Issue 173 Ted Cruz September 30, 2013

Have you heard of the name Texas Senator Ted Cruz? Well he is the man that is leading the fight to defund the affordable care act, better known as Obama care. He recently spoke on Tuesday into Wednesday for a full 21 hours in a filibuster on the Senate floor. He beat out Senator Rand Paul's filibuster by a whole 10 hours. By why did he do it? What was the point of blocking all progress in the Senate?

The Reason: Senator Cruz wanted to bring attention back to an issue that some people seem to have either forgotten or have given up on. That issue of course is Obama care. In the recent budget legislation there is a provision that will defund Obama care completely and thus end its current and future harm to the United States and our health care system. It has already been shown that about sixty plus percent of Americans want it gone. So Cruz felt that the filibuster will force attention back on to the issue so that it would make it harder for the Democrats and Republicans to vote against it. Basically he wanted them to know that the American people will be watching.

Current effects of Obama Care: At this point many people have already seen a rise in health insurance coasts with some experiencing a 20 to 60 percent increase in premiums. Some families are expected to see a whole $7,000 increase to their yearly health care costs. There have been insurance blackouts which is where insurance companies refuse to cover anyone in a given area. This has already occurred in Louisiana and a few other states. Co-pays for doctor visits and some medications have increased. At current the law stipulates that if a doctor gives too many tests or too little number of tests the doctor will be penalized financially even if the cause of the ailment has already been found on the first test. In addition, the law taxes medical devices including their use. As such the price of health care is rising even higher. What else is in Obama care has yet to be seen as the legislation is so long and the regulations (some of which are still being written) are so big that no one knows how badly our health care system will be affected. All we know is that the most expensive health care in the world is only going to go up in cost. This is what Ted Cruz wishes to stop.

Party Reaction: The Democrats do not have to do anything to stop Senator Cruz. They don't have to because the Republican Party leadership is annoyed with the way Senator Cruz is handling the Obama care situation. Cruz has as of now become a house hold name, and the party leadership doesn’t like that because it gives him credibility if he was to run for a higher office. Let us not forget that Cruz has only been a Senator for eight months and there is a seniority system in congress. Basically, the party leaders are supposed to tell you to jump and you say "how high?" Cruz and other Senators like Rand Paul prefer to ignore such childishness. But this has not stopped the Republican leadership from bashing Cruz every chance they get.

Conclusion: It is simple, if you want Obama care gone melt the phones in Washington D.C. Protest your congressmen and Senators declaring that if you do not vote in favor of defunding Obama care then we are voting you out. This also means you will stand behind Ted Cruz who at current still holds onto the reason he went into office, to do the right thing. The party leadership on both sides is all about control and maintaining power. But if we vote the losers out and replace them with more Rand Paul's and Ted Cruz's we may even stand a chance of forcing term limits on Congress. So let us get behind reform that gets the government monkey off our backs. Let's support Ted Cruz and his efforts to stop Obama care.

Issue 172 Libertarians part 2 September 27, 2013

Even libertarians have their disagreements. There are in fact two major disagreements in the libertarian club. They are the entitlements and abortion. These issues have and will continue to divide libertarians into the Democrat and Republican Party's. So let us go over these big disagreements.

The Entitlements: Many libertarians want a smaller government. For members of the libertarian crowd that means eliminating Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (and in many cases all other welfare as well). The reason libertarians feel that the entitlements can be removed is because charities would take up the mantel left behind to help these people. And this is true, charities used to do this job back before the existence of welfare or any of the entitlements. Charities later shrank due to their job being taken over by welfare. Whenever welfare and entitlements fail, then charities are there to pick up the pieces. At one point, charities had a system that kind of acted like an insurance policy. You would donate every month to the charity (usually a church or temple) and then if you ever fell into poverty that money would be used to help you. These charities also were able to distinguish between those who needed the most help and those who needed none (or needed to be cut off). Government cannot make such distinctions as it can only follow a one size fits all approach. If it were not for the fact that approximately 75% of welfare helps the rich, then libertarians would probably have a different opinion.

