Issue 495 Assisted suicide: My Re-evaluation December 31 2014

My cats recent death has actually made me re-evaluate my stance on assisted suicide.  The reason being was that I had to put my cat to sleep or she would have died a slow agonizing death from cancer, or starved due to the cancer preventing her from eating, or toxemia in the blood from the cancer shutting down her kidneys (not to mention she could barely move anymore).  As you can see, my decision was made for me, despite how painful it was.  Now I loved my cat dearly, and I can only imagine what it is like for some people to go through something like this, but with a human being.  Thus, my re-evaluation. 

My new thoughts:  At first I thought that people who commit suicide in general were week.  That they had to simply realize that they, no matter the pain and suffering, they could overcome it.  I even thought that a doctor was violating their oath if they aided in the suicide.  But, unfortunately or fortunately we are not the same people we were when the oath was first written up in ancient Greece.  So now I have looked at the issue again, and have determined that there are helpless situations (obviously) and then there are situations where people just can't see, find, or afford a way out.  So if you have not figured it out already, I am now in favor of assisted suicide despite my wishing and hoping that the individual will do everything in their power to try and live.

Conclusion:  Many things that occur in life can change a person’s mind.  In my case, my dearly departed cat Cassie was the one who caused me to have an epiphany and thus shock me out of being so naive.  So I will not tell you however that you have to support a person committing suicide, but know that we all really do not have a say in their doing it, for it is unfortunately a part of their right to live. 

Issue 494 The killing exceptions December 30, 2014

In the Bible there are only three exceptions to killing.  While modern law adds numerous nuance to this, we sometimes have to remember the basics of when it is acceptable.  So let us begin.

Exception 1, Self Defense:  Self-defense is one of the easiest to remember as even the law recognizes this as a right.  You are basically defending yourself from impending doom.  The reason this exception exists is because we have a right to live.  As such, the Ten Commandments makes this one of the primary exceptions to killing another human being.

Exception 2, protecting another:  For a similar reason to the first exception, we also have a right to protect our fellow man from physical harm.  So if a group/mob is about to attack another person, by God's own rules, we are allowed to kill in defense of that individual being attacked.  Obviously, this one is a bit harder to do than with the first exception as we may end up defending a villain.  So in this case use your judgment on how to solve or if to even interfere with the situation.

Exception 3, War, the final exception:  This exception, war, encompasses the first two.  Via war (and that is if we are attacked first) we are defending ourselves, our families and our fellow countrymen.  This exception was very important for before God even came into people’s lives and was recognized as our savior (assuming you believe in God) genocide and slavery was a key component of war and unfortunately may be so again.  So by fighting back, you stop the annihilation of yourself and all those around you.

Conclusion:  I am sure I have mentioned these exceptions before, but I feel that given the current situation in the Middle East and the issues surrounding Ferguson and similar situations, that we may be forgetting that we are allowed to defend ourselves and loved ones.  I will not say I support violence, but we are now more likely than ever to be placed into a possible life and death situation.  So for me, I wanted to at least prepare you for the possibility and that you are in the right with respect to resorting to killing another if left with no viable alternative.  So stay safe my readers.  Stay safe.

Issue 493 Are pets worth it? December 29, 2014

A pet is a commitment.  For those who know, a pet can be equivalent to raising a second child.  So here and now I will tell you why pets are the best thing to happen to a person.

The love they show:  A pet as I stated is a commitment. You raise them with love and care for they are your friends who do not judge you based on your habits, your vices, or your problems.  They support you when you are said, and they comfort you when you are sick.  Some would argue that people should not have a pet because of the pain of losing a pet in the first place.  However, that pain you feel is love.  You cherish the memories of the animal you cared for, and that cared about you in return.  How could all the memories with your pet not be worth it in the end?  Sure they can stink, eat like no tomorrow and poo sometimes on the carpet, but those are all part of the memories you remember about your pet.  For a child growing up, a pet is a great starter for them learning responsibility, all the while having a supporting friend.  So pets are worth it.

Conclusion:  I dedicate this issue to my cat Cassie.  She was with me for 16 long years, and passed away from pancreatic cancer a few weeks ago.  She was with me through my first and second girlfriend, and when I struggled with bullies at school.  Cassie simply came up to me whenever I felt sad so as to comfort me as much as she could, because she somehow saw me as family.  I miss her greatly, but I would not change anything with respect to her being in my life.  

Issue 492 Jesus Sacrifice December 26, 2014

I just felt like there was one aspect missing from our celebration of Jesus's birth.  That aspect was why he was given to us by God in the first place.  Allow me to tell you for those who do not know.

The why:  Jesus was given to us by God so that he could act as a sacrifice for mankind.  This is the whole reason why we celebrate his birth, death and resurrection.  The man known as Jesus knew that he was going to die in a very painful way, and if you read the Bible, you would know that even Jesus knew fear.  But Jesus with Gods will and support was sacrificed so that the souls of the departed can enter heaven based on how they lived their lives as individuals.  You see, past salvation was based on the collective whole, but Jesus died for the individual.  Jesus’s covenant with God allows us to be judged independent of one another.  At the same time Jesus also died so that we may achieve a kind of death and rebirth once baptized.  The baptism was and is the mark of the covenant for following generations of people so that they too may be part of this covenant with God. 

Conclusion:  These are the reasons Jesus died for us.  He was a selfless sacrifice from God and from Jesus himself for the blessing of all of mankind.  So let us never forget this sacrifice so long as we live.

Issue 491 Merry Christmas December 25, 2014

Well my readers.  Thank you for reading again this year.  Without you I probably would have ceased bothering to post.  So I mean it when I say:

 Merry Christmas and have a happy and healthy holiday.

See you all tomorrow :)

Issue 490 Santa and Christmas December 24, 2014

Ok, I may not be the first to tell you, or realize, but Christmas has been completely transformed from a religious holiday to a commercialized fiasco.  Now let us discuss.

The degradation of the day:  Well, for one, Christmas is to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.  Yes, I know, some of you are like he actually was not born on that day and what not, but July 4th is not the actual independence day of America either.  So suck it up.  The entire concept behind gift giving comes in part from the notion that God gave us Jesus as a gift to his children so that they each may achieve salvation.  From their the real Saint Nicholas would many, many years later give out gifts in part to celebrate the birth of Jesus.  At that point the tradition of gift giving as a selfless act became a key component of the holiday.  Essentially, Christmas became even greater as it was about selflessly showing each other love with no expectation of a return gift.   However, Santa got a makeover.  For the first time, Santa was commercialized by Thomas Nast and further by companies like Coca-Cola to sell brands and products.  As time went on, many forgot that the day was to celebrate Jesus's birth and instead we see numerous images of children being laden with huge quantities of gifts on television.  But is that the right thing to do.  A holiday of selflessness has turned into a holiday of selfishness.  As such, I am concerned about the wellbeing of both the reason for celebrating and even the original intentions of the original Santa Claus(s) (as there are many people who contributed to this legend).

Conclusion:  I hope that we can separate the commercial aspect from the true meaning of Christmas.  I for one may not go to Church often, but I believe in God and give thanks for God and Jesus on every Christmas day.  So I write this as a reminder to everyone so that they will remember the true meaning and value of Christmas.

