Issue 303 Devalued life March 31, 2014

Can we all agree that life is a precious thing? I thought we all could, but it seems even in the modern era (can we call ourselves that) that life is as cheap as it always has been. Here are my reasons why.

Life is cheap: Did you know that in Belgium you can kill a mentally disabled child under a certain age? There reasoning is that you are doing the child a favor by ending their "suffering" early. How about the way we treated Edward Snowden as he was forced to run to countries that would normally be considered advisories to protect him from the United States government. In North Korea, the current leader is killing members of his own family because they made slights against him. The Middle East and Africa have entire villages being wiped out in wars of ethnic, racial and religious genocide. How about Ukraine, which was almost in civil war as the Prime Minister before fleeing tried to suppress his people by using the police? By suppress, I mean shooting them and beating them to death. And you know what? Something similar is happening in Venezuela right now as well. These are just some small examples of the carnage that we are bringing upon our fellow human beings.

I am disturbed: I fear for the people of this world. Why is it that we seek to self cull our own species in our lust for power or our fatal compassion? We kill the unborn, and some even wish to kill the born under a certain age out of compassion of the mother or the hard life we think these children may lead. The killing in other countries is just nonsensical. People in power really are desperate enough to end another's life to keep their position. Or how about the more common method of destroying a persons reputation through various propaganda to ruin the opposition (a life ruined may also equal a life taken as well). Arrogance, fear and compassion seem to be the driving force behind these atrocious actions. But how can they be stopped?

Conclusion: I really hate to say it, but the way to stop these acts of tyranny is through education and fear. For education, we must face our history and learn every reason why wars, gang violence and other forms of fighting, killing and discrimination take place. We must understand that stereotypes were originally used to disenfranchise select groups of people with ways to make such words and rumors powerless. It is a must that our future generations understand how to use logic and discussion first and foremost in the fight against the tyranny of their fellow man. The other half is fear and it must come in the form of a deterrent. People armed with the knowledge of how and when to fight are a threat to keep both government and criminals at bay. I say this from the unique perspective of being an American citizen who grew up around people who where in law enforcement, military and recreational shooters. In short I grew up around the gun and learned proper fear and respect for it. Armed societies do not fear their governments. Armed societies fear no other man. We were created equal, but the gun keeps us that way, for it is power over yourself and others. Don't like guns, then how about a hatchet, a kitchen knife, a bully club, or just your bare knuckles. You must defend yourself and others from the evils of this world for we have lost the respect for life itself. These are my thoughts on this matter and I hope you find a better answer than mine.

Issue 302 Surrogates March 28, 2014

What is a surrogate? What does it do? and What does it have to do with you? Well, let me tell you.

A surrogate: In the case I am talking about, I am talking about machines (again). In this case the machine is a surrogate for us. In short we will have machine partners that will act in a similar fashion to R2-D2 and C-3PO from Star Wars. In the case of our society, the robots or personal computers (persicom sound like a good name?) will have a way of interacting with us on an intelligent basis. They will be able to take any command and based on capability perform that command to the letter. As people are becoming more spontaneous and need more flexibility, the personal computer or robot assistant will have to act as a secretary, librarian, archivist, researcher, and stenographer all wrapped into one, and maybe even then some. Basically, people are good at being spontaneous, while computers have fantastic memory. As such, using these surrogates to amplify our abilities like memory and information recall skills makes it all that much easier for people to conduct their daily lives.

More complex surrogates may aid the disabled and seniors who cannot leave their homes, by actually going to work in their stead or even go shopping for them. This can be an automated process, or even done via remote. Some surrogates may come in the form of simple exoskeletons enabling the bedridden to walk out the house and back into to the sunlight.

Evolution of the Surrogate: In my opinion, the surrogates evolved from when we decided to replace people with machines in all the dull, dirty and dangerous jobs that required zero ingenuity and trouble shooting skills. From there we wanted smarter more capable machines that could do that semi, dull, dirty and dangerous tasks. Now we want to have them as our personal assistants to help us in our daily tasks by voice command (or maybe even mental signal) alone. Thus, we have slowly reduced the need for people to work in various rolls and ways of being. So we have allowed these surrogates to replace us in all those boring (based on opinion) jobs. But are we trying to have them replace us? Do we already not have a problem with the fact that most people in the United States are not more than five feet away from their personal electronic devices like a smart phone?

Conclusion: Yet another ethical situation we have here. Do we need more of these surrogate machines to do these jobs? Is there a need for a personal computer type robot device like R2-D2 and C-3PO (though that would be very cool)? My answer is be wary of it, but also it should be your personal opinion on whether you buy such a device. It will be you to decide if these machines will be needed and useful in your every day life. The reason is because you will have to buy it. Enjoy thinking what life would be like with your own personal computerized assistant.

 

Issue 301 Terror of tech!!! March27, 2013

Have you though maybe technology s moving a little too fast? I did not think so at first, but after some shows featuring staff from Google and other tech and economics gurus, I began to worry. So here is why.

Can't keep pace: Technology is growing by leaps and bounds. Machines do our laundry, our dishes, and even wake us up in the morning (no need for mom or a butler). Soon, technology will be driving us to work in completely automated vehicles. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York City has discussed having their trains be completely automated with a single staff member to trouble shoot for problems. However, currently 2 people are on staff at any given time on the subways. So this means people will loose their job. Once the technology is deemed acceptable and safe, that other staff member may be replaced as well, leaving the train with no human personnel to drive or monitor it from on board. Similar discussions have taken place with respect to flying plains and even to the concept of the flying car. Would you let a plain fly you from Japan to California without a pilot? Well with technology, this is in fact feasible.

Let's look at medicine. A sonogram machine has been reduced in size to that of a smart phone for the smaller cost of $2,500 on the cheapest (regular machines can cost well over $30,000). Heart monitors along with other brain and life reading devices has also been shrunk and automated leaving doctors to interpret the readings themselves without any need to have the patient see a specialist (cheaper for the patient obviously). Another device in the works is a litmus testing device to diagnose diseases on the spot eliminating the need to see a doctor for diagnosis of various pathogens.

