Issue 262 Other Telepresence applications January 31, 2014

Aside from hospitals, businesses and court rooms, the telepresence technology can be applied to a multitude of other places in society. Here are just a few.

Marriage: Say you want to be married by a priest or a particular type of minister, the telepresence robot or device can allow for just that anywhere in the world. You can have a priest marry you on the top of Mt. Everest without having the priest clime to the top with you. In addition, say your mother in law is bed ridden and cannot attend the wedding in person, the robot can move around and interact at the wedding for her while she lies comfortably at home. Sure it removes some of the intimacy from a wedding but for those that are not picky it can be very useful.

Hospitalized/bedridden: This technology lets the individual get out without ever leaving their bed. They can use the robot version of this technology to meet and interact with family anywhere. If applied, the robot could even be able to go to the super market for you with you monitoring its progress at home. It allows interaction with the cashier and objects (if equipped with a mechanical arm). Additionally, the robot can be used to allow the bedridden to do house chores if suitably equipped. This grants a certain level of independence to the sick and elderly.

Search and rescue: Search and rescue teams are using more and more robots and they can be equipped with telepresence devices to allow interaction between the victim of a disaster and themselves. Basic human interaction can be key to calming the victim and even helping to diagnose the physical condition of the victim before help even arrives. This allows for rescuers to prep much faster to the needs of the victim to treat there injuries and understand the victims overall condition as the rescue continues.

Prison visitation: For many prisoners, the human interaction of knowing people still care for them on the outside is essential to keeping them from returning to crime. However, it can be hard for many families of these prisoners to make the trip to visit there loved ones and a simple phone call may still be lacking. As such, telepresence could help with that. For one, making face to face contact with your loved ones (even via computer) can enhance that the overall experience to allow for that much needed human interaction. Additionally, certain prisoners could be allowed to have a telepresence robot attend say their sons or daughter basketball game or wedding even if they cannot be there themselves due to there incarceration. This too will help prisoners not miss out on what is going on in the outside world and keep that human connection to there loved ones. Obviously the use of the telepresence device is a privilege to be reserved to only the most well behaved prisoners.

Conclusion: As you can see, the applications that this technology can be applied to are only going to grow. Of course there will be social issues to deal with as we use the telepresence machines as surrogates to our real selves. This can be worked out however as we proceed further with this technology and its increasing potential.

Issue 261 Telepresence court January 30, 2014

You may have heard of the word telepresence or even read my article here on my blog about it. For those who don't know what it is, it is the use of a remote operated robot or device where a doctor or a boss in a company can have it move around and conduct day to day business without ever leaving the office. It does have limitations, but for those jobs that don't require a hand's on approach it works. In this case, could the same concept be expanded into the court room?

With respect to prisoners: Right now tax payers pay our government thousands of dollars a year with some of that money going to pay for what goes on in a court room. One of the most expensive aspects of this is the protecting of a prisoner or suspect to and from the jails for prosecution, hearings or business that requires a defendant to be in the court room in general. As such, the telepresence device could be used in the defendant’s stead. This meets with the Constitutional requirement that stipulates that the defendant must be able to face his/her accusers. The robot thankfully does just that via its camera, listening device and speaker for when the defendant wishes to speak. As such, no longer will we have to deal with the cost of transporting potentially dangerous criminals or protecting them while in transport to and from the jail and the court room.

This benefit also expands to defendants who committed crimes in multiple States. So say you have a defendant who committed a crime in both New York and Georgia (or even another country), the telepresence device can be used to have the defendant be present for both hearing and trials in both places and simultaneously if necessary. Again, this saves money as police no longer have to escort the defendant via aircraft or car from one State (or country) to another. This saves countless dollars in just transport costs alone.

Additionally, many juries judge a defendant also on looks. An example is from presidential elections, the younger looking guy usually wins because they are more attractive. In the case of the court room it works the same way, the young/good looking get an edge over the ugly. This technology removes the looks factor to make it harder to make a decision on the person’s guilt based on looks and puts the burden of proof much more squarely on the facts.

With respect to Judges and lawyers: Again, this technology allows for the lawyers or Judges to appear in court without actually being there physically. Say the best lawyer in the country is in Texas, but the trial is in Alaska. The telepresence device can allow that lawyer to be there to defend the client without having to even make the trip. How about the Judge getting into an accident or it’s a special federal court that exists only in one place? This allows the judge to be present even if incapacitated of if he/she needs to be in a specific place at a key specific time. So if you are pulled over for a ticket and want to dispute it, you may be able to dispute the ticket right there on the side of the road with the judge via telepresence.

Conclusion: This is a fun and interesting technology that has many applications. The court room is just one place that can use telepresence that will in turn save the taxpayers allot of money. See you tomorrow for other intriguing applications for this technology.

Issue 260 Radicalized by cop! January 29, 2014

This topic is controversial. Police officers and intelligence agencies have been contacting Muslims who seem to be sympathetic to the Al Quada's and similar group’s ideology. At this point, the police/intelligence official pretends to be a recruiter from a terrorist group and try to "recruit" the Muslim individual. Usually, they set up a fake meet up to buy bomb making materials. But here is the controversial part. If the police never made contact with that individual, would they have become radicalized in the first place?

Pros: Those in favor of this method of policing and capturing terrorists point out that the individual being targeted was sympathetic to the terrorist cause in the first place. Also, they claim that it was better that they made contact with the individual over an actual terrorist recruiter where they may have actually carried out a terrorist act. Overall, those in favor of this method believe they are protecting our nation.

Cons: People who are against this method say this is a form of entrapment. In other words, the police are setting the individual up to become a criminal in the first place. As such, those against this policy believe that the individual would never have needed to be arrested in the first place if the individual was not radicalized by the officer or intelligence official.

Fact: We cannot prove or disprove if the individual would have become radicalized on there own or not. If taken to the Supreme Court however, this policing method may be ruled as entrapment and thus mean the program will be put to a halt.

Conclusion: I personally do not care for how this program is being carried out. It is disturbing that the police are actually creating terrorists out of innocent people. What I feel that they should do is monitor the individual to see if they make contact with an actual terrorist recruiter. At this point examine the conversations and if it seems that the individual being monitored is being radicalized then replace the recruiter with an officer who will now play the roll of the recruiter. However, before setting up a situation that would allow for an arrest, the officer should make attempts to de-radicalize the subject in question. If successful, the suspect would be monitored for an adequate period of time to insure they are no threat to society. However, if this fails, then you go in and bust the suspect by finding out what they are doing to carry out the criminal act with the police playing the roll of the recruiter still, but at this point leading them to stores or facilities that can be monitored by the police and insure the plot fails if one should emerge. As to the actual recruiter, find him/her and remove there ability to radicalize other individuals. This in my opinion is how it should be done.