Issue 489 The Church is stagnant December 23, 2014

Well, have you ever felt that when you are in Church that you are simply following the motions without thinking?  Have you seen the members of your church dwindle?  Well, it is because of the same reason, the Church has become stagnant and thus people do not feel the need to go anymore.  So rather than say why the Church has become stale, I would like to discuss with you how to liven it up.  So let us begin.

Ideas to improve the Church:  

1) Music:  There are different mediums to music that can enhance the church going experience, but only so many can get you to voluntarily get up on your feet and dance.  What I propose here is that we copy a little bit of the Christian music the Baptists use so as to get everyone revved up and into the happenings of the Church.  It does not even have to be all chorus either, but a variety of music.  

2) Use the actual Bible:   I have noticed that when I do go to Church that we are not reading directly from the Bible.  This to me has not really sat well with me as it felt like we were not hearing the word of God directly.  I really cannot express the feeling well enough to describe it in words, but it just felt wrong to me.  So instead, I propose using an actual Bible when doing readings from the Gospels.  In fact, let people use their own Bibles to read from so that they get that personal feeling when readings are done.  Also, let someone other than the Priest read the Bible in the same way my Church has someone who volunteers to do the reading every Sunday.  Thus it allows people to become more involved in the mass.

3) Embrace discussions:  Set aside time to actually discuss and debate the readings and the Gospel that was read at mass that day.  Basically, let the congregation debate the morals and teachings with the Priest being the moderator.  In fact, the members of the congregation can be encouraged to bring their pens/pencils with their Bibles so that they can make notations in the Bible themselves on where our rights come from or to clarify what Jesus'/God's message is.  Again this gets people more involved in their faith and helps them find the answers they are looking for from God. 

4) Sunday mass as an all-day thing:  In the past, mass on Sunday was all day affair.  So why not bring that back.  Each Sunday the Church can hold a potluck type lunch for the congregation.  So mass would begin at around 10 and stop for an intermission around 12, and then pick up again at about 130, and finish at 3pm.  Thus, this would allow members of the church a break and also have time for all these other suggestions.  This also provides time for more one on one type sessions with fellow members of the congregation to discuss the happenings in the Church as well.

Conclusion:  I believe that all these will enhance the Church going experience and allow the Church to become a place for conversations on morality, law and news.  The Church has always been meant to be a community gathering place that people can go to, to be with one another while embracing one's faith.  It has lost that ability as masses became shorter to accommodate the faster pace of life, but can become something more if allowed to freely embrace different methods of enhancing people’s desire to worship.  

Issue 488 The Pope is not divine December 22, 2014

Well, I am not done with controversial topics.  In this case I will be taking on the notion that the Pope has no divine power at all.  So let us begin.

Evidence:  For one, historically speaking there were sometimes multiple Popes.  A divine Pope would exist in isolation with no others in existence for the others can contradict what God was instructing his faithful to do.  Also, Popes from one generation would not be contradictory to one another.  For instance, issues such as gay's being accepted into heaven is a recent change.  Also, I feel that if they truly believed in God's message through Jesus, then they would be against government provided healthcare and instead provide it themselves.  I cannot say war is part of the evidence because in the bible, war was endorsed many times through God.  But I can say that the faiths are run by men.  When we die, the Church does not ascend with us.  However, some Popes and other clerics talk as if the Church is the begin all end all with respect to God, belief and dogma.  Therefore, because of these inconsistencies, I believe the Pope is not divine.  

Conclusion:  Rather than say we get divine Popes, I believe God guides us toward leaders who have a piece of guiding light for all of us to follow.  In short, God points out the right people to lead at the right time so that we are awakened from our stagnant beliefs and ill will toward our fellow man.  So I do not mind that the Pope is not divine so long as I continue to have the right to disagree with what the Pope says or does without recourse.

Issue 487 My personal beliefs: Abortion December 19, 2014

Ok, this is the second of the two in this miniseries so that you my readers can get the gist on where I come from on certain issues.  In this case I will tackle the controversial issue of abortion.  So let us begin.

What I know about abortion:  For one, the fetus inside the womb is a baby.  We all know that if nothing goes wrong, that the fertilized egg will develop into a fully formed baby.  The reason why abortion is allowed only in the first two to three months (with certain exceptions) is because according to science, the brain is not fully formed.  Thus, the developing infant is not considered sentient yet.  

Aside from the biological aspect, the majority of abortions do not occur with first time mothers, but from moms who do not want a second child.  In addition, people are much more educated on abortion than other alternatives such as adoption which has some black marks of its own due to foster care scandals which override the facts that adoption is just as viable an alternative.  I also understand that abortion clinics is a for-profit industry, and thus subject to the same corruptions as any business or corporation (hence why I believe it should only be able to be performed in a hospital via a specialist).  

As to the burdens the mother may carry.  The moms may be impoverished, or they may be a victim of rape.  But there are also circumstances like the woman's life being in danger, and family pressures.  So the woman faces a lot when making this decision.  But it is also true that if a woman was to lose the baby due to someone assaulting her in a criminal act then the criminal would be charged with murder in most States for the death of the unborn infant.  So the situation on abortion is somewhat hypocritical.

What I believe:  I personally am against abortion.  I do not like the idea of it, but at the same time I cannot stop it from happening.  It is not a woman's right to be able to have an abortion because they are taking the life of a child, but they do have the right to privacy when it comes to the procedure being done via a doctor.  Thus, this debate on abortion is kind of circular.  If it came to me (if I was a women) then I would not get an abortion.  But if I got a women pregnant and she wanted an abortion, I would be on my hands and knees begging her to have the baby and then turn custody of the baby over to me once born.  And even in that situation, I know that I could do nothing really to stop her.  I do not know what I would do in the case of a women being pregnant and her life being in danger because of it, and I pray that I never find out.  Over all, I am pro-life, but I know that the only thing I can do is express my own beliefs and hope that the country continues to move forward toward a more pro-life direction (about 57% of the country is pro-life and supposedly growing in numbers).

Conclusion:  So this is what I know and what I believe on abortion.  If you notice that whenever I mention the unborn child I make reference to the child being a baby.  This demonstrates my values and belief in the fact that life begins at conception.  I hope you enjoyed this article and my being honest with you.

Issue 486 Climate Change (my take) December 18, 2014

Ok, Climate change is a controversial issue.  And so I feel confident to explain how I view the topic.  So let us discuss.

Global Climate Change:  On this topic, I believe that global climate change is not a set science.  There have been numerous issues where scientists have taken only the highest temperatures from key regions to justify their research.  Also, some scientists in order to get continued funding have falsified their research on occasion.  Also, the idea that carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas is false as the main gas that causes a greenhouse effect is water in the atmosphere.  But even then, the climatologists do not factor in how much of the sun’s rays is reflected back into space by clouds, water surfaces, and reflective surfaces in general, let alone the windows on all the homes and buildings throughout the world.  Basically, all the research is lacking in terms of integrity, and it is still not in my opinion, based on what I have read and seen in documentaries and magazines, a legitimate science.  From my perspective, the weather man does it better. (In my opinion, meteorologists will take over the climate change scientist’s duties to allow us to get a better understanding of our weather and natural environment).