Then we have basic retail. There really is no need for a cashier when you have radio frequency identification (RFID) technology. It works like a barcode, but sends out short wave transmissions instead once hit by an electronic signal. These RFID chips identify the item you are buying without it ever having to leave your shopping cart. So in the future you may see a device that looks similar to a small metal detector that will scan all your items instantly and then all you have to do is pay a robot at checkout once you have finalized your cart. Oh, and don't bother looking for people on the floor restocking shelves. This too will be done by robots as they already have specialized machines doing this job in where houses with it only being a matter of time and money before you see it in our own home towns.

The terror: With the aforementioned examples, you can see allot of basic jobs and high level jobs becoming outmoded, or reduced in function. This affects us all as we will be forced to find more higher level technology jobs in order to just make a living. It has been estimated by some executives at Google that by 2030, if the pace does not slow down, over 60% of the jobs in the United States alone will be lost to technology.

Conclusion: Do not get me wrong, technology is a good thing. However, we have to check how fast we let ourselves be consumed by it. If we do not look into how to adapt to the changing business and job environment, we may face imminent peril. Sure, newer and higher paying jobs will result which will balance out the job losses for future generations; however our concern must lay with those in the immediate term. Those people who will loose their jobs to a cold heartless machine will need to be retrained to work in new fields or work at other jobs which may make light of their skills and accomplishments. So I ask you all to think and be prepared for possible upheavals in the job market and even maybe think of ways to slow it down so that people will not have to suffer.

Issue 300 Ghost in the Shell?! March 26, 2014

 
We are ghosts inhabiting a shell made of flesh, but what of the internet and the desktop computer as another type of shell. The Internet itself is a shell with massive amounts of data which interact at any given time and that in the shell of cyberspace, an intelligent life form can form. Kind of hard to describe in a few words, so let's discuss to make it a little easier.

Concept: The Internet is filled with data. I addition, the Internet has viruses, programs and other applications happening all at once. Some of that data even gets lost. On top of this, some of these programs and viruses are designed to either collect data or to mimic other programs. As artificial intelligence programs also get lost on the Internet, they too get mixed in this soup of data. From this point some scientists believe life from this lost data collecting together can spontaneously erupt.

Questions: If you are asking yourself "why is he bringing this topic to his blog?" then I will tell you there is a reason. The first reason is that it is an interesting concept and the idea that life can form spontaneously like this is just fascinating. Another, but more important reason is because we all will be interacting with computers on a more personal basis in the future. They already have systems to read brainwaves which are used to move objects like wheelchairs for the disabled with more applications to come. Some scientists are trying to hook up their brains to the Internet so as to explore other possibilities of the man and machine interface. With that said, this brings us to yesterdays issue on down loadable soldiers. Can a human mind survive cyberspace and come out the same person? And can life actually form on the internet without help?

Of the mind and cyberspace: I believe that the human mind is still too complex for a computer to understand. While programs can mimic human learning and some basic emotions, they cannot feel the way we do. As such, if we were to dump our brains into a computer, it is my personal belief we will loose emotion. In short, we will become as cold as the machine itself due to our brains being too complex to copy. On top of this, it is my feeling that the human mind will loose all sense of self if exposed to something as vast as the Internet. All that data is now also interacting with yourself and being shared. In short, a passing cyber virus or program may just rip a part of your mind off and move on, leaving you with gaps in both memory and maybe even physically damaged and disabled.

Let us also not forget about hackers. Another worry is if the mind somehow survives the riggers of cyberspace, will it survive a cyber attack. Imagine the president of the United States has his mind cyberized that allows him/her to access the net with a thought. Then you remember the interaction goes both ways where even the president can be hacked into and maybe even taken over. That is one of the most serious "forms" of cyber attack on cyberized humans, with others being surveillance or just copying memories of both personal or even financial data. Scary is it not?

With the aforementioned said, data colleting together will not form an intelligent life form. Sure there are programs designed to eat lost bits of data, but that data must be useful in some way to bring forth life. So unless it can learn like a human can then it will not work. Yes they do have learning robots with a certain level of intelligence, but intelligent life is not just knowledge alone. It is also emotion which can only be mimicked by commuters. As such, even if the data collects into something that can interact in some way with humans, it cannot surpass humans with respect to the fact that it has no emotion. Therefore, it cannot be considered truly alive.

Conclusion: I personally think the Internet is much too vast to actually create life on its own. However, I do think with people starting to think they can interact with it beyond the physical level; the risks of our ghost in our fleshy shells are put at risk of loosing ourselves. More and more we must think upon the ethics and implications of technology and its dangers in addition to its benefits. While the ideas of life on the net (ours or artificial) is intriguing, it does not mean it should be attempted without proper precautions and measured risk.

Issue 299 Downloadable soldier March 25, 2014

This is frightening and astounding. The men who own Google have written that in the future it may be possible to download a soldier the moment he/she dies in battle to a computer and then later place them in a new body. Let's discuss.

The concept: Like I stated in my introduction, the idea that a person who dies can be downloaded into a computer is a bit far fetched with current technology. But, is it a feasible concept? The advantages are that the overall experiences of that soldier can be preserved rather than loosing a valuable resource or even having to train a brand new soldier. On top of this it may be possible to download anyone who dies and give them a new body, thus eliminating deaths on the battlefield and at home. Intriguing is it not?

Other possibilities from this: This may also allow people to experience other people’s lives on a very personal level. You can share memories of your choosing (or steal them for that matter) to anyone you like. No more need for schools as math and science can be downloaded to the child in a matter of seconds. Weird, but it is feasible in the future envisioned by the members of the Google team.

Fear: I have questions. For one, can this technology really benefit us? I mean, if we download a soldier who has just died will they still be themselves? In short, can a soul be transferred from a body, to a computer and into a new body? Will it still be a human being or some expendable machine that serves to fill in a flashy robot with the experiences to fight and die over and over for our country? Even the idea of possibly sharing memories with each other in this way is dangerous as how would it affect the person receiving those memories. Would that person still be the individual you know? These are questions that must be answered and may even lead to more.

Conclusion: Why do I bring this to your attention? Simple, because this has to be discussed. The technology if left unchecked is very scary in its potential for things to go wrong. Can we treat the soul as just a bunch of memories? What is the soul and how can it interact with modern and future technology? Are there social consequences or other repercussions to be had? It comes down to ethics and ensuring that while capable of doing something, that we know the potential consequences and whether or not it should be done. So enjoy the discussion of what is to come for it is more important than you may think.

