Issue 89 Another approach: Patents May 31, 2013

I first heard of this idea in an Economist article. The idea was simple, sell the right to use a patent like you would stock on the stock market. Here is how it works.

Simple really: Basically you take your patent and offer it as an investment on the stock market. This literally opens up your patent to every one for there use. All a person would have to do is buy stock in it and they would be allowed to use that patent in an item they produced equal to the number of stocks purchased. The article gave a really nice example. If you design a superior type of tire and a car company wants to use it on their cars they would buy the stock. So one car needs four tires, thus they must purchase four shares in the stock. If they want to make a full production run of 100 cars with the tires they would have to buy 400 shares of stock equivalent to the number of the tires they want to make and use. As such, the person who created the item in the first place makes a profit.

Supply and demand: What makes this system even better is that if the stock goes up, so does the share price enabling the patent holder to make plenty of money. Of course the opposite is true as well, for if the stock goes down so does the amount of money the person makes. This prevents a patent from being too overpriced or even under priced. So basically supply and demand ensure that the no body is over charged or under paid.

Risk: The only risk in this idea is that you are basically putting your patent out there for all to use. But people who would just want to use the idea without paying up will still attempt to do so. Thus, legal hurtles will still be there with respect to protecting your patent from those who don't want to pay to use your idea or invention. However, such a problem already exists in the first place and people would have the right to sell their patents in the traditional way as well so as to maintain the patents integrity.

Conclusion: This concept eliminates the traditional licensing agreements that lawyers have to make allowing smaller companies access to these ideas which may in turn boost small businesses with better quality products. It insures that greedy patent holders never over charge and greedy corporations never under pay through supply and demand. Also, it gives an inventers idea much greater exposure in the market place and allows for nearly anyone who can afford to pay the stock price to use the patent. Sure the risk that your idea will be stolen is still ever present. However, if you think of how many people would have access to your idea, one that may even change the world, then is it not worth the risk. So shall we shake up the patent system and let everyone join in?

Issue 88 How fuel prices impact costs May 30, 2013

Fuels, we all need it to power our cars, our homes and all of life’s convinces. We would not have electricity to fuel the power in our cell phones without some other source of device to generate that power. When such fuel rises in price though, so does the cost of owning and operating life’s little conveniences.

Gas: Some probably think that if we stopped using oil then all prices would drop. Well that is false; we would in reality be exchanging one form of fuel for another. Ethanol, hydrogen, and even air has a cost. This is all due to supply and demand. More supply with low demand equals cheap fuel and thus cheap goods. High demand and little supply mean everything costing a lot of money. Interestingly enough, buildings require much more fuel than cars and thus produce a lot more pollution thanks to the amount of fuel needed by the power plant to produce electricity. Mind you that this does not always include heating costs. If you need oil or some other form of fuel to heat your home, then you not only pay for what you need, but the cost to deliver that fuel which includes the price to fuel up the truck that brings it to your home. Such costs can be mitigated by new forms of energy harvesting, but those technologies are developing slowly and the only thing that has pushed such designs to the forefront is the public demand for a cheap and renewable alternative to oil.

What if cars stopped using oil: It would be great if we could do that. By eliminating oil and switching to a much lower cost fuel it would potentially save people millions at both the pump to fuel their vehicles and also on store shelves as the cost of the fuel to deliver such items is added onto the price. Not only that, but some of those every day items are made from oil byproducts. This in turn reduces overall costs in manufacturing. But what about that new fuel the car or truck is using? Will it not go up in price as well? Of course it will. Anything bought and sold is affected by supply and demand. As such, vehicles that cannot adapt to new fuels quickly and easily will still remain costly to own and operate in the long run. Cars are probably the costliest and also the sole object that may be holding us back from switching fuels. Cars need specific types of fuel to run, and by putting in the wrong fuel you actually harm the engine leading to greater maintenance issues down the line. If a vehicle however, was able to switch fuels at will based on which ever one was the cheapest that day, it could save lots of money for both producers and consumers as costs will be driven down to the bare minimum to compete.

It is easier for homes: When it comes to powering homes, especially those primarily powered by electricity, it is far easier to switch fuels at the power plant. All the power plant has to do (depending on the plant itself) is to change to the cheapest fuel possible to generate electricity. However, I am only just discussing burnable fuels and not renewable fuels. There are other ways to make burnable fuels cheaper but this is the easiest in terms of reducing overall cost. At this point the problem stems from government regulations that may prohibit the use of different fuels.

Conclusion: Fuels are part of the supply and demand equation as they help to both expand and limit supply. Even if we go rid of fossil fuels and other burnable fuels at power plants, the costs to fuel cars would only have a short term impact. What I feel needs to be done is create a car that uses little to no fuel. They have systems that can make water from burned gasoline and the burned gases still have combustible gases inside them like butane. If they could also use that water to make hydrogen, and also recycle the unburned chemicals it would go along way to reducing fuel prices and chemical emissions from the atmosphere. If you really want to reduce the cost of goods at the supermarket, and other stores you have to have a cheaper fuel to reduce the cost of shipment that inherently increases costs. We need a car that can produce its own fuel, and such vehicles like the air powered come close to that. If we want all things cheap, we need to make the method of delivering our goods to the store cheap and that means fuel.

Issue 87 Did you know: Baby development May 29,2013

I learned about baby development in my AP Psychology class back in high school. I found it interesting and I thought I would share this knowledge in the hopes of aiding parents in raising there children. So here I go.

Developing the nervous system: When babies are born they are of course still developing. This is especially true for their nervous systems as they are for the first time being exposed to all sorts of new stimulus. As such, the simple act of holding the baby, touching their little fingers and toes aids in the overall development of the baby. Basically, touch your child so that the nerves in their body are stimulated and as such develop. The more stimuli you give the baby the faster they develop. They have even done experiments with monkeys where one was given a wire mesh mother and the other a mother clothed in warm cloth. What scientists found was that the monkey baby with the cloth mom developed not only faster, but was healthier as well. So in short, giving a baby your love and attention is a very good thing if you want your child to grow up healthy.

Speak to a baby, not gibberish: Have you ever said "goo goo ga ga" to a baby. Well don't do that! Babies are like a sponge with knowledge being the liquid. By speaking gibberish and even imitating the sounds of your child you are holding back their language and even their brain development. Just like touch, sound helps the baby’s nervous system develop, in this case for the purpose of being able to speak. Also, when speaking to the infant, try to make it so the can see your lips moving because the baby will in fact try to imitate you. This enables the mouths nerves and muscles to grow too even if the baby has yet to understand what they are imitating. Basically, talk to your child like you would any other individual and it will help your child develop faster and maybe even healthier.

Conclusion: I love children. I literally have a bunch of young cousins who when I see them, I can't help but hug them out of love. Of course they then proceed to maul me in a group to which there parents must yank them off. Needless to say it is kind of funny. As I love the kids in my family so much, I wanted to help parents with respect to their young children and showing their love and affection toward them. I am sure we can all agree that we want all children to grow up happy and healthy and thus why I write this tiny article here for you today. I hope you find it useful.

Issue 86 Public Libraries and the Internet May 28, 2013

Libraries, the place that many thought would be outmoded with the internet are still trying to hang on. To do so they are looking to lend books electronically. But even this is causing some interesting problems.

Publishers don't like electronic libraries: The reason is simple; it cuts into printed book sales. Publishers still like printing books in paper back and hard cover, but libraries cut into those sales. They do so by offering cheap and often time’s free access to the books once published via the internet. While yes, some publishers charge libraries to use and lend there books, there is still a sense of "cannibalism" within the realm of publishing.

Issues with electronic lending: Generally libraries guard the data of there borrowers end their reading habits, but with electronic lending digital traces are left which publishers will attempt to exploit. Thus, privacy is an issue. Libraries themselves could even exploit the data by selling it to make more cash. Only one advantage can be drawn that I can see, and that is a book version of "Pandora" that puts up similar music to what you normally listen to. In the case of books it will use genre and authors to help make useful suggestions for avid readers. But there is also an issue of the providers and their servers. Libraries don't use there own servers to lend books as they use an outside vender. If they try to switch, they may loose all those book titles that they can lend and may have to go through legal hassles to aid the new service to lend out the same books. It comes down to licensing law.

