Issue 217 Corrupt Science November 29, 2013

Science is not all fact. In fact the majority of it is theory. What they call fact is simply what they could not disprove given the current information available through experimentation. But, the science can be corrupted if money or ego gets in the way.

Ego: There are a number of scientists who want fame and the fortune that comes with it. This was most certainly the case in the earliest days of the scientific community as they searched for the missing link between man and monkeys. So much so that these so called scientists made fake skulls and even fake bodies that would only later be disproven through advances in science and technology. We also have a similar issue today. The scientists who said dinosaurs may have had feathers were at first vilified. It would only be later that his ideas would be accepted by the overall scientific community. However, a new issue has arisen. Now that the feathered dinosaur idea is accepted the scientific community rejects any counter argument to the idea. As such, scientists who present evidence to the contrary are now being vilified instead. All this pertains to ego, as the pride of these scientists gets in the way of questioning how our natural world works.

Money: Money is also another motivator for corrupt science. A great example is the global warming/climate change debate. Many in the media will quote statistics that the earths temperatures have risen 7, 20 or even 30 degrees within the last 100 years. One problem, within the last 100 years the earths temperature has only increased by 1.2 degrees according to climatologists. If you also look at the whole ice sheet melting you will discover that during the winter it completely recovers only to melt again. As to why the water is possibly warmer is still in question however. But what about the polar bears you ask? Well the truth is polar bears while listed as endangered have never sunk to a level that would classify them as an actual endangered species. In fact their numbers are only growing. So why all this misinformation? Well it is because government pays for the research on global warming. These scientists are being paid to prove something rather than seek the truth. So they fudge the numbers so as to "prove" what the government wants. These scientists know that if they contradict the people giving them money then they will loose their funding and thus be left without a sponsor for not just their research, but their lively hood.

Another example is the debate over what’s better to raise a child. Are gay couples, single parents or traditional families better able to raise a child? Well it depends again on who provides the funding. Usually I see gay advocates who fund studies on gay couples having the gay couple coming out on top or equal to that of the traditional couple. Likewise those who fund studies on single parents, or traditional couples have there group come out on top. So its not about proving who really is better at raising children, its about the funding these scientists are getting as there results are used to support the "dog and pony" shows put on by these advocacy groups.

Conclusion: Ego and money are the primary movers and shakers of science and are what obstruct the pursuit of the truth. Coercion and ideology also play a role as well, but from my perspective do so at a much lesser extent. So if someone says this is fact, make sure that the fact comes with legitimate information to back it up.

Issue 216 Thanksgiving November 28, 2013

What is Thanksgiving for? Well back in the early days before The United States was the United States, people and members of government would routinely announce specific days as a day to give thanks. When America became a Republic it was given an official day in November as a day to give thanks for what we have and had. This if I remember correctly was done by George Washington. However, the idea and concept of a day of thanks did not go away till much later in America's history, but now we only have one national day of thanks due to changes in tradition. So what should we be thankful for?

Family and Friends: Family and friends support us. They help shape who and what we are and give us information and even empower us to push forward in life. I, at the very least, know that this was the case with me and my family and friends. It does not matter if the family is related to you or how many family and friends you have, for it is about just having them by your side in the first place.

Inventors and Businesses: Some may question why be thankful to this group. Well it is these people who make our lives easier. Think about it. The computer was an invention to make life easier. However, that invention would not have become so ubiquitous if it were not for a business that was willing to sell it. Same with the internet. It was designed for the military so that they may communicate in the event of a nuclear disaster. But, it was businesses that took it and made it essential to everyday life with more uses to come. Inventors and businesses make life convenient so that we have more time to do the silly, mundane or just plain stupid. But they also allow us to be more efficient and that also frees up time to spend with the family and friends you cherish.

The Troops: Our soldiers are literally sent into hell whenever they are sent off to war. All this while our politicians sit back comfortably in their chairs back in the capitol. Our soldiers come back scarred by the horrors of war and then face another battle trying to reintegrate back into a normal and every day life. Pray for them, and bless them for they do what many are unwilling to do.

Conclusion: Give thanks for what you have as you probably do not know how lucky you really are. On Thanksgiving these are the people I will be giving thanks to for everything that they have given me. Love, an easier life, and a life without fear.

Issue 215 Eliminate the Department of Education Novmeber 27, 2013

You are probably saying "why are you eliminating the department of education?" Well if you will give me a few moments I will tell you why it is one of the least needed Federal departments existing in our government.

Reason 1: The department of education was created by the Carter administration in an effort to increase test scores and overall student performance. Unfortunately, the student performance in the United States has actually stagnated since the department’s creation. So it had many wondering why this was the case. Well, the department of education is allowed to give out additional monies toward schools who meet certain standards. Let it be known that the department does not actually play a role in educating America's children, they just serve as a money tree for additional revenue to schools who desire extra cash for programs they may like and for the communities that surround them. How this works is by mandating schools follow certain rules to qualify for that money. The schools believe that they need the money in order to carry out their mission to educate children (though some may question where and how that additional money is spent). However, many a time the money is not even adequate to fund the program leaving the school needing more, but the money is not the issue at hand, it is the requirements that are put in place to get the money. The department of education mandates that the school implement programs or certain teaching methods in order to get that money. However, if the school deviates from that method the money is cut off. So schools have no incentive to give up the failing methods that are being forced on them. What makes matters worse is that some of those methods are actually incapable of educating children. It is not the teacher but the methods mandated that cause our children to falter in the education environment. This is basically forcing a cookie cutter education system on America's kids when they really need an education system that can be customized to each child as the need arises. Now we have "Common Core" being pushed by the department of education which advocates more cookie cutter approaches to education that makes education dull and sub par for America's kids. This cookie cutter policy is the main reason that students for years now have slowly been deprived of adequate education as standards are pushed further downwards to inflate the value of lower and lower test scores.

Reason 2: What also harms our student population is the student loan program run by the department of education. There are a number of race and other requirements that make it overly complex to get a student loan in the first place, rather than base the loan on the students’ ability to pay it back. But the problem is not necessarily the access to the loans, but rather the relationship between the amount colleges charge for tuition and the growth rate of the student loans themselves. The colleges know they can make the costs of colleges larger and larger, as the department of education will just give out bigger and bigger loans. The result is that students suffer massive debt while the colleges’ pockets get lined with cash. Also, the banks used by the government to distribute the loans get the money back if the student should default, but the student will still be left to carry the debt burden regardless which ruins their credit rating making it much more financially difficult to buy a house let alone a tiny apartment.

What the department of education also does is advocate exclusively for college for an individual. But that is not the only education option for a successful career. There are certificate courses, online schools and even vocational schools that are just as good, if not better at educating students in one particular subject or training the student to be a professional in a particular job. By advocating the college system as the only option to success, they disadvantage students by hiding their options.