Issue 298 Why invest in technology March 24, 2014

Ladies and Gentlemen, technology is taking over. It is only a matter of time before the rise of the machine takes away many jobs of the past. But why?

The cause: Government has been one of the main culprits of causing the decline of the traditional worker. Mandates of health care, taxation in many forms and regulations have all compounded to make hiring new workers very difficult for businesses to do. As such, businesses reacted by reducing personnel hours and even investing in alternate methods of serving people that do not require people.

Then there is the tech industry. Ever looking toward the future, these inventors, tech moguls and more look to improve life by making either more convenient, solving key niche problems or just trying to be innovative in the market place. Thus, tech companies are driving the other half of the push toward a technology oriented and high skilled job future.

Reactions: Due to the government interference with regulations and other burdens, companies have been exchanging people with self checkout machines. Others have replaced workers in the dull, dirty and dangerous jobs with automation and robots. This is why you see robots mining in some places, robots welding car parts together and a single operator able to control an entire factory floor from the safety of a clean noise free office. This is only going to expand as now companies are looking at robots that assist people in their daily lives as a form of assistant. Some have been envisioned as aiding workers in lifting crates and depositing them where needed, helping assist in the operating rooms or acting as repositories of information so that the human can focus on the intuitive aspects of the task over the mundane parts. What the future holds is not stopping as even taxis and later commercial motor vehicles begin to be automated. It is a hard future to see, but it is clear, mankind is getting a future where they interact more with a machine rather than another human.

Conclusion: Based on these pieces of information I have acquired from the news (Economist, Blaze, NY Times, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, Science Channel, etc) it is important to invest in technology. By doing so you can get rich on this growing and very broad field of business that is sure to change the way we live and how we look at the world.

Issue 297 Electoral reform March 21, 2014

Elections are essential for a Republic like the United States. They determine our Representatives and thus determine the direction the nation is headed. But there is corruption involved which secures the two main political parties as power brokers and thus limits alternative candidates. Rather than focus on the corruption here, I would like to discuss an alternative to the current rules so that anyone can run for office without the political manipulations.

The idea: The idea is simple; create an account for each individual running for office. Yea, it is not necessarily that simple. These accounts belong to each candidate and are monitored by a body that ensures that the money comes from U.S. citizens or businesses. These accounts are given to each person running for office so that all individuals who have decided to run for office have a centralized fund that can be monitored by the public to detect unlawful use and spot for other forms of corruption. So under this system, no individual is left out of running for office unlike the current system where you have to achieve a certain popularity rating.

How it works: A similar idea is to create an account that is shared equally between both candidates to use does not sit well with me. It does not take into account that individuals giving money to a candidate is a form of the freedom of speech. So having individual accounts makes sense. Also, currently, individuals are limited to how much they can donate to a campaign (even though the loopholes favor the two main political parties). As such, that limitation would be eradicated so that people would be able to donate as much as they please (including businesses) to their candidate with one stipulation. That stipulation is that all donations are anonymous. This prevents the candidates from knowing who actually donated to their campaign which prevents future kick backs to an extent. It also prevents political backlash by the other candidates who may win and want to punish those who did not support them. So this is how it works.

Conclusion: This idea is not 100% perfect, that I know. But I also know it is at least better than our current election rules that thrive on corruption and solidify the Democrat and Republican power base. As such, I submit this idea which protects your privacy and freedom of speech to you my dear readers. Critique it as you may, I am open to all improvements.

Issue 296 Constitutional Changes March 20, 2014

In this issue I will discuss what changes I want to see done to the Constitution. I will limit mine to 3 topics however: term limits, national debt, and the federal bureaucracy. Let's begin.

Term Limits: The term limit issue is popular and it is also important. We already have had Presidents in their final terms of office break their promises and do what they felt like as they no longer where beholden to the electorate to be re-elected. As such, this mistake cannot be repeated in the instances of the Congress who do need term limits. So how should it be done? For me, I would first increase the terms of the members of the House of Representatives to three year terms instead of the current two year term. My purpose here is to have 1/3 of the body being changed every single year so that the people can react faster to an obtrusive or tyrannical leaning government. But what does this have to do with term limits you ask? Well, I would limit the House of Representatives to three full terms, but they cannot be consecutive. So a member of the House would be able to serve a total of nine years, but because it is not consecutive they would be forced to leave congress for 3 full years (or run for an entirely different office). This ensures that they will still be beholden to the people because they will want to be re-elected later and also interferes with lobbyist keeping their pet politicians in office.

As to the Senate. I would keep the traditional six year term, but limit it to two terms again not being consecutive. This again has the same advantages of protecting against elected officials ignoring their constituents and hurting lobbyist efforts of making more pets out of politicians. I would like to see the State legislatures choose the Senators instead of the direct method used by the people now so as to protect State interests from Federal overreach as well. This method of being chosen by the State legislatures was overturned by the 17th amendment in an effort to create a purer democracy, but if you are a student of history you will know that pure democracies are 100% unstable and prone to mob rule. By returning the decision to the State legislatures it also provides opportunities for a swifter recall as the State legislatures could recall Senators (pre 17th amendment) if they failed in their duties or went out of control (I am also open to recall votes for members of the House of Representatives by the people as well).

Debt: We all can agree the national debt is a major security risk and needs to be addressed. So I believe a balanced budget amendment will be the best way to solve this issue. The balanced budget amendment I have in mind is very simple. It would require that the Federal Government cannot spend more money than it takes in via tax revenues. Yes it is that simple. The government cannot spend more than what the tax payers give it. I specify tax revenues because the idiots at the Federal government also include loans to the Federal government as part of income. Separating the debt from revenues is a must. Also, an additional provision will be added that dictates that all interest on current debt must be paid first before all other spending each and every year. This insures our current debt goes down. However, being able to issue debt is an important function. So bonds issued to the people will still be allowable under this amendment and used specifically to fund government and cannot be used in other ways. Money left over from the budget and the bonds will be used to pay off any additional debts the Federal government has incurred. There is an issue here though, as government may need to incur additional debt beyond what they get through savings bonds. So the only way they can burrow from a foreign country or private bank (or other private institution) beyond private individuals is in specific circumstances. Those circumstances will be limited to Congress declaring war on another country (no exception) and a State of emergency declared by the Governor or State legislature due to a natural or man made incident. In this instance, the money burrowed is restricted to funding the war or the place where that the State of emergency has been declare, with any money left over being returned to pay off the debt. This prevents any abuses by the government that could result from this provision and makes it harder to put the nation in debt.