Overall advantage: Electronic lending does have its perks. It allows people to borrow books even after the library itself is closed. This means no more waiting in line for a book let alone for someone to return the book. Also, this allows for people access to information that would otherwise be hard to obtain as not all books are available on the internet itself save through an electronic lending system. In addition, while many may see this as a negative, hackers may break into the digital parts of the library and pirate all of the data. The hackers of course will win in the long run as libraries and publishers both will be forced to adapt to the new realities or literally die trying. Of course most libraries offer books free of charge so that issue will be minimized.

Conclusion: Libraries are here to stay. Some may not even be buildings, but rather online sights that lend out books and may even give a chance for people to buy the book itself (the electronic version). It opens up the market so that armature authors may publish a book through a library which may even turn into there big break. Advertisements are inevitable as some form of revenue will be required if the author is self publishing, as far be it for me to deny them the right to profit from their work. Even Amazon is getting into the act of lending out books along with movies and other media through their Amazon Prime service. Publishers have naturally pushed back by refusing to sell certain books to libraries, but that just means more room for the unlicensed and armatures to have greater exposure rather than be brushed aside for the more popular titles. How the library evolves is something we all cannot predict, but for me, I kind of hope that all the libraries in the world form a kind of network to provide titles from all over the world to the masses. An international library seems like a nice idea from my stand point.

Special for Memorial Day

Today in the U.S. we celebrate Memorial day.  Originally started after Americas civil war to honor the fallen, it has since become a day to honor all soldiers who gave their lives for their country.

God Bless all those who have fought and died and all those they left behind.

Issue 85 Interfaith Marrige May 27, 2013

Interfaith marriage is a good thing. Love should overcome everything including faith. But this is not always the case. According to an article in the Economist people are not prepared for an interfaith marriage possible problem. So let’s discuss those issues.

Problem: Some men and women of different faiths don't count on their religious differences getting in the way of their marriage. Apparently, A Roman Catholic man fearing that his daughter would not go to heaven if left un-baptized was given a court order saying if he ever did it again that he would go to prison. The reason was because his wife was Jewish and he had already promised to raise the child as a Jew. As a result a divorce occurred leading to joint religious rights. Interfaith marriages are more likely to end in divorce. Usually child birth brings people back to their faith and then the questions arise over which faith the child should be raised. Usually it is the mother’s faith that supersedes the fathers, but many do not discuss such issues out of fear. Fear of looking intolerant and even un-romantic. So the obvious solution is to discuss it before it is too late.

Interfaith marriage is common: About 45% of marriages are of two people with different faiths and the numbers are rising. These include people who are of different faiths or parts of a faith where their faiths "clash seriously". Even if you exclude the different denominations from the statistic the marriage rate is still at 36%. We Americans are apparently more likely to marry a person of a different faith than a person of a different political party. Why is this trend occurring? Well according to Ms. Schaefer Riley (she is Jewish and is married to an agnostic Jehovah's Witness) people are marring later in life. After a period of being single and on their own, peoples family traditions generally fall away. As such some people who marry into a different faith convert, but that is not always the case. America in this respect is a melting pot of faith.

Conclusion: I want interfaith marriages to survive. So I ask for all couples who are different faiths to discuss their differences early to avoid such problems. I personally, if I am to meet and marry someone of a different faith, would ask that the child be raised in both faiths and decide for themselves which faith to follow when they are old enough. If they want both and they feel they can reconcile the differences then I would support that to. However, we must also be careful as from my perspective a lot of my friends from interfaith marriages have become atheist out of the confusion reconciling the differences between the faiths and the promotion by secularists that faith causes war and death. It is not a faiths fault that a war occurs; it is the people who try to justify the act of murder who are at fault there. In any case, interfaith marriage I believe is a good thing. With this, just like the market place of ideas we will be able to root out the silly parts of faiths that we find untruthful or false. Let us face facts, we all agree on a lot of things when it comes to faith like helping the poor, and such. So in this I find that we are all correct and incorrect at the same time and that the differences are the issues that must be resolved. Maybe, just maybe, interfaith marriages will be the cure to such ills.

Issue 84 Interfaith centers May 24, 2013

An interfaith center is a place where people of multiple faiths may go and pray. Though, these people may not necessarily pray at the same time as a person with a different faith. It seems that such spaces are becoming more and more common with 1,500 in Britain alone. This I find to be a wonderful trend.

Why I like it: For one it brings together people of different faiths. By doing so it exposes people to other ideas and concepts within the faith based communities. While some of different faiths generally do not pray together, there are instances where a Muslim, a Christian and even a Jew pray together. These spaces are in no way limited to the monotheistic religions, as people of all faiths are welcome. These include Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and in some cases atheists. It is a wonderful display of cooperation between the different groups with people either bringing in their own religious items in with some becoming permanent fixtures like Muslim prayer rugs. Some even have the room designed with curtains which cover up other religious items while people of a different faith pray. In Frankfurt's Goethe University they have an interfaith room called "house of silence" (Haus der stille). Here the Protestant and Muslim ministers have taken advantage of the space to hold a monthly peace prayer. It is a wonderful level of cooperation between the faiths and I would like to see more.

Possible future potential: Due to this level of cooperation we may see further expansion of this concept. It is possible that the different faith based groups will share more such spaces as it will decrease there overall costs in maintaining a traditional single faith house of worship. This may also lead to combined food kitchens and food drives that support the poor (something that all faiths can agree on). Basically we may have an elevated level of cooperation in helping those who are down and out as people of different faiths join hands to feed the hungry. Is it far fetched at the moment, maybe as more tolerance and acceptance of each other will have to continue. However, these spaces open up a dialogue with people of different faiths and as such ideas are shared. It will help us reach a better understanding between each other and realize that we all have a lot in common.

Problems: Some people fear that these spaces are Muslim prayer rooms disguised as multi faith spaces. This fear of course stems from the Jihadist terrorists within the Muslim community. People forget that it is only a small percentage of Muslims that are actually out to get them and their more moderate brethren. But most people are thankfully ignoring such fears as according to the Economist article public attitudes show that people are unconcerned about religious differences (Johannes Stuckelberger, Theologian and expert in church aesthetics at the University of Bern in Switzerland).

The one other problem is the overall design of the space. Some things may be deemed offensive like an alter that shifts from one direction to another to comply with Christians and Muslims need to worship in a particular direction. They also may be looked upon as tacky like the German Gebetomat which is a vending booth for prayers in 65 languages. As such most of such rooms are made to be as neutral as possible until the parishioners of the different faiths add there own touch to make it their own.

Conclusion: I have always liked this idea as I have always felt that these sorts of facilities would help bring people together on a more spiritual level. I do hope that these spaces will ultimately result in a dialogue that can bring all faiths together and shunt the violent radicals in all faiths out.

Issue 83 Sea Steading May 23, 2013

This concept was first brought to my attention on John Stossel’s show on Fox Business Network and again in the magazine Foreign Policy. It is a unique and a very innovative idea that I personally would like to see occur. But enough talk, here is what it is all about.

What is it?: Sea Steading is the idea to take an oil rig or a cruise ship and convert it into a tiny nation state. In essence it could have representation in the U.N. It works by dragging the oil rig or having the cruise ship in international waters. There, the people living on board would create a self sustaining society away from the corruption of the current governments around the globe. Due to the location in international waters, the people will also be immune to all laws created by other governments around the globe. But what is the goal?

The Goal: The goal is for each sea stead to create their own government. Each one would try out something different and see how it develops. In practice, the people aboard would dictate the type of government aboard each vessel and then compare notes with other members of the larger sea steading communities. From there it is all about developing the most effective form of government and economy whilst maintaining freedom. Basically it is a massive science experiment for designing the best government and economy. From there they hope that there land based counterparts will copy aspects of what works and then improve themselves. Also, if a sea steading community fails the people are either free to leave or change governments.