Issue 259 Too many Federal cops January 28, 2013

Have you noticed in the Federal government’s alphabet soup of agencies and departments, most of them are law officers? ATF, DEA, FBI, NSA, CIA, U.S. Marshals, ICE, TSA, and the list keeps going. We even have swat teams in both the EPA and the Department of Education. Is this a little ridiculous?

Overlap: For one, many of these police forces have overlapping responsibilities. ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire arms) deals with drugs, guns, and illegal selling of liqueur. But many States have police forces doing that exact same job. DEA (drug enforcement agency) plays a similar role in the battle against illegal drugs. But the FBI, ATF and TSA along with local police also deal with those same groups of criminals. Why all the overlap you ask? Simple, government has had one key problem that has always existed. That problem is where one group or agency seeks to gather as much power as possible to do all the jobs of the other groups. At that point it makes that particular agency more important than the others and thus money and power get concentrated in that agency. Other agencies see this and thus begin to do the same thing. Needless to say it wastes taxpayer money significantly.

What to cut and merge: In my opinion, the EPA, department of Education should not have any special police forces. In fact, no agency should have a police force with the exception of the FBI. This gives the FBI complete control over Federal law enforcement responsibilities. So if the EPA wants to use a SWAT team on "something" or some one (who knows why they need a SWAT team in the first place), they must go to the FBI. At this point, the FBI would justify if the act warrants the use of Federal law enforcement or if it would be better handled by local police or a lawyer. This hopefully would reduce the amount of unnecessary raids like those conducted by the DEA or ATF on people for "nickel bags" of weed or false reports of guns in the home of an individual. Also, intelligence agencies like the NSA, CIA and others should be merged as well. They already act as data hubs for information and work in the service of the country to protect us. Therefore combining them makes sense (especially as they did not share information with each other which could have stopped 9/11). In the end, only two key police agencies would exist, the FBI and a new form of the central intelligence agency. Likewise, we can just be rid of certain federal law enforcement that has no business existing (in this case, in instances where local police are better able to carry out the same task). Guarding our boarder can be done by the National Guard services which would probably be a more effective deterrent to cartels trying to sneak over the boarder. But this is all just an idea. However I believe you my dear reader get the point. We are wasting money doing things that are either better handled by local cops or merging groups together to get the job done more efficiently and effectively.

Conclusion: When did the federal government become so police oriented that we became the democratic equivalent of a police state. With all these laws on the books (many are either unenforceable or even not needed) it is no wonder we have all these police just trying to enforce these so called "laws". The old adage is too much is no good. You know what, if America keeps up this pace, America will stop being good.

Issue 258 Irresponsible Politics January 27, 2014

Well it has been a few weeks since the news broke on Governor Christies of New Jersey Bridge gate scandal. And months have passed since a number of the presidents scandals. But what I want to talk about here is not the scandals alone, but how irresponsible both have been and to use them as an example as to what not to do in a public office.

The Governor: Governor Christie is in charge of New Jersey. Anything that goes wrong is on him, so when members of his staff reduce the lanes on the George Washington Bridge to one in order to cause massive traffic in a ploy to get revenge on a mayor that did not endorse the Governor in the last race, then blame should fall right on the Governors shoulders. Needless to say, a senior citizen died on the way to the hospital due to traffic caused by this childish revenge scheme. I will not have any mercy for Governor Christie. It happened on his watch whether he orchestrated it or not. Your staff is your responsibility and thus the Governor must accept the consequences.

Another possible incident could have occurred during the 2012 election. This is pure speculation, but the Governor getting along well with President Obama after hurricane sandy and making the President look good at that time may have been a revenge play against Mitt Romney who passed over Governor Christie as a potential Vice Presidential candidate. Could we be seeing a pattern here or are we putting too much thought into this? I am not sure myself.

The President: President Obama has some scandals of his own. The first scandal is the program known as "Fast and Furious" (not the movie). Here the ATF had licensed gun dealers sell to known gun runners for the drug cartels so as to track where the weapons go. However, the entire program was a fiasco. Almost none of the guns were properly tracked and thus thousands of U.S. firearms were used in gang violence and mass murder over the border in Mexico. It is incalculable to tell how many innocents lost their lives as a result of this program.

Next is the IRS scandal where the IRS agents gave Tea Party and other conservative minded groups a hard time during the 2012 elections with respect to there tax exempt statuses. It was hoped by these agents to impede the conservative groups enough to protect key politicians on the Democratic and the Republican tickets. As such, many of the tea party challengers could not raise adequate funds to capture the Senate, let alone more seats in the House of Representatives.

Finally we have the Benghazi scandal. All people involved have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, save a few who decided to speak out regardless. In this scandal, four Americans (one of whom was a U.S. Ambassador) were killed by terrorists in Benghazi in Libya. The facility attacked was not adequately defended nor did it meet with proper security procedures. Also, the rescue team was delayed. Another stain on the White House, and President Obama's record.

Conclusion: In all three of these incidents, the President has been shielded from blame. News media covered these incidents lightly. The Governor on the other hand is being dragged through the mud. In both cases, regardless of knowledge, the leader is responsible for the whims of there staff. As such, President Obama and Governor Christie are to be held accountable for what their staff did. Is this a symptom of government being so big that even the leader of the Country (or State) cannot keep track of there staff? If the bridge was privatized in New Jersey, would this incident have happened? Getting rid of the ATF would certainly change things in the federal government and not taxing the equivalent of a business would have protected the Tea Party groups (and all other groups) from possible attacks and reprisals by various politicians. Benghazi should have never have happened in the first place. These scandals show the symptoms, in my belief, as to why the federal government and even the State governments are dysfunctional. Maybe it is time we cut the bull crap and make government work effectively by making it small.

Issue 257 Itelligent Hobbies January 24, 2014

Hobbies help to shape people with respect to their intelligence and ability to deal with problems they may face. I for one was also shaped by my hobbies as I am a dyslexic who has a hard time reading (I have compensated for whatever deficiencies it has caused me). But these hobbies helped me overcome my personal obstacles and I believe it can help you or your children in the same way. As such, here is some strategies that my parents used and what I would eventually use on myself.

Board games: One hobby is board games. Starting off small like shoots and ladders helped introduce me to strategic thinking and decision making skills. From there I would learn chess and checkers which expanded on the ability to think both strategically and ahead. It has helped me greatly with my decision making skills later in life and has spawned interest in other games like "GO", Shogi, variations of checkers, and many more types of games that require higher level thinking over luck based dice throwing. It keeps ones mind sharp and enables social activity (especially for children who are isolationist). Card games like poker and its variations are also skill based and also help with these skills.