Localized climate change:  Here is where I believe we as humans have a problem.  Globally, humanity is arrogant to think it caused dramatic changes in the earth's climate to cause natural disasters (mind you there have been no worse or more numerous storms than what is known on previous historical records).  But in a city where garbage, and car exhaust get swirled around and around the urban canyons, then you have something.  Things like heavy metals near a factory sink into the soil and groundwater.  Gases emitted out of smokestacks are concentrated before finally dispersing in the upper atmosphere.  In this case the gases are most harmful and more likely to harm the climate of an area when initially released.  As such, locally released chemicals are the ones more likely to possibly cause cancers in people, cause an area to be more prone to forest fires, contaminate groundwater and damage the area and the animals, plants and people that live there.  So chemical smog and other toxic gases and emissions can just sit in an area causing adverse effects on the surrounding environment.  This is the part of climate change I believe in.

Conclusion:  So this is how I believe in climate change.  Globally, I think the climate is naturally changing and that we humans can't (and don't) have any or very little effect on it.  Locally, we do affect our climate and our environment together.  Basically, we can end up killing ourselves with pollutions we emit ourselves.  Hence why I believe in recycling anything and everything.  I also believe in reducing our energy needs and other methods to reduce our impact on the environment as a whole.  I hope I got you thinking and I hope you enjoyed learning a little bit more about me.  Happy reading, and enjoy your pondering.

Issue 485 The Average voter December 17, 2014

Who are America's average voters?  Well, they may not be what you think.  Let's discuss.

Who votes:  The primary people who vote are actually senior citizens.  Partly the reason why seniors vote more often is due to the fact that they no longer have to work.  The next segment is people who have some sort of vested interest in the outcome of the election.  Basically, people voting for selfish reasons like party politics or free healthcare (the false premise of Obamacare).  What remains are those who believe it is their patriotic duty to vote, or those who have "chosen" to vote in this particular election.   You are probably wondering why I worded the previous sentence the way I did.  Well that is because in a non-presidential election (like 2014's) approximately 30 to 35 percent of the country actually voted.  In a presidential election you may go only as high as 50% if you are lucky.

Those who do not vote:  Well, this group has their reasons.  Some are being responsible due to them not knowing who the candidates are for they do not pay attention to politics.  Others don't like the candidates who are running and thus get discouraged.  There is also another group who find it hard to go to the ballot box because of work and family commitments.  Of course there are dumb ones who do not even know when Election Day is.  I think you get the idea.

Conclusion:  So all in all, America's future is only being decided by typically less than half the entire U.S. population.  If this seems unfair, then you do have a point, but you cannot force people to vote if they choose not to.  It is their choice.  Probably the only way to increase voter turnout for the working class is to make Election Day on a Saturday and make it an official federal holiday.  However, the day change would require a constitutional amendment, and the federal holiday would only apply to government offices.  Though I guess some is better than none in this case.  But the truest way to increase voter turnout is to teach in schools what our Constitution says and the underlying philosophies that led to its creation while combining it with first hand historical accounts to demonstrate the founders reasoning for including what they did in a document that is held so sacred to the people of the United States.  It is a rough battle to get people to the polls, but I think it is worth it.

Issue 484 The O'reilly Plan December 16, 2014

Bill O'reilly of the Fox News show "The O'reilly Factor" has come up with a way to improve America's economy in the long run, while relieving some of the economic hurdles on the people.  Allow me to give you a brief overview of his plan in today's issue. 

His plan:

1) Drop the corporate tax rate by 20%. 

This is the income tax on businesses that is so burdensome to small and medium income business and what causes most big businesses to leave the country.  Right now, America has the highest corporate income tax rate at well over 35%, which has put the United States behind nearly every industrialized nation in the world.  It is the reason why Apple and other tech companies send their products overseas to be built in Chinese factories over our own.  By dropping the tax low enough, it not only allows for some of these jobs to return to the United States, but means businesses from other nations will leave them to set up here in the U.S.  And that means more jobs.

2) Lower Capital Gains to 15%

Here we have the tax on the stock market.  The tax was initially raised during the Obama administration and has become a detriment to the growth of businesses.  The reason being, is that businesses need investors’ money so that they may build new factories and even hire new workers so that they can be successful.  A high capital gains tax prevents that and makes U.S. businesses less competitive globally as well as domestically.  So by dropping this tax lower, businesses of all sizes can grow again.

3) A six month tax holiday on out of country investments, with the stipulation the money coming back to the United State be spent on helping the United States.

In this case, Mr. O'reilly is talking about the money stashed away by corporations in other countries.  Mr. O'reilly wishes to see this money not only brought home, but spent to increase the number of jobs available to American citizens. If this is feasible, I am not sure for I don't like the idea of telling people how to spend their money.

4) Raise the minimum wage to $10.

Everything in the previous three parts was specifically to get to this point for Mr. O'reilly.  He wanted it to be feasible to raise the minimum wage without hurting businesses of any kind or causing more job losses which can result from minimum wage increases.  This allows more spending money in everyone's pockets and at the same time replaces the tax revenue lost by the government with the aforementioned tax reductions. 

Conclusion:  While I like Mr. O'reilly's plan, I have and others have critics.  Mr. James Carville (A Democratic Party strategist) actually liked the plan, but wanted it to go further with a flat tax for all economic groups.  Likewise, economic commentator and news anchor Lou Dobbs wished to see a tax cut on the lower income classes as well (he leans democratic).  Mr. O’reilly argued back that those ideas he supports, but his plan is for an immediate economic boon, while the others would need to be campaigned for to gather support (which is true).  I myself would like to see all capital gains taxes abolished so as to give the economy more freedom of movement and thus allow poorer investors a shot at becoming rich.  The corporate tax rate taxes total revenue earned over actual profit which hinders businesses and makes it harder for them to pay taxes.   So if a flat tax, and my two little additions were implemented, then the economy would expand to unprecedented levels with small businesses being capable of taking on medium to big businesses.  In essence speeding up the economy to its natural speed.  So to this extent, while Mr. O'reilly's plan is most workable and would be welcomed, it may be small change to what can really be done.

Issue 483 Your right to anonymity December 15, 2014

Anonymity is a funny word, but it has a meaning and it so happens to be one of your rights as a human being.  What to know more?  Read on to find out.

Anonymity: Anonymity means to be able to live anonymously.  Basically a life without interference or being known to others.  To a certain degree it is an isolationist policy that makes the individual less known to those around them save those they wish to know.  People of this life essentially are phantoms or strangers we pass by every day.  And it is in truth a lifestyle choice that is actively made by such people as the Special Forces community, some members of the police department, and even famous people who seek to get away from the limelight such as the author J.D. Salinger.  This lifestyle ensures privacy that few can hope to obtain if they chose an alternative lifestyle.   

