memoriam to the victims and people's defiance to racism and evil.  This is also a nice idea that people can get behind, but I don't like the idea of just replacing the "evil" monument with a new one.  Instead I would like a museum to be made to house these removed monuments when applicable or mock ups of the originals along with other artifacts of our country's racist past to serve as a reminder of what evil looks like so we can say never again.  These museums can be called "Facing History Museums" where we look at massacres, slavery, segregation and discrimination of all peoples in the United States.  As such, a section on Native Americans, Black Slavery, and Internment of the Japanese in WWII among others, and the 1960s discrimination and our nation overcoming these evils one by one will be included.   We can use these museums and monuments to say we have made mistakes and we want to embrace them so we never make them again rather than try to hide them.  

Conclusion:  I like the ideas of the plaques and of the alternate monuments that were suggested by the article.  However, under no circumstance should a monument be destroyed if it is possible to move it instead.  A museum with these removed monuments to Indian massacres, racism against Asians and more should be created or one per State in the major cities so that people can access the information there.  Even small halls in America's Natural History Museums could work and have artifacts dedicated to educating the public on the darkest parts of our history.  We have to say never again, and we can do this through education.

Drug costs

I seem to always come back to this issue.  Heck I work in a pharmacy and some of the prices for prescription drugs are outrageous.  But I will continue to revisit the issue as drug prices do not need to be this high.

Drugs cost a lot due to a number of things.  You have the obvious shipping and handling costs, liability insurance if something goes wrong, and of course profit motivation so that the companies that make these drugs can stay in business.  Then there is federal regulations which does testing, dictates how drugs are shipped and handled, and basically controls every aspect of production to sale to the person with a prescription.  Actually, the federal regulations in my opinion increase the cost the most because you have things like generic Flonase (the allergy nasal spray) costing $200 for the original prescription version, but the OTC version (which is exactly the same drug) costs $26.  That is a major contrast.  It went down to just $26 just by the regulations by the federal government being eased up because the drug is no longer a prescription item.  So if the drug Flonase is just as safe as an OTC with its regulations as it is as a prescription drug and its more numerous regulations, does that mean that we can reduce, or even taper down federal regulations from year to year that do not add to the maintenance of the quality and safety of a drug.  That alone would reduce drug costs.  Another method that deals with the regulation problem and saves money is by accepting drugs from other countries with equivalent or superior safety regulations.  This would save money for drug companies to get their drugs to the market faster if the drug is approved in Britain or Sweden first as the United States (last I heard in 2007) has the most numerous regulations in the world which adds onto the cost of everything.  Or we can just make a bunch of drugs OTC's and save a lot of time and hassle.

With regulations reduced or adjusted to meet real world safety standards for new drugs, and potentially adjusted for drugs on the market for a specified number of years, costs will go down dramatically.  But this is not enough.  Patent laws are one of the biggest issues we face with respect to drug costs.  Most U.S. drug patent laws give drug companies a 10 year window of ownership of a certain drug formula with the potential for renewal.  However, almost seven years of that 10 is all research and development for that drug of which over 70% of those potential drugs never making it to market.  So when a drug finally goes on the market after 7 years of development the drug company has to make up the costs for all the money invested into the drugs cost and all the failed drugs too.  As such, by removing this 10 year monopoly on a drug formula we actually slow development, but at the same time free up time constraints on the drug company.  This means the drug will go to market at the same time as the patent kicks in, meaning the drug company will now have ten years to make up the enormous costs rather than three, thereby distributing the cost over time. 

Another way to make drugs cheaper is to eliminate labor costs or even the production of drugs at the drug company’s factories all together.  This can be done by 3D printer technology.  Already approved in the United States for certain drugs, 3D printers eliminate 90% of the labor costs at the drug factories themselves.  To eliminate manufacture of drugs at the factories, the drug company can license pharmacies equipped with 3D printers to make the drugs there in house.  Thus the cost of materials, and labor shift to the pharmacies which means drug companies do not have to worry about labor or shipping costs which reduces the costs to produce the drugs as a whole and potentially reallocating the saved money for research and development costs.