Model building, art and music: Yes I build models (though not as often as I like). Here it helps with a person’s patience and creativity. Whether it is plastic models with snap together fit or clay modeling to make pottery, it helps a person to express themselves. Obviously Music and art do the same thing in different ways (I did more art than music). At the same time the child's or the persons thoughts and emotions are expressed allowing for an outlet to the individuals frustrations (I was frustrated, I admit it).

Drawing and writing: Drawing and writing are key for helping people express themselves when they do not have access to things like models, paints or instruments. It helps the parent understand what is going on in their child's head by examining their drawings and writings while again promoting creativity. This of course also allows for the writer or artist to think out of the box which allows them to have an advantage later on in life with respect to problem solving and accomplishing tasks. It has certainly helped me with respect to my own creativity and has helped me with writing this blog.

Collectibles: Some may wonder why collectibles make this list. Well it is because collectible card games like Pokémon and later Yugioh got me to read. I hated reading because I was always behind the class. I felt inadequate. My mother did not want to buy the cards for me, but she knew that I was actually reading them and understanding them. As such she funded the hobby to the point that I finally was able to read longer and larger articles and later books. In addition, these card games can also aid in strategic thinking skills which also proved useful. Of course, this depends on the collectibles themselves as well.

Conclusion: These things helped me to progress beyond whatever handicaps I have and not only overcome them, but turn them to my advantage when opportunity presents itself. These little things made me appreciate what I can and cannot do. It has overall made me a much better person with respect to my ability to think, act, and overcome obstacles in my life. I will always appreciate the money my mother and father have spent not only on my education, but on these small (ok not always small) investments that helped me develop into the adult that I am now. In fact, I still practice these hobbies from time to time to refresh my self and I always end up learning something new either about the game or about myself. While not a comprehensive list see if these hobbies will work for you and your children.

Issue 256 Snow plow alternative January 23, 2014

Well it is winter here in New York (where I live) and the snow plows are pushing that snow around and dumping salt. But there is a problem, and this idea may just solve it.

Problem: Snow plows in New York dump ice melt (typically salt) onto roads to help melt the ice. However, that same salt ends up in the soil, our sewers, and even our oceans. As such, it harms the environment. Also, when the plow comes through, it simply pushes the snow aside and creates piles of mini icebergs which in some cases bury cars in more snow. Is there a way to solve these problems during the winter time?

The idea: Well, my idea is to instead harvest the snow. When water freezes it expands, so the plow instead of pushing the snow aside and dropping salt will harvest the snow and drop it into a tank in the vehicles. This tank will then proceed to melt the snow (which reduces its volume). At this point the crew of the vehicle has two options. One is to super heat the water inside the vehicle to spray on the pavement to melt the snow they did not collect which in turn would instantly evaporate the snow itself. In this case the sprayer will be just behind the collection plow and the superheated water vapors from the melting snow can then be recollected via a vacuum in the middle and aft of the vehicles. The other option is to take the tank of now heated water, pull up to a sewer drain, and then pump the heated water directly into the sewer. This will allow the drains to be cleared of any frozen material, clean out the sewer system and at the same time prevent the pipes in the sewer from freezing. All this combined would solve both issues all at once without the use of salt or other chemicals and without dumping snow all over the place creating large piles that take forever to melt.

Is it feasible?: Yes it is feasible, because we have the same kind of systems used for agricultural farm work. The only difference is the tank on the back which would act as a kind of oven for the melting snow so that it becomes super heated.

Problem: The only way to make the system work properly is to ensure the snow that becomes the water pumped out is super heated. If the water being pumped out does not evaporate the other snow completely, it will simply freeze. Also, a fuel source for the vehicle will be needed as that is a lot of weight to carry around. Thus, a hydrogen powered engine that performs electrolysis to harvest fuel from the heated snow it takes in would be the best option in this instance. As such, once the initial fuel (water) is added, the truck can go on perpetually simply by melting more snow.

Conclusion: This is another one of my ideas that I hope inspire someone to solve the aforementioned problems. Winter in the United States (especially in northern States like New York) can be very sever and even deadly. So solving the environmental problem and the issue of these man made ice bergs would do much to help clear the streets making it safe for drivers during winter.

Issue 255 Kill spending January 22, 2014

Yes, that is right. Spending must be killed. But how do we convince people that certain spending must be abolished in the first place? Simple, put a target on its back.

Examples on what to cut: Right now the United States subsidizes prostitutes. Yes that is correct; they give them tax breaks for breast implants, and other "equipment" and more. These tax breaks are indicative to an industry that probably should not receive any incentives in the first place. Other industries have the same kind of breaks like Mohair producers having a tax break since the civil war. Others like the singer Bon Jovi have a tax break on their property taxes because they have a farm on their property (aka a small bee farm or tiny dairy farm). As such these celebrities’ pay less in property taxes than there middle and lower class counter parts. You see, each tax break and subsidy has a face that can be put behind it. As such, outrage can be sponsored to remove such breaks from our tax code and government spending. So where am I going with this?

Target on their back: Basically by isolating a specific industry that gets these breaks libertarians (and other political groups against big government wasting our money) can garner public opinion to embarrass politicians into cutting these forms of waste out of the tax code and our federal (and even our State) budget. It is the same methods used by propagandists, but in reverse. In this case it advocates the government stopping doing something rather than doing something.

Is this moral?: That is a hard question to answer. I am sure you would agree that the aforementioned examples are all forms of wasteful spending. However, some other forms of spending like subsidizing the building of nuclear power plants, tax cuts for other types of farming and the like may be considered worthwhile to some. As such, we must examine each form of spending and see if it is actually worth the cost in comparison to cutting spending and cutting taxes as a whole. As a libertarian and other members of the community who are opposed to wasteful spending, we must be responsible in our attack on these kinds of spending. Target the most wasteful, the most useless and the most unfair first and then move on from there. So we must take our time and form our arguments more carefully when we touch such things as agricultural subsidies that go to help the poor in Africa or to aid in disaster relief as in the case of Super Storm Sandy. We have to present viable alternatives to the status quo to be successful and be on the right side of the moral high ground.

Conclusion: Yes, government spending and tax cuts for things like breast implants are bad. If we focus on them one at a time, we can eliminate them one by one by garnering community support to sponsor a protest. But, as always, we must be responsible in making such spending a target as it is key, for we must not destroy the reputations of the businesses receiving the money. Also, we must present an alternative to the tax cut or subsidy for some businesses can only continue to exist due to these government benefits (welfare). Be cautious, but be responsible in putting a target on a piece of spendings back.

Issue 254 Responsible Boycott January 21, 2014

A boycott is a protest that avoids the buying of a good or service and or the business that makes that good or service. But one must do this responsibly or the rules of unintended consequences will occur. So what can you do to avoid harming people unrelated to the boycott? How can one do this responsibly?