Conclusion: America needs an education system that is customizable to each individual student. This allows children to advance at their own pace using the best method suited for their education needs. Also, colleges know that people continuously advocate their pipe dream of success and thus we ignore our other options. The department of education stands in the way of changing the system and allowing the schools to be governed at the local level where they can much more easily make the changes necessary toward the custom education model that will give students the advantages they really need in the education environment. So let’s do away with the department of education while we still can before America's children become doomed to mediocrity.

Issue 214 Work week my way November 26, 2013

Well we talked about a 30 hour work week yesterday, but how about an alternative. My idea is to keep the work week as it is, but have a workers income not taxed on the 31st hour. Interesting right?

The idea: People are desperate for money. Income has not kept pace with the economy in part due to governments’ monetary policies and market incentives which suppress many wages for low skilled workers. Part of that is due to Americas failing public education system which results in substandard reading, writing and math scores. As such skilled workers are higher in demand. So this is where my idea comes in. The economy may already be switching to a 30 hour work week, but people will be at a loss for the money they would have gotten if the traditional 40 hour work week was maintained. As such, let's not tax the worker on the 31st hour that they work. This would allow the worker to keep all the money they earn beyond the 30th hour. Who doesn't want more money in their pocket?

Possible benefits: The main benefits are that it incentives workers to work longer. If they work long enough then they get to keep much more of their income as they would not be taxed once they hit the 31st hour. It would help those individuals on the borderline of poverty by allowing them to keep more money rather than hand it over to the Federal government or even the State governments if they follow suit. It actually may enable some workers to get out of poverty especially if the mandated 30 hour work week goes into effect which mandates time and a half beyond that 30th hour. So a worker getting $8.50 an hour would get to keep the $15 an hour (if time and a half pay is applied) if they work beyond that 30th hour. Yes each $15 dollars you make on the 31st plus hours will be yours. The government will not be allowed to touch it at all. Of course, if the time and a half rule is not applied, then you would still get to keep that $8.50 an hour after that. Overall, more money stays with you in your bank account rather than going toward a government that may squander it.

Possible costs: A problem will occur with respect to filing for your income taxes. It may in fact make it a little more complex to file for taxes making it a bigger burden on individuals to file there taxes. A.K.A., it will be a bigger pain in the rear. Also, the government may loose too much revenue from this change, and result in a fiscal glut in the federal government. However, these issues are solvable thankfully with respect to cutting budgets and a revised and simpler tax system.

Conclusion: This is my idea and I want any and all critiques which may in fact help me develop it further which would allow it to possibly become more viable as an idea to be put in place. Overall, the intended goal is to keep money in the hands of the worker where it belongs and not the government that spends on useless things and on perks for themselves.

Issue 213 A 30 hour work week November 25, 2013

Currently the United States mandates by law a 40 hour work week with time and a half of pay being given for each hour after that. But there is talk of reducing that number to 30. So let’s discuss the cost and the benefits.

Benefits: Henry Ford was the man who set the standard for the 40 hour work week all those years ago. Many businesses would eventually copy it with it finally being set as the legal standard. The reason why it was copied so much was that it actually improved production in the factories and in other businesses. Thus, the concept of decreasing the 40 hour work week to 30 is believed to have the same effect. Not to mention, if this change occurs, the worker will therefore get time and a half worth of pay after the 30th hour by law. So we have two main benefits, a more efficient workforce and greater chances for the average low wage worker to earn more money.

Already workers hours are being pushed back to the 20 to 25 hour range due to new trends in business. The reason Henry Fords 40 hour work week idea was put into law was that some businesses would have there workers working 60 or more hours a week. Today the incentive is to cut down on hours to the bare minimum. This may in part be due to incentives perpetuated by the government such as forcibly providing health care if your business has a specified number of workers who work a certain number of hours. It may also be due to technology which renders a traditional staff load as redundant and thus less man power is needed. What ever the reason, the trend by business is to reduce the number of workers working per hour which is turning the United States into a part time work force. As such, the 30 hour work week is envisioned to make it easier for the worker to get their hands on higher pay.

Costs: The costs themselves seem to be negligible. Aside from a belief that greater efficiency will result, the only down side is that the 30 hour work week may push more people into the full time worker category. Some of you may wonder why this is bad, even though it is something good as they will have access to benefits. This is because businesses may further reduce hours and even benefits to absorb the extra costs. The reason this would occur is because small businesses will be ill equipped to handle the rules and regulations mandated by government with so many people being pushed to full time. And those that wish to escape it will simply reduce hours of the worker so that they will not even be considered full time and thus the worker may actually loose money or be faced with the business possibly shutting down. So this change will mainly help big businesses while suppressing poorer and smaller ones.

Also, as a libertarian, the government should not be mandating how long the work week is or how much a person should be paid. It should be the market that dictates the persons wage based on their skills and capabilities. The majority of the time the skilled laborer will gain enough experience while working to be worth the larger income. Those that want more money will leave for higher paying jobs once they become available. As such, the work place as part of the free market usually takes care of itself.

Conclusion: I am in favor of the 30 hour work week. The only reason I am though is that businesses are depressing workers hours due to the changing nature of the market. If the government was not interfering so much we may already have a 30 hour work week. My own job as a pharmacy technician is considered full time at 30 hours (yes I am a full time worker). So, in my opinion, businesses will naturally trend toward this new standard on their own if they are given enough time. So if the change does occur, it should be announced a year or two earlier so that businesses will have a chance to adapt so that the negatives do not do any immediate harm.

Issue 212 Loan pay alternative November 22, 2013

Mentioned in the previous article was a method of loan payments in the form of a percentage of income being taken out of your paycheck to slowly pay your loan back. There is more to it than just being able to pay the loan back however. So let's begin.

Concept: Basically each paycheck, money is deducted from your paycheck to pay your student loan back. Simple right. Basically it acts the same way as traditional income tax would if it were to be deducted or automatic payments from your checking account. But here is where it gets "interesting". If you don't have a job then you don't have to pay. So if you’re unemployed, you will not have any money deducted to pay. So literally the paying back of your loans is put on hold until you find a new job. It’s actually a nice idea.

Variations: Similar concepts to this idea have been proposed. One option was to have the need to pay back the loan expire after a certain period of time. So say after 20 years if you paid a certain percentage back, the rest of your debt will be forgiven. I did not like this idea as people who were successful would pay off most or all of their loans before the cut off while others got off from their obligations. Also, those who wished to escape the rest of their debt may work at menial jobs for a short period of time until they reach the cut off so they would not have to pay back the rest of their loan. I find it dishonorable to do such a thing as to not pay what you owe (let alone the part about it being unfair to those who become successful).

Other variations mostly dictate varying levels of income being deducted; with the highest number I've seen being 30 percent. Also, some continue to charge interest even if you are not working. However, I mostly see the ones that charge interest combined with the cut off clause.

