Issue 356 Intolerance June 12, 2014

Intolerance is pretty much a bad thing.  It means that, from the standpoint of an individual, that the person will not tolerate something.  Many of the Liberal and Conservative members of the American community however, preach tolerance.  In short, they ask why we don't we all just get along with one another.  However, judgments are made by people on what they see as tolerant or in tolerant.  So this judgment call is what I will discuss today.

Example:  An example of intolerance can come from racial groups like the KKK and the Neo Nazi's.  They do not like Black Americans or anyone whose skin is darker than themselves.  So KKK members will burn crosses on Black Americans' lawns, Neo Nazi's will assault people, and both overall will attempt to make life as uncomfortable as possible for those of another "race." This is an obvious example of intolerance.

Now a different example.  A person who is a Black American, has a prescription from a doctor for narcotics.  However, that prescription comes from a doctor who works in an area where both legal and illegal drugs are abused.  On top of this, the individual in question is filling at a different pharmacy in a completely different town.  Is refusing the script while just knowing these details racist/intolerant?  Well it depends on who you ask.  Some may say that it is due to the individual with the prescription being Black.  But if you take the skin color angle out, would that influence your decision toward filling a prescription that is suspect?  This is actually a real life scenario that happened to a pharmacist I know and as to the rest of what happened in this case I cannot tell you, but this is actually an example of tolerance.  If the script was rejected merely because the person filling was black, that would be both racist and intolerant, however the other details that were checked and factored in (regardless of the race of the individual) make it tolerant.  Long story short, we don't care about your skin color, if it’s a legitimate prescription, get it from a legitimate doctor.

Example 2:  There is a major issue of gay marriage currently going on in America currently (or at least it is being hyped up).  But there are people like the KKK, and other intolerant groups who assault gays and other same sex couples.  Obviously this is intolerant.  But what about the Churches rejection of gay marriage.  Is this intolerant?  In this case it is fully tolerant.  The Churches (at least the majority I know of) do not ban gays from their Churches, do not make them uncomfortable, and the clergy and congregation have gay friends.  So they are in fact 100% tolerant (with few exceptions).  But why no gay marriage?  Simple, their faith does not believe in marriage between two people of the same sex, because God does not permit it as per the Bible and you cannot create a child the natural way (i.e. the miracle of life).  This is the reason why.  It has nothing to do with the church hating gays, but that faith says no to gay marriage.  In short, due to these reasons the Church is tolerant.  However, there are those who disagree and say it is not tolerant.  Thus my point, that people make judgment calls.  Thus while people are in general tolerant, they are intolerant of that which they perceive as going against their values and that which does not to conform to those values.

Conclusion:  Intolerance is a curse we live with.  We tolerate what we want and shun the rest due to not conforming to our values and predetermined notions of what life should be like. This is because intolerance, I believe, comes from fear of change.  That is why every group, race, religion and all in between have been subject to intolerance.  It is the fear of what will be different.  Once we recognize this, and accept (not just tolerate) change, we can move forward together. 

Issue 355 War theft 2 June 11, 2014

Here I am going to discuss a different type of war theft.  In this case it is not soldiers raiding the homes of abandon homes due to battles, but of governments at war raiding each other’s money.  Allow me to explain.

Concept:  Once war is declared, countries try to defeat each other.  But this does not mean it has to include violence, or the minimization thereof.  One of the growing concepts of war is to attack the financial means of the enemy country to weaken it so that can be rendered powerless or at least less powerful.  So why do we not take money directly from the enemy countries treasury.  In short, the attacking country uses electronic means to hack into the enemy countries bank account and steals all their money to help fund their own war efforts.  And if not done by financial means, then soldiers would be sent in to directly take money from the enemy’s banks in the opposing country.  Also, if say we are fighting terrorists and their supporters, why not do the same to them and take the money that they have as well to fund war and defense efforts, and even pay off national debts.

Advantages:  For one, no country or terrorist group can survive without money to fund its operations.  By finding and taking their money, you can effectively shut down the enemy government or organization for an extended period of time.  This is especially effective against governments as they will have to be careful not to print more money least they cause inflation which could cause prices to rise within their country and increase poverty.  In short, taking the money can be devastating.

On the flip side, the country doing the taking can now use that taken money to fund their war efforts instead of using tax payer dollars.  Also, money taken that is not spent on war efforts may go toward the public debt, or fund other projects like roads and hospitals.  So the money can be put to a good cause.

