Issue 239 New Years eve December 31, 2013

What do you do for New Years Eve? Is it a holiday to be celebrated? I'm not sure to be honest. Let’s discuss.

Survived another one: When you think about it, you can say that New Years is a celebration of life. We survived another full year on this planet despite all the dangers existing in our world. Don't believe me? Well if you look at the ancient cultures that celebrated New Years, they celebrated with a harvest and festival even though each winter could wipe them out. They survived the dangers of predators and disease each and every day. Now look at the modern day where we still face disease, war, famine and now nuclear holocausts. So saying we survived is not exactly a joke.

What should we do?: So how do we celebrate? The same way we always have, by having a party. Get together with close friends and family to enjoy each others company and to just be merry together. It is a similar feeling to Thanksgiving, but with the twist of it being about ushering in the New Year.

Anything special?: Because it is the ushering of a new year and follows two important holidays (Thanksgiving where we are thankful for what we have, and Christmas where we give to those we care about or are in need) we have to do something right? Well, this is where New Years resolutions come in. No, I'm not talking about loosing weight or bland silly things like that. I am talking about trying to be a better person than the year before. So things like, "I will not get stressed over nothing anymore" or "I'll get angry less" are very good options. It is now a holiday that goes beyond surviving the year before. New Years is now all about betterment of yourself so that you can say that you are not the same as you were the year before. So that you as an individual can say "I've become a better person."

Conclusion: It is time again to make your New Years resolution. So I ask you, make one that matters, and that you can enforce upon yourself. But most of all, try to improve upon who and what you are so that you can be proud of yourself.

Issue 238 Voluntary Redistribution December 30,2013

What does it mean to redistribute the wealth? When is it theft and when is it voluntary? I attempt to answer these questions here and now.

Redistribution: To redistribute wealth means to literally have one person take there own wealth and give a portion of it to someone else. In to day’s society, this is typically done by wealthy individuals who are giving to the poor, or when the government takes money from people with money and gives them to the less fortunate. It can be forced or compelled. Even the poor themselves can have money taken from them and given to others as well. Redistributing wealth is just this, taking money or property from one individual and giving it to another.

When it is theft: This redistribution can be a form of theft. If a person or a government forcibly takes money and property away from the individual against the will of the owner, then it is theft of the highest order. A government has no right to a person’s individual wealth, nor does it have the right to take that wealth and give it to whoever they wish (an estimated 70% of welfare helps the rich rather than helping the poor in the U.S.). Governments play the role of a thief on a daily basis even when it is against the law for private individuals to take from one another. The Founding Fathers of the United States warned against an income tax because of the government’s thievery they experienced back in Europe and when the U.S. was still a bunch of colonies (also they felt the government would go broke just trying to enforce an income tax). What ever the reason for the government taking our money and giving it to others, if it is against our will then it will always be theft.

When it is voluntary: It is voluntary when people give money freely to those they feel who need it. We all call this charity. Rather than some government or organization deciding where our money should go, we can choose who gets what. Charity is all about the giving freely of your own wealth. You yourself are redistributing it to those you believe can do the most good with it. Whether it is a charity, a hospital or similar organization or an individual, when it is done by you it is voluntary. As the biggest advantage of this is that you can see where your money is going and maybe even see its effects on that individual. You also can see if the aid you give is actually helping. This allows you to adjust the type of aid you’re giving or to cut it back if the person begins to abuse your kindness (an unfortunate but necessary evil).

Conclusion: Which is better? When governments take wealth and redistribute it, they do so in a blanket approach that may or may not help anyone. If you yourself does it, you can see where your wealth goes, how your former wealth is used and if it is helping or if you are being abused. It sells itself. Charity, the voluntary redistribution, is the best way to help those who need just a little help to help themselves.

Issue 237 Pray then do it! December 27, 2013

  

When you pray, do you ask God to do things for you? Do you then proceed to watch and wait for it to be done by God on your behalf? If you are then you are doing it wrong.

Don't just pray: In the Bible we are told "God only helps those who help themselves." We are also told that "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime." So what does this mean? It means that just praying to God to make something occur will not work. God actually wants you to take steps to do something to further your own desire or need. Things don't go your way simply because you want them to or because you ask God, but because you started working toward that goal and acquire the knowledge to further achieve that goal. As such, by going out and trying to achieve the goal while learning as you go, you can succeed in what you want. Will you sometimes fail, yes of course, but you learned from it so you can avoid that failure next time.

Normally I would have at least said a bit more on this matter, but a story tells it better (it’s a variation of one I heard on the television show “The West Wing”).

A man is sitting in his living room and listening to the radio. The radio shouts that a storm is coming. Then the man thinks to himself, I'll be fine for I have God on my side.

The storm begins with trees being blown over outside the mans house. A rescue worker knocks on his door. The man is told you have to come with me, this place is not safe. The man refuses and says "God will save me" and closes the door on the rescue worker.

Now the house is flooded and the man is on the roof of his home. A boat comes by while the storm rages around him. People on the boat beg him to come aboard knowing that if he stays he will die. And still the man refuses, saying that "God will save me."

The man is now dead. He enters heaven and demands to see God. As he approaches Gods throne, he demands to know why he died claiming that he has always been faithful and has strived to remain free of sin. God looks down on him and exclaims "I sent you a radio broadcast, a rescue worker and a boat, so why the hell are you even here?!"

Conclusion: So what can we learn from this little story? The man had faith, and God did try to help him. One problem, he did not try to help himself. This applies to everything in life, if you want something done you can pray, but get to doing something about it. Try to reach your goal with all your might and then and only then will God help you on your journey towards that goal.

Issue 236 Joining Hands December 26, 2013

I have always questioned why the faiths have not teamed up to tackle issue like poverty and world hunger. With all of their resources put together, the faiths could give for free the knowledge needed by the poor to get ahead in life and even the financial means if necessary. So why don't they?