Troubles: The main purpose for giving a loan is one: to help those afford something they cannot at the current moment and two: to make a profit while incentives a return on investment. So it is unclear how a bank or even a government will break even on their loans to students. I know many (including myself) are fine with helping those who cannot afford to go to college to actually be able to go. But, college prices are beyond the pale as you and I well know. Something has got to give. I can see this method being applied with a form of the "Sharia Compliant Loans" where the traditional interest is added up front so as to make a profit and the person knows how much they must pay back. In short they have a goal. If this variation becomes successful, then I can possibly see it being applied to other forms of loans as well, such as loans on your home or other lines of credit. However, that assumes this method, where loans are paid back only when you are working, catch on in combination with the variation of the sharia compliant loan.

Conclusion: It is, overall a good idea. I like that you are only asked to pay a percentage of your salary if and when you are working exclusively. I also like my idea of combining my variation of a sharia compliant loan (interest tacked on upfront) with this concept so as to make paying all forms of loans more affordable and lessen the chance of a repo man knocking on your door to reposes your home if you miss too many payments. So I am willing to give it a shot, if the loan is done in such a way that makes it affordable and that the individual pays all of that money back.

Issue 211 Obama's school rating system Novemeber 21, 2013

We have talked about rating schools before, and there is no doubt that we will not be discussing it again. Like right now. President Obama has proposed a school rating system a few months ago which was summarized in the Wall Street Journal article "Obama to propose College Rating System on Bus Tour." So let’s examine it and see if it has any merit.

What it wants to do: President Obama is looking to tie federal student aid to a college's level of performance. As such colleges will be rated on how well they help disadvantaged students the most (all before the year 2015). Financial aid will then be dictated by those ratings (in the year 2018). Part of the rating will be based on how affordable the college is and the outcomes of that education which include graduation rates and transfers. The top performing colleges under this system will get larger federal grants and more affordable student loans given to student who go there. In addition, the plan calls for more innovation such as a 3 year accelerated degree and more online courses.

With this comes a pay as you earn program. This concept has you pay your student loans back by a percentage of your pay check. In this case, the plan calls for 10% of a graduate’s monthly income to be taken out to pay back the loans. Also, the race to the top program will have its funding raised with it being more focused on higher education reforms. So this is Obama's plan in a nutshell.

Critiques: I have come to not like overly complicated rating systems. Especially when the schools involved do not have a uniform standard by which to measure performance. As such one will need to be created either by the government, or the colleges. Both options are dismal as the government is prone to corruption by lobbyists and the colleges may purposely seek to weed out their smaller competitors. Basically, a rating system that favors elite schools would be created either way, even if elite is just another false title.

Also, giving out more loans only incentives colleges to allow their prices to rise. Student loans have a unique relationship with college prices. The higher the loan, the higher the price for college goes. Colleges know they can raise prices more because the federal government will just give out larger loans. But the people who get screwed by this are the students who end up with massive debt. The only good thing I like about this is the automatic loan payments taken out of the paycheck. It may make it easier for a college student to pay their loans back as they don't have to really think about it and they only are forced to pay when they have a job in the first place.

Conclusion: Colleges are not getting any cheaper. As such, alternative methods of education are rising to not only compete, but in some instances take the place of colleges in specific fields of work. I do not see this system working at all save the deduction to pay back a loan through the individuals pay check. It would also be great if the colleges made a bachelors degree a 3 year degree, but only if they make an associates a 1 year degree and make many of the masters and doctorates undergrad courses. Let’s face it, many of the programs and jobs done at the college level don't need a college to be taught, or to take more than 4 years of learning to learn. Especially as many jobs are forced to retrain many of their new hires which costs them money. So alternative education is winning and as such, I question if the federal government is focusing on the right solution to what seems to be an ever worsening problem.

Issue 210 Siphon Energy November 20, 2013

Is there a way outside of solar panels to make energy yourself? Can it be done simply and easily? I asked my self these questions as I too want not just the country to be energy independent, but us as individuals to. So here is my idea.

Water turbine: The technology has existed for years for us to harness energy from water. Every single power station uses this method where water is used to turn turbines to generate electricity. So can we shrink that technology down and place it in our own homes? I think we can. But where would we get the water you ask? Well, when water is pumped into your house through your faucets right. So my idea was that at some point in the system a mechanism like a turbine is placed inside the pipe. As such every time you turn the water on, the turbine spins to generate electricity for your house. If you are thinking that water and electricity do not mix, I invite you to look at my example of the damns that use water to generate electricity for our homes already. So why not copy that system to make our own homes independent from the electrical grid?

More water: Another water source that we can harvest for electricity using this technology would be rain water. If your area lets you capture rain water, then the same turbine can be placed inside to generate electricity for your home. So when it rains, you will get powered up. In addition, the stored water, if used for drinking/bathing can be stored in such a way, that when it is used, another turbine can use it to make even more electricity. Heck, the electricity produced could even be used to purify the water as well. Even water used for in solar water heating can be used to generate electricity as the water being heated up may even convert to steam to turn those same micro turbines. So it can be combined with other methods of water delivery to thereby produce electricity.

Economic advantage: This is advantageous as for one you are generating electricity off the grid yourself. You may even produce enough in combination with solar panels to reduce your electrical costs to zero. In some instances, some people with solar panels alone have gotten a check back from the power company because they produced enough electricity to sell back to those same electrical companies. So imagine this in combination with solar panels making a good portion or all of your electrical needs. What’s also good is that you are using water pumped into your own home or harvested from a well or rain water. So you can reduce your overall costs for water too. Sure it will not make you independent plumbing wise, but it is better then watching all that water just costing you more and more on your water bill. If done right and combined with other power saving methods, you can eliminate the costs for heating your home (electrical) your electrical bill and even your water bill. Some of those savings come in the form of just eliminating the need for the power company, or selling enough electricity to the power company to get a check back that can help pay for your water bill. So it can work and it can help us get off the grid.

Conclusion: This method of power generation uses a magnetic field and metals that pass by each other to produce electrons which are used for power generation. As such, the water merely has to spin the turbine for the metal and the magnets to interact to generate those elections. So the only hurdle to actually making this technology work is making a small enough version to fit into a homes plumbing system and determining the best method of installing the device safely so that people don't get hurt by stray electricity. What also may be a nice by product is that it may increase the water pressure coming out of your faucet which would be beneficial with new regulations demanding reduced use of water to flush toilets, and coming out of the shower head. But again, the technology must be developed. So even though it is my idea, I invite anyone to come up with this technology to make it cheaper and easier to become energy independent for us as individuals. Good luck and happy inventing.

Issue 209 Apprenticeships November 19, 2013

Not everyone needs college. In fact, college has been promoted so much that legitimate learning alternatives have been hushed under the proverbial rug. So I am here to speak about another alternative model to education. That model is the apprenticeship model.