In practice:  With the recent Russian annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, the international community has frozen the assets of many power brokers and government officials in Russia.  However, this only affected those who had assets outside of Russia.  However, if the Ukrainian government instead took their money via hackers on both the individual level and the governmental (like the money in the Russian military budget), the Russians may not have been so quick to annex Crimea, let alone be reluctant to give it back.

Conclusion:  Unlike individual war theft, this form has some moral ground as to defeat an opponent, possibly before shots ever having to be fired.  Money really does make the world go round and by removing the enemy countries financial assets, it creates major repercussions that they cannot hope to face without aid of an ally.  In addition, if the money of the enemy country is taken away and your country is the victor, your country can then replace their currency with a different one your country will control.  Thus, your country can adjust its value at will making the enemy now dependent on you once victory is assured.  So the only obstacle now is finding some really good hackers, and finding a way into the enemies banking systems.

Issue 354 War Theft 1 June 10, 2014

War theft is the act of stealing during a time of war.  We know this to be a wrongful act, but some consider it justice for the trouble of being forced to fight in the first place.  Let's discuss.

Against:  Those who see theft of a person’s property during war see it from the traditional standpoint of stealing.  There is no justification for stooping down to the level of a criminal.  Usually though, this form of theft is committed by soldiers in the field who see no reason to let go of a battle souvenir.  Others see it as a way to get rich off of rare and valuable items.  But again that is still thievery and has no justification and is highly dishonorable.  In the same fashion as the Nazi's, a soldier stealing from civilians in war time is just as wrong as what the Nazi's did in stealing from the Jews.

For:  In this case there are those who do favor it as a means to pay for the war.  In this case, soldiers who are paid low wages to fight are allowed to take items they deem valuable to make up for the costs to them and their families.  In short, they may even act like treasure hunters or even pirates, taking the valuables of people whose homes have been abandoned due to the fighting.  This may even include valuable works in history like art pieces and rare historical specimens, which the soldiers can either keep or sell to give themselves a monetary boost.  Let's face it, soldiers are paid meager wages and deserve better to make up the money they should be making.

Pragmatic:  Instead of just letting soldiers just take goods home with them, there can be battlefield salvage rules.  If there are items that are left abandoned in a home after a battle, soldiers can lay claim.  However, they will only be allowed to keep them if no one comes to claim the items after one year.  In this instance, a special note will be left behind for the original occupants to aid them in finding their lost wears.  In the meantime, items claimed by soldiers will be held at a holding facility in country until the time limit comes up or the items are claimed.  This also protects items from being stolen by other individuals or soldiers we are fighting to fund their own war efforts.

Conclusion:  The only two that come remotely close to being moral are those "against" and the "pragmatic" views.  War theft that is unregulated can lead to many problems, not least including law suits.  However, I am personally against this form of war theft, as it is immoral to me on the societal and religious level.  Taking what is not yours is a crime and thus I am against it.

Issue 353 Can Cyborgs Vote?! June 9, 2014

OK, here is part two of the articles based on the show Futurescape with James Woods.  Here we look at if cyborgs can still vote as people during an election.  You are asking why aren't you?  We looked at last week to try to figure out if they are still human, but that is not the end of the solution with the factor of being an eligible voter. So I’ll go down the list of concerns.

Licensing:  Some people with implants, prosthetics or people who are cyberized may not own the parts that are hooked up to them.  Instead, a prosthetic limb, an implant for a disabled person may be still owned by the original distributor/manufacture of the company.  In short, the mechanical components are being rented.  So can these individuals be considered eligible if they do not even own the mechanical parts that have replaced or augmented their original bodies?  Also, can't these people have their votes corrupted by the companies that own these parts do to threats of reclaiming them, or sticking their families with a hefty bills after they pass on for the parts themselves.

Hacking:  What’s more is that these parts are mechanical and most likely will be run by computers.  As such they can be hacked.  So a clever hacker can make the individual, by force, vote a specific way.  It gets even creepier with those who have brain implants or partial brain replacement as a hacker can hack into the persons brain itself to control them to vote a certain way.  Lest we also not forget that hackers can in this instance threaten people to make them commit suicide (really murder) by controlling them or even a loved one with a cyber-implant/mechanical parts.  This is a very disturbing reality.

Total brain replacement:  Just like with the last article, can a person who no longer has their original brain still vote, for it goes to question if they are merely acting on a pre-programmed impulse.  So, in the same way we can question if this person is human, we can question why they are voting in the manner they are.

