Issue 347 Electronic tyranny May 30, 2014

Electronics dominate our world.  But they have become intrusive in respect that anyone can track you down on a moment’s notice.  Well, to better explain let's review.

Knowing where you are:  Right now, our cell phones have GPS technology in them.  As such, a phone company can tell exactly where you are and when you were there in the first place.  But now that technology is expanding into your car and other systems you move about with or take with you.  So a company like Ford with its new black box technology will be able to know where your car is at any time due to it being hooked up to the internet.  But to top it all off, they will know also, where you live, how you drive, the rout you take and such even if you leave your cell phone behind.  Even worse, even if you do not take any electronic equipment with tracking software with you, cameras located on public and private buildings hooked to the internet can easily find you.   This is because, newer more capable facial recognition software is slowly coming online.

What you buy:  Well your credit and debit card information is also not secure.  They can tell what you have bought with these payment methods to find out what you are interested in and what you buy on a regular basis.  Those membership cards also do this in a similar manner, but remove the actual payment from the transaction.  This allows businesses to gather large sums of data on their customers to push coupons on them that they may use to buy other items.

What you like:  Did you look at the advertisements on the last internet site you visited?  All the ads are based upon your past visits and searches on the web.  It is because they are trying to get you to go to buy something from the website because it thinks you’re interested in it.  Likewise television is no better.  The satellite and cabal companies know exactly what channel you are watching, at what time and for how long.  So much so that they know what television shows you watch? It is only a matter of time before the ads on your TV mimic how they are applied to websites on the internet.

In your home:  More recent technology is the smart home concept, which combines security systems and the ability to control any and all appliances in your home.  So now they know what your preferred thermostat temperature is, when you do the dishes and other house hold chores and even when you flush the toilet.  This even lets them know what location you are in the house and when.  Very intrusive is it not?

Conclusion:  Technology can benefit everyone, but it came at the cost of privacy.  We have none in our own homes anymore and this trend seems like it is going to continue.  They know if you have children, are dating and more just by looking at all this data that they can collect on us and even sell to each other in packages. Soon they may even be able to control the very homes we live in as well "for our own good".  It is all creepy and that is what I am trying to convey to you. It is all disturbing to be watched and raising awareness is the only thing I as a writer can do to try and stave off or find a solution to what looks like a potentially dangerous problem.

Issue 346 Can the military fight without electronics May 29, 2014

   

Based on my limited knowledge, the military has become highly dependent on electronic devices to carry out its operations.  Global positioning systems require satellites and the ability to interpret the data via computer. Aircraft need computers to fly as their designs are purposefully made aerodynamically unstable.  Ground troops rely on computers to help aim and fire their guns.  So what can the military do to save themselves from something like an electromagnetic pulse (EMP)?

Faraday cages:  A Faraday cage is a metal cage that acts as a shield for electronic equipment.  It essentially uses a metal box, metal mesh, or layers of each to block electromagnetic radiation from reaching the object inside.  Essentially, this is a form of shielding from EMP, and other similar waves that may disrupt or destroy electronic equipment.  Certain military facilities are sure to have and use this technology already, but is enough of their facilities equipped with this shielding to protect the equipment inside?  Basically, can we take a tank and encase its most sensitive components in a Faraday cage to protect it so that in the event of a nuclear blast that it can still turn on and function.  All this is possible so as to protect all combat equipment in the Army, Navy, Air-force and Marines (and the rest of the defense industry and power grid as well).   The military needs this high tech equipment to coordinate tactics and strategy along with coordinate logistics.  Without this tech, our military and the defense infrastructure of the United States would be brought back to the 1800's.  In short, without such protection, the U.S. would be helpless.

Alternative GPS/communications Satellites:  One other essential system that is required by our military to function is GPS and other satellites.  Without these, our precision munitions, location tracking and communications would be limited.  Yes, I said we can protect them with a Faraday cage, but the other military's of the world are also looking into missiles that strike these communication and guidance systems to remove them by shooting them down and the capabilities of the United States to defend itself along with it.  So there are two options.  One is to create man portable communication towers and aircraft that can hoover above the battlefield providing these very same capabilities, while at the same time networking via internet with other systems and surviving ones.  The other is to try and use stealth technology.  For option one, you can have a series of small blimps/aircraft that can stay aloft for days at a time to provide all the observation, recon photos you want along with GPS and communications ability.  Towers equipped to command vehicles will receive date to transmit it to forces, or said forces will have their own methods of communicating with these flying systems.  The other option which uses stealth technologies will invest in creating satellites invisible to enemy sensors, or have a defense system to either overload the incoming missiles guidance system, or shoot it down entirely.  These are the main options here.