It is your right:  To live a certain lifestyle is actually a right that all Americans, and other free peoples enjoy.  The reason being is that you are free to choose how you want to live in a free society so long as no one else is hurt in the process.  As such you may live a private life where people do not even know your name.  You are under no obligation to tell anyone your name, your age or any other form of personal information if you so wish to withhold it.  And thus, this is your right amongst others, to live a life you wish to lead.

Conclusion: A life of anonymity is not a life I would choose for myself.  It is a life that borders on solitude.  And let's face it, I may be the faceless author of Jormungand, but you know my real name and why I choose to speak.  But it does demonstrate that people are capable of living such a life and that we are free to choose and change our lifestyles as we see fit.  So embrace the life you wish to live.

Issue 482 Obama's Secret Correspondence December 12, 2014

President Obama has made a secret correspondence with the country of Iran a few weeks ago.  Now that the tensions and stupidity have died down, I feel safe enough to actually comment on this and if someone wants to, have a conversation without someone turning into a hot head.  So let me begin.

The non-controversial part:  The fact that the president had a secret correspondence was never the issue.  In fact, historically, Presidents had that right since President George Washington.  These letters are useful in making alliances, and even bringing about better relations with other countries as a whole.  They are also integral to ending wars as well.  So President Obama I have no problem with you in this respect.

The Controversial part:  What people took umbrage to was the fact that President Obama was communicating with the country of Iran.  For those who do not know, Iran is a known terrorist training ground for certain Islamic terrorist groups like Hezbollah, and even Hamas (who attack America's ally Israel).  Additionally, they have sworn to wipe the State of Israel off the face of the earth if given the chance.  Then you have things of less grand a scale, such as the suppression of women's rights, imprisonment and possible torture of political dissidents, harboring of terrorists, public executions, and a few other things that are clearly violations of the basic moral compass and what it means to be country representing freedom and democracy.  

In the correspondence, President Obama invites Iran to join the fight against ISIS/ISIL and that America will give them support to do so.  Of course Iran is very interested in helping as ISIS/ISIL are Sunni Muslims who are killing Shiite Muslims in other countries (Iran is a Shiite Muslim country).  As such Iran wants to fight ISIS/ISIL to protect their Shiite brethren. Now this is where things get dicey.  We already would be helping a country that most likely wants to see America die, and is essentially our antithesis, but this gives Iran a foothold in Iraq where Shiite Muslims live.  Reason this is bad is for two reasons.  The first reason is that it allows them to get their oil pipeline from Russia, through Iran, into Shiite controlled Iraq, and then into Syria (another Shiite majority country that is considered a puppet state of Iran) and then into Europe.  Thus, allowing Iran's economy to grow and giving them the money and logistics they need to build up their war machine.  The other bad part is that it gives Iran a pathway to send their forces safely into Syria, via the Shiite controlled southern part of Iraq.  So they can re-establish Assad as the president of Syria (a government that is considered a totalitarian dictatorship) or annex Syria as part of Iran along with the southern region of Iraq under the right of protection idea so as to protect ethnic Shiite Muslims.  As Syria borders Israel (the southern part of Iraq does also) it allows Iran send its forces directly into Israel to wage all-out war once the conflict with ISIS/ISIL is over.  Either way, Iran becoming involved is a lose lose situation.

Conclusion:  We have ourselves a quandary.  We help Iran get into the war with ISIS/ISIL, but it means sacrificing the safety and security in the Middle East in the near future.  Or we send our own forces in and do the job for the Middle East so as to prevent the worst case scenario from happening.  This is not a very easy decision and to let Iran in means America will be playing a very dangerous chess game with Israel possibly being sacrificed.  So what happens next depends on the President, and the decisions of the other world leaders involved in the Middle Eastern conflict.

Issue 481 Men in a feminist society December 11, 2014

While we all want to be a little bit feminist, so as to support equality amongst the sexes, there's a problem.  Feminism can become contradictory at times to allowing men to still be considered men.  Allow me to explain.

Contradictions:  Yes, feminism does espouse equality for women, but it does not do so for men.  Such is the case with employment.  Feminist groups want more women in the workforce which is great, but they want it at the expense of the male portion of society.  So they have issued quotas, and given greater deference toward women in job applications over men even if 50% of a particular job is dominated by women.  Case in point is teachers.  The majority of teachers are women, but because the numbers of female teachers has reduced as more job opportunities for women opened up (due to feminism) the feminists became frightened that a "traditional" job of women was being lost.  Mind you learning to sew, cook, and do household chores is a no no for women now, despite them being useful skills that should be taught to both men and women alike.  Are you beginning to see the contradictions?  

Can't be a gentleman:  I will say there are extreme feminists who really know how to put a man down.  In this case, men are apparently not allowed to open the door for a women.  She is apparently "strong enough" to do it herself.  Men are not supposed to pay the bill on a date with a woman as that is apparently insulting to her saying that she must be cared for and is bad with money.  Basically, anything a man does to value a woman is treated as an antithesis to feminism.  It is unfortunately sending a message to the shallower segment of the male population that women while equal are still on the same level as objects to be tossed around.  So men are no longer allowed to value women, and treat them as such in today's society because of this ridiculous notion that a man can't open the door for a women if he wants to.  I mean it is ok for a women to do it now, but not a man?

Conclusion:  While I like the idea of feminism, I do not like the radical elements to it.  I want to treat a woman like a real woman.  A person deserving of respect.  If I can't do that, then I'd rather be hated as backwards then treat a woman as something to be objectified.  This is my take on this, and I hope you have not had some of the same onerous experiences I and others have regarding this issue.

Issue 480 Of Thieves and Store Prices December 10, 2014

Did you know that thieves have a perverse effect on the prices we pay at stores?  Yes it is true.  They cause store prices to rise.  Allow me to explain.

The inverse relationship:  What happens is this, a thief steals a good and it becomes theirs illegally.  But this is not the end of the trouble they have caused.  As such, the store owner has to somehow make up for that loss.  So what is a store owner to do in an event like this where they have to recover that items value monetarily?  Well they can do any one of a combination of three things:

1) Take a pay cut and make it an acceptable loss.  This means the store owner lost money on their own.

2) Cut the wages of their workers.  This is typically a last resort, but a viable and sometimes used option if thievery is so bad that they cannot make up for the losses they are receiving.  As such, thieves are robbing the workers too.

3) Then there is raising store prices to recover the costs.  This is typically the second to last option, but unfortunately used to divvy up the cost burden on the people who buy goods.  So in this sense the thief is now making the goods you wish to buy more unaffordable for the rest of us and therefore stealing from all the customers as well.

So this is it, the thief not only steals from a store owner, but is stealing from the workers and from you and me as well.

Conclusion:  So thieves have a bigger effect on our own pockets as much as they do on the owners who own their businesses.  So it is a sad relationship, which unfortunately causes blame for higher prices and lower wages on the owner when it is not in totality their fault.  

Issue 479 Political ads on entertainment networks December 9, 2014

So we have political advertisements being routinely shown on entertainment networks like comedy central, and sports programs.  But have you ever wondered why they do that?  Well it is fairly simple, so let us begin.