It’s an old method: Apprenticeships are one of the oldest forms of learning. It basically has an individual shadowing a professional in the field they are studying for the sole purpose of learning how to do the job. But, unlike modern forms of shadowing, the apprentice would be taught how to do the tasks bit by bit, until they learned how to do the full task and eventually do the job themselves. Some may be thinking of jobs like blacksmithing, or wood working but many jobs used to be taught in the same way.

Modern apprentice: The current modern apprentice is an intern. They are taught the job in the same way and sometimes, if they prove to be worth the effort, they are hired at the company they interned in. Of course, if the intern is seen as having no potential or aptitude for the work, they are generally shoved out of the work place and left to look elsewhere. So the infrastructure for apprenticeships making a major comeback is there. But what jobs would apprentice type training be suited for?

The jobs in the modern era: Aside from traditional jobs like black smiths (yes they are still going strong) and furniture makers/wood workers, there are numerous jobs that can benefit from this model. Vocational jobs like electricians, plumbers, and jobs in construction are better learned in a hands on environment. Also, jobs like videographer, photographer, news caster and television and radio jobs can also be learned by being involved in the field itself. Thankfully, the internet and other tools have made this process easier with online learning, but hands on learning is still much more practical. Sure, there are other more specialized jobs where you need a proper education in combination with hands on learning (doctors for instance) but for the most part apprenticeships can handle many of the jobs we were led to believe required college. Truth is, very few jobs require that expensive degree.

Advantages: The main advantage to an apprenticeship is that it is hands on learning. You get a true feel for the overall working environment and the job itself. Also, as a job it is either free or you are paid as you work. So you may not even have to spend any sort of money to get this type of education. In addition, as the job evolves, you can also get hands on learning experience about the changes in the field. As such, there will be little need for you to be retrained once you begin working as a full member of the team. On top of this, you might even know your co-workers or at least share a common bond as a fellow sailor, blacksmith, carpenter, or even news anchor. Same education, but with much more reliable results.

Conclusion: Apprenticeships are a great alternative to the college system or even in instances where online schools are lacking. So it is another option to look into if and when it is offered. See if this method works great for you and your American dream job. Good luck in your future endeavors.

Issue 208 Cycle of hate November 18, 2013

How does hatred become violence? Well, it is fairly complex, so Glen Beck (owner of the Blaze television network) had his staff assemble a team to analyze how hatred spreads and perpetuates it self. So here are his findings.

Event: An event is the start of the trigger. So something like slavery or a treaty between governments is the initial trigger. Anything can be a trigger. The 9/11 attacks are another easy example which is usable to create discord. This is where phase two comes in.

Seeds of discord: Phase two is when someone or a group begins to take advantage of an event that occurred and never let the wounds of the past heal. Something like slavery and the Jim Crow laws are one example. Those wounds never healed because people took advantage of the anger and frustration to spread more ill will. It was set up into an us versus them mentality between blacks and whites even though not all blacks and not all whites where involved. Another easy example is the conflict between Muslims and Jews. Propaganda is used to keep the hatred alive from thousands of years ago when select Jewish tribes betrayed Mohammad in a battle. Then all future problems where blamed on the Jewish community no matter how far apart or involved they were in the conflict. As such, the radicals who hate the people of Israel don't hate them out of actual wrong doing, but out of being taught and or convinced that the Jews are an evil force causing them or some one else in their community pain and suffering. This propaganda keeps the pain alive.

Real crisis: Here the haters who want conflict "never let a good crisis go to waste." So when an economic crisis, a war, a famine or other horrible event occurs, it will be blamed on the targeted group. If you remember, a large number of Muslims blamed the Jews as a cause for 9/11 with the purpose of drumming up not just more hate but violent backlash. Other similar events like when cops are accused of abusing Black Americans amplify the conflict here in the U.S. Not to say that some of these conflicts are not legitimate or illegitimate, but even the most innocent of situations can be turned into a larger more violent situation. This leads us toward the final result.

Actual Conflict: The cycle of hate always ends with actual violence. This means race riots and wars. And this is the ultimate goal for hate groups like the Neo-Nazi's, KKK, Black Panthers, Al Quada and other groups that seek violence. If the violence should fail in its intended goal, then the "event" becomes another sticking point toward future violence with it being used as another wedge towards the us verses them mentality.

Conclusion: Sad isn't it. People actually want conflict between races, ideologies, religions, and more. They always make it an us versus them conflict to further fan the flames of hate. Can it be stopped? Well yes it can. But it can only be stopped when people dismiss the us verses them mentality. It is not the collective Muslims that caused 9/11, but a specific group amongst their number. It is not all white people who perpetuated slavery, but a group of both blacks and whites who were slave owners. Not everyone is to blame for all conflicts, and they are not to blame for the situation you are in now. It is either yourself, or the immediate situation with those actually involved that put you in the situation you are in. This is how it really works. Stop always blaming others, when it just may be circumstances that even you yourself have no control over.

Issue 207 Un-school?! November 15, 2013

This is a unique type of school system that will be hard for many parents to grasp. I originally heard of it on John Stossel's program when he was talking about alternatives to traditional education. The school featured has been up and running since the 1960s (hippie inspired) but does not require an actual classroom. It will be a little difficult to explain so bare with me.

Un-School: This type of school does not have a set schedule. In fact, there really isn't a set of grade levels or tests. The featured school basically put a bunch of kids together of all ages together and just let them do what they want. Likewise, the home school version of the same thing is done in a similar manor. Students are given lots of power here, where they work out disputes amongst each other in mock trials. So the faculty is fairly redundant, save for managing money, keeping the place clean and taking attendance. And that is how it works. It really is just that, getting a bunch of students together and letting them go wild. But there is a little bit more to it than that.

What it does: In an un-school curriculum, the students are free to interact in a similar manor to how they would in a real life situation. So when a younger student is teaching an older student about something, the inferiority complex of being taught by a younger person is lost. Likewise, when a mock trial occurs to resolve a dispute a younger student may hold more sway over an older student, or vice versa. The result is that they are forced to accept this divesting, and loss of authority which they may encounter in the real world. As to actual learning, students are left to pursue their own passions. So a student who loves art will pursue art. Another may be interested in science and specifically pursue that. In order to gather further knowledge on their passions, they willingly force themselves to read so as to better understand there own passion. Some may like computers and focus on either making games or even repairing them. An Un-school removes the structure that the founders of the school felt restricted students and suppressed their passions. So they removed that what they thought stagnated the children. And apparently, the children do go to college. They decide when they feel they are ready. So when they are ready (and motivated) they hit the books, get all the knowledge they need and then go. In fact, the school featured had approximately 80% of their students going onto college. They do it themselves and acquire the knowledge at their own pace.