Worries: For one, the sea steading communities must be as self sustaining as possible. If they should have to tow themselves into another nations territorial waters then all the people there would be subject to those other countries laws. So either they make it so they never have to physically bring the community to land again, or they are fully recognized as an independent nation. Technology does allow for almost complete sustainability however with respect to recycling, fuel, and energy production. Food is a concern, but some form of farm or other form of food source must be created to make the system work.

The other worry is the weather. On land, the weather is less vicious than at sea. Ocean currents and strong waves can completely destroy a sea stead. They have designed oil rigs to withstand certain weather conditions closer to land, but at sea in open water the difficulty and the chances of survival if something does happen are very limited. Rescue is hundreds of miles off shore and so those people may be in for there own version of the "Poseidon Adventure" (it’s a movie for those who don't know). So hopefully these hurdles can be overcome in some way.

Conclusion: Conceptually, this is a fantastic idea. People want to use the scientific method to analyze and create the best form of government and economy. Heck, it might even be a precursor to orbiting colonies having there own self governments as well (those interviewed thought of this as well and are busy making plans). I do hope this idea comes to pass and that societies based on self determination develop that overcome humanities instincts to clamor for power and control. Would I live on one of these? Yes, but only if my country the United States finally collapses under its own weight.

Issue 82 Are we past race May 22, 2013

Short answer is no. We will never be passed race. While Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made great strides in removing the racism in our American culture, it has not disappeared. Rather race appears and disappears depending on what is going on.

How far have we come?: We are so much better than before. There is very little discrimination in respect to race itself in the negative sense. Instead, we are dealing with what has been coined as reverse racism. In this, we give people of certain races deference when it comes to employment such as Black Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans (this is known as affirmative action). They get hired sometimes even if a white individual is better qualified for a position simply due to skin color. Sometimes a black person will be hired over a Hispanic or an Asian person due to quotas. This happens a lot in government and even in the private sector because people fear looking racist. However, I question the logic behind these "reverse racism" practices as in truth it is out and out racism for you are basically saying that they can't achieve higher employment or education with out the white mans help. People add the word "reverse" in front just to make themselves feel better doing it. Many believe we are past this issue, but until such practices end, we will be caught in the death spiral of race based on color.

Racism is not just about color: Originally, racism was based around specific physical traits like skin color, but unfortunately Hitler changed that. He used the principles of eugenics (a defunct science) to deem people of the Jewish faith as an entirely different race. As a result over time religions and discrimination of people who worship in those faiths has become a form of racism. Eugenics has also played the same role in making it racist when people of a certain ethnic background are discriminated against. Overall, it is not about skin color any more, but about a common bond shared amongst a group of people that is being used to put them down in some way shape or form.

Racism is everywhere: Yes, we still suffer from racism in the U.S. This is a given due to government and private entities using things like affirmative action. It is also because we have hate groups on all sides as hate groups like the KKK, the Neo Nazis and even groups like the New Black Panthers preach some form of hate. But racism is also used to justify genocide even in the 21st century. No, I’m not talking about the Holocaust, but the genocide in Sudan. It is Arab Muslims who control the government killing African Muslims in the province of Darfur. They consider the African Muslims inferior to the Arab Muslims and have committed numerous atrocities in the name of cleansing the world of an inferior race. This as many would agree is out and out disgusting. But unfortunately simple differences in race are used to justify killing and discrimination all over the globe. This is not an isolated incident, but an epidemic of hate. No man should kill another for any reason save protecting themselves and there families from harm by another individual or group.

Conclusion: We all have work to do. Racism is a perversion of the world. It violates Gods teachings and I'm sure it violates the very principles of atheists as well. The tolerance policy by governments has done good. We tolerate each other as we attempt to co-exist, but tolerance is not enough. I do not want to just tolerate you being near me and working with me. It is time to take the next step, by accepting and finally understanding who we all are and what we have in common. Yes, two more steps, acceptance and understanding. We are all one race, the Human Race. We share so much in common and if we understood that, the disagreements will be pale in comparison. Our bond as a united people is in what we all share. We are human, we love freedom, we want to give ourselves and our families a happy healthy life, we all believe in something, and more. How can we all be right and yet all be so wrong at the same time? Surely we all have a role to play in destroying racism. Yes, people will be used as scapegoats when it comes to times of pain and torment, but we can and will get past this eventually. Just remember one thing, we have all been oppressed and we have all been an oppressor at one time or another in history and sometimes we are both at the same time. Once we understand that we are both victims and victimizers then maybe we can get past the hate passed from one generation to the next and move on to a brighter future.

Issue 81 Should College be Free May 21, 2013

I would say no. I have my reasons and they are simple and succinct. Maybe I am biased as I went to a private University (Hofstra), but for me, not everyone is cut out for the college life and we may be putting too much stock in this form of higher learning.

It is a privilege: For one education is a privilege. We have to pay for schools whether it is in the form of payments, or in the form of taxation. Thus, no form of schooling is truly free as you not only pay for yourself and your children, but with respect to government run education; you are paying for everyone else too. To go to school is not a right in any way, shape, or form. Some of you may disagree and I welcome that disagreement. However, take this into account; you can get the same knowledge for free at a library or on the internet. The role of college is not just about educating people, it is about recognizing that you have knowledge in the eyes of your first employer. After that, college becomes nothing but a tool to use to get around in social circles which may let you meet someone who may give you the "good word" and help you move to a higher paying job. In short, college enhances the "who you know factor". Learning on the other hand is a right as you do it every single day in every thing that you do. There is a difference.

Free Colleges: There is no such thing. If you still think that a college that says it is free is actually free, then look at how much you pay in taxes. I don't want to pay for someone’s free education. The idea is repulsive to me on account of the fact that I was once a college student my self. People went to college not to learn (at least a good portion of the people I went to college with) but to party. It was there parents paying for their kids to party for four straight years. As such, I would not hang out with that group as I wanted to devour all forms of knowledge at my finger tips. I studied Persian, Italian, Sign Language, Art history, Political Science (my major), religion, and more. I also read outside the class room just to stay ahead and also challenge the teacher at every turn. I questioned the status quo with boldness and thus I graduated with honors. But that is enough of me tooting my own horn; I’m here to say why we should not support other people’s quest for education (well at least certain people). Fact is that not every one should go to college and there are people who would have made more money if they never went to college in the first place. I know students who just never could fit in to the college class room and so they jumped from college to college getting a free ride off there parent’s money. I do not want to see the same thing happen with free colleges as those people are just free riders getting a good reputation off a college that they could care less about.

Who should get the help?: I know of only one group of people who should go to college and get a free ride. That is people who want to learn and strive academically. They care put there work first and thus their future first. It is not about fun and games at college as fun and games are a privilege saved for when all there work is complete. I am talking about the highly motivated students at all income and class levels that want to rise above themselves and set an example to their brothers and sisters and other members of their family. Here, they are to be idolized and they want to be praised for their hard work. It is these people who have made colleges look good for so long. Truth is however; if these people never went to college and just went into the private sector first, they would still be well off as their motivation is what pulls them to greater heights. The work becomes its own reward.

Conclusion: I don't like free riders. Also, I don't like what colleges have become. They are less about learning and more about recreation (at least here in America). I don't know how it is in other countries, but I would hope they kick students out who do not perform up to a strict set of criteria. In addition, colleges in the U.S. have become corrupt and are part of the crony capitalist culture by snuffing out jobs. They do this by making certain jobs require a college level education which enhances pay for those who manage to get into the field, but leaves people who are just as capable unable to afford the cost and other regulatory hurdles. In essence colleges support the over licensed culture of the job market. Since when do we need a college classroom to study how to make pottery, let alone get a license to make one for sale? The myth of college and free schooling is over. Thanks to the internet and people who fight for us in places like the Supreme Court our freedoms are slowly being returned even as others are confiscated. The power to learn and surpass yourself is in your own hands. What you need to succeed has always been within your grasp. You are motivated to succeed and because of that, you will through effort and the seizing of opportunities that are presented to you rise above your peers. You will separate yourself from the rest of the masses to lead rather than follow. College is a tool to do that, this is true. But ask yourself, is going there for four years worth the cost.