Final Thought:  Some of the regulations on drugs also apply to medical devices and products.  Therefore, eliminating costs or reducing the things that artificially increase costs aid in making medicine cheaper for all.

Harambe

By now most of the world knows the name Harambe.  The silver back gorilla Harambe was shot and killed because it was perceived that it was a danger to a child that had fallen into Harambes enclosure.  I have seen multiple videos on what occurred (all were edited) and this is my opinion on the matter.

For one, that child should never have been able to fall into the enclosure to begin with.  I do not understand how a modern zoo enclosure is capable of being penetrated by a child.  I do not entirely leave the parent of the child blameless in this as any parent has looked away only briefly to find their kid doing something they are not supposed to do.  However it is obvious to me we have a zoo enclosure problem.

Now as to what happened after when the child had fallen in.  I am not the zoo keepers.  I do not know how that gorilla reacts to various stimulus let alone a crowd making a lot of noise and panic after a child falls into a silver back gorilla enclosure.  I have seen video of the gorilla agitated and also calm in the videos I watched.  As such the zoo keepers get the benefit of the doubt with respect to do, and thus unfortunately made the right decision.  

Final Thought:  We now have activists calling for the complete shutdown of zoos and some more moderate people calling for gorillas in general to be released back into the wild.  Zoos however serve a purpose.  They are designed (at least currently) to support awareness and money for programs for conservation, studying animals in ways that cannot be done in the wild, and even act as endangered species breeding centers.  We need zoos, and enclosures can be designed in ways that maximize space for the animals to mimic their natural environment and habits, while at the same time keeping the general public out of the enclosure itself and thus ensuring the safety of both the animals and the people visiting.  For animals that are too old or need freedom, a preserve can be set up to protect them.  Harambes death does not have to be in vain.

Soft Targets

I have discussed this topic before, but the terror attack in Orlando Florida makes it one that has to be revisited again, and most likely again in the future.  

A soft target is any place that can be attacked that is not able to defend itself.  This means Baseball games, schools, and even nightclubs are all targets.  These places can have security, but they cannot fend off a determined armed assault like with the case of the attacks in Paris and the night club in Orlando.  Terrorists generally will not target police stations and military facilities as they can defend themselves (though there are exceptions like the Fort Hood Shooting).  So we need to harden the soft targets to protect them.  This means police acting as armed security in addition to hired security with police reacting to violent situations that regular security cannot handle.  Bomb proofing walls, windows and doors and making them bullet resistant also helps.  However, these options are also expensive, thus relegating them to stadiums and schools where mass public gatherings are common place with towns and cities having the budgets to provide such security.  But this still leaves places like the public pool during summer, poorer neighborhood schools and dance clubs and popular bars and hangouts vulnerable.  As such, intelligence gathering comes into play.  Basically, if the terrorists are planning something it is up to our police, the military, CIA and other intelligence agencies to share any and all information.  This information takes advantage of terrorists leaving "breadcrumbs" or a "trail" to follow which allows the police to stop the attack before it starts.  Thus the smaller and/or poorer soft targets become defended to a degree.  

Despite all this the soft targets and even hard targets are still vulnerable to a particular type of attack.  That attack type is the one by the "Lone Gunman".  A single person or a tight close knit group who plan the attack independently of the enemy's leadership and act exclusively on his or her own.  An example of this is the Fort Hood shooting, the Boston Marathon bombing and the Orlando Night club shooting.  Our enemies in this case are self-radicalized Islamic terrorists who fall in love with the Jihad death cult mentality.  To defeat this group, you must attack the radical ideology along with ISIS/ISIL and its sister radical organizations who purport this death cult.  Basically make them look as toxic to be in as they really are or worse so that no one would be willing to join them.  So while it will not stop the currently radicalized individuals, it will aid to stop the future ones.