As to those who fear losing the entitlements. They are those libertarians who feel that it is needed. They are willing to break with the libertarian ideology to protect what they see as an essential safety net. For them, charities are welcome, but are not seen as having the ability to save everyone, let alone help everyone. It comes down to morality, do I cut off an imperfect system that is working, or do I go back to a system that I never grew up with or know how to operate. As such it is also part fear. Thankfully, this debate between libertarians is largely respectful and if proof can be provided as to a viable alternative that would ease their fears, and then they would embrace it.

Abortion: This is a major issue for everyone. Debates on this issue date back to before the founding of the United States. For libertarians who believe that people have the right to do what they want to do with their own body they generally are in favor of abortion. If a woman carrying a child wants to abort during the legal length of time (the first trimester) then they embrace it. However, libertarians like Ron Paul want abortion aborted. They want a society free of abortion if possible. The reason is because the pro-lifers in the libertarian circles view that killing a child at any stage of development as infringing upon the right to life of another human being. As such they share the Church's and Conservative scientist’s point of view that life begins the moment the egg is fertilized. This debate will of course always be heated, because it is the rights of one human being having to be put up against another’s (the as yet to be born). As such, when it comes to coming to common ground, they will agree on abortions in the cases of rape, incest and the mother’s life being in danger. But this is only the case when cooler heads prevail. As such, this debate is usually kept on the back burner until the issue comes to the forefront of politics once again. I personally do not believe in abortion. I will accept it in the case of a mother’s life being in danger so long as all other options have been exhausted. I will also regrettably accept it in the case of rape, but I would prefer the rapist getting aborted first (I know four victims of rape so please understand where I am coming from). Incest I'm iffy about even though the whole child born of two relatives is more than likely to end up with some sort of genetic defect. It is still a life in my eyes. Well as I said, the libertarians are as divided on this issue as anyone else. Everyone has an opinion; I just hope everyone is willing to listen to each others.

Conclusion: These are the two prime disagreements in the libertarian club. Those who share the ideology also face a few other disagreements like the right to die, or if the department for environmental protection should even exist. However, those others usually pale in comparison to debates on entitlements and abortion. All I can do now is thank you for reading and I hope you get something out of today’s issue. So thank you for keeping an open mind and reading my blog. Thank you for hearing me out.

Issue 171 Libertarians Part 1 September 26, 2013

What is a libertarian? Many people really do not know what it means to be a libertarian at all. In fact some even confuse them for Liberals who are associated with the Democratic Party in the United States. In truth the name Liberal was stolen from today's libertarians by the progressives during the early 1900s so as to gain more support and thus become the Liberals of today. But who are these libertarians?

We want smaller government: Libertarians’ believe that government is inherently corrupt and has a penchant for becoming totalitarian. So any government expansion is looked at with close scrutiny. As libertarians see government as an ever encroaching blob that destroys people’s rights, we libertarians feel that government should stay within the confines of written law. Thus, when it comes to the federal government’s powers in the United States, it is believed that the government cannot do anything that is not expressly granted to it by the Constitution. Likewise the States and local governments should also be limited to their specific roles in society as a whole. So things like education stay at the community level, while things like war and peace stay at the federal level. From there it comes down to respecting the boundaries between the different levels of government in order to maintain balance and prevent government over reach.

Mind your own Business: One of the key features of libertarianism is the motto "mind your own business." It was in actuality the first motto of the United States. And libertarians in general follow its principles. No one should know what you’re doing and when except for the people you want to know. That means no government looking at your bank account. It means no State officials dictating the healthcare you want. If you want someone to know something then you will tell them or let people find out.

As long as it does not harm others: Another key feature of libertarians is that if your actions would intentionally (and in some cases unintentionally) harm others, then you will not be allowed to do that. So things like drugs and alcohol are allowed. Gun ownership is ok. All the way up to religious rites that involve sacrifices. The only time this stops is when an act that would harm another occurs like murder, rape, theft, assault, and the like. Morality does play a role, but your own morality is yours and belongs to you. You are allowed to raise your children to share that same morality, but don't expect others to entirely agree with you. Libertarians value a society of freedom and choice above all else. Just don't infringe upon the rights of another and then you will fit right in.