Federal Bureaucracy: Here is something simple. I would limit the Federal government to four key institutions and specify their powers. Those four are the Treasury, department of State, department of Defense and finally department of Interior. Each one will have a unique and specific role specified in the constitution and that no other institutions would be allowed to exist outside of these departments with their abilities not exceeding beyond what is specified by the constitution save for amendments being added that would change or alter their roles. All other components of the federal bureaucracy would vanish or be given to the State and local governments respectively.

Conclusion: There are plenty more changes that can be made or even these ideas can change form. Much needs to be done before an amendment can even be passed and even that is no guarantee. All I can say is that all ideas need to be discussed and vetted to ensure that any changes if any are done to the Constitution are done responsibly.

Issue 295 Convention of States March 19, 2014

Have you ever heard of a Convention of States? Well if you are a student of history or of government you should have. But let's go over what it is anyway.

What is it: The United States Constitution specifies two ways to amend the Constitution. One way is to have both houses of Congress vote on an amendment with a 2/3 majority required in both in order to pass the change. However, there is another harder way to amend the Constitution. That method is to have 2/3's of the State legislatures pass Constitutional reform so that an amendment can be added. This has not been done since the Articles of Confederation where replaced back in 1789 by the United States Constitution.

How it works: Well if you think the entire Constitution is going to be rewritten, then you are wrong. A Constitutional Convention can specify what topics or amendments they are allowed to address. So specifically saying that it will address term limits for elected members of Congress and for judges appointed to the Supreme Court would actually limit the convention to discussing and making amendments on those issues exclusively.

Some other examples of amendment topics that could be discussed at a convention of states:

• A balanced budget amendment
• A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states)
• A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (the original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines--not all the economic activity of the nation)
• A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States
• A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws)
• Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court
• Placing an upper limit on federal taxation
• Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes

It is actually happening: The people of the United States are fed up with Washington D.C.'s politics and their wasteful spending. So a group calling itself Convention of States has begun an effort to begin an actual convention to fix our government. The examples above are their examples (but not limited to) of topics that they will be discussing at the convention itself. To read more go to this website: http://www.conventionofstates.com/

Conclusion: Am I worried that the members of this convention will overstep their boundaries? Well of course I am. So that is why I am writing this article, so that you, my dear reader can pay attention so as to keep them from being as corrupt as the members of the government. Stay strong and stay attentive my friends.

 

Isue 294 Self Contained city March 18, 2014

It is possible to create a city that is self sustaining. With technology a city that runs itself without the need for outside resources can make a city greener and possibly even healthier to live in. So how can it be done?

Food Towers: For one, the city will have to bring the farm within the city limits. To do this, food towers or more accurately converted buildings will be used to grow all the food for the city. These towers will use technology called hydroponics to feed and water all the plants within the tower using a series of tubes and nutrient rich water. For other food like mushrooms and other plant like organisms (or even wines and beers) temperature controlled basements or sections of food towers would be needed. As to the meat, special towers or buildings would be used for livestock where the animals would be fed and slaughtered. We could get wool and other fibers from animals in these same facilities along with milk and eggs, only eating the animals after they become too old to produce. Also, their poo can be used as fertilizer for the other plant life in the city itself. (Of course this is only if the city values its meaty meals over going vegan). By the way, towers, or even aquariums can be used to supply fish as a form of urban fish farm.

Infrastructure: Cars would need to become irrelevant in the city which will eliminate the need for roads. However, how will goods be made or even shipped to their intended location. For one, a public transportation system would need to be developed to transport the goods underground to the different businesses in the city. Basically, a freight train system for the city's exclusive use and a series of elevators at each building bringing the cargo to each appropriate floor would be needed. A separate transit system would be required for people which would be better suited above ground to bring people to different buildings roofs or midsections to go inside rather than at the ground floor. This insures the ugly freight remains hidden, while the people can enjoy the cities sights from on high.

Goods: Some goods like toys, paper and the like will still be needed. So how do these products get to your home? The most logical method would be a 3d printer. Those same freight cars will also be taking your garbage to a recycling center to be processed back into their base materials. These materials can then be turned into "inks" for use in 3d printers. What's more, our human waste and plant matter can also be broken down not just into fertilizers but "inks" as well. So you can buy the blue print for your child's toy online and have the materials shipped to your home. After the materials arrive, the home owner simply has to put the ink in the 3d printer and press start.

Jobs: Working from an in home office is going to be essential. Many of the future skilled jobs will revolve around using the Internet. So, things like computer programming, advertising and the like will all be able to be done at home. Specific jobs will require face to face meetings which mean that renting a board room for the day or office space for a particular project will become more mainstream. This has the benefits of reducing costs for a business, but harms social interaction. Restaurants will not be affected really as they will still require many of the customers to have that dine in experience to get their yummy food.

Exceptions: While it is possible to do all this, certain things will still need to come from outside. Those things are people and commerce. Cities are a center piece of trade and without people from other places coming to buy and sell their wares, money can become concentrated into a few peoples hands. This can be detrimental and cause a cities collapse as city life becomes unaffordable for everyone else. So visitors are a must in order to generate new and lasting revenue.

Conclusion: A self sustaining city which uses its waste and is planned out efficiently can be self sustaining in everything but generating new wealth. This concept is not fully my own as it has been discussed countless times by those seeking a greener society, or for people who are predicting the future of cities as a whole. So as we age, expect new cities to pop up along with new technology that will make our lives more convenient while at the same time perhaps a little more mundane.

Issue 293 MIRA March 17, 2014

First I would like to say Happy St. Patrick's day. Now it is time to criticize President Obama's MIRA idea.