Final Thought:  It is not going to be easy to win this.  We cannot simply carpet bomb our way out or use drones to kill the enemy in retaliation when it is the words of the enemy that are turning our own neighbors into monsters.  If we do not re-evaluate our defensive structure to compensate for all possibilities, share information and cooperate to dismantle this ideology that is on par with the NAZIs and the Soviet Communists, then all will be lost.

Political correctness and Islam

I will state this for the record, Muslims are not evil and Islam is not a violent religion.  However, Islamic terrorists who pervert Islam, or believe in the ideology of death advocated by a radical version of Jihad are the enemy.  Are they Muslim?  Yes they are.  Are they representative of all Muslims?  Not at all and they never will be.

Why do I state the obvious above?  Simple, because if I say Radical Islam, or similar I would be bashed because people are too stupid (my opinion) to realize I am only talking about the psychos who pervert the Islamic faith.  A faith that some of my closest friends share.  But the Islam my friends worship and the Islam these radical monsters worship is not the same and I cannot stress that enough.  However, political correctness tries to silence people who criticize the evil Jihadist Muslims because people cannot see the difference in criticizing the evil Islam and the real one that would not commit such acts as the Boston Marathon bombing or the recent attack in Orlando Florida.  As such politicians refuse to act to tackle the dismantling of the radical elements of the Islamic faith that supports ISIS/ISIL.  They do not want to be politically incorrect or feel like they are isolating one of the largest faiths that exists in the world next to Christianity.  Basically they are afraid to speak or be criticized and fear being called a hate monger which would tarnish their "careers".  

If we could attack this perverted version of Islam we would be stating that it advocates killing your own family if they do not agree with the cause.  That it wants to enslave women as sex slaves and advocates other forms of slavery.  It wants to kill all who are not Muslim unless they convert or are enslaved.  We should say how these terrorists want to make their own mothers into tools for men to rape at will.  How their sisters will be married to men 30 to 50 years older than them to be raped nightly.  Or should I mention that the Jihadists kill babies and young children.  That's right, they are baby killers.  These Islamic terrorist, who pervert the real Islam, commit act of mass murder.  They must be trounced. 

Final thought:  Crush the Islamists who pervert the real Islam.  Defeat their ideology by saying the truth.  That they are monsters who take a religion of peace and use it as a means to recruit mass murderers.  It is time to fight not just with arms and intelligence gathering, but a campaign of words to say why these monsters are who they are.  Show the world their brutality and then crush them without mercy.

Justice for Orlando

This weekend there was an attack on a Florida nightclub.  That attack was carried out by Omar Mateen who had pledged himself to Jihad and the ISIS/ISIL cause.  His targets at that nightclub where gays, and other members of the LGBT community.

Some facts that are still being verified by the news are:

1) He was trained as a security guard who possibly provided guard duty to Fort Pierce.

2) He legally owned a firearm, passing all background checks.  The weapons he used were a rifle and a pistol.  He also may have had bombs strapped to himself and his car.

3) He himself called 911 to pledge himself to ISIS/ISIL before taking action to carry out his evil.

4) The LGBT community was targeted because under Islam such sexual conduct is considered perverse and routinely in the Middle East and Africa, members of the LGBT community are killed by intolerant Muslims, especially those committed to the Jihad.

5) This is a domestic act of Islamic Terror and a Hate crime.

Final Thought:  This man was investigated multiple times by the FBI and could not be tied with any conclusive evidence to ISIS/ISIL or any other Islamic group.  The FBI did not fail though, as Mateen was the lone gunman.  A self-radicalized member of ISIS/ISIL.  And now, because of political correctness which prevents us from usurping the perverted version of Islam that these Jihadi’s follow, over 50 people (and possible more to come) are dead.  Those 50 people should have never have died by the hands of this hateful monster.  So pray for the victims and their families.  Pray that we do the right thing so that we can do what we can to prevent it from happening again.

Pray for Orlando

This weekend the LGBT community was targeted by a terrorist attack.  The attacker a self-radicalized member of ISIS/ISIL.  Now 50 people with possibly more to come are dead.  These people did not deserve this.  They should have never have died the way they did in this hateful malignant violence.