Differences: One of the primary reasons faiths choose not to cooperate is because of the differences of belief that they have. They look at each other with skepticism and sometimes derision (like how Mormons are typically viewed by the rest of the Christian community). But I question this. Is this not being so petty as to not accept aid from your fellow man? It is silly to not accept each others help. The Mormons have a fantastic disaster relief network with them typically getting to the communities in trouble long before the government or even other charities arrive. Catholics have a world wide network which allows them to gather information quickly so as to know what is needed where. Muslims who use sharia law integrate charity into all of there transactions (it’s obligatory), and thus gather large sums of money quickly. However, because of differences in faith and belief, many of these faiths choose not to help each other out. As such, when trouble occurs each choose to continue to do things on there own in there own way. This to me is counter to what my Christian teaching tells me as a Catholic. We do not know who are Gods chosen people and associating with people of a different faith will not make us sinners. So I feel that getting the community of faiths together, even if it is just in your own town and making an emergency supply center/shelter that doubles as a food pantry could be a nice start to something bigger. Who knows, maybe these faiths can even team up to do other things like creating genealogy trees like some Mormon communities do, and maybe revive some of the more stagnant churches by copying some of the Baptist singing and rejoicing in the sermons. If the faiths just cooperate they may yet grow and renew themselves.

Government: The other reason that inhibits faiths from going further is do to the government getting involved with things like welfare. Welfare used to be done by the churches and other similar community groups, but government decided to step in during the Great Depression when it was felt that these churches and groups could not handle the sheer amount of poverty that occurred. It can be argued that the government perpetuated the depression though by slaughtering livestock and burning crops which raised the price of food (see book Grapes of Wrath), the same food that would have been much cheaper and affordable for the poor to buy if not for there interference. Add in price and wage controls and government made it impossible to feed the poor on the cheap. Now there is a way of thinking that the Charities cannot handle the poor if government was to step out of the picture for even a little bit (which I believe is false). This mindset has even infiltrated the churches and as such they have no incentive to go beyond the current services they are offering. Charity used to be local for a reason, to ensure that those who need help get help. But with government, anyone can become a freeloader.

Conclusion: Each of the faiths has much to offer by getting together. They can learn from each other, share resources and information and even set up interfaith networks to handle things like health care, education, the obvious welfare aid and maybe even sanitation if a community needs it. Together the faiths can do it; they can show that government is not needed to survive in the modern world. So start coming together, and start saving people the way God intended.

Issue 235 Merry Christmas December 25, 2013

Well every one, it is now Christmas day.  Time to say a prayer of thanks to Jesus and God and then exchange gifts with your loved ones (whether those gifts be physical or spiritual is up to you).  Thank you for reading today and every day as you all have given me a gift as well.  The gift that my words and ideas mean something to someone else.  So thank you from the bottom of my heart for reading my blog.

 

 

God Bless you all,

 

Merry Christmas

Issue 234 Christmas Means Decemeber 24, 2013

Christmas is short for Christ’s' Mass. It is a time we celebrate and honor the sacrifice that Jesus made for humanity so that we may obtain salvation. But, what is the salvation Jesus gave us and how best should we honor it.

Salvation: Unlike a good number of other religions, in Christianity the aid you give to the needy is voluntary. This is due to the salvation of the spirit being based on an individual bases. If some one else does something good, it bears no reflection on you. The same if you do something bad, it has no effect on the individuals around you because your sin is yours and yours alone. Jesus established a pathway for individual salvation for each and every one of us.

Giving: To honor Jesus' sacrifice we give gifts to those we care about or to strangers in need. But the gifts need not be in the physical form. Those gifts we give can be our kindness, or forgiveness, our hopes and our inspiration. Receiving something like a new PlayStation, car, or anything physical is nice and all, but the receiving is the least important thing. It is about the giving of oneself to another individual because you legitimately care. Not because someone tells you or because Jesus "asked" (key word here) us to give to those have nothing, but because you in your heart really do want to give aid and comfort to others.

Conclusion: This is the Christmas I know and cherish. I do not mind receiving nothing if it should ever come to that (although my mother always tries to get me whatever I want....I don't ask for anything because of that). For me, I am just happy to be surrounded by the family and friends I love and cherish. Being with them to celebrate together is all that I ever really want or ever need.

Issue 233 Faith and God December 23, 2013

There are so many faiths and segments of those faiths that exist in this world. But, what I wondered is why each says they have the right answer? Why does one say that they are right when the others say they are right as well? Let us look a little deeper.

Commonality: All the faiths have a common theme against violence, namely murder in all its forms. Generally they make an exception for self defense and war. They are all anti thievery and each sets up both a moral and religious code. Usually, they say to respect your parents, and of course to respect God (or gods) as the case may be. Many also have a holy day along with parables and stories passed down in holy books to teach life and moral lessons to current and future initiates. In the end there are relatively minor differences especially when it comes to Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Differences: The differences generally stem from diverging aspects of belief. Jews do not believe that Jesus Christ was Gods son, let alone the Messiah. In Islam, Jesus is believed in as a prophet, but he has no divinity what so ever. Also, differences in how one view's the concept of marriage partners like how in Buddhism (or parts of it) do not even have the concept of marriage. Each faith has its own way of thinking that determines how they treat people and each other overall. But, which of these is the correct way of looking at faith? Which is the one to follow to find the salvation we seek? Well, you are not going to figure that out until you die and meet your maker. For the truth is we may all be doing it wrong.

Conclusion: Do not look down on another person because they follow a different faith than you. Never look down upon a person because they believe a little differently than you. The reason is because you, yourself, maybe doing it all wrong (or part of your worship is incorrect). It is much better to learn from each other and find that common ground so as to achieve understanding and knowledge than to fight it out, or tell them they are wrong and ignore a potential friendship. By interacting with each other, we not only share knowledge, but our faith. Some may develop new ideas on how to form a deeper stronger faith, while others may question their faith which could lead them down the path of a deeper more personal faith. So start listening to each other and what you all have to say, for we all may be right and we all may be wrong too. Let us form that personal relationship with God (or gods) that allows us to receive true salvation (which I hope and pray exists).

Issue 232 Track system of education December 20, 2013

The track system of education was designed in the age when production shifted to a factory based system. It was set up to give the top 10% of students the best education so that they would become business leaders and politicians. The next 10% was to be the primary support group for the top 10% with them serving as Secretaries and aids in multiple forms. As for the remaining 80%, they are regulated to the factory and to farm work. Today, the track system is still in place, but I feel that it is more corrosive to society than ever.