MIRA: MIRA is a play on IRA for investments. In this case people would be allowed to take a portion of their salary and put it toward a government bond which will earn interest. At a specified time, the individuals using the MIRA would be able to collect the money as part of their retirement savings. This is how it works in a nut shell.

Problem: This will not help retirees. Instead it is a gimmick because the people running the federal government cannot not sustain Social Security at all. On top of this, the federal government wants access to more money that other countries are now refusing to lend them. So they are turning to the American people with savings bonds. These bonds are the key component of MIRA. Your money, if you contribute, is used to purchase these bonds which are loans to the federal government. Basically, the people in the federal government are replacing one source of borrowed money with another.

What this demonstrates: By implementing a system like MIRA, it shows that other countries realize we cannot pay our debts. This is the reason why China is giving America less and less while solidifying itself with precious metals if a crash could happen. All in all, this shows that the country is in dire straits.

Stop feeding the beast: If you contribute to this fund, then you are aiding in the demise of the nation. Our government spends way too much already and it just wants more. As such, by lending it money through MIRA, you will be contributing to the national debt and the growing instability of the dollar. On top of all this, the money being contributed may become mandatory if financial troubles escalate, or your money may be with held in other crises. It is a bad deal.

Conclusion: The Government is full of fools. It seeks to spend its way out of debt, but that is impossible. What should be focused on is reforming every aspect of government so that it maximizes efficiency. There is no need for a Medicare parts A, B, C, and D with our contributions only funding part A exclusively, but being borrowed from to fund other parts of the federal government. Over 4 trillion dollars is owed to the Social Security and Medicare systems combined with trillions more dollars in unfunded liabilities. I have not even touched defense spending and that takes up even less money than all the entitlement programs combined. Clean up your act government and stop giving us false hope.

Issue 292 Civil Disobedience March 14, 2014

Civil Disobedience is an important aspect of society. It lets us fight back in peaceful ways against a government institution or business. So what forms does it come in?

Petitions: Yes, that piece of paper which lists signatures is an important aspect of civil disobedience. By first voicing your displeasure and then having people sign the petition showing you their support it allows you to notify a government or other institution of your displeasure. It can also be used to voice your opinion in favor of something occurring like a new law or action as well.

Mail Campaign: Here protesters send in mail with each one describing what they are protesting and why. The letter is concluded with a signature of each individual group or protester member. Basically one letter per person. Whether the letters is hand written, copied and signed or even electronic, it can be very disruptive to a business or a government institution while showing that you, as protesters, have the majority of the people on your side.

Boycott: A powerful form of civil disobedience, here people refuse to buy from or use a product or service. It is a powerful message that helps to show extreme displeasure with a person, an act, an institution, or a business. Originally it was used in Ireland to boycott people whom the community did not accept, so it can be used in that capacity as well.

Sit ins: This form of protest has people literally sit in a business or government institution which hinders regular functions of an institution. Basically, it has a number of people inside a facility like a government office, and all the staff and visitors have to move around the people performing the sit in. It is a very disruptive strategy to any institution if enough people are gathered. It can also be used to block the entrance to a building or to block the path of vehicles if the protesters want to prevent say a park from being torn down or prevent government officials from voting.

Picket lines: Similar to sit ins, the picket line is protesters lining the streets in front of a business or institution to voice their views. It works to prevent pedestrian traffic from moving and forces those who are entering and exiting the building to listen to them (along with any passerby).

Rallies: A rally is kind of like a big presentation. It gathers up like minded individuals to discuss and solidify their message as well as allow leaders to guide their fellow protesters in the right direction.

March: A march is like a rally, but it is a massive group of people that pass through communities to gain momentum. Finally, they reach a particular destination where they wish to show their displeasure. The sheer size of the march is meant to intimidate in order to force action. So marching on the white house to show displeasure on an immigration bill, or a business for making weapons of war are all aspects of this. March's usually also contain a rally, a sit in, and even a picket line. It can also be used as a way to give impact to the intended target of displeasure when delivering a petition.

Press: None of these work without press attention. Media is the key ingredient to get your message across. So having a carefully crafted message and talking points is essential. Also, the ability to get the media attention is also important too. No media equals your movement being ignored.

This means that you need a press core for your group. A movement or protesters will need to put out its own press releases to coordinate the movement, and counter any propaganda the opposition puts forth.

Conclusion: Protesters cannot at any time turn into a mob. They must always be civilized with a clear and cohesive message. As such, imitate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the way he conducted the civil rights protests. These are the most common forms of protest that have existed for over a hundred years. Use them well and use them responsibly.

 

Issue 291 Legal drug 2 March 13, 2014

Yesterday we talked of small token regulations and advantages to legalization of drugs. Today we continue that discussion with respect to the role of distribution and doctors.

Pharmacies: A pharmacy requires a prescription to dispense a medication (for those that the government requires at the very least). As such, a pharmacy can stock the now legal narcotics that have been purposely modified to insure quality and lessen the chances of overdose. With a pharmacy, a specified amount can be dispensed at any given time based on the prescription, which can control the number of "highs" an addict can have access too. Already, there are derivatives of drugs that are deemed illegal in other forms dispensed due to the fact that they can be used in medical applications. In addition, certain drugs are dispensed that help addicts of certain drugs wean themselves off the addictive drugs themselves. So pharmacies can play an active role.

Doctor’s office: If using the above pharmacy model, then doctors licensed to dispense narcotics and are qualified to recognize that individuals are addicts in the first place can write prescriptions for the narcotics. A doctor acting in this capacity would be used to control the amount an addict gets at any given time based on the prescription they are writing and also help wean the addict off that addictive drug when they are ready. Basically, by having doctors who know about addiction and how to treat it we can help protect the addicts from doing much more harm to their body.

Combination: Another possibility is a special clinic designed specifically to handle people who are addicted to the formally illegal drugs. Here the addicts can have access to a doctor on staff to check their physical condition while at the same time the addict can purchase and use the drug on site (purchasing the drugs aids in funding the clinic). What this means is that every time they need the high, the addict would come to the special clinic and purchase their drug that they are addicted to. Then the addict would go to a privacy booth monitored by cameras or staff and use the drug. If they should overdose, a trauma center would be located inside the clinic so as to save the addict as soon as the overdose occurs. This version has all of the advantages of the aforementioned Pharmacies and Doctors sections, but with key additions. Those additions are a guarantee that a clean needle will be used every time which prevents the spread of diseases and that the chances of surviving an overdose increase as they will only be able to use the drug on site which has the medical staff on call to help at a moments notice. On top of this, because the drug is being used at a special facility known to be used to treat addicts, it creates a stigma that people who use are sick in some way and need help. As people will not want to be viewed as victims, it will help to prevent any new people from trying drugs.