So I say prey for the dead, their families and those who are struggling to survive their injuries in the hospital.  Pray with all your might.

Pray for Orlando

Gods other children: Demons (Djinn)

Did you know that in the Koran that God also created the Djinn (demons in western lore)?  Yep, God created them too.  The order of creation was the angels, then the djinn and then man.  However, many people don't know about this or have considered the role of the djinn in our spiritual world (at least that is how I see it).  So who are the Djinn?

Djinn or in the western world demons are beings made of fire and gas.  It is kind of like how man was made from clay and ash, while angels were made of light and warmth.  According to Islamic tradition, these creatures are generally invisible to the naked eye.  They fade in and out of view due to their composition.  They take on the roles of nature spirits and of antagonists to man.  In short they help balance nature and also to test mankind.  As such they are generally neutral or dangerous to mankind (hence stories of possession and afflictions by demons).  Needless to say as beings created second by God, they see themselves as superior to man.  They are equally however capable of great good or evil like mankind.  So you could say they were the prototypes to man as well.  Interestingly King Solomon in the Bible was able to use holy scriptures and spells (yes those things existed back then in Judaism) to control and manipulate the djinn.  

Like the tribes of Israel, the djinn are organized into twelve tribes of their own and with a possible thirteenth tribe existing.  The tribes are organized based on each types of djinn's nature and what they are capable of.  Of course Christianity expanded on this and created an organization of demons of the underworld where there are 72 legions each led by some sort of demonic king or earl as the ranks follow the same kind of royal ranking systems of medieval Europe (books were written about it in that time after all).  Nowadays we usually just lump them together under Satan or Lucifer or even call them all devils.  

Final thought:  We forget that God is supposed to come first and that God created everything.  So to test us, to mold us as we evolve as human beings it is no stretch that God created the djinn (demons).  It also becomes more complex if we include the creatures of other countries outside of the Middle East and Europe to the mix like the Indian Rakasha and Japan's Nui.  Already some cryptozoologists are trying to integrate and categorize these creatures in a religious format especially Japans cryptozoologists as they have already placed things like Vampires and Werewolves into their own classification system for their demons, the Yokai.  Needless to say I find it all interesting and fun to learn about.  So this is me just sharing.

Lucifer Vs Satan.

So Lucifer and Satan are not the same angel.  Yes they are both angels who fell, but are not the same.  Yesterday we told the background of Lucifer, so today for clarity and hopefully an interesting article, we will tell the backstory of Satan.   Satan's story starts similarly to Lucifer’s.  He is jealous of God's love for his new creation Adam.  But instead of rebelling by trying to corrupt his fellow angels, he instead speaks out in defiance in front of everyone.  Satan wants to know why Adam and humanity are more perfect than him and the other angels.  God says that they are the closest of his creations that resemble his image.  Basically, mankind is closest to God in shear terms of looks and perhaps even mentally as well (angels are pure, and thus are more corruptible than man).  So God says for him to prove it and gives Satan a job for which he is motivated for.  As such, Satan is to tempt man into disobeying God.  That is Satan's job.  He goes around testing our faith, trying to make us falter in our faith and do things that are against God's will.  Hence when Muslims pray, they do it shoulder to shoulder believing that they can keep Satan at bay by not giving him the room to whisper in their ears.

So who actually sits on the throne of hell?  It is most likely Lucifer as he would be pleased to oversee the punishment of those who disobey God.  Satan's job tempts man, while Lucifer brings about divine punishment in the afterlife as part of his redemption.  It can be inferred that these angels both in their dislike for man became the perfect vessels for God to test those who come the closest to being God (us mankind).  You see, no matter what, God loves all that he created, so giving them all a second chance is not out of the realm of possibility (hence why I believe God could allow for and instigate instances of reincarnation for the soul and spirit to redeem themselves).  God gave Lucifer a second chance (along with his followers) to put fear into the hearts of man.  Basically, Lucifer punishes sinners for betraying God's expectations.   So you could even say that Lucifer hates man even more for betraying God by sinning in the first place (we are closest to God due to our being made in God's image after all.) 