Issue 80 The air powered car May 20, 2013

Yes, as the title says we are going to talk about an air powered car. This is not in any way science fiction and some are already on the market. So let us begin.

What is it?: The air powered car is a vehicle with an engine designed to use compressed air to drive the motor. It works on the same principle as a traditional engine, but the compressed air pushes the pistons rather than a controlled explosion. These engines generally require no lubricants of any sort as the air itself provides a barrier to any sort of friction in the engine. In tests, the air powered car has gone over a 120 miles without fueling and the goal is to have a car that can go from New York to Nevada on a single tank of compressed air.

Safety first: Safety wise, compressed air is volatile. If say a traditional metal tank cracks, it will shatter like a large hand grenade. Engineers have solved this problem by making the air tanks out of carbon fiber which are designed to split open in case of a breach. Also, to address concerns that a breach in the tank will cause the car to launch like a rocket, safety release valves are place on the sides to prevent such an occurrence.

Is it truly fuel free?: Not entirely. You still need a compressor to compress the air in the tank. Filling such a tank could take as long as 2 hours. But, fueling stations will have technology that will solve that issue. Also, on board air compressors can and will be used to help refuel. While fueling stations can compress air off the energy grid, or even use solar and wind power to generate more electricity to compress air, the car will still need fuel. In this case, an 8 gallon gas tank will be used. However, while not 100% fuel free (yet), they produce less pollution than even a hybrid. The fuel will only be used to re-compress the tank and while at higher speeds than 35 miles per hour to generate more power. Future technology may see solar panels, and small wind turbines to charge batteries that will air in replacing the on board fuel supply.

Conclusion: These vehicles are the future if the public catches on to them. They provide a cleaner alternative to gas powered vehicles and are actually lighter and thus more fuel efficient. The only emissions while running on compressed air is well "air". Compressed air also has the ability to cool the environment which will be great for roads in summer as heat can damage them. Can you imagine how much we all can save in road work costs if cars cool the road as they drive preventing them from buckling and deteriorating due to heat? Also, as the air powered car is at most a ton in weight, this will provide less wear on the roads as well. There is another source of potential savings. Costs at the pump impact food prices and the price of all other goods as well. There will be trucks powered by air on the cheap. While normal trucks may need over $100 in fuel, an air powered version may on spend about $20 (based on the estimate that you only need $2 to fill up a passenger version). This will mean the price of goods will decrease dramatically. Welcome to a cleaner future where air, the most abundant resource on earth can be used to power your car for less than $2 worth of electricity.

To find out more check out the How Stuff Works web site here :
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/vehicles/air-car.htm

Issue 79 Stem Cells: A god send? May 17, 2013

Stem cells are the basic building block from which all our cells develop to become our organs, bones, etc. There are many different varieties of stem cells with embryonic being the most controversial. It has already been proven that all stem cells where ever they are derived work to help improve and heal our physical condition. So is this the best thing to happen to medicine since penicillin?

Yes it is: Stem cells are being experimented with to help heal heart disease, cure cancers and even repair and correct physical and mental conditions. In the show Beyond Tomorrow that was airing on the Science Channel, they injected healthy stem cells from one part of an elderly gentleman’s heart into the part of his heart that was failing. The result was that the mans heart was repaired by those stem cells and was shown to actually make the part of the heart younger. Well not necessarily younger, but health wise it was younger. This is just the beginning.

Stem cells from other animals: Some stem cells don't come from the human body. All animals have them and they are being experimented with too. In the case of the military they are making a kind of dust from pig stem cells. They use this dust by sprinkling it on the stubs of amputees to stimulate the human bodies own stem cells to grow the limb back. So far there has been some progress as some of the soldiers limbs have started growing back, albeit slowly and only in cases of small limbs like fingers. The technology is still developing but there is a hope that we will soon be able to grow peoples limbs back completely.

The types of stem cells: There are stem cells that already exist in the human body. They exist in our blood stream, in our organs, and even in our bones. With these stem cells, it is simply a matter of re-activating them to help heal the sick. As aforementioned, there are animals with stem cells that can be of use to us. These will be used to make other sorts of medicines to allow our bodies to heal themselves, and eventually help to heal our pets. Another type of stem cell is in the umbilical cord. This type exists in umbilical fluid and has greater potential to help heal more serious diseases like Parkinson’s and cancers, at least if our own dormant stem cells prove to be not up to the task.

The most controversial is embryonic. These stem cells exist in undeveloped babies. These are believed to have the greatest potential to save lives, but there is one problem. You will have to kill the unborn child in the fetal stage to harvest the cells. Such a practice is currently outlawed in the U.S. save Jonathon Swifts Modest Proposal becoming a reality. I do not support the research using the unborn stem cells for both moral and ethical reasons as I can see the unborn as nothing but a human life. As such, I will not sacrifice one life for another’s in this scenario.

Conclusion: The discovery and use of stem cells is fantastic. It will allow us to move away from potent and potentially harmful medications and procedures that cause more stress to the body. So this truly is a God send to the medical community and to the world. Now we just have to explore the possibilities.

Issue 78 Should we play God?: extinct species May 16, 2013

I'm sure you have heard about or even read the article in National Geographic about bringing extinct species back from the grave. Most of the animals they intend on bringing back are birds, but they also want to see if they can bring back a mastodon, a woolly mammoth and a saber tooth tiger. I question if we should actually bring these amazing animals back to the world?

Worry number 1: These animals died out within the last couple of thousand of years (they can't bring back dinosaurs due to their DNA being un-recoverable). Some were hunted to extinction while others died due to environmental changes. If we choose to bring these animals back are we dooming them to death once again? Think about it. We are not 100% sure as to why certain species of animals died out. They think the mastodon can come back because the plant life in the arctic tundra is coming back to what it is believed it was like those hundreds of years ago. But, scientists cannot be sure. By breading these animals we could end up poisoning them with current plants and animal life. Morally thinking, I advise against any attempt to release these animals into the wild unless it is provable that they can live and flourish outside a lab.

Worry number 2: Another issue is what happens to the animals that took there place in the wild once they became extinct. The animal kingdom is full of niche animal species. Each one thriving in that role until natural selection occurs once again, such as favoring shorter winged birds over longer winged birds in an urban environment (it allows them to better avoid being hit bay cars). We may regain one species of animal, just to kill off another species through competition with the animal brought back. This is another issue that will have to be taken into account.

The process: What they intend to bring back are not exactly the original animal that went extinct. What is being brought into the world is a representation of the animal that went extinct. To bring such creatures back, scientist map the genome of the extinct animal from DNA that has been recovered. From there, they fill in the missing pieces of DNA with what they believe to be accurate representations of the original animal. From this point the same process used in cloning takes place. They manipulate the eggs of an animal whose DNA is as close a match as possible (Elephant to mastodon for example) and substitute the altered DNA parts with the originals. The result is a hybrid of the original animal and the extinct species. At this point the process is repeated until the animal looks like the extinct species they wanted to bring back. Problem, the animal is not necessarily the extinct species; they are just making another animal look like it. In addition, you cannot study it as the extinct species as we are not 100% sure how the original behaves, thus you are just studying a man made representation and the ways they adapt to the environment they are in (assuming they live).

Conclusion: I know I sound critical, and that is because I am. There is no way that I don't think it is cool that these new versions of extinct species could walk the earth, but morally I'm troubled. Should we bring such animals back, just to see them die, or cause other animals to die as well? Conservation efforts don't exactly work out as planned. Some animals died out anyway, while others became too successful and have to be hunted regularly to avoid over population. In this instance, I would just use this science to test if it is possible to bring animals back. I would not release them out in the wild, but rather seek to design animals that could exist as domesticated versions in zoos. We could create more versions of life stock for leather, and meat to help end world hunger. Or we can even use the technology to aid in our government's mission to colonize Mars (you know they want the credit) by creating animals that can survive the harsh conditions. There will be many issues with this technology and the creations it produces as the animals must survive here on earth, exposed to many of the same diseases that may have wiped out there originals. Can we play God? Yes, but it is not exactly the most advisable thing to do (think the movie Planet of the Apes and the lesson it was trying to impart).