Conclusion: We have many legal drugs already with alcohol being the worst of the bunch based on statistics. On top of this, we treat many addicts as criminals by arresting them which hinders future employment by giving them a police record. Is drug use a personal choice? You are damn right it is. A good number of people quite after just trying once and others can quite at anytime. Those that cannot control the addition are truly victims of their own physiology and thus they need our help. What I have stated here in this issue is what some countries are already doing to help the drug addicted members of their populations. It is time the drug war ends and that we help the addicts rather than scorn them.

 

Issue 290 Legal Drug March 12, 2014

I believe that drugs should be legal. The reasons why are however numerous and have been discussed before. As such, I would like to discuss the "how to" legalize drugs in a responsible way.

Unregulated: I'm being a little misleading here. Drugs will still be regulated by institutions like the Food and Drug administration to insure that they are non-poisonous. A key piece of knowledge about the currently illegal drugs in America is that they are not illegal cause they can kill you, but because they are addictive. As such, libertarians like myself see an age restriction as being applicable to help resolve the situation of minors getting their hands on these substances. Basically each State in the United States would set the age limit based on what they feel is an acceptable age to purchase these drugs. Typically the age will be 18.

Reasoning: With respect to regulating the drugs themselves, it is fairly easy to create a toxic substance if someone does not know what they are doing. As such, FDA certifications that ingredients and the process to make the drug will need to be put in place.

As to the age limit, it has been shown that age restrictions on the purchase of certain products do more to reduce their abuse by minors (those below the age of 18) than by out right prohibitions. The reason is because unlike drugs sold on the street, minors will need to go buy it from a licensed seller. Sellers have more to loose than some drug dealer so they will enforce the restrictions more actively.

Personal use laws: Regulations also allow for limits on how much can be purchased. So the amount of use per a specified period of time can be limited. Thus, less chance of overdose. Also, for States that do not want certain drugs legalized completely, a specified amount of drugs can be allowed per person for their own use. These can be prescription items, or even still sold illegally, but only the drug dealers are arrested and not the users in a police encounter.

Conclusion: These are two small ways that legalization helps. It insures a safer product that can be controlled, limits the amount that people can purchase at a given time and even restricts the age to an appropriate level so that only consenting adults may use it. Legalization is key in these areas to protect drug abuse victims. There are more solutions to that however, and I will discuss those tomorrow.

 

Issue 289 Minicome!? March 11, 2014

A concept discussed by Krystal Ball of MSNBC's "The Cycle" it advocates that all welfare be terminated in favor of a mini-income or "minicome." Let's discuss.

How it works: For one, all other welfare programs would be eliminated to fund this minicome. The minicome itself would be a set dollar amount given to each individual instead of welfare. I believe that that set dollar amount would be equal to the poverty level of $20,000 a year adjusted for inflation. In addition, it would be made available to all non incarcerated adults. Basically, it gives everyone a paycheck from the government instead of traditional welfare. Mrs. Ball of MSNBC believes that it will not disincentives people from going out and finding a job as to get more they would need to go to work. Well, I disagree with this idea.

False hope: This idea is not the first of its kind. Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax which worked in a similar fashion, but even he let that "thought exercise" go. Reason is that free money is and forever shall be a disincentive to work. And nothing will stop the more numerous masses from demanding more from their government. If any politician says they will increase the minicome, then they will get elected every single time. Eventually the system known as the minicome would collapse the financial ability of the government and the whole economic system of the country would collapse with it. What that minicome lacks is an understanding of how the human psyche works.

What they fail to realize: The reason for any system like the minicome causing destruction is simple and sad. It is because humans are and forever shall be animals. We seek the easy and safe path as much as possible and forget the long term consequences so long as we do not have to deal with them. In short, they will pass any problems onto the next generation. The minicome is the same with respect to human nature and its selfishness. Like all programs that give, but do not take back or make individuals uncomfortable relying on government, the system will simply feed the beast of humanities greed. As such, any and all systems that only give are doomed to fail. If human psychology is not taken into account then the system will be inherently doomed.

Conclusion: The problem with the welfare systems today is that people have become proud to be on them. They see welfare as a basic right (at least this is how I see it in my generation). Problem is people are foolish in many ways. They will take advantage of anything and everything. People must therefore be scorned for getting welfare. By scorning them, they will do everything they can to get off of it. Does it sound harsh? Well, yes it is harsh, but it is also the only feasible way right now. Until something that respects and understands the reality of human failings comes around, programs like the minicome are and forever shall be doomed to fail.

Issue 288 Minimum wage lie! March 10, 2014

There is a piece of information that many do not know about the minimum wage. It is cruel and it is racist fact that cannot be denied.

It's racism: The minimum wage was not designed to help the poor at all. In fact it was designed to do the exact opposite, to create poverty. Developed by people whose ideologies reside in Marxist thought and furthered by the Socialist and Fascist groups of the time period (the progressives), it was meant to force the undesirable elements out of the country by putting them in poverty. That is right, the minimum wage was enacted by the United States government to make more people jobless so that only the "desirable" elements of society could find work while the undesirables where forced to look elsewhere in other countries. This is the truth about the minimum wage. But how is it all accomplished through the minimum wage?

How it works: To accomplish the goal of removing the undesirables the minimum wage was instated to give everyone a base pay required by law. So no matter which job you worked, the starting salary would be what ever dollar amount the minimum wage is set to or greater. Innocent enough, but also sinister. The reason being is that it prevented businesses from expanding which would have resulted in more jobs. Every employee is a cost to the employer, as such employers hire the maximum number of people they can to accomplish their goals for their business without going over and putting the business at risk of failing. Setting the minimum wage costs the business money which in turn prevented the business from hiring more or else the business would not be able to function financially. Remember, the amount of money a business makes is not how much it takes in, but how much it keeps after expenses. As such, many small businesses who make up approximately 70% of the job producers in America today struggle to hire people as they have their finances squeezed the most by any cost increases, taxes and any other expenditure for that matter. As such the overall result is more unemployed people.