Passive:  The final piece that will help the military to protect itself is to use passive sensor and communications technology.  Here, in order to detect and target the enemy, the military uses a system to locate the source of the enemy's radar, or communications equipment.  By finding the source the military can target the enemy nearly undetected. In addition, they can use other satellites and communications equipment owned by other countries by hacking in and using it to replace lost systems.  This will force the enemy to even destroy their own satellites or face them being turned against them.  In this way, the military can adapt to their situation.

Conclusion:  While these solutions present real possibilities, they will not solve the overall problem.  As such, the military will still need to train in augmented training scenarios to communicate and fight without certain equipment being available to them.  As such, being able to fight primitively has its advantages. So as long our military learns to adapt, and takes steps to protect itself, it can continue protecting us. 

Issue 345 Government V. Private funding May 28, 2014

The Government seems to take a lot of credit for a lot of inventions in America.  But in fact private (who does it better) is looked down upon.  But in truth the government plays a supporting role to the private with respect to inventions and progress.  Let's discuss.

What Government has helped do and how:  Government generally gets credit for creating the internet, space travel and a host of other gadgets, gizmos and tech.  But in truth, all they did was pay private companies or individuals to help build these various pieces of technology. So in truth government, while it was involved in the funding and acquisition of the good/service, it was not the government who invented it.  However, government does continue to play a supporting role even after the invention is finished.  For instance, nuclear technology is supported by the government through subsidies.  This government money insures that a nuclear power-plant remains cheap to build for the company that will ultimately run and operate the facility.  This occurs again with respect to electric cars, and solar/wind farms.  Money is provided by the government to make it cheaper to build and even operate over the course of time.  The main drawback is that it costs us, the taxpayers’ money to do so.  Also, there is zero guarantee of success of the investment.  Unlike the private sector good money can be wasted if the people in government refuse to give up on a worthy cause.

Private:  The private sector as stated in previous articles is more flexible and capable than its government counterpart.  It can find a niche market and profit from it. Not to mention the fact that it costs the taxpayers no money.  With flexibility and innovation the private market turned the internet into the key component of business in the 21st century.  They gave us the car, the train, the plane, the telephone and nearly everything else we take for granted each and every day.  Now we have places where we can invest money to create new things called crowd funding.  Here a movie producer, an inventor or really anyone with a product or an idea can ask for money to be donated to them in order for their goal to be achieved.  Nowhere else is this possible than in the private sector.  However, if no profit is to be made, then the business venture may die off and not return until a later time when the invention or product is more feasible.  This is because not all inventions can be successful, which results in stagnation in particular instances.  Also, a business may hold back on bringing a new technology onto market because it threatens one of their already existing products. 

Conclusion:  So who is better, a government with nearly unlimited resources, or a private institution where there is more guarantee that no money will be wasted.  Government can't claim responsibility for all that has been invented as all has been done through private individuals or groups.  It can however say it helped.  So who would you rely on, a government that can waste your money, or a private company whom you may have to be patient with?  From my little experience, I will take the private sector for at least I'm nearly guaranteed to have a successful product.

Issue 344 Free Speech on Campus May 27, 2014

Colleges are supposed to be zones of discussion.  On a college campus free speech is meant to be supported to drive the learning process.  And yet they are not.  Why?

How they limit speech:  Many of the college campuses in the United States do not allow free speech save within a specified area.  Usually this area is small, out of the way and thus the least likely to be encountered or seen by the rest of the student body.  It seems odd doesn't it?  That they would confine speech to a specific area.  Well, this zone is also used for any protesters of a cause too, and for advocacy groups that the campus my not necessarily agree with.  Meanwhile the accepted groups can set up club booths in the main common areas to ask people to join while embracing their free speech rights based on their club or society and what they do.  So this is a double standard which seeks to allow groups on campus the college wants to be heard in the public eye with those they disagree with isolated.  So why do this?  What's the point?