Step 1 Research: If you are intending to boycott a product, make sure you know why you are doing so. Is it because the chemicals in the product are causing cancer, harming the environment, or because the individuals manufacturing it are doing harm to their workers or other people. In short, know why you are going to boycott the product/service and or the business. If you do not, how can you make the boycott grow so that others will take up your cause?

Step 2 Talking points: Once research is done, you may have to make statements to the media, or more importantly potential supporters. No one wants to hear a long drawn out answer as to why you’re boycotting let alone your passion as that may turn people off. Instead, draft talking points that are short and succinct that can be told in less than 30 seconds along with follow up statements that can be used to answer questions that require more details.

Step 3 Start the boycott: Basically you need a start date to begin and a written statement handed to the business in question as to the reason why you are boycotting them. Otherwise how will they know why you are forming a picket line in front of there store or as to why your group is no longer buying what they are selling. At this point it is all a waiting game in which you try to gain support to continue the boycott further so as to force the business to change what they are selling, how they are selling it, or their business practices.

What you do not boycott: You do not boycott unrelated industries or people simply because they support the product or business you are boycotting. Keep it limited to your target otherwise you look vindictive and hateful (this will make you loose your support). Also, you do not boycott a business at people’s homes or anyplace beyond where the product is being sold. There is no reason to invade a person’s privacy to get your way. Also, if you are against a business practice such as a business resisting unionizing, make sure that it was the workers decision not to unionize because if it is then it was there choice, not the business. With that in mind, if it is not the businesses fault and your beliefs (for example: all businesses should be unionized) should not be imposed on others. If you are boycotting a specific product or service, then keep it limited to that alone even if the business sells other products of services. The reason for this is to prevent people from loosing there jobs unnecessarily do to a business cutting or stopping production of a product. In other words, you stick to your target so as to not do any unnecessary harm.

Conclusion: Always be respectful and maintain composure. Be respectful to the other businesses next to and around the business you are boycotting as you may be doing harm to them too. As such be responsive to their needs as well. You are there to boycott for a reason and to do so in a way that does not intend to harm a business, but to stop a product from being sold or to end a specific business practice. This is what it means to be responsible when conducting a boycott.

Issue 253 Heterofascism January 20, 2014

Here is a unique topic that I learned about a month ago. I did not feel comfortable writing about it until now thanks impart to my getting enough information to write about it and doing so in a responsible way. So let us begin.

What is it: Heterofascism is a kind of fascism that puts down all other forms of sexual relations save traditional man and woman relationships. However, it does not just put them down, but sponsors hatred and disgust against all non-strait individuals.

What brought this topic up?: Well, when I first heard of this topic it was in relation to a Russian comedian (who was not being comedic at the time) advocating the extermination of all "Gay" individuals. There was no outrage by the Russian people in general and the man claims to be Catholic despite this advocating of death going completely against Catholic teachings.

Is this truly a problem?: Yes it is because hardly anyone reacted in Russia. There was no boycott of the comedian, no condemnation, no nothing as far as I can ascertain. Apparently the extermination of an entire group of people is acceptable based on this comedians comments and the Russian community’s reaction to those comments. It is a dangerous line of thought that can spread and thus create another Holocaust or Holodomor.

Conclusion: On that depressing note, I ask you to speak out against such heinous ideas. This kind of thinking is what lead to the Nazi's final solution in the first place. I don't care if you believe in gay marriage or sexual relations between people of the same sex, but in the end what people do in the bedroom is not your business. What is your business is protecting your neighbor from bodily harm because of their beliefs (so long as they are not harming someone else). Remember, if they can go after the gays, they may eventually go after you too. Stop Heterofascism in its tracks by speaking out now.

Issue 252 Helping Africa part 2 January 17, 2014

We discussed yesterday on what changes can be done to change how we give charity to the people of Africa. But today we are looking at the African governments themselves and what needs to be done to improve Africa so that it no longer needs to rely on any countries for aid.

Step 1: Create a true economic union. Yes, creating a union of all the African economies will aid in helping the African people. This means a unified currency (or currencies) with a stable value is essential to giving the people of the African continent buying power. Also, basic trade rules that are simple and easy to understand work to protect and ease trade between different countries in Africa. Basically, the African continent needs a unified banking and trade system with stable currencies and a form of free trade for goods, services, capitol (businesses) and labor (people). Once accomplished, a business once inside of the African continent can sell to anyone in any part of Africa. Also, if this is done, people can move from one country to another unhindered on the African Continent to find both work and to get away from conflict. Overall, a union of this type if applied correctly will help the people of Africa greatly with Africa having an advantage over its European Union neighbors in seeing where the EU went wrong and thus not making the same mistakes.

Step 2: Infrastructure is crucial to the future of business. As such, the continued expansion of the cell phone networks and internet will further Africa towards a better future. What’s more, the African continent needs better road networks alone the lines of the United States' interstate highways and rail networks. This would improve logistics with respect to the shipping of goods and the movement of people in the African continent. Not to mention, an advanced infrastructure attracts businesses from other countries to an area which of course means more jobs.

Who is to accomplish this: The ones who should do this is the African Union (AU) which is similar to the EU, but is made up of the member States of Africa. They would need to empower this intergovernmental body with enough money and authority to accomplish these tasks. By giving this responsibility to this multi-governmental body it also ensures that all of the countries in Africa are represented along with all their interests. Thus, by the AU doing the job, it prevents centralization of power and thus avoids conflict between Africa's diverse countries.

Conclusion: These are very basic things that must be accomplished for the overall success of the continent of Africa. I only assign the job to the AU because it is less likely to be corrupted by external governments and there interests (China, U.S., EU, Russia etc.). While none of this will stop the ideological and territorial conflicts still going on, it will allow for people to escape poverty and thus escape from ideologies attempting to recruit the ignorant and impoverished. So in essence, we solve poverty while denying terrorists and other violent groups a recruitment base at the exact same time. What is not to like about helping Africa. Long story short, this is what I feel is needed to help Africa in both the short and long term, but this is by no means a cure all. It is simply my opinion on what could and maybe should be done as a means to an end. That end being a prosperous Africa.

Issue 251 Helping Africa part 1 January 16, 2014

The first step in helping the people of the African continent is changing how we give them aid. The current model is meant to help, but is also breeds dependency. As such some minor tweaks to the aid based system will help in removing this problem.

Step 1: Stop giving money to the African governments. The reason that you should not give money to these governments is not just due to corruption, but because they all take a cut of the aid to give out the aid in the first place. Yes, that is correct; the aid we give is not all being used to help the people of Africa, but to line the pockets of government officials. Unfortunately, this problem does not reside in Africa alone, but here in countries like the United States where government takes a cut of the money as well. So who do we give the money too?