Why the ads:  The reason is because the people who do not usually pay attention to politics watch those networks.  Basically, these people are the ones who usually do not look at the news unless it is something they particularly want to hear about.  And even then, they may just google it to get their answer.  So this is a method to do two things.  The first is to bring more people to the voting booth, which I am sure you would agree is a very good thing.  However the second reason may negate this.  The second reason is because these individuals are typically malleable.  People who prefer entertainment networks are not usually well informed, and thus easy to manipulate with respect to various kinds of advertisements.  They are subject to emotional arguments, over actual hard facts and history.  And unfortunately, they don't normally even know their own Congressional representative, the Vice President, or even what the President actually can and can't do.  This is why ads are put on these networks.  They think you're stupid.

Conclusion:  This can be both good and bad, but this is because the opposing Republican Party is really dumb and does not advertise on a majority of entertainment networks or programming save for things like golf.  As such, the Democrats as a party have a near universal monopoly on these less informed voters (some of whom have yet to even register to vote).  So it is my hope that aside from people actually going out and becoming more informed about politics, that the diversity of thought changes by Republicans actually advertising on these networks so that these voters can get both sides on a particular issue.  Basically it come down to diversity of ideas yet again.

Issue 478 Diversity: Ideas December 8 2014

We spoke on diversity of color last week, and I your author came to the conclusion it really does not matter so long as it happens naturally in nature.  But there is a very important form of diversity that we all need to embrace, and that is the diversity of ideas.  Let us discuss.

Ideas are important:  Diversity of ideas is the diversity of thought.  It allows us to view things from multiple perspectives and thus enable us to achieve better results with respect to thought, action or deeds.  And thus, a lack of thought/idea diversity means a stagnant society.  Why you may ask?  Why embrace all these different thoughts and ideas when they can cause conflict, arguments, and anger?  Simple, if we do not have idea diversity, then that means we have groupthink.  People become malleable and simple minded.  They stop thinking for themselves, and thus rely on society as a whole to make decisions for them.  We lose the individual and independent actions as well.  In short, no thought diversity means society itself becomes a bunch of drones without creativity, reason, or innovation.  So diversity of thought is essential to things like innovation in medicine, television, and even government.  For instance, democracy was not created in a vacuum.  It was created in Athens where only men were allowed to vote.  But the founders of America dared to innovate and progress the concept further to improve democracy as a government to shape what we call today a republic.  Are you getting the picture?  No idea diversity means we become a nation of slaves.

Conclusion:  I write this because sometimes I feel we are becoming drones.  That we prefer for people to think and act for us rather than we ourselves.  And that frightens me.  So I write this to raise awareness of diversity of thought.  I hope that you will try to listen to all points of view and make your own judgments based on what you think is write, and not what others think is right for you.

Issue 477 Diversity: Color December 5 2014

Here we are going to question one aspect of diversity.  In this case, does diversity of skin color matter?  So let's go over both points to find out.

Those in favor:  From my perspective, people who believe in the diversity of color are looking to right past injustices. They feel that to move society forward past the historical racism and separations, we must insure businesses, schools and government institutions have a rich population of individuals with multiple skin tones.  As such, these individuals actively seek to have government hire people of different skin colors.  In addition, they themselves (if they own a business) may hire people of different skin tones simply because they do not want to feel or look racist.  In short, they perhaps feel guilt and thus look past people who may be more qualified in order to meet the equivalent of a self-imposed quota.  

Those who want to move on:  This other group does not reject diversity of color at all.  In fact, they do not care if a private institution hires people based on color.  Instead, they just wish (in my opinion) to move past this period of history.  They feel that by harping on this, we in turn embrace another form of racism in which we oppress ourselves in due deference to the people we tried our hardest to make our equals.  As such, they seek a natural means of diversity of color, where it happens naturally over the forced methods of those who believe it matters.

Conclusion:  I do not discuss the racists who want to have full separation, because I believe them to be fools.  And thus, I ignore their ideas of racism.  On the other hand, I will say I favor those who want a more natural color diversity over the forced type.  The reason being is because those in favor are doing one thing wrong in my opinion.  They are eliminating the concept of merit with respect to people getting a job or being allowed to attend a prestigious school.  But I do not fault them for this though.  My reasoning is because they see the idea that one person having to work harder than another person to achieve the same result is wrong.  While appealing, this thought process is actually counterproductive.  You cannot create equality through this method as it inherently oppresses the true equality of nature in which we are all allowed to advance and become greater under our own power.  In short, it eliminates merit and the concept of hard work which are the two key components of the idea of opportunity.  And such, opportunities to advance are lost and thus equality perishes.  So this is why I like letting it happen naturally, for it embraces the idea of equality in nature, and not the equality of naive notions of forced/fake equality.

Issue 476 Smart Tattoos! December 4, 2014

Now we have an even cooler tattoo that many people may wish to get in the future.  It is called a smart tattoo.  And it is literally a computer chip implanted into your skin.  So let us discuss how it works and what it can do for us.

How it works:  Scientists have developed a method for literally injecting microchips into the outer layer of skin in the same way you would if you inject ink to get a tattoo. These tattoos can either be permanently placed, or made to be temporary. In fact, they can be applied internally to organs, and even clothing depending on what they will be used for (this aspect is still in development).  The chips can actively monitor someone, or hold data for when the owner wishes to activate it.  The uses of this technology are very wide and may become common place in the future.  So let’s discuss what they will do.

Their uses:

1) They can monitor your vital signs in real time.  This means people who need to wear heart monitors or other monitoring equipment can now go about their day as normal without the bulk.  Diabetes patients can have their blood sugar tested without the need to prick their finger ever again.  Athletes can do real world testing during actual practice instead of being tied to monitors in a lab to measure their performance.  You can even place these tattoos on an organ inside the body so as to monitor it for say a transplant rejection, or just overall health like your heart.  Blood oxidation, and blood hydration are also able to be monitored.  Literally, we can monitor our own health in the same way a doctor can without any stress or effort to have to travel to the laboratory and hook up bulky machines.

2) Google with Motorola is attempting to patent a smart tattoo that will be applied to the vocal cords.  This will allow it to pick up your voice at all levels of frequency so as to provide you with the ability to control your cell phone verbally without opening your mouth.  (It apparently can even detect if you are lying.)

3) It can be used as your credit card and debit card to pay at the store.  Additionally, it can act as a smart ID and can even unlock your car.  You are literally becoming the bionic man/woman.  And even more interesting is that if you apply one to your brain, it can allow you to control electronic devices such as doors, your heating and lighting, and other electronic equipment like your computer.  So you can surf the web by thought alone.

Conclusion:  These are not all the possibilities, but you get the general idea.  The only concern though is that every human being on the planet can be identified.  This means that big brother can be watching our every move and we could do nothing about it.  However, these advantages (especially for temporary versions) can change society as a whole.  I look forward to seeing what else they do with this technology and how society changes with it.

Issue 475 Smart ID's December 3, 2014

Well we have talked a little about a smart identification cards (ID) multiple times in passing.  However, we have not gone into great detail as to how one would work.  So here and now I will outline it for you my readers what a real smart ID would do.