Conclusion: This unstructured type of school obviously is not for everyone. And I think a majority of parents would look upon this with a lot of skepticism. But the fact is that it works for these kids. Un-school harnesses the passion of these children (grades 1 through 12) and lets them pursue it with all the passion that they have. And these kids really love going to school. I feel that I have not truly explained this concept of education to its fullest, but this is a good overall summary of what it is about. I hope you enjoyed the read, and who knows, maybe un-school is good for your child too.

Issue 205 Political Correctness Novmeber 14, 2013

Many of you have heard of the phrase political correctness. But you really do not know exactly what it is. Well here is a brief summary as to what it is, and why it is so stupid to even embrace.

History: Political correctness was invented by the socialists. Yes, that ideological group that sought the ultimate form of equality. So in order to achieve that dream, they felt that a system of thought had to be implemented. As such political correctness was invented. By altering what you can and cannot say, you force a certain way of thinking. This thinking was meant to bring people into the communist/socialist ideology, but it grew with a life of its own.

Today: The concept of political correctness evolved (in my opinion) by being co-opted by other political groups. Now it is used by these groups to force their own agenda. So when you cannot say something like "he is handicapped" because it is now perceived as an insult, it is you being used by a particular group. But this is exactly what it is. It prevents you from saying things in a certain way. It has become a weapon by politicians to demean their opponents and to bring corporations to their knees out of fear of being called racist.

How it works: It really is very simple. Back in the Victorian era, Black Americans were called the "N" word. It became an insult and so the name changed to black, and then African-American. Guess what? They all mean the exact thing. The only difference is that members of the Black community now take offense to these words. I can most certainly understand the "N" word because of how it is associated with oppression, but the others I don't quite get. Same thing with the word handicapped. We have started to call them Handy-capable so as to not insult them. But eventually, Handy-capable will become just as insulting. This is how political correctness works.

Conclusion: I find political correctness stupid. In fact, I believe it make us ignorant. When they took the "n" word out of "Adventures of Huckleberry Fin" I felt they were not only destroying a classic, but removing a piece of history. That word was kept in there for a reason. It was there to teach history, and it makes me wish they taught a class on how words evolve into being hateful. How actions are reinterpreted from being good, into something evil. Right now, political correctness prevents us from talking about the problems in the Black community, the poor, the disabled and more. It stops our free speech because it generates fear. My only solution is to question it, and refuse (when I can) to speak in a politically correct manor.

Issue 205 U.N.=Bad November 13, 2013

Yes the U.N., better known as the United Nations is bad. No, I am not saying this just because the United States provides over 40% of its budget, and that money can be better used to pay off the debt. There is a very practical reason for the U.N. being a bad place and us Americans abandoning it.

Dictators: What people may forget is that the U.N. is composed of a large body of countries. The problem with this is that a good portion of those countries are either dictatorships, or some other form of oppressive government (think Iran). As such, if the vote on an action ever goes to the general assembly (which is more for show) then America's interests and our allies would be out voted. On top of this, the Security Council is made up of the U.S., France, England, Russia, and China. The remaining members work on a rotational system. When voting on an actual action, China and Russia, who sell many goods to these dictatorships and oppressive governments, will vote against action that violates their interests. As such it is a bulwark against the Western Powers (Democracies) from taking action legally against these smaller, oppressive countries. So the U.N. does not represent democracy or peace for that matter. It is a place for smaller countries, dictatorships, and other oppressive regimes to siphon money from the richer governments in the world.

Corruption: If you thought dictators were bad, than feast your eyes on the fact that the U.N. is rife with corruption. No one really knows where all the money is going, but there have been cases of gun smuggling, drugs and prostitution. Non-governmental organizations have also infiltrated the U.N. to gather support for their own causes on the tax payers’ dime. We as Americans are giving money to a festive hive of scum and villainy. The only exception may be doctors without boarders, but that can be divorced from the U.N. and run separately if needed.

Treaties are law: One thing that many people do not know about is that treaties once singed are equivalent to the U.S. constitution. As such, if a treaty is signed in the U.N. the United States must abide by it. So when the gun ban treaty was signed, then the U.S. must abide by it. If a treaty on what is taught in our children's classrooms is signed, then we must abide by it. Of course, we may be one of the few countries that do as the dictators just don't care. As such, the only way to solve this is to have a constitutional amendment that makes it so that any treaty that violates our constitution is null and void, and that we can pick and choose which parts we wish to follow so long as it does not violate any U.S. law.

Conclusion: The United Nations was supposed to be a peace making body. It was to be a place for countries to gather to cooperate to make treaties and resolve disputes. But the fact is that it has failed. Just like with any man made system, the greed and corruption has taken hold and perverted it. So there are two solutions to this problem. Either we back out of the U.N. completely, or we force the dictators out.

Issue 204 Kill the debt November 12, 2013

We talked yesterday on how the national debt keeps increasing. But we haven't talked in a while on how to shrink that debt. So here are a few ideas.

Money sent overseas: The United States sends money to a number of foreign governments. This includes China, North Korea, Vietnam, and more. This money is used in an attempt to buy influence. It is the usual you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. One problem. The money we send to these countries does not buy influence at all. All the countries receiving it, save a few exceptions like Israel, do not vote our way in the United Nations, or side with us in international treaties. In other words, we are throwing millions of dollars away for no reason to countries that may even hate us. Further, we are giving money to China, and others whom we owe money to. But not a single penny of this additional money is used to pay off the debt. Instead, just like before, it is being used to try to gain political favors in that country. And like before, we end up throwing away that money. So the solution to solving this issue and shrinking the debt is to just stop giving money to countries with the sole exception to our allies where it counts.

Pork Barrel spending: We said this was one of the reasons for our growing national debt in yesterday’s issue, but what are we going to do about it. Well, there is only one way to decrease this problem and be rid of a majority of lobbyists at the same time. That solution is term limits. Cap the number of years a person may serve in the House of Representatives to 12 years. For additional protection, make it so that the terms of office can not be consecutive. Likewise, if we are not going to revert the Senate back to how it used to be, (a block against unfunded mandates on the States and the taking of their power) then they too should be limited to 12 years as a Senator. It will solve a majority of the overall problem.

Other spending: As you know, there is numerous instances of government overlap, special exceptions for members of congress and waste in every department and agency. So how do we solve this? For one, an amendment that forces all laws at the federal level to be applied to all citizens and non-citizens alike (including members of Congress). This means that Congress will have to think twice about making a law as it will also affect them (currently all federal employees and certain businesses and groups are exempted from Obama Care). Next we will need a "sun set" committee. This committee will look at all old spending and laws to see what is no longer needed. Once they find such spending, law or provision of a law, it will go to Congress for a vote to remove it on case by case bases. Also, this same sun set committee will review the budget for automatic spending and be able to block it from being voted on so that it may simply be defunded. Another step further would be a line item veto and a line reduction veto. These would enable the President to reduce or eliminate spending on a program when money is being allocated. Thankfully these vetos are specific to spending and each can be overturned by a traditional 2/3rds vote in Congress. This may allow horse trading but it is worth the savings.