Free Markets: Libertarians want an open and free market with as few rules as possible. They want unrestricted trade with other nations. In addition, they want a society where anyone can start a business at any time with equal chances of success and failure. In other words, if the owner screws up then he loses his business. If the owner is successful, then the business prospers. No too big to fail garbage. It is all about people being able to succeed when and where they want to.

Conclusion: To achieve these ends libertarians stand for the basic rights that allow people to defend their liberties. Those rights are the freedom of speech and the press, the freedom of association, the freedom of religion, the freedom of expression, and the freedom to live a life of your own choosing. Some of the examples may look extreme and may portray libertarians as wanting a libertine society. However, libertarians want a society with the freedom of choice and free from tyrants (or potential tyrants as the case may be). You can see examples of libertarianism in places like Sweden and Switzerland with respect to economics and drug laws. Basically it’s about freedom to try, buy, succeed or fail. This is a libertarian in a nut shell and I am one of them.

Issue 170 Pay College Sports Stars September 25, 2013

Some people think a college sports star must make a lot of money. Well that would be the case if they are picked up to play professionally. In truth, to my knowledge, no person playing on any college team is paid. I think this should change.

Status Quo: At current, a college sports star and the rest of the members of a college team are not paid to play. They at most get a few perks and a free ride via a sports scholarship to attend college. Some think it is OK not to pay these men and women because they are getting a break on having to pay for school. But what some people do not realize is that some of these college athletes cannot even afford to pay for a ticket to let their own mothers to come watch them perform.

What should be: The men and women in a college sport are professionals. Every time they perform they are making the college money. Some of these colleges like Notre Dame make millions every game. College football alone is a multimillion dollar industry. Basically, if you compare the scholarships some of these athletes have to how much money the college makes off them; it becomes clear how the students are being robbed of their efforts. It is true that these college sportsmen and women get that proverbial free ride, but after they graduate they may end up poor. That is right, despite the degree that they receive, they may still have to desperately look for work. As I stated in the "status quo" section, some of these college sports stars cannot even afford to pay for their mothers to see them play. As such, why bother with a scholarship when the college should be giving the athletes a cut of the profits coming from their hard work. Only a select few sports stars make it to the big leagues and thus the big money. But if these college professionals get paid for their efforts they at least get a much better head start than they would have with a free education.

Conclusion: Some may be thinking that the almost free college experience is worth it. That getting money for their performance on the sports field pales in comparison to the over all college experience. I may even hear from some of you that they don't deserve to be paid for doing a "college sport." Well I'll tell you this. You have no right to tell anyone how to spend their money. If they choose to put their money else were then let them. Charge them for going to college like a normal student, but pay them a professional salary for their performances on the field like they deserve. The college will get the money back with respect to tuition, and the students who play the sports will get a better head start in life. It comes down to paying the college athlete their fare share like they do in the professional leagues likes the NFL, NHL, MLB, and NBA. Those professionals in the big leagues get paid to perform. It is only right that college athletes get paid to perform in the same way.

Issue 169 Tools a Jury needs Sptember 24, 2013

There are certain tools and practices a jury has in some States within the U.S. that others do not. I feel that three such procedures would benefit the process of seeking the truth in the court room.

Let the Juror's ask questions: This is a practice done in Arizona. Jurors at specified times in the trial may ask questions to clarify information. I remember when I was a juror on a case that I desperately wanted to ask a question of one of the witnesses. However I was blocked by New York law. I felt it was unfair as I felt that I could not properly make a judgment on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Likewise, many of my fellow jurors felt the same. Sure, it may slow down the court some by the jury being able to ask questions themselves, but in order to ensure the jury properly understands the facts they need certain questions answered. In the case I served on, we came to the conclusion reluctantly that the defendant was guilty. We only found out later that he was a big time drug lord which was the sole reason that made us all feel better. So why not give the jury a chance to go into the deliberation room and come up with a few questions that they can ask the witnesses?