A dark deal: The idea was to insure that only the best, education wise, got into positions of power. This however left many other students to be subject to substandard education. As a result, education for the remaining 80% is stagnant. To make matters worse, the track system is still used with the hope of obtaining similar results with that bottom 80% doing the menial jobs in society. It is the opinion of this writer that this is purposeful.

My opinion: I believe they have kept the track system to insure that the majority of the populace remains, in general, uniformed save for what jobs they obtain. It inherently segments a society if your main source of education is what you are told by media, and taught in the work place. But that is exactly what is happening. By preventing the majority from having a coherent education with the ability to think for themselves the elites get a leg up in manipulating the masses into telling them what they can and cannot do. Not only that, the elite's get to decide what an individual needs and does not need. Before the track system, education was earned. If you search for test questions back prior to the industrial revolution you may find questions asking you to list all the kings and queens of the world, what countries they are from and their capitols. Yes, that is one whole question and there was no multiple choice. Students were at that time challenged by the education system so that they would be the most informed and educated in the world.

My other opinion is that the reason the track system is kept is due to the supply and demand principles of the job market. Just like goods and services, a person’s salary is determined by the demand for that person filling that job, and the supply of available people to choose from to fill it. Obviously the less people there are to choose from, the greater the pay. Lawyers and doctors (through various lobbying groups) already do this by making their degrees require a masters and a doctorate degree even if you can get the same quality of each profession if it was allowed to be studied as an undergraduate degree. The track system becomes another reassurance that most people do not make it to the intelligence level to be even able to be accepted into such programs. In essence the system is rigged against the remaining 80% so as to insure that the majority who cannot overcome the education (let alone financial) gap ever reach the higher level positions. As such, it again insures that only the elite not only gets those positions, but also that the pay remains high.

Conclusion: So basically, the track system tries to insure that a good portion of the American public stays below a certain education level. Education in America is so stagnant that test scores have not increased since the creation of the Department of Education in the Jimmy Carter Administration. But what you are not being told is that the tests have been continually dumbed down each and every year just to maintain the look of our nation maintaining its current level of smarts. I would bet anything that if you give a student a test from back in the 70s, let alone the late 1800s, they would fail miserably. Our students are being prepared to be mindless drones for employers to do with as they please, and for politicians to manipulate with ease. It is time to abandon the track system and give everyone a fair shot at the education they deserve.

Issue 231 Communism vs. Facism Decemeber 19, 2013

What are the differences between these two competing ideologies, and more importantly what is the same? Let's answer that question.

Differences: There are not that many differences between Communism and Fascism. In fact the only key difference is their overall approach toward reaching the same goal. Communism is primarily global. It seeks to impart its ideology on a global scale such that everyone becomes equal. Fascism is similar, but instead of everyone in the world being equal economically and socially, Fascism supports nationalism. In essence, Fascism has one group (ideology, religion or ethnicity or race) sitting at the top ruling over all others. In fact Fascism even embraces aspects of Capitalism as true equality is unattainable at both the social and economic levels. As such Fascism embraces some market mechanisms and nationalistic notions that cannot be stopped due to them being part of human nature (i.e. the need to work and do something of value which is why Nazi Germany embraced the ethnic form of Fascism). What is also important to note is that F.A. Hayek in "Road to Serfdom" explained that all Communist countries are doomed to fail as the ideas and concepts of equality fail in a communist system and give way to the nationalist based Fascism ideology. As such there really is only one true difference; one (communism) seeks world total social and economic equality while the other (Fascism) succumbs to the nationalistic notions where there are those greater than everyone else. However, the communist always in the end becomes a Fascist while calling themselves communist in name only.

The same: Almost everything else these two ideologies have in common is exactly the same. They are both based off of the Marxist ideas as portrayed in the Communist Manifesto and Capitilo 1 and 2. Capitalism to both ideologies is the source of all evils. Both look to create some form national government to govern the entire world. Both seek equality amongst the people as much as possible whether it has to be engineered or coerced. As such, all societies that embrace these ideologies have a national education system, a command economy, and either a single ruler or set of rulers at the top deciding what people can and cannot do. The roots of Marxist socialism run deep as people who spout these ideologies typically advocate violence to create their "ideal" societies. Each will have a national retirement system and a method of controlling public information. The list literally goes on forever. Aside from the aforementioned differences, both are almost exactly the same thing.

Conclusion: These are the Communism and Fascism compared. They are in fact parts of the same ideology, the Marxist ideology. There counterparts are Socialism and Progressivism. The ideology of Socialism in its most modern form rejects the idea of ethnic or racial control, but advocates for a benevolent group or individual leading the world over (they look toward the U.N. as that body). It too however still resorts to violence when needed. Progressives are the most advanced model in the modern era and advocate a peaceful transition toward their goal of economic and social equality, but they do this by infiltrating governments and manipulating laws until they get their way. Otherwise these two along with Communism and Fascism are also the exact same as they seek one unified world with social and economic equality. Of course, both in their youth embraced ethnic and racial purity like Fascism, though communism for a time did as well. In the modern era, these labels are really just for show (at least from my point of view). Communist China has fully embraced the same economic system of Nazi Germany, where production is generally allowed to continue so long as the government allows it or approves of it. Nazi Germany was in fact ruled by the National Socialists (this is what Nazi means). So when it comes down to the dirty little details the differences between each are none at all. Some groups want violence to achieve their ends, while others will infiltrate government and transform it slowly into their ideal utopia regardless of who may suffer in the end. Gone is the racial, ethnic and religious purity unless you are talking about small groups like the Neo Nazi's, and other small segmented breakaway groups in each. However, nationalism still comes to the forefront which will always morph the ideology and the government into a Fascist one (though they may be loath to call themselves that). As to the competition between these groups, it has nothing to do with differences in ideology as they both want the same thing. However, the reason why they compete is something more primal, the lust for power (which is why the communist French sided with the Nazi's in WW II, and then later competed against them for control). So in the end you can really just call them what they really are Marxist.

Issue 230 Drug war and the Cartels December 18, 2013

Who started the drug war? Well in the opinion of this author, it was the governments of the world, not the cartels who sell the drugs. Allow me to explain.