Conclusion: There are a number of other solutions, from debt bonds, bans on certain forms of federal spending, consolidation of different departments, and even eliminating whole swaths of the federal bureaucracy itself. There are even proposals for constitutional amendments for balanced budgets. However, there are three things that will be most effective. One; all debts owed on that year are paid first before all spending is to occur. This insures that we pay our debts first and foremost. Two; limit the number of days Congress can meet to a specified number of days per year. This will limit what they vote on to things that are important first (this mimics Texas law which stipulates that there legislature can only meet once every 2 years). And finally three; a balanced budget amendment which restricts borrowing to a certain percentage of the federal governments yearly income. This will be done in such a way that it will severely curtail all forms of borrowing that would only make a bad situation worse. I do not use the stipulation that borrowing should be limited to a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) because the federal government makes that formula. So by limiting how much they can borrow based on how much they take in via our tax dollars helps to remove corruption. Of course, I would add fail safes, like if the federal government fails to pay off the debt for that year, or Congress breaks the law, then all spending and laws for that entire year will be rendered null and void. In short, none of them will count. This fail safe will insure that they do not break the law. We all have a lot of work to do, and it will be hard. Step one is term limits and deciding how that would look. Yes, we can do it, but we just have to continue pushing forward to make it there.

 

Issue 203 Spending what we don't have November 11, 2013

Yes, we are spending money we don't have. Whose money you ask? The tax payers’ money of course. But why and how are doing this?

Borrowing: The federal government continues to borrow hand over fist from other countries. So much so that it adds at least another trillion dollars per year onto our national debt. This is more than what the Bush administration added in its entire eight years in service to the country. Do not get me wrong, President Obama is trying to help the American people, but I believe he is doing it the wrong way. Especially as he is just adding onto the national debt which our future generations will have to deal with. That means my nieces and nephews; your children and even their own children will be left with a multi-trillion dollar debt burden.

Why do we borrow?: Unfortunately, the leadership of both parties wants to use that money for their own gain. 17% of the federal budget is considered pork barrel spending. That means it is wasteful and unneeded spending that can be done by the State and local governments or the private sector. Borrowed money is also used to pay for unfunded mandates. These are spending that have yet to occur because the federal government had run out of money for that year to pay for it. So once the money is freed up from other areas of the federal government, the project or spending will be paid for. Although, there is a problem with this. The project or need for that money may disappear by the time money is available. As such, the politicians use the borrowed money to acquire additional revenue to insure there pet project is paid for on time. But this is not just pet projects. It is also loans out to big corporations that do not need it, and bridges to no where. So, that 17% is actually a lot bigger than it actually appears.

Can we do something: One thing that we can do is force our local politicians to stop accepting federal money. We can do that through petitions and voting. If a large enough group of us speaks out, then we can change our situation at the local level. If said voice is strong enough we may be able to do the same at the State and Federal levels of government. But it will take time. Until then, we must pay close attention to the faults within government and embarrass the politicians into stopping their spending sprees. Of course, voting helps further by voting in people who will share your values when your current representative fails to represent the changes and thoughts in your overall community.

Conclusion: There is a lot of waste in the federal government, and it is growing. Politicians wrongly believe that the federal government can solve all the problems in the world and they bribe our loyalty through bad programs. It is time we change this. In fact we must change this soon as we will not be able to pay off the nations debts which will result in anarchy. The debt ceiling that is so often talked about limits how much debt the federal government is allowed to take on. Deficits are the debt tacked on to the national debt when we need to pay for something with money we do not have. As such, we need a way to cap the total debt permanently, and limiting spending to only what money the government acquires through taxes exclusively.

Issue 202 Rating schools November 8, 2013

An idea has been touted, that rating schools in their overall excellence is a good thing. Well, I do not necessarily think it is a bad thing either. So let’s debate the pros and cons.

Pros: What is good about rating schools is that you can compare and contrast amongst the schools in your area, and the country as a whole. It means you can clearly see which school is the best. You will know all the teachers are good by just looking at the rating the school gets. It will help you decide which area in the country you will want to move to if you should decide to raise a family.

Children who go to these high rated schools will be looked at more closely by colleges as they will have high expectations of these students. Businesses and foundations may see them as recruiting grounds for potential investments in the future of their companies and groups. Basically, the free market looks for only the best and the brightest and a school with a high rating stands out the most. As such, children associated with that school (the same way as adults are associated with their colleges) will gain a certain level of reputation in society.

Cons: For all that is good about a rating system it will cause a certain level of damage. Teachers looking for a job will seek out employment in these top schools rather than the lower tier schools. . Many of the poorer classes of society may be forced into these low tier schools and be left behind by neglect due to the focus on the higher rated schools. Overall, a lack of resources will also cause many of those in these lower rated schools to run away from that school. (While it can be a good thing under certain circumstances, it can be as equally as bad). These children will be looked at last, because they are in the lower tier schools. In fact, the lower rated schools may make the children, by sheer reputation, appear dull witted.

In addition, schools themselves may corrupt the overall academic achievement of their students to acquire a higher rating. There is such a thing as curving grades so as to bring up the score of all the lower performers. Thus, it manipulates the grade point average and the overall success of the students and their teachers. Other forms of corruption may also develop, such as schemes for cheating on tests, and bribery may also result.

Conclusion: Schools being rated should be a byproduct of the overall academic achievement of each individual student. As such, individual students should be rated and compared first and foremost. From there, the population can look at where these top performers come from to decide what schools would be best for their children. Also, parents should be able to rate the schools that their children attend or have attended so that other parents can view these ratings to help decide where to have their kids educated. In essence an "Angie's list" for schools. The government is not capable of properly monitoring and rating schools. It simply, I feel, is a waste of time and money. We can do it ourselves, for free through the internet and to a certain extent it has already begun. So go ahead and Google your schools. While no official rating system exists, there is at the very least an informal one on schools, and teachers.

Issue 201 Hate Crimes November 7, 2013

Hate crimes are terrible. They are done to people due to race, color, faith, physical trait and more. But are we degrading the overall crime. Is not assault an assault and a murder a murder?

Hate is a motivation: We have taken a motivation to harm another human being and turned it into a crime. Hate is a combination of thought and emotion. It is no more or less. Such hate is brought upon by societal circumstances, and is taught to the younger generations by their elders. As such, this is the reason hatred for Blacks, Jews, Christians, etc. still exists. Yes, every group has someone hating on them. And at some point in time, each group will make a victim out of the other group. It is an endless cycle.