Step 2: The money must be given directly to the African people for this to work. People in Africa know exactly what they need to survive and to thrive. As such, giving the money directly in some fashion would be the most efficient method to ensure that all the aid actually gets to those in need. However, giving that money as pure cash is not always the best method. So using the money to pay for the schooling of an African child, the health care, or as a cash prize for completing there education would be the best method. Limiting the number of times they would get aid is also crucial so that dependency does not develop. In fact there is a charity which is at the website "givedirect.org" that gives people one time donations of $1000 and a cell phone to keep track of how they are doing. They cited that just giving these people an education may not be enough and that they may need some sort of money to start their business or improve there lives. One of the people they helped bought a motorcycle and uses it as a taxi, while another used the money to buy welding equipment as he was taught how to weld but lacked the means to buy the equipment himself. Others use the money to buy tin roofs as opposed to the thatched roofs that can have animals living in them (this has cut down on diseases). So direct charity and done in a responsible way is essential to success.

Step 3: Do not donate clothing to the people of Africa. Yes, I sound like a tyrant here, but there is a very important reason. When you donate cloths to the African people they get them for free and you think you just helped someone. Problem is that you have actually killed off a business which creates jobs and gets people out of poverty. That business you killed off is Africa's clothing businesses. By giving cloths, you are actually impoverishing these businesses and perpetuating unemployment. If you stopped giving cloths, and instead used the money to buy cloths from the clothing businesses in Africa, then and only then would that be actually helping the African people. This is because, by buying direct, you allow that business to grow and prosper which means they hire more people to make the cloths and man the store fronts. Get it. By buying goods from the African people to help them, you will eventually not need to provide future aid because the economy in Africa will be so improved that they will be able to care for their own poor by themselves.

Step 4: Like with clothing, food is also a problem. When we ship food over, we take away businesses from the local farmers (not to mention get it stolen by pirates like those in Somalia). As such, these farmers loose revenue and stop farming. So like with step 3, buy the local food to feed the poor. This enriches the local farmers and allows them to expand there businesses which in turn creates more jobs.

Step 5: What should not change is the doctors without boarders help to these people and the education programs that directly aid in job training. These will prove essential to the future of the African economy with respect to entrepreneurs taking advantage of theirs and other people’s skills to create new businesses. Of course, I would like the $1000 cash prize and cell phone to be given upon completion of the education course as per the "givedirect.org" model. Some may be wondering what’s up with the cell phone? Well, in Africa, as infrastructure is almost non-existent, cell phones can be used to transfer money to individuals rather than traditional cash. This enables people to protect themselves from thieves as they don't have to carry cash and the phone acts as a tool for communication for both personal and business calls. In short, the cell phone and the ever expanding cell phone and internet infrastructure have become integral to the future of Africa's prosperity.

Conclusion: These steps are designed to change how we give aid to the African people. I firmly believe that the current aid system is not designed to help Africa, but to make the countries there a neo-colony for exploitation of goods and services. Lobbying groups like the farm lobby make big money off shipping food from the U.S. to Africa via the Federal Government, with some of Africa's governments taking that food and giving it only to loyal supporters. As such, the current methods must end. These changes on how we give charity are key to helping Africa become independent and wealthy and thus are sorely needed. Stay tuned for part 2 tomorrow which examines what I think should happen to Africa at the governmental level for it to achieve prosperity.

Issue 250 Clean car/Carbon capture January 15, 2014

Well ladies and gentlemen; it is time for another of my zany ideas. In this case it is retrofitting cars with different forms of carbon capture technology.

The idea: In recent years, scientists have found ways to capture carbon from the atmosphere (though why they cannot use the same tech to make cheap materials from that carbon yet is beyond me). As such, why not hook something up to the muffler of a car to capture all that raw carbon and remove it before it enters the air. Also, the military was looking into making water from burned fuels as well (one of the byproducts of burning certain fuels like gasoline is water). As such, the system the military was experimenting with provides drinkable water at the end of the process. But the one with the most potential is the ones used on some power plants out in the western United States. Here, algae is placed tanks near a power plant. The smoke stack is capped and redirected into the tanks for the algae to eat. That is right, the things that come out of the smoke stacks (water, sulfur, carbon dioxide etc) is healthy for plant growth (though the algae turns black as a result, though it is later used as fuel for the power plant as well). So we can cap that muffler and cut a cars emissions to zero.

How it works: Basically, we cap the muffler or even remove the exhaust system all together and redirect it into a system that captures raw materials from the smoke produced and makes it into a disposable or recyclable material. Water can be easily dumped (unless you want a feature that collects it for survival purposes) and the rest held in a holding tank. This byproduct can then be removed and dumped later as soot (like a chimneys). Other more advanced models would be able to separate carbon atoms and other raw materials that can be used as fertilizers, or raw materials that can be picked up for industrial uses (like butane, sulfur and the like). Basically, we need a technology that harvests what is useful from the burned fuel or makes some useful solids out of it.

Conclusion: Again, I give you one of my ideas hoping beyond hope that someone can take it somewhere beyond a concept. I will take no compensation, and I invite anyone to use the idea. Fact is that we are wasting some very useful materials when we burn fuels. Some of the fuel being burned is not burned completely and some gases produced are burnable as well. Compounds can be produced from burnt fuel which is the reason we can get drinkable water from burnt fuels when the right technology is installed. So the sky is the limit. We can make cars zero emission vehicles even without changing the fuel source. We just have start trying to do things in different and more innovative ways.

Issue 249 Bio-crud January 14, 2014

A revolution in fuel is coming. And it is called bio-crud.

What is it: Bio-crud is synthetic oil made from plant matter. For years people have searched for alternative methods to getting a fuel equivalent to gasoline. However, the process to make it was long and expensive. But technology has progressed to where they can make it in an hour’s time.

How it works: Well, step one is taking algae (the plant like material that grows in water) and make it into a paste. Previously, the algae was dried up for the next step, but they decided to make a slurry instead which is 80% water. By doing this alone, the process was shortened. From there they place this slurry into a machine that mimics the heat and pressure of the earths crust (very similar to how they make artificial diamonds) to make it into crud. Needless to say, the process worked and a form of crud oil was the result.

It’s cheap: For one, this process has made making synthetic fuel cheaper. The byproduct of making the crud is water and other materials that can be reused to provide nutrients to further more algae growth. This recycling effect also aids in reducing the overall costs with respect to maintaining a steady stream of raw algae that can be turned into fuel. Also, the fact that it takes an hour as opposed to multiple hours or even days reduces the amount of time and effort to produce this product which again saves costs.

Future: At the moment, the scientists are looking to scale up the technology to make it suitable for mass production. Thankfully, as far as I gleamed from the article, traditional refining methods work on this bio-crud which makes the scientists job a little easier.