History lesson: One of the biggest bans on drugs was during prohibition. That drug of course was alcohol. Before the ban, the mafia and the gangs largely existed as petty thieves, extortionists and ran other illegal enterprises like gambling. However, these groups were tiny, and had relatively no impact on people outside of there area of influence. Prohibition changed this. With the banning of alcohol prices skyrocketed. Former small time crooks became big time crime bosses. Honest men saw the money to be made and went over into the illegal booze business. Soon, rival gangs fought for territory and control which killed many. Cops who sought to suppress the crime bosses were targets of assassination. But when prohibition ended, the mob largely disappeared due to their primary source of income gone. As such they either went into alternate illegal enterprises, legitimate business or simply changed jobs.

Parallels: The parallels of prohibition with the bans on illegal drugs like "weed" and "crack" are striking. Currently in Mexico all drugs are actually legal to take, but the violence stems from it being illegal in the United States as the cartels (in the same way as the mob) saw economic opportunity to sell illegal drugs for a profit and thus fight for territory and control. Basically, everything is the same except that the banned substance is drugs instead of alcohol.

What to do: Our only option is to legalize each drug in the same way as many European countries do. Start with personal use laws and clinics (who dispense an individual’s drug of choice at market cost) that require the person to go to a doctor to prove they are addicted. This keeps the addicts away from illegal drug dealers and the money making it back to the cartels. This also insures that the strength of the drug can be controlled so that if and when the person wishes to get off the drug, they have an alternative to doing it "cold turkey." At this point you make the least lethal of drugs legal (like weed as no one has ever died from smoking it) bit by bit. With these drugs legal and the money dried up, the cartels have to either switch to a completely different illegal enterprise or go into a legitimate business.

Conclusion: I am not saying that this solution is the perfect one, but the fact is that prohibitions on things create an illegal market for people to buy and sell illegal substances and goods. By legalizing it in the long run, drug use will decrease (as it has in European countries that have done legalization). History has proven a good ally in telling us what needs to be done to end the bloodshed on the U.S. Mexican boarder and the drug war as a whole.

Issue 229 Drugs and politicians December 17, 2013

With the whole Mayor Ford debacle in Toronto, we now have to question the morality of should we kick out politicians who do drugs? Do we let them serve their terms in office and decide if they are still worthy enough to hold office on Election Day? These questions need an answer.

Kick them out?: The argument for kicking someone like Mayor Ford out is simple, he did crack and thus he broke the law. As a matter of course, he becomes a negative example for his cities young adults, and looses legitimacy as mayor in the eyes of the people. No one can be above the law right? Well, it depends on the circumstances and what laws Toronto and the whole of Canada have that stipulate what to do in this situation. Likewise, if this issue happened in the United States, smoking crack is a crime that is primarily enforced on the local level and thus up to them to enforce. So do we kick a politician out for smoking crack or doing any form of illegal drug?

Wait and see: Our only other option is to decide on Election Day. If the mayor (or any politician for that matter) does a good job irrespective of his/her habits then maybe we should overlook this "indiscretion." Morality alone is not the sole decider on what will make a good elected representative. So do we wait and see to see if he/she is still up to snuff even if they may or may not still be abusing drugs?

Conclusion: We are left at a quandary. Many will say "throw the guy out", while others will say "I don't like what he did, but he is still doing a good job." What is the best choice? Is the use of an illegal substance enough to say that this elected official, or any elected official is unworthy of at the very least finishing their term in office? As a libertarian, I say let the Toronto Mayor (and any elected official caught doing drugs) finish up their terms. Yes, we can afford to wait to see if the drugs affect their job performance and whether or not they are even worth re-electing. But, I base this on the idea that drugs for personal use are not a crime, but label the person taking them as a victim. It is not worth ruining a man's or woman's life further by giving them an arrest record that may prohibit future employment. I am not saying that you all as voters should not make your voices heard. I am saying however, is to question the very notion of "is the Mayor of Toronto a victim of his own devices?" and is being a victim of drug abuse enough to tear him out of office? I would not only on account that he is still humanly capable of doing his job and thus people can afford to wait until the next election cycle to vote him out.

Issue 228 Why cities are liberal December 16, 2013

So, why are cities left leaning in the first place? Well, thanks to a Rabbi (who works for the Blaze network), we may just have that answer. Let's get started.

Cities: A city itself is necessary for a healthy economy. It is a place that people go to buy and sell goods. Without one, countries can descend into poverty like Somalia. Basically, cities do not need the countryside or factories, but they need the cities as a place for commerce to occur. As such a great number of people gather in cities and share ideas. In order to accommodate those people, the cities governing body maintains the roads, provides water and even electricity. All that is necessary to life in this modern era is taken care of in a city by its government. Now this creates the mindset that makes people in cities lean left.

The mindset: With most of the basic needs being taken care of by a government in cities, people look upon this as an example of how government can take care of everything. In essence, the people see this and that being taken care of by government and thus when a problem arises, an issue needs to be solved or a new service is to begin, people look to the cities government. This mentality is then scaled up to the national level as when the people in cities see how there government takes care of things, they immediately think that the national government can just as easily solve the problem. These notions are completely different to the self reliance model of the people outside of cities as they have no government to rely on. People outside of these cities have no choice to take life as it comes and solve it all themselves. As such, the mindset of dependence upon government evolves based upon where you live.

Conclusion: It is not the cities fault that people become liberal. It is the mentality people get by living in one. Is it bad to be liberal minded, no, but it is bad to become solely reliant on a government especially if they are going to simply compound the problem. Cities unfortunately dominate any election on the national scale due to the sheer number of people who live there. As such, there is not counterbalance to their people’s ideology. Thus, ideas of self reliance are shut out, the same ideas that allow people to become independent. What can we do about this is a question I have yet to find an answer for.

Issue 227 Bullet control!? December 13, 2013

Many people fear guns. That is a given as they can kill you if misused (duh). However technology has progressed to the point that traditional bans and restrictions on all forms of firearms will be rendered totally redundant (my pro-gun self is cheering right now). But, there needs to be a limit on who can carry a gun (at least that is what the anti-gun people say). So here is another one of my proposals for the public at large to satisfy both sides of the argument, bullet control.