Issue 77 Tenure: Is it really needed? May 15, 2013

                    

  Tenure was designed as a way to protect teachers from being fired for expressing their opinions.  That is what it was supposed to do in summary.  It was originally conceived to protect college professors from being fired for discussing controversial topics, fill in controversial topic here.  Tenure in college was awarded to college professors after many years and under very strict standards with most professors never getting tenured.  Today is different.  Every teacher gets tenure through contract for a certain number of years of service and approval by some official in the education bureaucracy.  This even includes administrators as well.  The very same administrators who make up the education bureaucracy that creates massive redundancies and red tape.  Overall what is up with such a policy that just allows everybody to get job security even from the most heinous of infractions?

  Why the wall?:  That is right; I am asking why do they get a wall against being fired? It is impossible to get ride of bad teachers who are then placed in a firing process which could take years to be rid of them whilst they continue being paid.  They sit in places like New York States “rubber rooms” where they sit around all day raking in or tax dollars that are meant for educating America’s children. Tenure was not intended to protect bad teachers, but unfortunately it does.  It was also not intended to have good non-tenured teachers fired in their place.  Gives new meaning to last hired, first fired.

 Shouldn't it be a reward?:  What I don’t get is why tenure is necessary at all.  Should it not be rewarded like it used to be at colleges where who receives tenure is so strict that it is almost impossible to get.  Primary and secondary education teachers don’t even need tenure in the first place for they should not be talking about controversial topics to young students in the first place.  Not to mention that tenure gives them the license to turn their classroom into a bully pulpit to advocate certain ideologies to young impressionable children.  Other teachers may become lazy due to the job security tenure provides.  School officials are not teachers, so why have it for them even if they might have used to be teachers themselves.  Well I can only think that in the case of administrators having tenure is that it allows them to be whistle blowers on corruption, but we have whistle blower laws for that.  Let’s face it; a poor performing teacher should be fired.  It does not matter if that teacher is popular; popularity is no excuse for a lack of performance.

Conclusion:  Tenure belongs in college with strict requirements, not primary and secondary education where the only cheep option to get rid of a bad teacher is to transfer them and hope the new teacher is better than the last one.  It is so hard to fire a teacher, so expensive, that they transfer them hoping that the swap with the other school gives them a better teacher than the last.  The school does not want to pay bed teachers to sit for years while they go through the firing process.  It is hard to believe they transfer teachers because it’s cheaper.  A risk that schools take hoping that they did not sign a death warrant for the education of the class the new teacher will be teaching.  It is time to make schools cheaper, improve teacher quality by cutting off the minority bad teacher’s free ride.  Let us eliminate tenure, so we do not end up sending America’s children into a classroom that will negatively impact their future.

Issue 76 Education: Attacking the main problem May 14, 2013

  The main problem with education in the United States is social promotion.  Social promotion moves children up a grade even if they are not academically capable of understanding the material at the higher grade level.  Thus, the student is unprepared to meet the new challenges and this begins spirals until the student graduates with them leaving school incapable of meeting society’s educational demands.

 Its original purpose:  Social promotions purpose was to speed students through school and to prevent children from being left back.  It was felt that by doing this that these students would not suffer ridicule from their peers, therefore preserving their self-esteem.  Problem is it leaves students unprepared, sometimes dangerously so, to enter the working world.  Not to mention how embarrassing it is for some of these socially promoted students not even knowing how to read.

 Kill the idea:  A real change for education would be the abolishment of this ridiculous idea that robs children of a successful career which is always founded on a good education.  In other words, the more educated you are the higher paying job you can achieve.  Let’s face it; employers want educated workers who innovate to improve business, not mindless drones.  Look at the State of Florida; they along with several other States got rid of both social promotion and tenure.  As a result within ten years grades improved significantly. 

 Conclusion:  It is time to end this stupidity of protecting a student’s self-esteem at the expense of their education and future.  Hold students back if they are not academically prepared to meet the standards that are set for success.  End social promotion now.

Issue 75 Education: correcting some errors May 13, 2013

 We have all heard the quote “The foundation of every State is the education of its youth.”  Well duh, a dumb nation cannot progress.  A dumb nation means we cannot compete intellectually with other nations because jobs are created by smart people who invest their income wisely.  International businesses not only look at how cheep it is for it to establish itself and produce its products, but also the education of workers because smart labor equals skilled labor equals profits.  We are in a race for the most highly skilled workers on the planet, an education arms race if you will.  Problem, our education system has some major malfunctions inhibiting our, your, Americas future, from getting the best quality education.

The first problem is when school elections are held:  Have you noticed that school elections are not held on the same day as a general election, the very same general election where we as citizens cast our vote for our President, and federal, State and local representatives?  The reason is because the school boards want a lower voter turnout.  Some are thinking why the heck would they want a lower turnout?  Simple, with less people voting, officials are more likely to be elected or re-elected.  Budgets are almost guaranteed to pass even if that budget is flawed, or clearly does nothing to enhance the education of the students and line the pockets of the education bureaucracy.  In other words, the members of the education bureaucracy only have to be responsible to the segment of the community who actually gets out and votes and not the entire community. 

 Next is the problem with the Lemons:  No, not the fruit or the cars, I mean bad teachers.  Usually, these bad teachers can’t be fired due to tenure or contract, so schools have an alternative solution.  They trade off bad teachers with other schools hoping the newer one was better than the last.  This of course means that the new teacher can be as bad as or worse than the one traded away.  Other teachers go into what the people of New York State call rubber rooms.  This is where bad teachers go while they wait for there hearings to take place, all the while getting paid to do nothing.  Some might say remove tenure, which is something I am in favor of, but here I will discuss alternatives.  In the case of the rubber rooms, a teacher who is not in the classroom teaching should not be paid.  That’s right, if your not working you should not be paid and the fear of being placed into one of these rubber rooms will put the fear of God into that select minority of bad teachers.  This also eliminates the need to trade off bad teachers because they can simply threaten to send poor performing teachers, and those who commit worse acts than failing their students, into a rubber room.  Thus, the number of bad teachers should drop.

Another Approach:  An alternative that can be combined with the first is to make tenure renewable.  In other words it will expire after a certain period of time and teachers’ records will be used to justify its renewal.  This is a very simple solution, because their application for renewal may be denied and that bad teacher will then be let go.  I suggest every five to eight years for a renewal of tenure.  I chose these numbers because it’s long enough to evaluate a teachers performance under “safe” circumstances and at the same time give the teacher the ability to enjoy the original intention of tenure, the freedom to discuss points of view in the classroom.

But, what happens to the bad teachers who do manage to be fired.  Why they can simply get another teaching job.  Your saying how does that work aren’t you?  Well, it’s because unlike the majority of professions, teacher’s records are sealed.  The new employer can’t look into the reason why the teacher no longer has their original teaching job, or even the fact that they were fired.  So why is it that a teacher has their records sealed and not other professions?  Why inhibit employers in schools from insuring that America’s children are getting the best of the best?

This leads me to another question: Why are we only giving special attention to the best students?  This is due to the track system which was developed during the industrialization of America.  The original intent was to give the top performers in schools the most attention because they were perceived as the next generation of politicians and lawyers.  The next group was expected to be accountants, and secretaries who aid the top group while the final group (the majority) was to be factory workers and farmers.  This system has always worked by giving attention to students based on performance.  However, performance is based on test scores that are factored in with other factors which inflate grades like behavior.  So good students academically are given less attention because of poor behavior such as obedience or the number of times they raise their hand while others are given higher grades because they might behave better than the rest of the class.  This is not fair and nor is it equal treatment.  This is biased education from a bygone era.  The track system must end for all students who must all be held to the same standards.  They must be given the exact attention they need to succeed and above all treated like the next Albert Einstein. 