A Juror should be allowed to take notes: Another issue I found in New York's jury system was that we jurors could not take notes on the case. So we would forget facts and events that occurred in the case which could have potentially lead to an innocent man going to jail. Sure we had access to all the evidence, but we were left to try and figure it out at the end on what event took place and when. Thankfully my fellow jurors had really good memories or we would have gotten lost with all the different evidence that was just dumped on us. By not taking notes we could not spot inconsistencies in different testimonies or get a handle on the different events and how the evidence flowed together. Jurors can be easily instructed on how they should take notes so as to avoid confusing themselves and the different testimonies if that is needed. So let them take notes.

A smaller Jury: I like how Florida has a smaller number of jurors. In Florida there are six jurors and two alternates. In New York there were 12 of us and two alternates. Is it really that necessary to have that many people serving on a single jury? Would it change the chances of a person being declared guilty or innocent? I think not. After serving my self I can say that the result would generally have been the same whether we were six jurors or 44. The reason I say this is because of the evidence. If evidence is collected properly and presented to the jury in a clear and concise manor, then there should be nothing to cause any justice seeking individual cause for alarm. Also, a smaller juror means a faster jury selection speeding up the trial a bit. It would also save the courts some money as well.

Conclusion: These are what I feel would aid in making it easier for a juror to do their duty. I still believe that a professional jury is best, but with these tools and practices it should be easier for a juror to do their job.

Issue 168 Professional Jury's September 23, 2013

Many people in America dread getting that notice in the mail saying it is time for you to serve. Many go reluctantly, but still see it as a civic duty. Even I went to serve. Of course I fell asleep in the court room for a good 30 seconds before the Judge yelled at me, I was happy to go. But what if we had true professionals who are trained to be impartial? What would that be like?

Motivation: For one, having a professional jury would get rid of those individuals who serve reluctantly or fall asleep (like me). In other words we will have motivated people who wish to carry out justice. And we do need people who want to seek the truth. I believe that the people who choose to become a professional juror are those motivated to arrive at the best conclusion based on the facts presented in the case.

Advantages: Some clear advantages would come from the type of training these professionals would need to receive. They would have to know law up to a certain extent and as such be familiar with the terminology used in the court room. No more lawyers having to dumb down the language or jurors getting lost when a legal objection is presented. These professionals could keep up with the faster pace of a speedier trail and thus save the courts and the defendants money by making a traditionally long trial shorter. Basically, a professional juror would be a professional listener who could discern facts from conjecture.

Training: I believe a professional juror would need some sort of training. For the most part, I would have them trained in the basic terminology of the legal profession. This would be in an effort to reduce miscommunication in a court room between the lawyers and the jury. A professional juror would need training to discern facts from conjecture in a lawyer’s legal argument. Also, a basic knowledge of law would also aid in ensuring the professional jurors know and understand why an objection is being carried out, why something may be stricken from the record and so on. Finally they would have to be trained with the ability to turn off their opinions and become as impartial as possible. This last part is obvious as an impartial jury is the only true one that can give the best judgments (at least that is what we have come to believe). Basically all this training I feel is what amounts to a two year associates degree in college.

The lawyer’s wont like it: Lawyers in selecting jurors look to see who is most susceptible to their arguments. The opposition approves or disapproves the juror. Basically it is a game in trying to figure out which juror gives them the best chance of winning and ultimately a juror is chosen. This professional system would eliminate such a practice as much as possible. A lawyer does not want a truly impartial person and as such would be totally against this.

Conclusion: Professionals would require professional pay. Pay high enough to keep them on the job and also attract new people to take up the mantel of a professional juror. So something like $80,000 a year may be appropriate. Of course these individuals would need health care and a retirement package as well. The costs would be offset by not having to seek out as many people from around the country to serve on a jury and these professionals can serve on multiple cases at the same time (this is a possibility depending on how well they are trained). Overall, this is just an idea that may never take off. People have this idea that you need a jury made up of your peers. A professional juror would of course be one of your "peers," but people as a whole may not see it that way. It is a concept and that as they say is that.