The idea: Currently, people can make a gun in their own home using 3d printer technology. Truth is however, is that most people could make a gun even without a 3d printer as well, but the 3d printer simply made the process easier. As it currently stands people fear guns due to changes in cultural attitudes. In the United States, gun safety was once taught in schools and people respected guns and the power they had. But we will not be going back in time anytime soon and getting rid of gun control as a whole (even though gun control is entirely unenforceable). As such I propose an alternative. Rather than limit the type of gun and who can own one, limit the ammunition instead. That's right, only limit the ammunition, the bullet itself, and let everyone else own whatever gun they want. The concept is simple, a gun without ammo is only good for intimidation (or show and tell) and nothing more (but the criminals don't know if you're loaded or not).

How it works: The process is simple; abandon all current forms of gun control save limiting the sale of fire arms to semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) and the criminal background check. From there certain types of ammunition used by the most commonly used guns in crimes and murders will be limited to be purchased by those with a license. So a 9mm round for a pistol would require a license to buy. Basically, it switches the mechanisms of gun control over to the ammunition. Some forms of ammunition will not need to be licensed as some bullets are so small that they do less damage than a BB gun. So ammo that is used for non-lethal purposes like a bean bag round, pellet guns and the like would be totally unregulated. Bullets that fall into the less than lethal category like small palm guns would also become unregulated as the bullet is not just too small to overtly kill someone (save with a lucky shot), but the gun usually has to be reloaded every time it is fired. Outmoded ammunition, which can only be fired by guns that are no longer made, is so hard to come by that there would be no need to regulate them. Musket and other classical firearms have no need to have there ammunition regulated either. As such, only bullets fired out of handguns and some rifles need the limitations.

Who could buy these restricted bullets: Special dispensation will be given to all military, law enforcement and public servants (both active and retired) along with there families to be able to purchase bullets that fall into the restricted class. The only limitation would be the same limitation that normal people would have, if they committed a violent crime. My version would instead put a limitation to a violent crime within the last 20 years after they have finished serving their sentence with a total ban on anyone who has committed the act of rape and/or murder. Other people who would require special dispensation are people in the witness protection program or other people who need some form of protection like celebrities, people being stalked and people in high crime neighborhoods. Finally hunters would be given special dispensation as well as they perform a service in controlling the populations of animals. Applications for licenses would be categorized as personal defense, hunting and enthusiast, with enthusiast being competition and recreational shooters in general.

Conclusion: Well this is the overall idea. Limit the bullets and not the guns. Sure a large number of people will now be eligible to own a gun as traditional gun control is replaced with bullet control. This is the medium I have come up with that keeps people out of jail for simply making a component that can potentially be used in assembling a firearm. Restricting that control to bullets that are used in common guns used in crimes also ensures more practicality in respect to lessening violence. However, while my idea may have some merit to you my dear reader, it too will be outmoded one day do to technology. As people become more and more able to make goods in their own homes, bullets too will be able to made in the home just as easily as guns are being made today (both in the factory and in the home). Gun control in truth is a loosing battle with bullet control simply staving off the inevitable as bullet control will give way to gun powder control which would limit all forms of manufacture and purchase of explosive powders used in ammunition. So is there a true solution to solve this problem? Yes, there is, and that solution is to bring back the classes to schools teaching kids how to use firearms, teaching people that guns are not simply a weapon of attack, but a tool of defense and to hunt game. We need to show that firing a gun at the range is the same as playing a round of golf with family and friends. To have a society that respects guns and there use, American culture needs to change so that it does not reject guns, but once again embraces them. This is the undeniable truth that we must bear until guns themselves get replaced by newer and more lethal weapons and firearms.

Issue 226 Mix it up Baseball December 12, 2013

Here is a concept, mix it up baseball. In this idea, we do mixed martial arts (MMA) style competition, but rather than seeing which martial art can defeat which, we see which type of baseball can defeat which. So we have baseball, softball, stickball, cricket, and probably more that I can't remember or have never even heard of before. So how would it all work?

How it would work: Obviously you set up the field like normal with 3 bases and a home plate. You have the standard configuration of a man guarding each base and a pitcher. What would need to be confirmed is how far apart each base is going to be in comparison to the other sports that are similar to baseball. I do not know for certain if stick balls bases are closer of farther apart, and things like cricket have different variations of itself. So a standard, with a happy medium between all the sports involved, will need to be developed.

Bat wise, the player gets to choose which bat they will want to hit the ball with. So they can choose a cricket bat, baseball bat of any make and model, a stick ball bat or even a classical bat from the history of these sports. This will cause the pitcher on the other team to change balls accordingly to suit the bat (for the sake of fairness). However, the pitcher may throw the ball in any way he/she pleases. So a pitcher can throw a curve ball, a fast ball, or even an underarm swing like in softball. Basically this is to counterbalance the batters choice on which bat they are allowed to use.

The number of players will also have to be decided. Some variations of these sports have more players than a typical baseball or softball team. Others may have fewer players. So another medium will be needed to decide which is best for the overall competition. My guess is that a regulation size team from softball or baseball should fit the bill however.

Why play like this?: Well it comes down to the why not scenario. MMA was an informal way of looking if a karate guy could defeat a sambo guy, a kick boxer, or a military martial artist. Here it is the same deal, but with respect to baseball. It's all about that "what if" this type of team, went up against that type of team. We could even have exhibition matches as a test with using the most similar of these sports to see who would win in a head to head battle using these modified rules. From there it is all about the fun of seeing which group would win against which in a fun and surprising ways as a player chooses a cricket bat, while the pitcher throws him off with a typical curve ball from baseball. It is this kind of what if that is fun and exciting to watch.

Conclusion: These kinds of what ifs are fun an exciting. It causes debate and fervor as the different teams go head to head and maybe even learn from each other. Sportsmanship from each team and traditions from each sport will intermingle and these unpredictable scenarios become exciting. Some may be asking, why, just why would you suggest this kind of idea? Well my answer to you is why not?

Issue 225 Women and baseball December 11, 2013

Did you know that women have played professional baseball? No not soft ball, I mean in the minors, in exhibition matches for the MLB and in leagues dedicated toward women in general. So why not have women be allowed to play with the boys (contracts for women have been banned in the MLB since the 1950s).