Conclusion:  For licensing, the laws can be amended where a person has a right to any and all parts of their body, whether they be a replacement or augmentation.  As such any form of threat of coercion will also be dealt with by the law in the same manner as any blackmail or similar case.  So in the Licensing scenario, they as people should be allowed to vote.  In scenario two with respect to hacking, the individual is not responsible for the crimes of others.  So a hacker taking control of cyberized person, or threatening another is not grounds for the exclusion for a person to vote.  Instead the hacker must and always be punished in this case.  Finally, scenario three with its total brain replacement.  Here it still comes down to if the individual can be proven to still have independent thought and personality over just becoming a pre-programmed machine.  Until that is answered, I don't think anyone can be sure if these people are human, let alone vote.  Yes there may be other scenarios where we can question if these individuals who we can classify as cyborgs are eligible to vote.  But, I will leave that to you my dear readers to ponder.  Enjoy racking and wrapping your brains over this very likely future issue of the United States and other countries around the world.

Issue 352 Are cyborgs still human? June 6, 2014

This is the first of two articles based on the show Futurescape hosted by James Woods.  Here we will look at if cyborgs can still be considered human.  So let's discuss.

Why ask?  Well it is important as people throughout history have redefined the meaning of human.  So there are instances where people are left out of that category and are thus sometimes subjected to some of the harshest and most awful forms of treatment imaginable.  And thus these people who we can classify as cyborgs must not be excluded.

What constitutes a cyborg:  It is a person who has had parts of their body replaced by that of a machine.  In some definitions this means a certain percentage of their body is replaced by mechanical parts.  So people with prosthetic limbs and even some implants can be considered a cyborg.  But the cyborg we are talking about are people who are more Machine than man.  They must have over 50% or greater of their body replaced by a mechanical device.  

So let's question:  So is a person with over 70% of their body replaced by machinery still human?  What if their brain is replaced (or partly replaced) by mechanical components?  Do we still classify these people as human?  For me, so long as the brain is there, then you are still human.  In other terms, you can have your brain in a glass jar which is controlling a robot like in the Star Wars movies and I will still consider you a human being (even if you may be disturbing to look at).  But those who have their brains partly replaced or completely replaced are another matter.  I can see if you have brain damage and you replace the parts of it that control motor functions and involuntary functions as still human.  But what about memory and personality.  Can these people who have those components of the brain be replaced be considered still human?  Or are they merely acting out the part?  I personally hope that these people are still human, but technology is not there yet where we can know for sure if people, who I believe in the future will try to obtain immortality via this method, can still be considered human.  The reason I believe this is because a soul is not something that can be copied onto a hard drive?  Right?

Conclusion:  So long as the memory and thought functions remain independent from the machine and the person is able to think for themselves, they are still human no matter how many mechanical parts they have.  But I fear once we go beyond and do full brain replacements as some scientist hope to one day accomplish, will it spell the end of humanity?  More answers, can and will lead to more questions.  So I leave you to ponder how far we can become a machine before we stop being human.

Issue 351 Privatize the V.A. June 5, 2014

With the recent events of the Veterans Administration scandal of the two lists which hid the fact that the V.A. was covering up veterans dying while waiting to be treated, a solution must be had.  Even before this, the V.A. could be considered to have lackluster care in certain areas of health care.  As such, just like with the U.S.O. toward the end in the late 40's after World War II, I believe the V.A. should be privatized.

Why privatized:  Reason being is that just like most bureaucratic bodies in government, organizations are either top heavy or duplicative.  As such money is wasted, patronage appoints the least skilled, and most of all it affects quality of the services that are meant to be delivered.  So like the U.S.O. which is one of the prime examples that we can provide for our troops without government aid, we hence can use the same model to care for our soldiers in uniform, whether they are still active or not.  Other private organizations like the Fisher House Foundation and Hospitals work off of donations to provide care on par or equal to those of other and possibly better funded organizations. People like Bill O'reilly of Fox News, Glenn Beck of the Blaze, and many actors and others in various industries aid in the cause to help people like our Veterans, and more each and every day whether that be by acting as spokesmen/women or starting and running foundations themselves as non-for profits.  The U.S.O works off of private donations and volunteers to provide troops with entertainment and other services around the world, so what makes health care any different?