How it works:

1) It would have a microchip to store important information.  This information would only be accessible when the card is placed by or in an electronic reading system.  Thus, it prevents hackers from altering its data and assuming someone else's identity.

2) It would act as your food stamps card and your government provided health care card in times of emergency.  Basically, if for whatever reason you need some sort of government assistance, this one card would have the data chip inside of it electronically changed to give you access to a government account specifically designed to aid people in financial trouble/difficulty.  As such, any expirations for when the money is to run out can be programed and how the money is spent can be monitored by government agents to insure there is no fraud or illegal actions.  Thus, it prevents abuses of the system.

3) It will act as both your driver’s license, your passport, your gun license (if you apply for one) and even your birth certificate.  As the information is upgradeable because it can be updated electronically, then there will no longer be a need to issue different paperwork such as passports, gun licenses and the like.  Instead the same cards data can simply be updated to accommodate the new licenses and other information. All this information will of course be available electronically to be accessed when needed, such as traveling, or applying for a job.

4) Any other licenses that you apply for and receive will also be able to be placed on the electronic chip in the card.  So your business license, your license to be a doctor, or other important certifications that require government authorization will all be simply downloaded to the card.

5) If you are ever stopped by a police officer, the data base on the card will instantly highlight your criminal history and if there are any outstanding warrants against you.  As such, it will be easier to identify criminals (especially if they are using some form of government assistance).

6) If issued to illegal citizens, then it can be used as a method to track them as well.  Bank accounts will only be able to be opened by showing this card, and as such, if an illegal citizen/guest wants to open an account in the United States, they will have to use this card as the sole method of accessing the money inside it.  This also allows us to monitor for any illegal transactions and activity as well.

7) The photo idea will be fully updateable.  In this case, using smart inks, we can alter the photo on the card without you having to get a new photo taken every ten or so years.  This saves money for both you, the person who owns the card, and the government as they do not have to issue you a new one.

Conclusion:  This is how a smart ID's work.  It does act like big brother watching, but it saves lots of money and time.  No more lost documents, as all you need to keep safe is this one card. So is it worth it?  I am not sure myself.  Only time will tell.

Issue 474 Voter ID (President Clinton's Idea). December 2, 2014

Ok, so a majority of the people in the United States support having voter identification so as to prevent election fraud.  One of these individuals happens to be former President William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton. And you know what?  His idea (though others were involved in his idea) will only cost ten cents per person.  Here is his idea.

President Clinton's Idea:  Well it is to simply put your photo on your social security card.  Yes, that is correct.  It will literally take ten extra cents per person to add a simple photo to your Social Security card.  These cards are given out free by the government which solves any issue of impoverished people having to possibly pay for an ID card.  It also has the byproduct of reducing issues of fraud with respect to acquiring your Social Security benefits.  You are probably thinking that there has to be more too this.  Well, this is really just it.  A simple picture for ten cents per person in the United States to place a picture of yourself on your Social Security card.  From there, all you have to do is show the card every time you go vote.

Conclusion:  This is the simplest and cheapest method to solving the voter ID issue.  I myself have had to reject peoples photo ID's when I worked on Election Day for it is illegal for me to check them here in New York.  As a result, these people get "kind" of annoyed.  However, I would trade that kind of confrontation for saying I need your ID card to vote any day of the week.  My reason is that back when Super storm Sandy hit New York and the rest of the upper North West of the United States, we were running an election.  That election was on the reelection of President Barack Obama.  And you know what?  I could have sworn I saw the same people voting sometimes twice or even four times.  However, I could not prove it, so I was forced to let it go.  However with a voter ID as proposed by President Clinton, we can even check the Social Security numbers to insure that the individual voted once and only once.  So I support President Clinton's idea, and I believe you my readers should probably think about supporting his idea too.

Issue 473 Why illegals should have driver's licenses December 1, 2014

Yes, I believe Illegal residents should be able to get drivers licenses.  And here are my reasons why.

My Reasoning:

1) This insures that they actually know how to drive.  As such, we can avoid unfortunate traffic accidents due to them not knowing the rules of the road.

2) Establishes a traceable form of identity.  It allows States to find out if a person came to the United States legally or not, and possibly their place of residence.  As such, if they need to be found later on, it increases the likelihood of them being found when the government comes calling.

3) Using that same driver’s license, it can be used as a smart card to act as a credit card/ debit card (they will not be allowed a regular bank account without government issued ID), their welfare card and their medical card if they require State assistance. By combining these, it limits confusion and makes it less likely for them to sell their ID's for cash as all financial information, government aid and their identity are all tied to one card. This again allows them to be tracked to see what their travel habits are and infer on their living situation.

4) We can with this also make them pay fines to get the licenses so that they are not getting a free ride.  This also enables taxation if using the ID cards smart cards so that their driver’s license number is their bank account number and their social security number.  As such, if they somehow become citizens later, all the necessary identification will already be there. Hence, they can and will pay into Social Security legally and pay taxes legally, even if they are not yet legal citizens.

Conclusion:  These all result from allowing States to issue drivers licenses to illegal citizens.  We can use their desire to get aid as incentive to get the license in the first place via tying it all their aid together.  As such we can monitor them and their activities and perhaps use it to pave the way for legal citizenship.  However, this only works with a "big brother" type driver’s license as opposed to a traditional license.  So with these ideas in mind, do you think it's worth the effort to get them to get a drivers license? I think it is.

Issue 472 Should the National Guard take over the CDC November 28, 2014

With the recent events over Ebola, it calls into question if the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is still up to the task of fighting potential outbreaks of deadly diseases.  As such, perhaps it is time to dissolve the CDC and give their duties over to a more trusted group of individuals who have the discipline and the wherewithal to act on what is right, The National Guard.  Time to discuss.

CDC to National Guard:  While the CDC has served us well in the past, they seem to have botched up due to politics.  They no longer, it appears, care for safety of people in the country if it means them looking bad politically (such as the suspending of flights from African Countries).  However, the National Guard has no such problem.  They are there to protect us and even have training to deal with threats like Ebola (whether they have specialized divisions I do not know).  However, they are tasked with defending the people and thus can make these kinds of decisions without political approval.  They can even suspend traffic going in and out of a particular State in the nation if they feel it is no longer safe and have the resources to pull it off on their own.  Together with the CDC's old resources they can actually give people a plan to protect themselves from things like Ebola and customize each State's response in the United States.  This ability to customize per State an action plan to stop the spread of infection is useful and if the CDC was around they would be doing this particular task regardless.  Thus it eliminates another level of bureaucracy that may inhibit a quick and needed response.  

Conclusion:  The CDC was once one of the most trusted institutions in America's political system.  Now they pretty much are deemed a political hack.  They traded trust for million dollar offices and other waste over protecting the nation from an outbreak that potentially could have killed thousands.  With the National Guard however, we have a ready rapid reaction force ready to stop the spread of the infection by shutting down air traffic, land traffic and river/ocean traffic before the disease spreads further.  They will also have the equipment, and capability to aid doctors in fighting the infection by setting up emergency hospitals at strategic points on a moment’s notice.  Essentially, we get the military precision and discipline to get the job done.   This is an option to fix a potentially growing problem within the federal government, not a cure. 