Conclusion: This is excellent in terms of preserving natural resources and making nation’s fuel independent. However, I believe this technology will face obstacles from environmental groups on account that burning the fuel puts the same kind of pollutants in the atmosphere as traditional fuels. But this can be rectified with perhaps genetically modified algae? Well, that is at the very least a possibility. What I would like though is for them to sell the technology on the open market so that people can make the bio-crud at home along with a micro refining system. Individuals would be able to make all the fuel they need maybe using things like bio-degradable garbage as well as algae. This effectively would reduce much of the garbage pick up situation and infrastructure. Also, people would not have to rely on a gas station and the by products from making the fuel are good for your own garden (which also makes it useful in landfills). If this technology spreads far enough, we may even be able to eliminate the need for oil rigs (or is this a pipe dream?). Basically, I want this technology scaled down, not up, so that a home owner can do this in the same space as their refrigerator and produce enough gas to last them into next week. Heck, if this happens the way I want it, the individual can sell their excess fuel to power plants or other people who need it in the same way people sell excess electricity from solar panels back to the power companies. Well I hope you agree with my idea, and also enjoyed this great news from the scientific community that is hopefully going to make fueling up and heating our homes that much cheaper.

Issue 248 Ad-hoc ideology January 13, 2014

Have you ever thought of why you sometimes sympathize with another ideologies or political party’s point of view? Well there is a reason for that. That reason is because ideology for the majority of people does not really exist.

What is ideology: Ideology is a lot like religion. It has a dogma and set rules. Institutions also exist to maintain a form of ideological purity by drowning out or suppressing other newer ideas. Thankfully, most people do not relegate themselves to a particular ideology. Best example is the constant battle of politics in the United States with the Republicans and Democrats. Large portions of the American population choose one party for simple reasons such as there family was a life long member of a particular party (my family is typically Democrat by this tradition). However, people do not vote for a party label such as Democrat and Republican in the United States. People here in the U.S. vote based on the individual themselves (as such my family has typically voted for members of the other party due in part to them not liking the current Democratic leadership and there ideas). The reason for this is due to people not really having a particular ideology. We are in fact a hodgepodge of beliefs and ideas.

The Ad-Hoc person: The reason people can vote for people who do not share their ideology is because for large segments of the population a set belief system through ideology does not exist. In fact with new bits of information on different issues like minimum wage and home ownership, a persons ideology or beliefs on a particular subject my change entirely. For instance, while in high school I was politically a Democrat. I believed in free education provided by the government and the same with anything else that the government could give us free. But as I entered college my beliefs became more aligned with the Republicans and their Conservative ideology as I grew into the reality that government cannot do everything as they would go bankrupt. By the time I left college, I became a libertarian as I realized that there are very select things government actually needs to do and the rest they are incapable of doing well. Thus, my political belief system is that of a libertarian who is also a constitutionalists (government limited to doing only what the Constitution allows for it to do). Despite this, I sometimes disagree with my fellow libertarians or Constitutionalists. Libertarian wise I disagree with abortion (based on both faith and science) and complete drug legalization (some completely legalized, others controlled and restricted without being totally illegal). On the Constitutionalists front, I disagree with the general welfare clause as people interpret it to allow the government to provide social welfare programs while as I understand (with respect to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers) that the United States government has zero authority on providing any form of welfare. Disagreements are a dime a dozen. As such, you as an individual have a set core of beliefs indicative specifically to you and you alone.

Conclusion: After showing you my example of myself, you can compare your own ideological progression and know that it is ok to change your mind or have differing beliefs from your other ideological compatriots. You have an ideology of one (or maybe even none), and you have the right to enforce or remove aspects of it at will. We all have an Ad-Hoc ideology as we all have the freedom of thought. Never let yourself be put down because you believe differently, not now or ever.

Issue 247 Video game violence January 10, 2014

Do video games cause more violence? Are they responsible for the increasingly violent culture of America’s youth? Here is my opinion.

Video games: Violent video games are not a direct cause to the overall violence we all face. Video games I believe are like the gladiatorial games of the past. They serve as a form of entertainment minus the actual violence. So you can literally kill off your favorite bad guy or best friend over and over again without it happening in reality. But this does not cause the out right violence of young men going out and killing people without cause. What is wrong with some of these video games is that they may be too graphic and close to reality. As such, they desensitize the players to the graphic violence and thus violence in the real world as a whole.

So video games support violent crime?: It has that potential to do so. With desensitization comes a lack of forethought about ones actions. Thus, people may not think twice about a crime until after the act has been committed. The video games themselves can be argued to be a form of advertising, but rather than compel people to buy something they compel them to do something. In this case violent video games purport violence (though the creators want this done in their game and not in real life). It works exactly the same way as traditional advertising and that can also be one of the causes of the problem making violence to the youth more acceptable.

What I personally think: I do believe video games do contribute, but I find this is the case because kids are lacking in moral and ethical responsibility. If they had some sort of moral or honor code, then maybe (like in past generations) they would be less prone to awful acts like the knockout game or theft. So by imparting moral and ethical teachings, even if the games desensitize those individuals playing them, will act as an inhibitor to violent acts. Of course this will not stop all the incidents that occur do to some people wanting the game to be their reality. Why they wish it for their reality can be something as twisted as them being a very cruel person or that they feel they are heroic in the game rather than real life. So what needs to be insured is that the games reality does not take over the individuals.

Conclusion: People will always be subjected to violence and bloodshed. Games offer us an outlet for those who desire as such without actually committing the real act. Yes it will desensitize and yes it does make you want to perpetuate the acts themselves (though they intend for it to be done in the games themselves so you buy more). But by having a kind of code and a way to remind oneself that the video game reality is false you can hopefully limit violence linked to the games from occurring. As to whether you should buy such games or not depends on you or your parents. I will not say to buy them or not as I play Star Wars video games where I hack up Storm Troopers. So at best I can caution you when you buy and when you play.

Issue 246 Guns save lives January 9, 2014

Yes, guns can and do save lives here in the United States. But there is a reason that this is true for the United States.

How they save lives: There are two key examples of guns saving lives that are important to know about. The first happened back I believe around 2003 (not sure the exact year). A vice principle had his hand gun hidden in his car on the school premises. On that day a student came to school and began firing upon his fellow students out of revenge for bulling (if I remember correctly). This caused the vice principle to run to his car and retrieve his gun. He was the first armed individual to approach the shooter and held the culprit at gun point long enough for the police to arrive. Now it is unknown how many lives where saved because of his actions, but it shows guns save lives.

Another incident at a different school happened just this year and is very similar to the first. The shooter came to school with a shot gun and began shooting students (two were injured with one still considered critical). A security staff member who was armed confronted the shooter with his own firearm (a hand gun). With the shooter trapped, the shooter turned his shotgun on himself. Again lives were saved thanks to a gun. There are many more incidents similar to these that demonstrate that guns save lives.