Generosity:  Some may be skeptical about the privatization of the V.A.  Maybe because health care is typically more expensive than most things in existence for various reasons, with issues stemming from war possibly becoming more expensive.  However, I present to you a list of the top 50 non-for profit medical institutions in the United States via this web address: 

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/50-top-grossing-nonprofit-hospitals-2013.html  

The reason these hospitals can function is due to them having so many generous people seeking to help.  Also, there are other hospitals that are non-profit that specifically treat one of the most expensive diseases known to man, cancer.  So hospitals like the Shriners Hospital for children fight for the lives of children with support from people like you and me.  So why can't the Veterans Administration do the same?  Why do they have to be different and for them to screw up so royally like this?

Conclusion:  We can take care of our Veterans without the V.A. or a newer privatized version.  This is because we as Americans see it as a privileged to be able to give back to those who risk their lives to protect us, who sacrifice so much for our wellbeing and freedom.  So I say privatize the V.A.  and let those who see Veterans as more than numbers on an account sheet take care of them.

Issue 350 Parental rights: when revoked June 4, 2014

We talked yesterday about to overarching rights that parents have over their kids (education and health).  However, at what point do we take children away from their parents to get them out of harm?  This is the question we ask and will discuss in today's issue.

Limits to physical abuse:  There is always a fine line on when government or some other intervening body should step in on anything.  So we have to come up with that point and time upon which a line is crossed where a child must be taken from the parent.  With children being snatched from parents do to small things like a spanking to discipline them, our current standards are too loose.  So when it comes to corporal punishment, it is not a defining line.  Instead, it must be proven that the physical force being used on the child is both constant and unwarranted.  In short, it must occur on a regular basis, and that the punishment is actually abuse and not to correct a problem behavior(s).  In addition, the amount of force used must be factored in to this.  As such, if a parent simply slaps the child on the rear, or the face then it is fine.  But, if the parent proceeds to brake the child's arm "purposefully" then there is obviously a problem.  As such the limits that are set for physical abuse must be clearly structured with a small amount of flexibility depending on the type of physical force being applied.

Limits to psychological abuse:  This set of criteria is very different.  Here the parent or guardian performs the same kind of abuse that would occur in a torture room.  The parent verbally abuses and threatens the child, but does not do any physical harm (though this is not always the case).  Instead, once the verbal abuse is done, the parent shows small amounts of love to keep the child latched to them, as if they must do everything to please their parent (their "master").  Simply yelling at a child is not verbal abuse.  It must occur on a regular basis, and show long term effects that would undermine the child's wellbeing.  So we must not jump to conclusions at any time or risk undermining the parent(s).

Malnourished:  In this case, determining if a child is malnourished due to poverty or neglect is very important.  If it is due to poverty, then in general, the parent is still a good parent.  But, if that parent chooses to ignore the health of their children and buy and clothe themselves over the needs of their children, then it is abuse.

Addicts:  Drug addicts do also constitute a situation where the children may have to be taken away.  Abusers of alcohol, and both illegal and prescription drugs can be a very detrimental problem that leads to the aforementioned.  So if the parent is purposefully getting their child high or drunk, then there is a problem (obviously).  But if they do it recreationally, or are a recovering addict, then there may not be a need to take the child away.  In fact, a parent who keeps the drugs and addictions secret and keeps their child away from their weakness may in fact (I believe) keep their children.  If discovered, then they should be given help to overcome their addiction without breaking the family up.  This is hard however, as the law in general lacks flexibility.

Child's Voice:  One of my biggest gripes as an outsider looking in is that they ignore the child's wishes with respect to the children of possible child abusers.  Police are told to ignore the children and their screams as they are dragged off away from the parents they love.  While this may be right in the case of a mentally abused child, it may not be right in other situations where there may be mitigating circumstances.  For instance, a child was pulled from the school bus on the way to school by police.  That child was part of a bad break up between an abusive father and a non-abusive mother.  The child, due to the custody hearings called for that child to be put in the care of the father (where the mothers’ testimony did not produce enough evidence of the fathers’ abusive nature).  So as the child was being taken off the bus, the child screamed and cried to not be given to his father.  When he was placed in the custody of his father, the dad whisked him to south of the boarder of Mexico.  Eventually the father was brought in on kidnapping charges, but this would not have happened if the police and the courts had listened to this child (who I believe at the time was 10 or 12 years of age).  Thus, we should and must listen to the children too.

Conclusion:  This issue is not cut and dry.  Every scenario has major exceptions, but because there is little flexibility children are separated from parents who may in fact be good parents in the first place.  On top of this the Federal/State governments have no incentive to listen or change the laws because the federal government gives money to States for each child put into a foster home.  Sick is it not?  Hope you enjoyed the read, and remember, there is more to a story than what you think.