Issue 471 Do we need a vice President? November 27, 2014

As far as politicians go, the Vice President is probably the most useless person in America's political system today.  So do we need that position anymore?

What does the Vice President do?:  Traditionally, the Vice President was to preside over the Senate in the Congress.  They would organize discussion, votes and then finally in the event of a tie cast the deciding vote. However, today the Vice President hardly ever embraces this part of his/her position as President of the Senate as they are typically at the beck and call of the president with respect to acting as a political tool for the current administration.  Also, members of the Senate typically fill the position themselves when the Vice President is absent, while party leadership prevents ties in the first place (if there is a tie, then I do not think it is a bad thing as it promotes more discussion). 

The other role of Vice President is to take over the office of the President in the event the President is incapacitated, leaves office, or dies.  In this role the Vice President has carried out their duties successfully on multiple occasions.  However, this can easily be done by other members in Congress, or even by the Presidents Chief of staff.  As such, the Vice President has become redundant.

What should they do?:  We have options.  For one, we should have the Vice President perform their actual duties with respect to presiding over the Senate. It allows for the Vice President to act as a liaison between the Congress and the President so that there is a line of communication at all times.  This should also allow for the Vice President to relay directly what parts of a bill a president will sign into law and what parts they do not like.  Potentially, the Vice President can also aid in writing the bills that may become law.   

Another option which may combine with the first is eliminate running mates during elections.  Instead have the runner ups become the Vice President.  The goal of this is so that a devil’s advocate, if you will, will be in the white house so as to allay concerns about laws, and act as a dissenter in front of the public if they feel the President is going too far in their actions.  Essentially another check on the President's power from within.  If combined with the first option, then the laws being crafted will be more moderate and thus more acceptable to both political parties.  In short, it allows for greater compromise.

One other possibility short of eliminating the post is to have the Vice President act as head of the diplomatic corps.  They will be in charge of early negotiations between countries with respect to trade deals and treaties.  So they can help build and maintain relations with other countries.  From there once an initial dialogue takes place the President can then step in to finish up the deals to add legitimacy, and then wait for the Senate to vote on it with the Vice President presenting it before them.  So here, the ambassadors, and diplomatic staff would all answer to the Vice President.

Conclusion:  All three options are good ideas (because I thought of them).  However, this would need a President who is willing to place much more power into the hands of a Vice President let alone a former rival.  So many will just opt to probably constitutionally eliminate the post over these changes which do not require constitutional acceptance.  Let us face it, such changes to make the Vice President more powerful and thus detract from the President can be scary to those in power and even the American people and thus needs to become acceptable to everyone before such an idea was to ever be carried out.

Issue 470 Do we really have the freedom of speech? November 26, 2014

So do we have the right to speak our minds?  Or are we limited in some way, shape or form?  Let us discuss.

We have limited speech:  According to the Supreme Court we can make a threat upon a person/place so long as there is a condition attached (person being threatened must perform an act/not do something).  If there's no conditions attached, then you are in for prosecution, even if you did not mean anything by what you said.  Priests can talk outside of official capacity, but not from the pulpit.  You cannot display Christmas trees on your desk if you work in a government building.  People need permits to hold demonstrations which can be rejected.  Government can censor former government employee’s books if they do not like the information/content written in them.  If a reporter refuses to reveal sources to the government, they can be arrested, or their homes raided.  The list keeps going.  So we do not have true freedom to speak our minds whether it be displaying the flag, or burning the flag.  People’s values and emotions are written into every law and are in every action a government official takes.  So if what you say or do is not liked, then your freedoms are typically taken away, even if you did nothing wrong.

Conclusion:  I made this article short to demonstrate something without going overboard.  That we can say things, but depending on who's listening which determines if we are suppressed or not.  However, we will always have the freedom to think for ourselves.  There has yet to be thought police that can enter our minds and arrest us for thinking.  So you should actually think about what you are going to say before you say it so you can adjust it to avoid getting into trouble.  Our actions too must be thought out first so as to prevent offending people or making ourselves look bad.  While it is a shame that we cannot make ourselves look foolish for speaking off the cuff, it is our society that we all had a part in building.  So if we want change on this matter, we must act as individuals to change ourselves and lead by example.  So you can learn when and where to hold your tongue, but do not let it stop you from expressing yourself in a non-violent, well-mannered way.  

Issue 469 Are we really free to worship? November 25, 2014

Are we free to worship the religion we want?  This is an intriguing question as I believe it actually depends on who you ask.  Let us discuss.

Worship and the State:  If you ask the government, then they will say you are free to worship.  In fact the government makes special dispensation toward certain religions or subsets of religions for them to practice the way they want.  This includes ritual sacrifice of animals (regulated), use of drugs (not the kill yourself by trying it kind), and even the use of public property.  However, polygamy (having more than one wife/husband) is not allowed even though it is a variation of the religious practice of marriage.  We cannot pray in schools because it is seen as church and State mixing even if that is not the case.  So in truth, we have limited freedom of worship based on what the government regulates what they deem dangerous with respect to values and practices.

Worship and each other:  While the government generally lets people do what they want with their faith (with certain exceptions), it is the general public that are most intolerant to religious worship.  Some atheists, agnostics, or even people that have religion try to deter and suppress those who have a faith or a practice within a faith.  Reason being is because they feel that the mere display of say a Christmas tree is infringing upon their own rights.  How do they say this?  Simple, they think it is shoving a religion down other people’s throats.  However, despite these feelings being misplaced, the government, or a local community responds to those feelings so as to either avoid lawsuits, or just because they sympathize with the person claiming foul.  So even amongst each other, we do not have true freedom of worship.

Conclusion:  Which one of these counts more?  The being blocked by government, or by our fellow members of our community?  Truth is it is our government as they are the ones that are forbidden from stopping us from worshiping via our faith.  With respect to the community, while those claiming foul are the ones actually in the wrong, we must still live together.  As such, if a display is on public property, then fine, let it be removed for something else.  But, if it is on private property, then the person claiming foul should never have a say.  Reason being is that it is our own property, or a rented one from a private company to advertise religion, the person crying foul has but avert their eyes and thus religion is no longer being "forced down" their throats.  So, it is simple, government has to butt out a little more save for upholding the basic laws, and people have to learn to mind their own business.  

Issue 468 Can priests speak on politics? November 24, 2014

There is disagreement amongst modernists with respect to the current idea on whether priests may speak about anything related to politics.  But in the past, this was not the case.  So let us try to get to the true answer on if or if not a priest may speak about politics.

History:  Today, priests are not allowed to speak about politics.  They are actually under threat by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) if they do.  In this case despite it being unconstitutional via the 1st Amendment, the IRS would tax the churches if they even attempt to openly discuss politics in the churches themselves.  Mind you that if a priest is not in the church, but is talking outside of their official capacity it is ok, but it is seen in poor taste.  In the past however, it was the opposite.  A church was the official gathering place for the general public outside of the town square or a tavern.  So as a group, a priest was allowed as far back or even farther before the American revolution to speak on political issues at the time.  In fact, the British burned many churches when they came to crush the American Revolution because it was the priests who spread word of the idea of freedom, and separation from the British crown.  So why did this change?  Well I am not really sure.  It seems to me that we grew intolerant to religion and the power the priests have over their congregations.  Perhaps it is our dislike of hierarchies, or organized religion that caused this to change.  Or perhaps just the change in respecting authority figures.  I cannot say.  But the fact is, priests can say what they will at the pulpit, but people either don't want to hear it, or the government does not want it heard.