Ladies: Much of the arguments against women playing in baseball is that they are not athletic enough, don’t have long enough legs, big enough hearts, can't run fast enough....blah, blah, blah. Well I say that is all bunk. I have way too many women who deserve to be called Amazons for how athletic they are (and beautiful on top of that). The fact is that girls can be and are in some cases more athletic than boys. Sure girls and boys can and will have diverging interests, but allow these women at least a shot to smash that ball out of the ball park.

Why should they be allowed to play: It is silly not to. Baseball is a male dominated sport. Basically it is a boys club. Thus the only true reason to not at least let the ladies try out is because the MLB wants to protect their investment in the men who play. If these ladies get in on the action, then they may even show up big stars like Derrick Jeter or Alex Rodriguez. The fact of the matter is there is absolutely no legitimist reason that I can come up with as to why the girls should not be allowed to play the game.

Conclusion: Yes I am in favor of Baseball letting the girls get in on the fun. In fact, I feel that baseball has become boring as of late due to it (for me at least) becoming stagnant. So letting the ladies play ball should shake things up a bit. Baseball is America's pass time, and women have been involved in baseball since the beginning (Jackie Mitchell, a woman, even struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig). So if a woman player can take down those all stars, imagine what would happen in today’s game if women were allowed to play. So batter up girls, and play ball.

If it is to your liking my readers, we can turn this Issue into a petition. Just comment yes in the comments section if you want to see women play in the MLB.

Issue 224 Donation to the debt December 10, 2013

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has a special part of its website which allows people to donate their tax dollars toward the federal government. Now, not many people want to give any more money that they already do in taxes toward this hated government agency (no one likes paying taxes). So what about an alternative idea? An idea where the money is tax deductible and goes immediately to pay off the national debt.

The idea: It would work by first making the donation go toward paying off the debt owed by the United States. So any donation would go to pay off the massive debt that the government has now. To incentivize more people to donate, the donations would be tax deductible. So you are still paying the government, but in this case you are using that money to pay off the debt exclusively.

How it works: For one, these donations would not pay the interest on the debt. The money to pay the interest on the debt would come out of the Federal government first before all other spending. This insures Congress and the President do not cause our nation to shirk its responsibilities. Also, the money that gets donated will be used immediately to pay off parts of our national debt. So at no time will it ever be held in an account. This will ensure that the Congress does not get any funny ideas about borrowing from the fund like they do with Social Security and Medicare. The fact that it act as a charitable donation helps to relieve people of parts of their tax burden like a traditional charitable donation, but the twist is that it helps them as the government will have to spend much less to pay off the debt the next time around. As such, potentially we will be able to lower taxes because we will have less to pay toward the national debt.

Conclusion: Again, this is an idea. It takes an existing program and tweaks it to help solve a social ill. In this case the worst ill of all, the national debt. I would personally put the treasury in charge of all of this (if I were in charge that is) as they would subtract the yearly interest payments on the debt before all other spending and would also insure that the money donated goes to pay off the debt as soon as it comes in. Let's face it; if we leave it to the politicians our debt will just continue to grow. In fact, if you add the unfunded liabilities (money we know that we owe in the future) our 17 trillion in debt skyrockets to 112 trillion dollars. America, we have a lot of work to do. Let’s pay off the debt and do it now.

Issue 223 Pay for organs!!! December 9, 2013

Did you know that in the United States people can sell for money their bone marrow, blood, sperm and eggs? Well, now you do. But what about our other organs like a kidney? Should we be able to sell one of the two of them? Let's discuss.

Selling organs: Iran is the only country in the world that allows people to sell a kidney legally. And guess what, they do not have a waiting list for recipients like in the rest in the world. In fact, there list is made up of people who want to donate there organs. Can you imagine a diabetes patient not having to wait months on dialysis just to get a new kidney? Think of it, Iran has probably one of the most tyrannical governments in the world and yet they found a way to save all these people who in other countries would probably have given up by now. This is the result of selling organs; people have a chance to live.

Benefits: Out side of the obvious people lining up to donate, there are other benefits as well. Iran's program has an adoption style system for the donor and recipient to get to know each other. What normally may have been a faceless transaction has become a way to create friends and extend families irrespective of blood relations. According to the "expert" on the show "Stossel" many of these people form family like bonds after the procedure. They invite people over for dinner, family parties and more as they now share a kind of bond. However, the donor has the option to remain anonymous.

Another benefit is that the people donating get money for their wants and needs. Some have used that money to pay for weddings, expand their businesses, add new additions on their houses, or even to just buy a car. So these people who are donating are in no way victims as they reap many benefits. Is there anything not to love about this?

Not loving it: Those who are opposed to such ideas see nothing but victims. The reason is due to the black market selling of such organs. They feel that the donors become victims (not true thanks to the Iran example), that it is faceless (again Iran defeats this senseless argument) and that it would create a larger black market. Well I have my doubts on the larger black market idea. A black market for things like drugs, prostitution and organ selling exist because of those practices being illegal. A system of organ donation works the same way as the current one with the only difference being that the donor gets paid.  This for the most part eliminates the possibility of a bad organ being given to a patient that needs it (especially one that is stolen from someone as you actually get to meet the donor before the operation). So these arguments are mostly baseless as the black market for such organs will shrink and become less profitable as the paid donor program progresses (if it were to be allowed in a country like the United States that is).

Conclusion: I myself was once against selling organs. I did not like the idea as it felt kind of like prostitution, except you were selling more then just sex. But, what I have found is that this is a voluntary transaction that takes place and allows people to profit off their generosity. So at least let the world experiment with the idea. Let's not have Iran be the only country that saves people from dead or dying kidneys.

Issue 222 Innovation/cash December 6, 2013

How does a person make money off a product? Well the only way to do that is to innovate. So how do we apply this in every day life?

Something New: The first way is to come up with something entirely new. This means something like the old slip and slide or a cell phone. Basically something that will be copied by others. So you can create a brand new way to buy goods like with electronic currency (Bitcoin), or a new way to use a computer like Google glass (the wearable computer). My idea for putting small water turbines into your plumbing systems to generate electricity is another of these concepts. Basically come up with something brand new that no one has thought of yet.