Final Thought:  I think personally both angels are fully motivated to do their best to tempt and to punish man for our insurrections (Lucifer is burning us in hell fire after all to make us become redemptive).  Though I think this hatred is less hate and more sibling rivalry or even the desire for power.  I mean, what older sibling does not get jealous of the attention the younger sibling gets.  In fact if you apparently read the Hebrew text of the Torah, when Gods name is written, it stands for parent and then changes throughout the course of the text to mean different things.  So you could say that big bad Lucifer and Satan are our much older angelic bad boy brothers (or sisters as angels are not supposed to have a biological sex), who try to aid God (Big Daddy) by teaching and disciplining their younger siblings (us).  To do so they try to tempt people away from believing in God.  Or at least, this is what I am getting from what I have learned.  Yea, they are jealous, and maybe even resentful, but in the end they perform a very important duty by tempting us, and burning our sins away in hell fire.  That duty is to reinforce our mental fortitude, our faith, and our inner spirit as we become worthy to stand before God.

When the angels fell. Heaven's war.

I have always heard stories of the fall.  When Lucifer led his band of angels and was cast out of heaven.   But I wondered.  God is all powerful.  He created us and thus can destroy us.  So how can angels make war against God without being smited?  The answer came to me when I was watching a discussion between Dr. Alveda King (Dr. Martin Luther King's niece) and Glenn Beck.  That answer was that the 1/3 of angels cast out did not make literal war.  They couldn't.  Instead they used a war of words and ideology.  Lucifer who was jealous of man whispered in the other angel’s ears and told them that they were better.  That if they listened to him, then everything would come out ok.  In this, Lucifer wanted to supplant God due to his jealousy of man replacing him as God's favorite by controlling heaven in the same way mankind continues to vie for control of earth.   It was a rebellion of thought in order to ascertain power.  That power was to show that Lucifer was the perfect son and could be as great as God.

 Now the question is, why God didn’t just push them at the outset.  Why didn't God just be rid of Lucifer before he corrupted so many?  I think there is a few reasons.  God created the angels just like he did man.  As such, Lucifer and the other angels are God's children as well.  God could have been hoping that another angel could talk Lucifer out of it.  That the arguments against would prevail.  However, Lucifer's promises of not having to do anything but obey corrupted the pure hearted angels.  They stopped thinking and therefore no longer performed their duties.  They became a cancer.  That cancer was going to corrupt all the angels if not stopped, and thus God cast out his favorite angel Lucifer and those who no longer could think for themselves save follow Lucifer down from heaven.  

Final Thought:  Now to me it makes sense.  That an angel could actually beat God or supplant God was preposterous to me.  But as a power struggle where Lucifer sought control over the other angels and thus manipulated them into not obeying God, now that makes sense.  However, I do not think it was God fearing losing control of his kingdom that worried him.  It was what his children and Lucifer especially would do with that ability to manipulate and control that he feared.  God could not be defeated, but his other creations could.  So mankind and the other angels who were still loyal and could think for themselves were under threat of possible persecution by Lucifer's mentally lazy followers who rely on others to think for them.  And as punishment Lucifer now sits on the throne of hell, or is it perhaps Satan, another who rebelled (if you look at the Islamic lore) who sits on hell's throne? Well that can be tomorrow’s blog post.  Hope you enjoyed the read.

Triconomy of humanity

Did you know that our bodies are separated into three parts when talking about them in a religious sense?  When God created us we were made in three parts.  Those three parts are as follows, body, soul and spirit.  So what do these parts consist of?  Well let me tell you what I know.

The Body:  Basically it is the human flesh.  Our bodies are our conduits to manipulate and travel in the physical plane of existence.

The Soul:  Our souls contain our emotions.  Everything primal "thought" wise is in there.  From the pleasure we get from sex, to the drive to live.  All these stem from here.