 We are still left with inflated grades based on behavior though.  So make academic performance and behavior two separate grades.  Academic performance and behavior do not correlate which is why grades get inflated or even deflated, so there is no reason to not make this change for teachers are already accounting for a student’s behavior.  This will make grading fair and equitable and allow both parents and teachers to identify what areas a student is week in whether it is academically, respecting others, group work, attention to detail, all of which is important in the working world   

 Conclusion: These are some simple fixes, though some are harder to achieve than others i.e. elections and tenure.  We can make America’s system of education the best in the world and a model for all to follow.  Our 50 States, each with their own separate and independent education systems, are competing to be the best.  Each State is in an education arms race with each other and the rest of the world, each a powerful force in education reform. 

Issue 74 Over Licensed May 10, 2013

            I was originally inspired by John Stossel to write this chapter.  I was watching his program on Fox Business Network and he was discussing how over regulated society is.  In this particular episode it was about licenses.  Licensing is a quality control device to ensure that a person is capable of performing a certain type of job or task such as a driver’s license or a plumber’s license.  According to Stossel licenses do more than protect us from bad plumbers, but also dead flowers!  That’s right, I said dead flowers.  Some States in the United States license florists to ensure the quality of the flowers you buy.  They license hair stylists and other occupations as well.  States will require these people to pay fees, sometimes in upwards of a thousand dollars or more, and job training just to be able to cut someone’s hair.  Some times they even have people get a license even if the training for that license has nothing to do with the job or service they wish to perform.  An example of this comes from Stossel’s episode where a woman wanted to provide a service in the form of Jamaican hair braiding.  She was forced to get a license and go to a class on how to cut hair and at no time was she ever instructed on how to braid hair.  In other words she had to get a license on a service she was never going to perform, hair cutting, just so she could braid hair.  Money and hours wasted.

The situation with licensing gets worse:  Imagine some kids who want to open a lemonade stand on a street corner or even right in front of there own home.  The government shuts them down because they did not get a license to open up a business (which is used for tax purposes).  Well it happened, and not just to kids with lemonade stands.  It happened to kids who wanted to sell pumpkins (compliments of their parents) and to kids trying to sell cookies.  Just search the internet and you’ll find this kind of foolishness everywhere.  It’s no wonder it’s so hard to open a business.

Why do governments license these things so excessively?:  Well I can only give my opinion, but I think its government greed.  For one the States get revenue when only licensed businesses sell there products and not from the untaxed street corner lemonade stand.  This is especially true when it can take over $1,000 just to get a license from the government, and that’s not including the training costs.  The other reason is to remove competition.  For instance a New York cabby can only get a medallion to own a cab by paying anywhere from $100,000 to $600,000 depending on what the New York City taxi and limousine commission decides.  It only takes $600, classes and a drug test to drive though.  It is a system designed to suppress the competition by pricing them out of the market, thus it is almost impossible to be an independent operator.  Lobbying at its best, government sponsored monopoly at its worst. 

 The Alternative: So rather than licensing people arbitrarily to protect people dead flowers (mind you, who would shop at a florist if there flowers are just going to die the very next day) lets be smart about it.  Let’s decide what is absolutely necessary to be licensed.  Police and Firefighters come to mind.  Doctor’s, plumbers, electricians, and architects are another.  No one wants a bad doctor, so let’s make sure they have a certificate confirming that they have been trained to heal the sick.  Plumbers and electricians need to be licensed to ensure our homes don’t become money pits.  Architects need a license to ensure buildings won’t fall down upon its occupants.  It should not stop a non-architect from designing a building; it will just need an architect to give it a pass before it is built.  So those jobs that provide specialized construction all need some form of license.

I can only think of only one other occupation, a trial lawyer. I do not mean law professionals in general, but only the lawyers who become advocates for the defense and prosecuting attorneys. A legal letter or other such services do not require a lawyer’s expertise as there is instructions to write such things on the internet and your write to defend yourself should not be infringed because you yourself are not a lawyer. I say this because some one was actually arrested for writing a legal letter on behalf of an elderly man who designed a church for his community which was built. The elderly gentleman did not have a license to be an architect, and to try and keep him out of jail a friend wrote a legal letter on his behalf. This friend was arrested for writing a legal letter without having a license to be a lawyer, in which he was incarcerated for a month until he apologized to the court. Take note that he could have been out sooner, but he was trying to maintain his rights as a citizen and that his incarceration was a court order and he was not convicted of a crime.

 

Conclusion: I question why it is a crime to help your fellow man and why government wishes to corrupt itself by maintaining monopolies on chosen businesses. By the way monopolies can only exist if governments let them. We have this at the federal level with health insurers having monopolies in particular States. So I say lets end the arbitrary corruption of government licensing. To learn more on this and other issues you may simply watch more of John Stossel on the Fox Business network.

Issue 73 Who should not have a gun May 9, 2013

As my post yesterday was about the people who want to and possibly need to own a gun I thought it appropriate to examine who should not have one. So here it goes.

Convicted Criminals: The most obvious are convicted criminals. We do not want or need these people being released just to return to a life of crime. However, not all criminals should be banned from owning guns. Those criminals who should never be allowed to own a gun in my opinion are rapists and child molesters. Additionally, people convicted of other violent crimes already involving a gun or deadly weapon such as a person who committed armed robbery or a murder. That sums of the list of who should not own a gun when it comes to criminals. People who have been in bar fights, petty theft are small time criminals who chose the least violent rout possible and thus should not be considered as dangerous upon release. Those who commit victimless crimes like insider trading also should be exempted from the ban. If they already own a gun (that was not used in the crime in question) obviously it should be seized, but it should be returned upon their release. Like I said earlier, those who commit violent criminal acts should never be allowed to own a gun again, but those who do not commit such acts should be allowed the trust of society once again. But if you want to be safe, repeat offenders will be banned from owning fire arms as well.

Mentally ill: People in this category also should not be allowed to own guns. Wait, forget what I said, some people in this category should not be allowed to own guns. You are probably thinking why on earth some people who are mentally ill should be allowed to own a gun. Well, it is very simple, members of both the police and the military are considered to be mentally ill. These members of law enforcement and our troops suffer from depression, anxiety, bi-polarism, extreme stress and other such mental disorders which would classify them as mentally ill. These men and women have access to some of the most powerful arsenals on earth, and you know what, we trust them. So people with mental illness should be allowed to own a gun, but who amongst people in this category should not.

Those in this category that should not be allowed to own a firearm are those who would seek to harm themselves or others. You will need a trained professional to diagnose such cases and even then exceptions can me made based on how severe someone’s condition is, i.e. a person who is prone to suicide due to post traumatic stress should not be allowed to own a gun. Even if these people are not allowed to own a gun in the short term, this should not prohibit them from owning a gun once their condition is under control. Just remember, if we just out right banned people with such disorders then we would be disarming almost everyone. Face it; we are all a little nuts.

Conclusion: Yes there are exceptions to every rule. Some of you may agree with me, while others may want even tighter restrictions and I welcome the conversation. However, I would like to bring to your attention a more pressing concern, the way mentally ill people in the U.S. are treated medically. There are instances where doctors are not allowed to take on there case if these people do not show any signs of wanting to harm themselves or others. As a result, these people go untreated. Before we really want to fix gun laws (let alone actually enforce ones that work) we have to fix the mental health care system so we can help to prevent things like school shootings. There are other little things we can do to prevent good citizens from becoming murderers to, like addressing issues with school bulling which can drive kids to kill their peers. We can address issues with criminality by adjusting laws to stop ruining peoples live in victimless crimes like abusing a drug, and even prevent repeat offenders by finding ways to show employers that these former criminals are trustworthy so they don't turn back to a life of crime. Laws can only react to a problem, but what I’m talking about here helps to reduce such issues from occurring, and that is all we can do.

Issue 72 Guns: why have them? May 8, 2013

Lets face it people both fear and respect people who have a gun. It is a weapon and at the same time, a tool. But is it truly needed in civilian hands. I say yes.