Make it better: Another way is to improve on something. Our cell phones are improved on constantly because we now have touch screens rather than key pads. Eventually we may just use our eyes to manipulate our phones in the same way Google glass uses peoples eyes to manipulate their computer screens. A person can innovate on cars like with the current 3 wheeled car concept or the "car tilt" technology that allows a car to shift its weight like a motor cycle for tighter turning radius and performance. But such innovation is not restricted to technology...how about food. Ever hear of an adult milk shake. Well I fist did on food network on the Show "Rachel Versus Guy" where they had celebrities compete for being the best cook. One of those celebrities made an adult milk shake (a milkshake with alcohol in it). I would later find another such type of milk shake at the restaurant Red Robin during their October fest celebration where my Uncle had a vanilla milk shake with drizzled caramel and Samuel Adams Boston Lager mixed together. It was yummy. I want to try mixing a little Vodka into a raspberry milk shake my self. Then there is the "Luther" a cheese burger that replaces the bun with two glazed donuts. No I have not tried it yet (but I want too so bad). So technology and food can be innovated with, not to mention clothing. If you’re already in a company, improve on an already proven product like a Dairy Queen Blizzard soft drink, the apple IPhone, or even proven computer software like Microsoft's operating systems. Never be satisfied with what is, you must want something greater out of the product to make it better.

Conclusion: Your probably wondering where the money comes in. Well that comes from selling your product(s). If it is your own invention, get a patent fast. From there you can have someone sell it for you or sell all your rights to that product for cash. Right now there is a 17 year old kid that created new apps for smart phones, and the companies are lining up to buy the programs he made. So you can do this too. If your already in a company, this could mean a promotion or at the very least a raise (beer companies seem to do this kind of innovation often). Start innovating and never stop. It comes down to the old adage, "if you build it they will come." So what are you standing around for, get to work, your not going to be the next bill gates by just twiddling your thumbs. Good Luck and Gods speed.

Issue 221 Wearable computers December 5, 2013

Well, I have not done an issue on technology and its potential in a while so I thought about talking about a concept that is still developing. That concept is the wearable computer.

What is it?: A wearable computer is exactly how it sounds, a computer that you wear. The overall goal is to make a potable system much like your cell phone but integrated into your cloths. So your jacket may have a radio, mp3's and phone built in (this in an actual product that is already in existence by the way). Already skiers are enjoying heads up displays in their goggles with built in cameras so that they can post their journey from mountain top to bottom (and any crash in between). Google has its Google glass concept where a set of eye glasses has a mini computer attached that you can manipulate with movements from your eye. We also have a product that is taking the market by storm, "smart watches" which hook up to your phones via blue tooth technology so that you can screen your calls and access your phone all the while never taking it out of your pocket (basically a watch with a touch screen). These are just some of the concepts that have already reached the consumer market.

Why did it take so long?: This is an easy question. It is because the companies selling them had to be sure that people would actually buy there product. So they tested and modified each one for ease of use and of course sex appeal. Cause in the end you’re not going to wear something that makes you look like crap.

What’s Next?: Here is where the futurist in me gets to give my opinion on the next version of the product. Right now NASA and other private research groups are looking into the next generation of space suit. What they envision is an article of clothing that can not only protects from cosmic radiation and space itself but also act as a life sign monitor which protects its wearer in case of harm. For instance, the suit could become entirely rigid in case of a broken bone through the use of something called memory metals/plastic and liquid metals. A memory metal or plastic is a metal or plastic that can remember its original shape from when it is first formed. So you can bend it into any shape you want and then return it to that original form by either applying heat, cold or even an electrical impulse. Liquid metals are a type of metal substance that combines several materials to make the metal behave like a liquid, but can solidify on impact or become rigid when electricity is applied. Much of this technology is being researched by the military for use as an active protection system for soldiers. But every day use can include safety gear that reduces the impact of a fall on a construction site, on the football field or even just doing some really dangerous stuff like fire fighting. Basically, the active protection systems can protect our bodies in the same way a cars air bag does in a car crash. This is not all, can you imagine the next Swiss army knife being a piece of cloth. By using electrical impulses it could manipulate the cloth into taking the shape of a screw driver, a knife or even a beer bottle opener. Clothing itself could become an everyday multi tool, or if the military and intelligence agencies have there way, a potent hidden weapon system. Already police are experimenting with a gauntlet that is bullet resistant, has a built in taser, a weighted glove and a communication terminal. Now with these smart cloths it can combine the ability to call forth whip like weapons to capture and restrain opponents or vibrate like a speaker to act like a sound wave crowd control device (regular people may simply turn their cloths into a boom box). Eventually we will have the ultimate wearable computer system, an exoskeleton that can help the disabled walk again or give soldiers and emergency response personnel super human abilities. The limit is really a person’s imagination and the current level of technology.

Conclusion: It is going to be a very interesting world as technology progresses. Articles like this will eventually fad as such technology becomes mainstream and gets taken for granted like how a calculator used to be the size of a grand piano. I cannot wait to see what comes next.

Issue 220 Only 1 winner December 4, 2013

Following on yesterday’s theme of not rewarding failure, I would like to discuss why students are now being given out participation trophies. So even if there is a single winner, everyone still gets a prize of some sort. Stop making our kids a bunch of sissy's.

Feel good mentality: The reason why children are being given all these awards is because of the feel good mentality. That you did something great even if you failed, or lost. People don't like the idea of children feeling disappointed and dejected after having lost a game of baseball, or in a contest like a spelling bee. They want all these kids to continue feeling great about themselves regardless of their results. So basically it is all about protecting their feelings.

Sissies: Cut the crap. By rewarding failure here you are doing a disservice to children. You are essentially telling the kids that when they fail at something that they will still be rewarded regardless. Problem is that the world has not, nor will it ever work that way. People are rewarded for their efforts if and only if they get results. Our society is merit based and the sports and contests should reflect that. Sure I don't want to see children cry because they lost, that they were not the best. However, crying about it gets you no where in life. If you want to be the best next time, if you want that reward, then you have to earn it through hard work. If parents and adults in general taught this to there children, then these kids might just grow a back bone and stop throwing a tantrum every time they don't get things there way.