They have the right:  Historically speaking they have the right to speak about politics.  We got that down already.  It is unconstitutional to shut a priest up because the IRS has no right to tax a religious institution due to the first Amendment.  If the IRS did attempt to tax a church it would be seen as an attempt to suppress a religion or a religious congregation as taxation is an economic weapon.  So as I said it violates the freedom to worship clause.  So a priest can say what they want wherever they want.

Conclusion:  I personally think priests and other members of religious leadership are afraid to speak.  They know they may suffer for speaking out in some way shape or form.  They will be targeted by the government and thus harassed.  A priest also risks isolating him/herself from their congregation which means the church itself may suffer.  Priests are already under pressure and scrutiny every time they speak and act, but they lack the courage to speak their minds in our current society.  So there you have it, they have the right to speak, but not the courage to do so.

Issue 467 Ebola and Superstition November 21, 2014

Well we are still on the topic of Ebola.  Yes, it is still something to be concerned about even if the media is shifting its attention away from the situation.  In this case I will be talking about the role of superstition with respect to the spread of this disease.  (Thank the world health organization for actually looking into this aspect of this crises).  Let us begin.

Superstition:  In Africa, some of the native peoples do not believe that Ebola is a disease, but instead either demons, or a curse.  As such, they will not go see any doctors to get treated.  Instead they go to witch doctors, and similar spiritualists to try and exercise the curse or demons from them (which obviously does not work).  In addition, some of the African peoples look at the doctors with disdain as some feel that the doctors are either quacks, that they will never return from their clinics, or are just afraid.  As such, doctors over there are having a rough time just trying to get the more superstitious population who is ill into their treatment facilities for Ebola and other diseases.

Consequences:  As a result of this, many more people in Africa die from disease.  Also, it makes it more likely that these infected people will infect others as well.  Now we also have people from Africa in the United States (legal visitors, citizens, and illegal) who never lost their beliefs in witchcraft/shamanism or whatever you want to call it.  So if they are sick, they will not see a doctor, but instead a shaman here in the United States which delays treatment and increases the risks that others will be infected.  So superstition is making it harder for doctors to fight Ebola and other serious diseases here at home and in Africa.

Conclusion:  Well, while we have to respect people's beliefs, there is no reason to cause health risks to someone else.  So to handle the truly superstitious, you can just replace the word disease with the word curse, and sickness with possession.  Saying they can possibly spread a "curse" in this case is more effective than saying spreading disease for those who reject medical science.  This may be lying, but it helps to work your way through a faith or belief than try to overturn it.  So doctors can be called shamans instead and propped up as superior shamans to tribal ones so as to get these people into the clinics to treat diseases and prevent infections.  Heck, it may even help to make the treatments seem more mystical to get these people coming to get help.   On the other hand, preventing the spread of the disease at home is easy by simply cutting off the travel between the infected countries and us.  Then you isolate the people who want to come over for 21 days and if they are not infected, then they may come over.  It really is simple, we just have to stop being arrogant about it.

Issue 466 Ebola and Illegal migrants November 20, 2014

Ok, so we know that Ebola is a dangerous disease, and that people coming into the United States can catch it from other people.  But does this not mean that people entering the United States illegally from Africa now pose a risk to every person in the United States?  Let's discuss.

Illegals and Diseases:  Back when Ellis Island was still open, they had a building specifically to handle people who were sick so as to prevent the spread of possibly dangerous and infectious pathogens.  Face forward to today and we have no such facilities to protect us from the masses of illegal migrants entering the United States each and every day.  As such, we are subject to the spread of diseases like Ebola from West Africans, or people infected in other countries as well.  Not to mention diseases that are just as dangerous as Ebola are out there which we have an obvious interest in preventing them from coming into the United States.  Apparently, the first victim of Ebola in the United States may have been an illegal immigrant from Africa.  In addition, polio (a disease the United States originally eradicated in our shores) has made a small comeback in the United States due to legal and illegal migrants alike entering the country.  So we now have yet another reason to encourage legal immigration exclusively.  But this is not where the potential problems end.

If we come up with a real cure:  There is a worst case scenario if we develop a cure in the United States which will of course be mass produced.  In this case it may cause a massive influx of people sick with Ebola or similar diseases to swarm the United States looking to be cured.  This will result in further infection of the United States populace if these people who are actually sick come in unchecked.  So in this case the cure must be brought to Africa and other continents/countries as fast as possible to prevent this nightmare scenario.

Conclusion:  I hate to jump on the secure our border band wagon, but between the evidence of terrorist infiltrators, rumors that Ebola is being weaponized by enemies of the United States, and illegals who only want to be cured storming in, we have a recipe for disaster.  So it is my hope that we fix the immigration system in this country and create new Ellis Islands which can handle all the immigrants coming here legally, and helping to cure the sick/prevent the spread of diseases.  I want good people to come to the United States, but it must be done the right way, and the legal/safe way.

Issue 465 Political campaigns: Presidents on the campaign trail November 19, 2014

We looked at why some candidates would want the president to come down and help them succeed, but we have not looked into what a president gets out of this deal.  So let's discuss.

What a President wants:  Basically, the President wants power and authority.  He goes on campaign trails to aid in winning seats in the legislative arm of government that will give him the bills he wants to pass as laws based on the same ideology.  A President does not like compromise, for they want instead a legacy of success.  So a President will as I said try to help candidates win who share the same ideology as him/herself.  

When do they go:  Typically, a President does not just go and help out party members on a whim especially if the candidate they want to win is already winning.  But instead they go for several reasons. 

1) One is to curry favor to get some politicians to owe the President something.  Basically, you scratch my back, then I'll scratch yours later.  

2) The next reason is too sure up victories so that they maintain party leadership (usually the same party as the President) in the legislative branch of government or else they become a lame duck President.  

3) Presidents also go on the campaign trail to boost their popularity as interacting with the public show that the president is paying attention to them.  

4) If the president's popularity is fading and they become toxic, the campaign trail acts as a distraction from regular decision making which serves to shield the President for a short period of time while a strategy is worked out.  (Though some candidates may reject the President's offer of help unless they are in desperate straits or in a district where the President is still popular despite national opinion).

And there you have it.  It is all about power and getting favors from one another.

Conclusion:  I personally think the President should not bother with the campaign trail unless they have too.  But this is real politic we are talking about.  Where gaining and maintaining power is all there is to life.  A President can only do so much on their own and needs the other branches of government on his/her side.  And thus you have the President waving their hands, making speeches and kissing babies.  It is not whether they care about us or not, but about them getting and keeping power an influence so that they can show they care whether that is for good or for worse.