Hunters: Hunting at its core requires guns. Without the gun how would a hunter hunt for the animal he/she is tracking? Some may wonder why people hunt when we have farms to get our food from. Is not hunting all just fun and games? Well, you would be wrong to think it is all fun and games. For one, hunters play a vital role in controlling animal populations. Some of the animals like dear lack enough predators to cull the population and thus many may find there way into suburban communities and even cities. Also, if a large population of dear or other animal goes unchecked, they may eat all the food in their environment and thus die out. Part of why these populations explode is due to past human interference like killing the predators that eat them or trying to revive a dying and endangered species in a very successful and unexpected way (such as the American Alligator). We cannot expect hunters to maintain those populations with bows and arrows as getting close to such creatures risks both failure to make a kill, or the creature in question attacking the hunter. Guns have the range necessary to keep hunters at a safe distance while also being powerful enough to kill the animal as painlessly as possible.

Life style: There are those who cross the boundary of hunter, farmer and traditionalist. These people are Outdoors Men and Outdoors Women. These people live a very simple hunter gatherer lifestyle out in the countryside and rural areas. They care not for most traditional amenities, but they hunt to survive. These men and women need guns for food and protection from wild and dangerous animals like bears. Like wise, small farming operations require guns to prevent wild animals from eating their crops and other animals like wolves from coming to eat them.  Don’t bother trying to understand why these people live the way they do, as it is their choice and that is all that really matters.

Self Defense: In some places in America, it can take up to 15 or more minutes for police to arrive if there is a breaking. Thus, these people in these dispersed communities need some form of first response to anyone trying to do them harm. It is just as likely that that perpetrator coming into their home is armed and thus the gun acts as an equalizer.

Women need guns as well. Let’s face it; while women are strong and very independent in general, but a 200 pound man is much stronger than a 100 pound female. They need to equalize the situation and a gun does just that.

Some may think why not a taser or pepper sprays to try and fend off attackers? Problem, are you afraid of such weapons, weapons that do not kill unless there is an accident? Guns however, people are very afraid of due to there lethality.

What if those guns are taken from you and used against you? Simple, you’re out of luck. There is always a chance that your weapon will be taken away from you, but in the encounters where this has happened is rare. Most people who own guns have a basic knowledge on how to use a gun and defend themselves. These people are very responsible and have for the most part, never committed a violent crime. In America, about 48% are believed to own guns legally and there are approximately 300 million guns in the United States in total. Culturally speaking, America is gun country.

Radical Defense: Yes there are those who fear a dooms day scenario like a foreign invasion, or the government collapsing and chaos taking over. But, these people hurt no one. They like the safety and security they get from feeling prepped for the worst that can happen like the government needing to be rebelled against. (Note: I don't own a gun and probably never will, but I will not take away your right to protect yourself).

Conclusion: People want security and guns aid in that. Women want to protect against rapists, parents in dispersed communities want to defend their homes in case of an assailant and hunters need to protect themselves from their pray. Did people not think that people in the witness protection program and those who are being stalked might want to be able to defend themselves? We cannot all afford high priced body guards like some celebrity mom and dad. Has no one thought of the need to protect the families of law enforcement and military personnel from people who might hold a grudge? I know police who have had people they arrested and incarcerated placing bounties on their heads and their families. Are they not entitled to some protection? Guns are a very serious matter and trying to weed out a collector of guns from those who actually need some form of protection is down right stupid. Trying to justify a fear or a possibility to a government official is like talking to a wall. Not to mention it would make it impossible to try and obtain guns for those who may need protection as the arbitrator who decides if you can have one is not in the position you’re in. Fact is that the idea of a basic background check is fine, but you should not have to justify yourself to anyone when it comes to protecting yourself and your family. This is my view and understanding of how the world of guns works outside of a war zone and a law enforcement capacity. I just hope you read this and find that the issue of guns is not a black and white issue, but a very big gray line.

 

Issue 71 Do we need Tanks? May 7, 2013

In the world today the way wars are fought have changed dramatically, or so we thought. We still have large armies smashing against each other in some conflicts, while we have guerilla fighters in others. There are even cases where traditional war and insurgents mix to form a complex war front that can only be a field commander’s nightmare. At current, there is a debate due to the changing face of war about how useful the battle tank is. So do we still need tanks?

Those against keeping tanks: Surprisingly, the ones wanting to get rid of tanks are the U.S. military. Well, let me correct my self, they wish to reduce the force by approximately 1/3. The reasons for their thinking are the budget cuts and the altered war front. They feel that the battle tank in future of war is a lumbering war machine that while useful is burdensome to transport, labor intensive and a waste of fuel. If you study the militaries tanks in most Army's including the American military you will know that the tank is generally a gas guzzler. Also, it takes a lot of time to train troops to use tanks effectively. America has a crew of 4, while other armies have a crew of 3 due to an auto reload system and teaching them how to be a team and then how to fight with allies is very costly. Militarized video games help, but even that is not enough.

Keep the tanks part 1: The group that wants to keep tanks is the politicians in America. Through various dealings the manufacturing process includes contracts with multiple companies to make parts all before being shipped to be assembled. Literally almost every politician has some company in their districts building something and they don't want them to loose their jobs. For if that person or company looses the contract, then that politician looses a vote. A little political corruption goes along way.

Keep the tanks part 2: Another group who wants to keep the tanks is those who see that the lumbering behemoths of the battlefield still play a role. They cite that despite the disadvantages, tanks, particularly the U.S.'s M1A1 Abrams, is still a very effective combat vehicle. The Abrams is used in situations where lighter vehicles would be easily destroyed by man portable anti-vehicle weapons (something that is becoming more common with insurgents and terrorists). A tank like the Abrams can shrug off most of such weaponry. Also, currently the Abrams tank outranges most other tanks with its main gun and is highly maneuverable with a top speed of around 60 miles and hour. A tank on an active battle field can reposition and provide line of sight firepower to targets directed by infantry (less risky than calling in artillery further away). Tanks when employed properly can change an entire battle.

Conclusion: My opinion is as follows. The tank is going to evolve again. It is going to be able to provide direct and indirect fire support for troops. They will be used as mobile communications links and surveillance tools. And they will change from being gas guzzlers to fuel efficient power houses (they need to because a fuel truck is a very tempting target and no fuel means the tanks can't move). They will use new engines and fuels to be more fuel efficient, new targeting and tracking systems to hit harder and faster and new munitions that may even be guided by GPS to their target. Also, tanks may become lighter, as the heavier a vehicle is the harder it is to transport. As to armor, they may get lighter more advanced materials, but they may also get active protection systems that intercept incoming rounds before they hit (the Israelis have this technology already). I will even predict that the tank may eventually replace traditional artillery systems save the furthest reaching of that class of vehicle. The tank no matter what its incarnation may fade, but will reappear when needed to due battle and do the job it was designed to do, support the troops on the active battlefield.


This issue is my reaction to a Huffington post article and a journal entry in Foreign Affairs.

Issue 70 What is a Constitution May 6, 2013

"Constitution" has become a sacred word for the people of the world. To people it means freedoms guaranteed by and from the government. It is essentially the law that governs all law in a given country. But what exactly is it?

What it is: A constitution is a legally binding document that acts as a contract between the people of the country and their government. Enshrined in such documents is rules governing how elections are run, what requirements are mandated so a person may serve in public office and even (like the U.S. Constitution) enshrining the basic rights that are required to maintain freedom. Essentially, what rules a people want a government to follow and abide by are placed in a constitution. It is the law that governs the government and tells them where and how they may govern the people.

Can it be used against us?: Well the answer to that question is yes. If a constitution is altered or written in a way where government may seize power from the masses then it will be used against the people. Constitutions are made to limit governments’ ability to do things and force them to respect the rule of law, but a poorly written constitution leads to turmoil. For example, not placing a limit on what forms of taxation could lead to abusive tax policies. Cronyism may develop if the equal treatment under the law is not enforced through a constitution. You are now beginning to see the big picture. Governments are made of people, and once those people get power, they corrupt themselves and constantly seek all power they can get their hands on.