2nd and 3rd: As this trend of rewarding failure continues, I question even the wisdom of second and third place. Third place is insignificant compared to first and second, while second is simply the first loser. Or the best out of the losers if you will. In society, there are never rewards for third place in anything, but in certain instances rewards do come to those who come in second, but it is rare. So why continue with concept of second and third place in sports or anything for that matter. I can understand the argument that they are the next two best out of all the participants, but that simply does not cut it. If they loose, tell your kid, "you did your best", and you can reward them yourself for their best efforts. But don't give them a trophy for it when it is not deserved.

Conclusion: I may be being too harsh. Maybe even zealous, but I want America's kids to be mentally prepared for the world ahead. Schools and parents that give out trophies for just showing up do not reward the effort that the child shows. It does not reward the sweat and efforts they put in if they know that they do not have to try hard just to get a prize. It to me looks like you are just showing America's kids that its OK to just out right fail without trying. I don't like the idea of that. So I will not tell you how to raise your kid, but just caution you that rewarding a loss may not be the best thing for your child as the feelings of losing may be more important to their potential future.

Issue 219 Don't reward failure December 3, 2013

A society that rewards failure is a society that is doomed to fail itself. By allowing those who fail to continue as they have been doing will only result in the same failures again and again. We have seen this stupidity with the Bank bailouts in the United States and Europe, and even with children who are passed in class because their grades were inflated to move them through the system. So let’s go over these two examples.

Bank Bailouts: When the United States and Europe saved the banks, it was in an effort to stave off a financial collapse. One problem, the collapse kept going regardless. However, those same banks despite new rules (many of which are unenforceable) keep trudging along as if nothing has occurred. However, if another collapse does occur, then they expect to be bailed out once again. Yes, that is right; they are in the position to be able to screw up as many times as they want as the taxpayers money will be used to save them once again. What the fools in Washington D.C. and in the governments of the world fail to realize is that failure is the primary motivator to keeping these businesses in check. If a bank or any institution knows that they will not be saved, then it forces them to think twice about taking an action. And if that action seems too dangerous, they will not continue. Those that will risk it will either succeed or fail. As such, those that succeed will be mimicked and progress will result. Those that fail will be seen as a learning experience by the others as to what not to do with the world and business still progressing forward. But the governments did not allow this. They kept those who line their pockets in power because they feel that they needed to save them and us from a threat. It is a typical human reaction to want to do something, but those that fail in the business world are replaced. People who lost their jobs typically get them back in a year as those who are seen as an asset will be snapped up by other businesses looking to use their talents. In the free market, this notion of failure and replacement is known as creative destruction. It is the main tool that will ensure that any damage in the short term is turned into a positive in the long run. As such, the government must not interfere in this for they inherently corrupt the market and thus create monopolies that snuff out the weaker businesses that would have replaced them if there was no interference in the first place.

Schools: Children are being rewarded for not being good enough. They have their grades upped by redistributing them to their academically weaker classmates. In my old high school and even at the college I attended, grades were raised up in this matter to artificially make students performance look better than it was. Thus, I say with all truth, that I probably did not deserve to pass some of the classes I took in high school and at least one in college. As such, it caused me to be a little behind when I moved further up in the education system. Thankfully, I was book smart and did decent in most everything else, but my fellow classmates suffered in many instances. Many were not prepared to move up in the grade levels and as such were forced to rely on this system of inflating grades. This is apparently getting worse. I saw this as a trend in my final years of high school that even if the answer was wrong, that the student would still get points for showing work. As such, a student could get a number of answers wrong and still pass. Now this foolishness is being set as a standard in the common core curriculum as now under that system 2+2 can equal 6 under certain circumstances. This same grade inflation was used to make schools look better than they really were. These same scores that make schools look good also dictate the aid they get from the government as well. As such, in America today, there are a number of students that cannot read properly nor do math while schools reap rewards. These same students who are moved up before they are ready are also more likely to resort to criminality according to some studies. By rewarding failure here, we are risking the future of our entire country. We are regressing.

Conclusion: Any reward for failure will result in negative consequences. We see this in the creation of government sponsored monopolies and in the decline in America's children's education. The more this occurs the further America as a whole will fall into depravity and hopelessness. Stop rewarding failure. Let bad businesses fail like they are supposed to and teach children properly by moving them up when and only when they are ready. Stop America failing by stopping the rewards for failure.

Issue 218 Cultural Diffusion December 2, 2013

What is cultural diffusion exactly? Is it just some concept we all learned in school? Well it is probably one of the most important aspects of social evolution. So let’s get into it.

What is it?: Cultural diffusion is when aspects of one culture are taken in by another culture. At least, that is the simplest method of defining it. It allows for people of different cultures to learn form one another. For instance, the aqua duct was a roman invention, the world’s first computer was Arabian, gunpowder was Chinese, and the concept of zero was Indian. All these ideas were shared and helped build modern society. Today, other aspects of culture spread through diffusion. New ideas in the stock market, inventions, and even customs like Halloween, and the Christmas tree are part of cultural diffusion. We would not be where we are today without it.

Why is it important?: It is crucial to man kind’s social evolution. By interacting with one another, ideas are spread and old concepts that are outmoded are removed. In some cases outmoded concepts return when life's circumstances dictate. But overall, it is the spreading of ideas, beliefs and technology all throughout the whole world. It allows us to understand each other, and even compete with each other. Because of the computer, cultural diffusion is spreading ideas even faster than before. New technologies like 3D printers are being shared along with ideas on how to use them. Sharia compliant loans as a concept are being adopted by some businesses. Ideas on how to dress and when one should wear a particular article of clothing are also spreading. Art is affected also as many artist are using different techniques, like oil painting or motifs, of other countries spreading out new ways to express oneself on a canvas. Cultural diffusion is the spreading of ideas which is the most essential component to not just survival in this modern world, but thriving in it.

Conclusion: I keep this particular article brief because there really is not much else to do save site more examples. We are surrounded by the ideas of others that in the end help to enrich our lives. Technology, art, customs, and ideas are all spread by word of mouth, ideas and actions. This is the essence of what cultural diffusion is.