Why do they save lives?: Like the incidents described above, guns can offer a threat to those who take advantage of a guns level of power. So the simple thought by a criminal that his targeted victim may in fact be armed and much more dangerous tends to make them shy away from their original intended target. Basically it is the psychology of the hunter versus the hunted at work. A predator (the criminal) goes after the weakest individual so as to increase the chances of success. No criminal goes after the strongest most fortified of individuals to rob unless they are capable of making those strengths redundant. A gun insures that a criminal will think twice, and maybe abandon their target. We cannot even begin to know how many lives have been potentially saved thanks to the increasing level of gun ownership in the United States. Currently the U.S. has enough guns so that each individual can have at least one sure is impressive. Not to mention with this increased gun ownership the level of violent crime has shrunk at almost equal measure. If this is directly related or the result of gun ownership in combination with better policing still places the numbers in favor of allowing more gun ownership.

Conclusion: Guns don't kill people, the people using them do. Criminals are predators seeking easy prey, but guns equalize the situation making the prey not worth the effort. As such, guns deter and reduce crime as gun ownership and the fear of reprisal grows. Many people are in areas where it takes at least 15 minutes to an hour for police to arrive. In these communities guns are needed in the home more than they need a law officer due to the length of time it takes for the police to arrive. The gun puts the literal fear of God into criminals and can stop an incident before it starts. This is part of the American gun culture and thus why in America, guns save lives.

Issue 245 Guns and mental illness January 8, 2013

Guns have come under attack lately due to the mass shootings that have occurred in both 2012 and 2013. But the guns themselves are not the problem, but the person wielding them. In this case the mentally ill have become the primary culprit in a number of these shootings. So what is up with these people even being able to get there hands on a gun in the first place?

The Problem: It cannot be denied that criminals will get their hands on guns and other weapons whether we make them illegal for everyone else to use or not. Because lets face it, they're criminals and they don't obey any laws. In fact, they could even set up there own weapons factories like the Taliban did in the Afghanistan mountains (yes you can make a gun at home even though it is illegal to do so). So it becomes about limiting guns getting into the hands of individuals that are a clear risk to themselves and those around them. In this case that group of people is the mentally ill which have currently zero restrictions on being able to get a firearm.

Why is this so?: Mainly the reason people with mental illness can even be able to acquire a gun is impart due to the mental health system in America. Currently, a mentally ill patient cannot get any sort of special treatment until they pose a clear threat to themselves or those around them. As such, if the person suffers from a disorder, their family cannot have them get help because they have not demonstrated a threat to anyone. So this needs to change.

What needs to be done: For one, the mentally ill need to have the law amended to allow them to receive help before they intend to hurt themselves or others. That is as simple as this change will get. Following this, the mentally ill will need to be registered in a data base defining their risk to others. This dictates if they can or cannot own a gun.

Why not ban all the mentally ill from owning a gun?: The main reason not to ban all people with mental illnesses is that not all of them are a danger to society and to make them all out to be a danger is a stereotype that boarders on full out negative discrimination. In fact studies have been done that show a good portion of our military suffers from some form of mental illness or another both while serving or developing while serving (PTSD is the main culprit). As such, defining who is a danger or not must be done on a case by case basis as some members of the mentally ill community may need guns for self protection.

Conclusion: You will never keep guns out of the hands of non-law abiding citizens and even if you try to prevent a mentally ill patient from acquiring a gun, it does not stop someone from buying one for them. However, we can reduce the problem considerably by changing the rules to allow the mentally ill to get the help they deserve, not when others feel they need it.

Issue 244 City States January 7, 2014

We had discussed the idea of changing the ideology of people in cities to counter their need for dependence on a government yesterday. However, there is one other alternative modeled on the ancient city States of ancient Greece. Here is the idea.

The idea: Cities currently have populations that rival the size of many small countries and as such need to be represented in any form of democratic government. However, the ideology of dependency is strong within these cities and may in fact be unstoppable. But there is a solution. At different points in history the idea has been thrown around to allow cities to become independent States (New York City had pushed for Independence at one point). As such we can push for such ideas again. City populations typically outnumber rural populations and thus often lean the elections toward a particular candidate with a certain ideology. To counter that ideology on a national scale, we let that city become an independent State. This confines the people who believe a certain way into one group while giving the rural communities surrounding the city a bigger voice in an election. Fairly easy to understand right?

Advantages: The advantages are as follows. First Rural communities gain a larger voice in government because they no longer have to deal with the overwhelming populations that exist in cities. In fact, if you look at electoral maps of New York and Florida for instance, you will see that the majority of the counties in those States voted for Mitt Romney in the last Presidential election. However, President Obama won those States due to the major cities that overwhelmingly voted for him as they contained the most electoral districts based on population size. So this will eliminate that problem.

In addition, cities have typically consumed sub-urban and rural communities that surround them as they continue to expand outwards. This means that people close to cities may become enveloped by them and be subject to their taxes and fees for mass transit. By making these cities States, it would forcefully limit the cities size preventing development beyond its boundary line. As such, communities surrounding cities can rest assured that they will not become engulfed by the city next door. Also, it forces cities to innovate with respect to their size and scope. Cities will have to build vertically both up and down to accommodate all the people who live in them. This may also force some groups of people out of the cities which force them into other communities exposing them to other ideas of how to live outside of cities. Therefore cities can either become factory cities for middle class workers, playgrounds for the rich, of bastions of hope for the poor depending on how the city States government intends to have the city develop further.

Is it feasible: Yes, but it will be very hard to do. In the United States, the States themselves must agree to allow parts of themselves independence followed by the federal government allowing them into the union. If neither of those things occurs then the plan falls short. Elections will also be much more interesting as the city State has its own voice and the rural and sub-urban having theirs. Politicians may fear that one side will gain too much of an advantage ideologically and politically to allow this to occur. So politicking is a problem to this ideas implementation.

Conclusion: This is simply an idea. I doubt that something like these will ever occur, let alone in my lifetime. However, the advantages are clear with respect to defining a city's limits and the rural communities’ limits which may in fact benefit both communities as politicians who have both within there influence no longer have to meet competing interests. Thanks again for reading one of my (hopefully) interesting ideas.

Issue 143 City Counter balance January 6, 2014

We had previously talked about why cities were very liberal, but we did not discuss how to counter this growing ideology of dependency of government. So here it goes.

Self reliance: The first method, or part of the method, is to replace the dependency mindset with one of self reliance. This means implementing an education program in urban schools that empower students to rely on themselves and their abilities. As such, students are given the mental courage to say, I can succeed. From there they are taught how to seek out and obtain the resources they need to learn on their own without relying on a teacher. In essence it will be a curriculum that teaches independence. This approach will filter to parents and other adults through these kids. At this point the mentality is changed to a degree that erodes the dependency mindset. Psychologically dependence will disappear, but the people will still be reliant on certain services provided by the government. This is where part two comes in.