Issue 167 Syria and WMDs September 20, 2013

As you may have heard, Syria has agreed to a deal to disarm its chemical weapons. Russia mad its move (as I suspect that they were the ones who gave the chemical weapons to the Syrians) so as to cover its butt, and look good for the international community. But I have doubts as to the overall intentions of both my country and that of Russia. I state now that this is all my opinion and opinion exclusively.

Syria's intentions Assad: The reason that Syrian President Assad agreed to the deal was to prevent other countries from entering Syria and siding with the rebels. Even though Al Quada and other Jihadist infiltrated the rebels with western governments like the U.S. supporting them (who is giving them weapons) will mean Assad's forces will be out numbered and out gunned. Let us face it; Russia is not going to fight a proxy war against the U.S. and other countries to save Assad. The Russian government is smart and they know how the international power struggle works. America is weakening and Russia is looking to take the top spot. As such Assad surrendered to the international pressure to stall for time. He needs to suppress the rebels, or at least buy time to escape along with his loyalists to another country. In addition, this gives Assad a chance to stay in power as he does have support from groups like Hezbollah and even Iran who are sending in Iranian soldiers to fight for Assad. Russia and Iran need Syria for an upcoming oil pipeline which can either go from Russia, through Iran and finally into Syria up into Europe, or it will go from Qatar into Saudi Arabia into Syria and then into Europe. It is no wonder why Qatar and Saudi Arabia have decided to back the rebels and even go as far as to say they will help pay for most of the conflict (they stand to get their money back and more).

Syria's intentions Rebels: The rebels are a hodgepodge of various groups. Some are Kurds seeking autonomy. Others are those who seek democracy. But unfortunately for both groups, terrorists have infiltrated the rebels. Many foreign terrorists see this as apart of the greater Jihad and are also using this conflict as a recruiting tool. What people may not know is that the rebels are almost entirely Sunni Muslim while Assad and his Soldiers are Shiite Muslim. This conflict goes back to the days when Muslims argued over who should succeed in leadership in the Muslim faith. So this conflict is as old if not older than the hatred that radical Muslims have for Israel and the Jews. As such, the Jihadist terrorist rebels seek control and power over the region to suppress their Shiite brethren. There are even unconfirmed reports that Sunni rebel groups have wiped out Shiite rebel groups. So aside from taking control and making a Sunni government, the rebels and the intentions of each rebel faction are far from clear.

The rest of us: The United States feels it is doing its duty as the world police by saying they will interfere in the conflict. Russia as you know needs allies in the region and wants the oil pipeline to be successful. Sunni Muslim countries want the oil pipeline for themselves. The European Union has the same stance as the U.S., but does not have the resources to mount a long term conflict. International groups that advocate for human rights and peace sided with the rebels under the naive notion that democracy will solve the problem of conflicts in the region. Sadly the democracy they speak of died with the Athenian City State. What they need is a republic, but so far, the only truly successful republic is still the United States (though like all democratic forms of government they face collapse). So what is to be done?

Conclusion: What is best is also the choice no one wants to hear. That is for the conflict to continue. Buy keeping the battles going, the Russian and U.S. governments can draw out the conflict to bring in more Jihadist terrorists. By doing so, there will be less to cause trouble in their own countries and allied countries. For those terrorists who cannot afford to go, the intelligence agencies can sponsor them (secretly of course) to go there to fight for "their" cause. With the fighting centralized in one location the Jihadists will have less of a chance to recruit as many new members and their numbers will dwindle do to this slow down and them being suicidal fighters to begin with. Both Russia and the U.S. can agree on this strategy as both face the same problem with Jihadists (the U.S. being declared the "great Satan" by Jihadists and Jihadists in Chechnya fighting the Russians for control). A win win for the two "great" super powers. As to the innocent victims in between, well that is where intelligence agencies come in again to smuggle people out of the conflict. In addition, hit teams will be used to keep either side from becoming too powerful. The U.S. will even be able to drain Iran of its financial resources due to their support for Syria. Basically every one wins except the Syrian people themselves. But I would not be surprised to see the conflict explode further into Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey. At that point, it stops being a rebellion and it becomes World War III. I pray that this does not happen, but it may be the most likely scenario.