Why make it a crime: This is only my opinion, but I believe that they made it a crime so that it would force hatred out of society. It co-insides with the idea of political correctness (developed by the early socialists to create a certain line of thought). I speculate that they made this a crime so that new generations of people would associate the very thought of hating another person as a crime. But, I do not believe that this has been successful. Hate overrides typical common sense reasoning. If a Jewish (or any person from a recognizable group) kid beats you every day all the way through high school, you will have a poor opinion of Jewish people. That is until someone who is Jewish (or a group of Jews) changes your mind with their own behavior toward you. But it will take time for the victim to think of the original perpetrator of their torment as an exception and not the norm. Unfortunately, fear plays a role in causing the victim who now hates Jews due to his torment to avoid members of the Jewish community. Propaganda feeds his/her fear to think that all Jews are bad. At the end all that is left is anger. By making it a crime to hate all you do is legitimize the hatred by recognizing it as the norm. You make it acceptable to a counter culture. Even then, the hatred will simply fall to the back ground and be talked about in secret. Those haters will no longer have an outlet to express themselves. As such they will seek out ways to express how they feel. This means evil acts like tormenting people, assaulting people and possibly committing murder.

The True crime: An assault is just that an assault. A murder is simply a murder. These are part of the obviously wrongful acts that mankind must not perpetuate against one another. Hate is simply a motivation and belongs in the realm of motive and opportunity. Punishing thought will never solve this issue. Giving greater punishments to those whose motivation is hatred for the crime will not stop the crime from occurring. Punish the deed, not the ramblings of fools.

Conclusion: If my opinion is correct, then they created the classification of hate crimes to make it so that society will view hatred as something evil. However, people already know this. There is also potential for abuse with crimes being elevated to hate crimes simply to get a person into a courtroom and even get a guilty verdict (depends on how each law is written). I see no reason as to why a murderer should get a lighter sentence than a person who murdered someone out of hate. They should be punished equally for with hate crimes, we are giving more value toward one victim over another. And I find that to be wrong.

Issue 200 Pure Democracy November 6, 2013

A pure democracy is where everyone participates. We as a people all vote for laws and actions to be carried out by government. The United States however is a Republic (a representative type of democracy). There is a reason for this which I will now make clear.

Mob Rule: The primary reason pure democracies fail is due to mob rule. In true democracies, the majority always wins regardless of the outcome of the action or its consequences. So a group can vote to install a bad law despite the wishes of the minority and even if that bad law would only serve to harm the country in the long run. Also, if the majority does not like the minority for any reason (skin color, faith, and ideology) they can make laws that could oppress that minority. Overall, having more people voting yes to a law or action does not mean it is what is best for the overall community.

Collapse: Once mob rule has taken hold, it becomes impossible to fix the problems that occur. Look at our own system with things like Social Security and Medicare. We as a Republic can barely discuss reform on those topics without being ostracized. Under mob rule, people will want to keep their benefits and what ever gives them an advantage in life. In essence, the population will vote to become free loaders. However, once this occurs, the vast wealth and resources vanish quickly. The result is a failed economy, no jobs, and a failed government. Once all is said and done, war will break out, and violence will be everywhere as everyone struggles to claim what they think is theirs. This is the absolute end to all nations that over extend on what they are capable of, total collapse.

The Founders Knew: Our founding members of government like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton all realized that man is self corrupting. They created this Republic in such a way where competing powers would seek to control each other, but could not as there where both checks and balances on each level of government (some of which have eroded today in modern times). By having these groups competing, it ensured that their ambitions would clash and a compromise would develop. But it also ensured that bad ideas would die on the vine first and foremost. In short, the founders applauded grid lock to the effect that it was encouraged (i.e. the filibuster in the Senate and for a brief time in the House of Representatives). We must thank them for saving us from mob rule.

Conclusion: Ideas for a pure electoral college or for referendums come out of the naive trust we have for our fellow man. But so long as people can be scammed out of their money or advertising can sell us what we do not need, then a pure democracy will be unattainable. It is a given that we would seek to get a free ride from the first presidential candidate that promises it. So say no to a pure democracy for despite the twisted system we have now, it is far better than the tyranny of the mob.

 

Issue 199 Pro-life alternative November 5, 2013

What if there was an alternative to abortion? Would that solve our countries problem of killing babies before they are born? As you can guess, I am pro-life and that I feel the pro-choice people are in the wrong. But I will not say they are pro-death even though that is what abortion is. So allow me to explain.

Why not pro-death: The reason I would not call people who support abortion rights pro-death is because that is not what they are thinking about. What they are thinking about is the lives of the mothers. Those moms, who wish to escape being a mother used to go to back ally doctors or even use coat hangers to try and be rid of an unwanted child. However, the results are widely considered disastrous. Many of those women where the abortion was performed poorly died. As such, people like my own mother support abortion only because it is the only alternative to these back ally abortions.

My proposal: In order to get people like my mother on the pro-life side (she would limit abortions to specific circumstances though) is to have an alternative to abortion. Currently, adoption is not enough as it is still asking for the mother to have her unwanted child. This is where I believe science should come in. Scientists should develop a way to transfer an unborn child, no matter the age, to another mother. Basically, a baby transplant. They are already able to transfer a fertilized embryo into a mother, so why can't they find a way to take one out. The procedure would have to be as simple and quick as a traditional abortion otherwise it will not catch on as an alternative like adoption services. But, there will be obstacles.

The Obstacles: This is all just my opinion, but the first thing to be overcome would have to be the ability to remove a fertilized embryo from a mother without killing the child. When the child is still developing at the early stages, then it may be a little easier to do, but like I said, it must be done without killing the child. We would also need a way to keep the child alive long enough to be transferred to the new mother. Finding a suitable mother would also be a challenge as some women will need to be primed prior so their bodies don't reject the child being implanted. The procedure would get more and more difficult based on the stages of development and even where in the uterus the child is developing. All these issues will need to be worked out. Thankfully, animal experimentation is prime and ready with lab rats who are willing to eat their own young (sucks to be a lab rat). From there it is all about funding the science and training enough doctors to make this type of procedure a viable alternative. So, from here it is about the money to even get started.

Conclusion: I do not want women who are desperate to have to go to some back ally doctor for an abortion. But I don't want dead children on their conscience either. So we need a new and viable alternative. Thus, my proposal for a baby transplant. Who knows if it will work or not, or if from the research we develop an artificial womb to place the baby in instead. Science may be the key to our pro-life answer to being pro-abortion.

Issue 198 World Police November 4, 2013

Are you sick of the United States acting as the world police man? Well I sure am. We give and give, and all the other countries do is take and take. Then, when we finally ask for some form of help, they spit in our face. But this is not necessarily because we are the world police men.