It did not turn out as expected: While the net result is that there is unemployment partly due to the minimum wage, the racist intentions backfired. Businesses hired low skill labor who did not require larger salaries to work (many of them being those undesirables). Also, the undesirables that the racists in America sought to remove ended up with jobs or stayed via welfare and charitable support. Overall, the minimum wage has instead stagnated people’s salaries and created a class of citizens made up of those racists' "desirables" and "undesirables" who are dependant on others for support.

Conclusion: The minimum wage is in fact a curse on our society. It has left us stagnant and has harmed the worker and business alike. But what is the alternative? Is there a way out of this mess? There is one possible solution. That solution requires two key factors, one, that the Federal government raises the value of the American dollar which in turn allows people to buy more with less money, and two, for people to negotiate with businesses to receive a smaller salary if they so choose. While the first part of the solution sounds reasonable, the second sounds nuts. But, there are people who are willing to be paid less if it meant getting a job and being able to afford to live in their desired community. If we can tolerate this action, as I expect people will reject it out of fear of being undercut for a job by someone who is willing to be paid less, then we might have a chance at increasing employment and fixing a percentage of the poverty/welfare dependence problem.

 

Issue 287 Curch of non-belief 2 March 7, 2014

Well a church of non-belief is about more than just marriage. In fact, the non-believers creating their own church per say gives them opportunities to organize and compete for "worshipers" against the faith based communities. But what would it look like?

United yet divided: Like faith based communities, there will be different groups of non-believers vying for popularity. So we may have the ones that believe that aliens created man kind versus Ayn Rand’s objectivist atheists. Basically, similar competition between various groups of Protestants, Catholics and Baptists. The only thing that would unite them is that they are non-believers in the same way believers can come together around a belief in God.

Moral compass/Ideology: In order to properly compete, the church of non-belief must develop a cohesive foundation that allows people to gather around it as a source of strength. So while one group may revolve around Objectivism, another may revolve around a combination of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism while removing the deity like aspects involved in each. Another may even develop a basis around nature and spirituality. All in all, each would develop a unique group or a single cohesive group based around ideologies and aspects of spiritualism to from the basic moral codes needed for them to compete against the faiths.

Everyday teachings: In addition to a moral compass and ideology to gather behind, the church of non-belief will need basic rules and teachings to follow. So the obvious no killing, steeling or violence against others is a given. However, other teachings will be needed like a ten commandments of logic, exceptions to the rules if any, and a source of punishment that will reinforce these teachings.

The source of punishment is key as if there are no penalties for bad behavior in everyday society then the church of non-belief will fail and so will society along with it. This is the weakness that non-believers have and coming up with the right kinds of punishments like shunning, boycotts and the like would do well to keep people in line with the non-faith. It is important as while faith based communities have God as the person deciding if we go to Heaven or not, there is no fear that can adequately keep non-believers from violating their own moral codes (especially if they beat out the faith based communities in respect to "worshipers").

Conclusion: I have been very disappointed in the non-faith organizations as they currently stand. They seem to attack the faith based communities rather than debate them, as they prefer humiliation and "put downs". In short, they look down on people of faith from my perspective and thus it shows in their advertisements. Meanwhile individual non-believers that I have met never attack, but in fact respect others who believe and do not believe alike. So I think it is a symptom of desiring power at the organized level rather than a blanket snub to all believers. As such, it would be best in my opinion for the non-believers to establish their own churches with masses that advocate humanity, civil rights and personal responsibility. Their gospels could be tales from Aesop's Fables, and Grimm's Fairy tails. Their readings could celebrate mans achievements like discussing how far we have come scientifically or socially by looking at art, science even psychology which would inspire hope for humanities future. They could even have guest speakers and debates by welcoming members of the faith based communities and other groups of non-believers so as to debate and discuss rather than hide or shun differing views. If the non-believers want to compete against the believers come at us by taking our worshipers by showing the merits of embracing non-belief rather than attacking the beliefs of others. I wish you luck and may the truth be ascertained by our competition.

Issue 286 Church of non-belief 1 March 6, 2014

You know, I always wondered why the non-believers in our society have not banded together to compete against the faith based groups in a more constructive way. For instance in marriage, faith groups will not marry certain people together. So why don't the non-believers create an institution that will marry these people themselves.

Who non-believers would marry others: Non-believers could marry gay couples together that the faith based community normally would not. Also, those believing in polygamy could also get married in this church of non-belief. Likewise non-believers could marry one another without worry. On top of this, the church of non-belief could marry people of different faiths that the mainstream faiths would not marry at all.

Solves some issues: For one, it would remove the need to have government to be involved in marriage.  This is due to the church of non-belief being able to fulfill the niche roles of marriage that faith based institutions either will not do, or are so small in number that there is simply not enough of these more progressive churches to go around. In essence, the government would no longer need a civil union anymore.

Gays would be able to marry in this church of non-belief eliminating the Federal government and the State governments from making laws changing the institution of marriage as they will be forced to accept the non-believers definitions of marriage in their churches. Reason being is that the Supreme Court has deemed those who do not believe in a faith to also be a form of faith as well.

This form of church will also give more options to the interfaith communities who normally would have limited access to being able to be married due to the lack of institutions that would marry interfaith couples outside of government.

Non-believers can be married in a church if they create their own church as well which would prevent any future backlash by faith based communities against them (I feel that this may be coming due to the growing conflict between believers and non-believers). Even polygamy (I don't agree with it) also has a chance of being recognized in a church of non-belief as well.

Workability: The Church of non-belief would mimic many of the support systems that a church has for married couples including but not limited to family counseling, therapy and support. It would support all groups that are not supported or are isolated by faith based groups in the institution of marriage and thus accommodate these niche groups primarily (which will also allow them to gather funds as well). So the only thing the non-believers have to do is to create a church of non-belief.

Conclusion: Workability is key. As such, non-believers must be willing to accept people of faith that are part of the gay community, the interfaith community and those in between as well as other non-believers without discrimination. If they can get passed this, then this concept may have a chance.