The Spirit:  The final component that is often used interchangeably with the soul terminology wise is the spirit.  The Spirit contains our knowledge, what shapes us and our conscious decision making.  It is also the part that passes on to Heaven and meets God (as far as we know that is, as the body is left behind).  As such it is considered the most important part of our triconomy as it allows us to communicate with God.

Final Thought:  This is me sharing again.  In this case I wanted to bring attention to another way of viewing the body soul and spirit to share that our soul and our spirit may not be the same thing.  In some cases people will reverse the role of soul and spirit based on their own beliefs or understandings of the words.  Interestingly to note is that many religions have souls, spirits and maybe even more components to what consists of us, the human in the body itself.  I personally believe in the above and thus I share this with you.  Hope you enjoyed learning a little about this subject and that it spurs you to seek out more knowledge on the subject.

Children and Concussions

Should we protect children from high impact sports?  I think we should, but under no circumstances should sports be banned.  So how would this work?

High impact sports, like Rugby and Football among others, put children at risk of a concussion with children being very susceptible to brain damage.  Apparently a single concussion can impair a child for over two years.   Yes children want to play these sports, but they cannot make an informed decision on when to play.  So now it is up to adults to figure out what to do.  Some policies and laws are being put in place that can help.  One such policy is "suspecting concussion".  What this does is have a child who is suspected of having a concussion be removed from the game immediately so they can be checked by a doctor on the side lines (another child on the team will sub in while this happens).  This helps ensure a child with a concussion gets help immediately.  Another such policy/law is "return to play" laws.  In this case, if a young athlete gets a concussion they must be cleared by a doctor before they can play again in any contact sports.  This policy protects the child from further damage to their brains.  Some colleges have taken to eliminating full contact training to limit concussions and other injuries which protects athletes.  Thus alternative means of training or even non-contact versions can be used to compete and train with one another.  Another idea is to base players on size rather than age which prevents kids from getting injured by the bigger/stronger members of their age group (bigger children hit harder and thus are more likely to cause severe injury to their smaller peers).

Conclusion:  There are options, as stated above, for the children to be protected from concussions and any further brain damage.  It takes a little common sense to balance child safety and them playing the sports we love.

Problems with Libertarian Candidates

The Libertarian party is the political party that wants to take over the world so that everyone can be left alone.  Basically, they advocate for as little government as possible while still being able to punish the obviously wrongful acts (things like murder), and protecting the country from harm (terrorists and foreign governments).  But the candidates for the party are problematic and here is my reasons why.

Let me start by saying I respect the libertarian party and what they stand for.  They want maximum freedom for each and every individual.  However, when they talk about those freedoms they scare people.  Candidates like Gary Johnson (former governor of New Mexico) wants all illegal drugs legalized, and for no drug to require a prescription.  As such you could buy Heroin, and Percocet.  Problem is that people in America are only really willing to allow Marijuana to be legal right now.  People in the United States cannot grasp the idea of people buying Heroin, Pot, Meth, Percocet’s and their antibiotics from a drug store without a prescription.  People fear the possibilities of drug intoxicated people dying on the streets of New York City and elsewhere.  While their fears are well grounded, countries like Spain have had legalized Heroin for years and they have none of the problems people fear most with legalizing narcotics (especially as the use of the once illegal drugs has dropped).  Libertarians thus cite these facts, but America is not ready to listen and thus the libertarians come off as lunatics.  Likewise it is the same for foreign policy.  Libertarians want free trade, and if you don't attack us we will not kill you attitude.  But many non-libertarians take this to mean isolationist policies and unwilling to fight enemies (like terrorists) based on how they present their arguments.  Basically we libertarians can come off as nutty.

Conclusion:  Austen Peterson, a libertarian Presidential candidate, actually talked about this issue with Glenn Beck.  He said that Libertarians have to be willing to make sacrifices while putting forth their ideology and as such be pragmatic.  So legalize weed, not anything else until it is acceptable to the general public.  Embrace free trade and potentially open borders when people's concerns over terrorism and jobs can be alleviated.  Basically, do not rush the ideology of personal freedom, instead let people decide if and when they are ready for the personal responsibility aspect that comes with being a libertarian.