Can a constitution be ignored by government: If we don't watch what the government is doing.  People must constantly be vigilant or else the government will take advantage of our not paying attention. My own government (America's Federal Government) has taken advantage of the situation to provide benefits to corporations while ignoring others. They have violated the equal treatment under the law principle under the 14th amendment to the constitution (that is because corporations are run by people and thus may be considered people). Other forms of abuse may occur, such as pocketing money, or even inflating budgets for pet projects to later be used by government employees. Government can make people rich.

Does a Constitution have to be written?: No, it does not have to be written. For example, the British (one of America's closest allies) has no written constitution. Instead they have a series of documents that do the same thing as a constitution like the Magna Carta and other official laws and court decrees. Israel on the other hand also has no constitution, but they also don't have any written documents like Britons either. They have basic rules and moral restraints that society places on them to maintain their rights. This is not to say that countries do not need a constitution, it just happens to be easier to look up what can and can't be done if all the rules are in one place.

Conclusion: A constitution is a document that gives the people comfort. It makes us feel that are rights and our voice matter in a government. It is designed to keep government from grabbing too much power and also tells them to protect the people’s rights. I know I am lucky to live in America and that is because of the laws that protect us and preserve my precious rights, the rights we all share. So all I can say is thank God for the Constitution for without it, who knows what America would be like.

Issue 69 Future of Driving May 3, 2013

We have long pondered what the future of driving will be. Thoughts of flying cars and cars that drive themselves are the most prominent, but what else?

Drive by wire: Airplanes have for a long time now used electronic signal systems and fiber optic cables to enhance performance while shedding weight to reduce fuel costs. By doing the same in cars we get rid of the drive train, and all other mechanical parts save the wheel and the engine. As a result, cars will be run mostly by computer and thus allow for more performance out of your car. The main hurdle is people’s fear of driving a rolling computer. However, if a car company can effectively demonstrate how safe and reliable it is by showing how they are used in airplanes then the future of this technology is assured.

Robot cars: This form of science fiction is now science fact. One problem, the computers need to learn to drive. Currently, robot cars are being tested in California and other places. All tests so far have been successful. The problem is two fold however. One, an infrastructure must be put in place from which the cars can receive uninterrupted GPS data. While on board sensors work to prevent collisions, without GPS (let alone up to date GPS data) the cars will not know where to go. The other problem is people placing trust in their vehicles to get them where they want to go. People will fear a robot car thinking it will drive them and their family into a wall. So in this instance it is a trust issue.

The Road itself: Here is not so much an innovation in cars, but innovations in the road itself. There has been discussion of altering how roads are constructed and what they are capable of. I was first informed of this in a Popular Mechanics Magazine article and in it they discussed how wires in the road could supply power to cars. Yes, the road itself would essentially act like railroad tracks, but not be limited to just the tracks. This would allow the removal of bulky engines from cars and busses to reduce pollution. Another innovation was having sensors in the road produce warnings about road conditions. If the sensors saw it was getting cold then they would project snow flakes on the road surface and perhaps activate a heating element to prevent black ice. Also, in the summer a cooling element could be activated to reduce the heat produced by the road that invariably increases the heat of the surrounding area. In short, a smart road would need less maintenance and would attempt to reduce accidents.

Green machines....and roads: For cars, micro wind turbines and solar panels can be attached (and still look hip) to generate its own electricity. This would allow cars to power themselves when running low on fuel (if we are still even using fuel). Likewise, wind turbines can be set along the side of roads to take advantage of the wind produced by speeding cars. Thus even the road can generate its own electricity and not have to rely on power plants (this is the same concept as putting solar panels on street lamps). But another interesting idea is using the sensors to turn on and off lights when cars are passing by. The idea is, if a light is on and no one is around to take advantage of it, then why have it on in the first place. Thus, lights will only turn on for when a car is passing through the area and then turn off saving more electricity and money.

Conclusion: While the flying car is probably the futurists dream they are not a reality until mechanical issues balancing flight and driving are worked out. In the meantime you all will have to settle with some of the innovations and ideas above. Sure we will get new fuels, and maybe a giant bus that uses the road as a track to transport a 1,000 people like a train with cars driving underneath (see the Chinese for this idea), but these ideas are all concepts. We are still innovating with new ideas and concepts. New materials and fuels are a guarantee to be coming out at some point. It is all really a matter of what the consumer will find acceptable. So keep dreaming innovators and sci-fi fans, the cool stuff is still coming down the pipe.

Issue 68 EU and Turkey May 2, 2013

We are not talking about dinner; we are talking about the country known as Turkey. It has applied for membership for the European Union (EU) and wishes to join the rest of the European community. But there are road blocks.

Religious road block: As many know, Turkey is a Muslim Country. Despite it being secular members of the EU like Frances government fear letting Turkey join due to a possible influx of Turkish migrants into their communities. France and Germany particularly are hesitant due to their inability to bring their Muslim populations into the mainstream of their societies. The results are small ghettos with their own micro governments, languages, and culture that are hostile to outsiders. Hate crimes and violence due occur and the governments feel helpless. As a result, they hope to avoid compounding the problem by preventing Turkey from joining. The only problem with that logic is that the opposite may happen. For every new entrant into the EU, its member countries feared an influx of migrants. However, most of these populations actually went home due to their feelings of isolation in the larger European community. What blocks these people from going home is a lack of money and the other legal and financial hurdles of trying to go home. In other words, Turkey joining will provide a chance for these people to find a place to fit in and finally feel at home.

Geographic road block: Another problem also has to due with Islam and its Muslim followers. In this instance it is Turkey’s neighbors. Europeans fear that by allowing Turkey to join, it will open up the rest of Europe to the hostile Middle East and the Jihadist element that exists there. In short, they don't want Iraq as their neighbor. But in truth, Turkey as a bastion of culture and peace would act as a buffer. While many countries in the Middle East are in turmoil, Turkey has a solid foundation and is very powerful militarily. Not many countries would dare mess with the Turks. Also, Turkey and its people can be used to demonstrate how western ideals and Muslim ideals can co-exist. Essentially show that a harmony can be achieved and thus ease the fears of possible future radicals, thus shrinking the potential terrorist threat we all face.

Internal road block: The last obstacle to Turkey joining is human rights issues. At current, Turkey enforces its secular society with force. It has to stop that and fast. Banning the head scarf and other religious garb will only create resentment. Basically let people act and dress how they wish so long as no one is harmed. Turkey can enforce the secular mindset by ensuring people understand they can have religion and let it run their own personal life, but it must never be forced on others.

There is one other internal problem and that is the Kurds. They want a nation of their own and they want it now. This is something I as an American can respect. However, Turkey is now dealing with Kurdish separatists and the result has been terrorism. To compound the issue, the Kurds in Iraq have a section all to themselves and the Kurds in Syria have seized upon the havoc and taken over cities and towns to cement their dream of self rule. Turkey has come to the negotiation table and results look promising, but there is a long struggle ahead and Europe fears another situation like the Israelis and Palestinians. Turkey must find a happy medium with respect to the Kurds who have the power to make or break the Turks and it aspirations.

Conclusions: Turkey I believe should be allowed to join. It is a strong and vibrant country with much to offer to the rest of Europe. The religious and geographic road blocks are easily dismissed if Turkey just provides the right incentives and some really good arguments. On the internal front, the secular enforcement is also changing and Turkey is making head way there as well. It is just the issue with the Kurds that remains. Probably the best solution would be Turkey and the rest of Europe bringing all the Kurds from Iraq and Syria into Turkey and giving them some form of economic and governmental independence. It would be a country within a country if you will. But, these details and how smoothly something like that will go depends on all the actors involved and Turkey can still be allowed to join regardless if the other EU countries make an exception. From here it is up to the Turks to decide if they still wish to join. They must decide through their elections if joining is still worth the effort. So I say to the Turks, use your right to self determination to decide for your selves if it is worth your governments Europe or bust path.