Who asked you?: The role of world police came out of the fires of WW II and the cold war. America was one of only two superpowers seeking control as a world hegemony. However, to achieve that role and maintain it, we had to be the protectors of Europe from the Soviet Union. America would fight proxy wars to stop the spread of Communism and its derivatives. But, the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia and its Satellite countries democratized to varying degrees. As such the United States became the sole super power on this planet. There was a catch though. The results of the U.S. becoming the sole superpower imposed responsibilities on the United States that it never asked for. We were forced to police the world.

Internal politics: Currently we have the same Democrats and Republicans in Congress and in the halls of Washington D.C. who served during the cold war. They never lost the taste for power that the other countries gave America as their protector. So the idea was hatched to continue the role of world police. But it also included the foolish concept that we could export democracy (under the assumption that democracies don't fight each other). Started in President Bush seniors’ administration and continued all the way through to the current Obama administration, we have gone to war one too many times in the name of peace. Though the result is just more death and conflict. These old guard members are your Neo-Conservatives and your progressive liberals. Both agree with the idea that "we" Americans have a duty to save the world from itself. A modern "white mans burden" if you will. They want us to interfere with anything they deem wrong, from human rights issues to lawlessness. The problem is America's values and the worlds values don't necessarily match up.

World reaction: At this point in time, the world is pissed off. We have been caught spying on our allies. This includes wire tapping the phones of allied world leaders. Our Navy is being stretched thin to serve as an interdiction force to pirates and to fend off a possible threat from China (who is economically dependant on us). Then we get bashed for our tactics in the war on terror. The government listens to those critics, changes tactics and then when more of our troops get hurt, they change them again. In short, the world complains, then we adjust, and then we either sacrifice blood and treasure or are excoriated again.

Conclusion: We are wasting our time. The Navy should project power, but not as some police force. Our Army is not cannon fodder for others wars. And some of these people really should not even get our help. Syria has Al Quada on one side and a dictator on the other. Yet we help Al Quada because they call themselves rebels. Yup, the same group who carried out the 9/11 attacks is receiving aid from our own government. All this is my opinion, but let’s stop dealing with the bull crap. Stop giving money to countries and people who plan only to make our lives miserable. Stop giving money to dictatorships and groups that want America out of the picture. If we should go to war, or to fight in general, it should be a war of defense and defense alone. Let other nations with foolish ideas of being a world power deal with the messes and see where it gets them.

Issue 197 Bullies November 1, 2013

A bully is the child version of an adult who harasses another person either verbally or physically. Or at least that is my definition. These bullies want power and authority over others. Bullies want control over their victims and thus others flock to them for protection and join in the ridicule out of fear of becoming a victim themselves. So how should you deal with a bully?

Verbal Bullies: The best method is to ignore them. These types of bullies are negligible compared to other types. Yes their words may sting, but they are all bark and no bite. This type wants attention, and in some cases knows no other way to interact with others. So they bully others in hopes of making friends through sheer reputation. Of course they don't actually have friends, but that is their problem. Ignoring this type makes them loose all power over you, and thus they will eventually leave you alone.

There is a scenario where this does not work. That is when it is a large group of bullies. Ignoring them may risk further harassment as they encourage each other to do more things to you. In this case, you confront them. You have to fight back in some way shape or form. Usually the best way is to isolate them and then strike back at them then. This can be done by catching them alone or bullying the bully in front of the group. In this method they will realize how small their existence really is. Rare will it be for it to come to violence, but if it does make sure that you are defending yourself and not the attacker.

Physical bullies: For these types who are committing assault against you, there are two options. Options one is the first one you must take and that is tell someone in an authority position. This means a school administrator, your parents or even the police. You must show a history of being targeted by that individual to prevent yourself from becoming a victim of the same punishment they will receive. Once this is done, you may be ignored by the bully or face reprisal by the bully. In short, they will try to beat you harder. Here is where option two comes in. As many people know, most times a bully will not listen to an authority figure and thus continue their assaults. So this is where the last resort comes in, punch them right in the nose. Yes, you heard me, fight back. Let them throw the first punch, and then hit them in the face. This will stun them, and that is where your second strike to the stomach comes in. They must be made aware that you are not to be trifled with. A bully is like a predatory animal, if they see that they will be harmed by messing with you, then they are most likely going to avoid you. The only reason you do not use this option first is because violence is meant to be a last resort. Using it first puts you at risk at being the one punished while the bully gets off free.

Cyber Bullies: These types are much more dangerous than traditional bullies. Unlike traditional bullies where you are safe once you reach home, cyber bullies can follow you. Cyber bullies use things like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter to attack you publicly and as often as they want. Some even call their victims on their cell phones or text them horrible and insulting messages. There is no safe place from the torment. So what can you do to save yourself? One idea is to cut your self off from all social media. This means getting off Facebook and twitter entirely. It also means exchanging your cell number for a new one which only your most "trusted" friends and family have the number to. If these bullies find out about the new number, they will try to get it, and they have even been known to use computer programs to hide the fact that they are the ones sending the messages in the first place. So you may even want to forget about a cell phone all together. Second options is creating a new Facebook or twitter account with an alternative name for yourself and have it devoid of pictures of yourself. By doing this, it becomes that much harder for the bullies to track you down. Your friends who have access to your page must be only your most trusted friends who will not rat you out to the bully or give any hint that the new page belongs to you. If worse comes to worse, then only family members will and should have access to your Facebook or other social media site. Basically, you must find a way to shut them out, as traditional methods to stop bulling will not work here. You cannot confront a cyber bully as they feel invincible on the net.

Conclusion: I know from experience what it is like to be bullied. But I have only ever faced the first two types of bullies, but never a cyber bully. However, I understand how painful it is, and how much you must want to find a way to hurt them as much as they hurt you. You are allowed to fight back. But when you do, do it on your terms. Do not let the bully provoke you, but make sure that when you strike back, that you have control of the situation. Start with verbal and tell authority figures. It may seem useless, but it sets the bully up to take the fall. It gets them on record for being a bully. Once known, you may strike back with your hands as the last resort to defend yourself. Never use a weapon on a bully, but if the bully has one, then you run and call the cops. If a bully is assaulting you that badly, call the cops and charge them with assault. There is no excuse not to call on their aid when you are being abused. As to the cyber bully threat, if you know who they are in real life then the strategies for verbal and physical bullies may work. Or again call the cops and tell them you are being harassed. For those incapable of fighting back on your own, find help. Get your friends together and become like a pack of wolfs or a pride of lions. Safety does come from numbers. Bullies on the web can also be attacked back by you and your friends. Use their weapon against them if you can (but again as a last resort). You have the power to overcome them and stop being a victim. There are numerous ways to fight back; you just have to choose the right method and timing to do so.

I dedicate this Issue to all those who have been bullied and the families of those parents who lost children due to a bully’s abuse. I would like nothing more than to put those bullies before a jury as an adult and send them to prison for what they did. Know this, you the parents and your children who are bullied are not alone in this fight.