Issue 285 Do we need faith? March 5, 2014

Here is an inevitable question that man has been asking itself for a while, do we need faith? I personally believe we do, but we should at the very least evaluate it to see.

Reasons to keep the faith: Faith based texts provide moral teachings that have helped guide man thought-out the years of man existence. It has taught us relationships and courtship rituals with respect to monogamous relationships. We have gained laws such as our prohibitions against killing, steeling and adultery. Basic laws and discipline have been handed to us through faith.

In addition to laws and morality, faith has provided us with life examples on people to model our every day lives on. Jesus, Moses, and King Solomon have given us people to inspire and also to learn from as we see mistakes they made in life which continue to occur throughout mans history. Faith also gives us strength and a belief that what we do in life means something. That, the things we accomplish have some sort of impact to affect mankind and affect us in the afterlife. All in all, faith is a motivation, a teacher and a guide for mankind.

Non-belief: Non-belief can still read these texts and garner life lessons. A person without faith can read any religious text and get the same messages that a faith based person would. However, their is a weakness to the non-believers that the faithful do not have, reinforcement for each generation. Faith has reinforcement mechanisms built in to keep people from doing wrong things. But non-believers don't have the reinforcement mechanisms like a concept of being judged by God, or that personal actions have more consequences than just breaking the law. As such, with each passing generation of non-believers, the moral codes of society degrade to be governed by the continuously fluctuating societal norms. Since these norms fluctuate, their is no steady guide to society. I am not saying that a system could take faiths place in creating a foundation for society, but that one has yet to exist that would supplant faith.

Conclusion: Faith is a bedrock that continues to reinforce beliefs and morality in society. Non-belief has a weakness it has yet to overcome. I am not saying this as a person of faith as I am Catholic. Also, I am not saying it out of prejudice as some of my very good friends are non-believers. What I am saying is that the non-believers have no reinforcement mechanism to support society's moral condition and maintain it. They need something more than just an excuse that man creates laws and thus those moral conditions based on laws will remain in effect. I know all to well as a political science major that such write offs of things will not be fine because laws will not be enough as man with their own morality make those laws. Non-believers morality is based on societal codes which fluctuate and thus have no foundation which can lead to change from year to year. Therefore, laws and the moral reasoning behind them will fluctuate as well causing chaos. Once broken, a society without its foundation crumbles. So overall, faith is still a requirement to maintain a society from its inevitable collapse.

Issue 284 Father God March 4, 2014

I have wondered why man has been punished in the Bible so many times and then it hit me. God has been a parent to us all this time and we have not even realized it. You are probably wondering how I came to this conclusion, so let's talk about it.

Punishments: If you look at all the punishments in the Bible, man has been punished for ignoring Gods law. Noah's flood was to punish those who forgot God for worldly desires. Sodom and Gomorrah were again to punish sin. Each and every one of these disasters was to punish mans lack of personal responsibility, morality and lack of faith. Basically, corporal punishment for naughty children. All was to steer us in the right direction.

Guidance of an active to an inactive God: We also have instances where God led man by the nose like with Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt and the Ten Commandments. Finally, when God deemed we were old enough, he sent his son Jesus to teach us how to be individuals and govern ourselves. Jesus taught us how to be independent and thus earn our way to heaven as individuals rather than a collective. Basically, we became young adults in Jesus' time and God sent us off to find our own path. All this was a form of parental guidance from infant to adult (our at least naughty teenagers).

Reasoning: Based on the aforementioned examples we can see that God may be like a parent. However, we also have to look at it based on the creation stories in the bible as well. Eden may not have been on earth, but instead a womb. God may not be just a Father, but a mother as well. Depending on which version of the stories you read, Eden with the first humans sounds more like an infant in a mother’s womb rather than an actual paradise. Then following mans expulsion from the womb of God, we experienced harsh discipline and had to follow certain rules as laid out by God through natures law.

Conclusion: Well this is my reasoning. I cannot say it is sound reasoning, but it has a basis for truth. I did not go full into examples because this is an opinion piece that is designed to have people think, not to think for them. I want people to draw their own conclusions based on their own knowledge of their faith. I will not say that God killing all those people to punish them is not bad, but we have to conclude that those killed by natural means differ than those killed by man. Thus, those killed by God may have a second chance at repentance. But that is a topic for another time. I am always open to debate and I hope you enjoyed my small article.

Issue 283 Heavens Dictatorship March 3, 2014

You know, people often wondered what heaven will be like once we die. Will it be a democracy? Will it be run by us? Heavens no, for heaven is Gods domain and we must follow Gods rules. Hence it is a dictatorship. Let's discuss.

Why we will not be running heaven: First off, people are imperfect. We tend to create factions that divide us based on schools of thought, similar physical characteristics and other useless things. In short, we naturally divide ourselves into tribe like groups. Heaven on the other hand is not a place where factionalism is allowed. So basic human nature is not allowed. Hence why in paradise a single ruler (God) is the only one allowed. Humanity also tends to be violent due to divisions in beliefs and culture. As such, in heaven, we all will be exposed to one single truth, God is our ruler. As such, certain divisions shall be eliminated.

At one point, people thought heaven had a finite amount of space and that certain people were chosen by God to ascend to heaven in the afterlife. This caused strife even amongst members of the faiths as some created factions which started civil wars. So basically humanity is prone to violence which is why we are not allowed to rule.

Our benevolent dictator: God is the ruler because God created us. As our creator, God has say over the laws we follow while in heaven and our conduct to follow. I doubt freedom of thought will be suppressed as there are instances in the Bible and the Koran that God listened and accepted human reasoning. Therefore Thomas Jefferson's letter to his son stating that God prefers inspired questions to blind faith should hold true. Also, unlike man, God is what we define as a perfect being which leads us to believe that he knows the results of all choices we will make. As such, we may expect that God may continue to test our worth even in paradise for who knows if something lays beyond heaven.

Conclusion: A benevolent dictator is not a bad thing. This is especially so as that dictator is God. So don't expect a free ride while in heaven, or to indulge in passions that we enjoyed on earth. Life in heaven will follow a different set of rules that we have yet to know and understand. It may be a curse to live in interesting times while alive, but it may not be so while in heaven.