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.