Part 2: What the green movement does not realize is that the technology they are pushing is also pushing for independence from government. If a building for instance comes completely off the grid (electrically and also with respect to water supply) it will change attitudes of these individuals in the cities. Right now, people rely on the basics of city life from the government, but if things like solar power, wind power, and city roof water collection and gardening become more and more mainstream then the government will loose its value. So, green technology will give landlords and other businesses in cities independence as well. Again this, once it becomes public knowledge, removes the idea from peoples heads that the government can provide the essentials for city living and by de-facto, can solve everything.

The 3rd; Faith: One of the other components of cities is the lack of faith. Many religions have abandoned the idea of expanding into the cities further than what they have currently. But if the faiths begin to offer services that are superior to welfare, to the cities marriage services and to even provide an alternative for an old age pension system like social security, then people will completely look away from government. By offering these services, the people will realize that they have the power to help through an institution outside of government. Also, by expanding the faith based communities in cities, you empower individuals further and provide a more moral foundation for individuals in cities rather than the liberal concept of the ends justifying the means.

Conclusion: Some of these are practical like the things described in the section on the green technology and on faith. The education one will be much harder as it can only be easily implemented in private schools and home schooling, while public education will still be controlled by the State and thus can deliver whatever message it wants. It really comes down to the fact that government is only needed for key specific things like law enforcement and lawmaking and even then private groups once laws are written can be hired to do the same job. Over half the fire departments in the United States are volunteer or run privately (no government needed). New York's original subway system was done by private corporations until the city government took it all over to gain that revenue for themselves. So if these things can be done privately, then nearly everything can without any loss for the individuals using these services. As such, the liberal mindset is a false promise with respect to government being the provider of all the needs of the individual. The truth is that government is needed very little and the sooner we realize that the better.

Issue 142 Do we need Saints? January 3, 2014

Saints are those people who have been deemed by a religion worth remembering for their miracles and for being blessed by God. But does it go too far?

Why question: The reason why I question the need of saints is because we pray to them in the same way we might pray to God. At some point while I myself prayed, I began to question if I was violating the first commandment "thou shalt not worship any God before me." I remembered that Buddha was really a man who was elevated to god status by his followers and later worshipers. So my worry is that we are forgetting God and his first commandment in exchange for a bunch of gods whom we call saints. It was this fear that had the Vatican ban the cult of the dead in Europe where people would visit the mass graves from World War two and pray to these nameless victims. There was such a following where in places they had the people’s skulls on display where they would give the skulls gifts and even face them away from each other thinking they would talk. In Haiti, they worship a version of Christianity that integrates voodoo and have animals, and other natural spirits that are prayed too. Now in Mexico, they have alters to the Virgin Mary. All of these are people from the past or spirits that are slowly elevated to the status of a God. As such the Catholic Church will periodically warn and eventually ban such practices. So if Saints and the like invite such behavior, then why have them.

The reason: Saints exist for a purpose. They are there to serve as life examples in the same way that Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi serve as people’s idols or hero's. We learn from there mistakes and try to emulate their good points. It is all about being worthy of Gods grace and maybe we too would be given a gift so as to impart a miracle. Some faiths completely remove saints completely for the aforementioned reasons, but they do serve a purpose. Even if you ban Saints as a whole, it does not mean that at some point people may try to elevate someone to the level of a god in the first place.

Conclusion: So the lesson here to my more religious readers is to ensure that you are not violating the first commandment or similar law in your own faith. I questioned my faith and do so constantly (though I do not consider myself all that religious) so as to better understand my self and my beliefs. Hopefully this helps you to question your own self to make yourself a better person.

Issue 241 Inspiring People January 2, 2014

What constitutes an inspiring person? Why should we follow there example? Well, I have wondered why people admire others like actors and other people who appear to be in positions of authority, power, or wealth. However, I questioned the very notion of admiring those people as a whole. Surely these people are not that worthy of admiration such as the Kardashian sisters or Paris Hilton who gets by on looks? Or is there something else at there core that is actually truly notable that should be emulated?

Decisions: We can look at people like a puzzle, but each piece is unique in the fact that one part may be worthy of praise while the others we may look on in disgust. As such, I personally look at individuals (or at least try my very best to) view them based on their actions. Let us take Nelson Mandela for example. He was an avid communist, and in his youth was violent. However, when he was released from prison he did something important. Mandela made the decision to change South Africa through non-violence. I will always disagree with communism as a whole due to how it always devolves into tyranny and dictatorship, but I can still admire Mandela for the hope he brought to the South African people. He is worthy of praise because he renounced violence and that he brought people together for the sake of freedom. As people go, Mandela is inspiring because he demonstrated that a single person can make a difference. So I will cleanly say that Mandela is worthy of imitation with respect to the example of people being able to make a difference, but I will not say to admire his politics.

Admire and scorn: Just like Mandela we can admire and be inspired by one part of the person, but still abhor the other part. Look at the Kardashian sisters as an example. They came to fame through sex tapes and pornography rather than hard work (they may argue that though). However, after they gained that attention they used it to their advantage to create a clothing line and host television shows. So the part you can admire is that they used the capitalist system to take advantage of their fame, the fortune they made from it and their ingenuity for designing cloths. The rest you can still look at with scorn. Love them or hate them, they set an example on how to run a successful business.

Conclusion: All people in power are like this. You can admire their message like the President Obama’s hope and change, their ideas, or their deeds, but you do not have to emulate the whole individual. No one has to copy the Presidents politics to believe in the hope and change message, or Nelson Mandela's communist beliefs to copy his example of one man making a difference. Each person has pieces of themselves that are worth admiring or emulating, and equally so parts that are worth learning what not to do. So do not let your view of someone be clouded by one simple wrong, but look at the actions and deeds of that individual. Use the teachings of Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. and look at the person character and with that see what is worth admiring in each and every individual.

Issue 240 New Years Day January 1, 2014

Well we made it. It is now official; we are in the year 2014. When I look back, it is kind of amazing that I even got this far with my blog. I actually started it the Thursday after I broke up with my girl friend who claimed I was full of useless information (including my Bachelors degree in political science). I had thought about writing a blog even before I met her, but never found the motivation to get up and do it until me and her broke up. Now my motivation to keep writing is you, my readers. I enjoy sharing what I know with you all and I look forward to any comments or questions you put in the comments section (only 3 so far, hopefully that is because what I'm writing is just that clear to all of you).

Well in any case, I'll tell you my New Years resolution. My resolution is to continue writing and finding interesting topics to share. With those topics I hope to inspire and enlighten you the reader, or at least make you question the world around you as these topics make me do constantly. Basically, I want to create a conversation to develop ideas and enhance knowledge, with the hope that that knowledge becomes useful to all of you at sometime or another.

So my readers thank you once again for sticking with me. Have a very happy and healthy New Year.