Opinion on why:  I believe that all colleges have some sort of agenda they wish to put forth.  They allow only those they agree with to be heard and sometimes even invite them into the classroom.  On the other hand, groups that the college disagrees with or are not popular must via for a single spot on campus to speak.  Of course, as stated, this free speech zone is out of the way and rarely seen by the majority of the student body.  So these protests that may for example advocate for traditional marriage, certain rights and/or privileges get isolated to the back of a campus.  I mean look at the maps of a campus and see for yourself where they place their free speech zone.  

They may possibly do this just to isolate and change the culture of the campus and thus society itself.  Think about it.  The next generation of college students will only think in a certain way as advocated by the college.  It is because of this that a college can influence the very culture of a country.  Multiply this by all the colleges and across generational lines and views that the colleges want will eventually overtake the views of every previous generation causing a new culture in a country.  Is it about control?  Is it about altering the countries state of mind?  Control is a no, but state of mind is a maybe because there have been many good and bad things to happen to a country in the past which many of the intellectuals who run colleges want to fix (even if they have already been fixed by natural evolution of the culture itself).  

Conclusion:  Basically, there is no actual free speech on campus because the colleges want students steered in a specific direction.  Should they do this?  No, not at all, for it is manipulation of individuals.  Students go to college to learn about a career while acquiring the skills and knowledge to achieve that career, not to be preached to.  In order to learn, colleges need to allow for the full freedom of speech which enables students to question and thus seek truth by acquiring it themselves.  It is no wonder why colleges are fading with the changes in the job market, they are not focused on giving you your money's worth anymore, just rhetoric of what they want to pass.

Issue 343 Scrap Dining May 26, 2014

Last week we talked a lot about serious topics so I wanted to start off this week by being not so serious.  Right now there is a movement to not throw out as much food waste because much of that food is still usable (thanks Food Network).  So let’s go over some of these items that we don't realize are still good to eat.

Meat:  We throw out meat allot.  That meat still on the bone is still good to eat and can be taken off to make a great pot pie, shredded BBQ sandwich or other dish that requires shredded meat.  This includes that whole turkey at the Thanksgiving feast or that goose you cooked up for tonight's dinner.  But instead we throw it away where it ends up as rat food.

Sauces:  Have you kept that pasta sauce from last night’s pasta dish?  Well my father did.  He would collect the leftover sauce from the pot and store it as a base.  Then the next time he needed to make pasta, he would break out the base and then add just enough new ingredients to suit our meal at dinner time.  As such the sauce was never wasted.  This too can work for other sauces depending on shelf life.  Also, some of these sauces like soy sauce or duck can be used in other dishes to add another level of taste to a dish.  In the same way you can use flat soda as a sugar substitute in making a cake, you can use something like soy sauce in place of polished salt due to the salt content already in the sauce.  You just have to match the ingredient with the dish you are making.

Veggies and fruits:  Potatoes are an excellent example on recycling parts to make a delicious dish.  Don't throw out those potato skins when making mashed potatoes, but fill them with cheese and bacon for a potato skin snack. Orange peels can be grated to make lemon zest.  Pepper seeds can be crushed to flavor certain dishes.  Heck even peeps the marshmallow snack can be melted down to candy bacon (yea I know marshmallows aren't fruits or veggies, but they come from processed sugar >.<).  There are many things you can do to recycle parts of food that you may throw out for something else.

Conclusion:  Anything can be recycled so long as you know how.  Bacon grease and lard can be used to season a pan when making delicious foods.  Even fruits (after juicing) and veggies (leftovers from cooking) can be put in a processor to make a healthy smoothly if you like.  Literally, food parts and components can be used to make great cooking.  For what’s left that is inedible, be glad as there is the compost heap or even a grinder to make fertilizer for use in your own gardens.  Happy eating by preventing wasted food.

Issue 342 Protecting The Stock Market May 23, 2014

This is a hard one.  The stock market is not just infrastructure like a building or something on a computer to be protected from hackers and viruses.  It can also be manipulated by manipulating the prices of goods and services, by major buying and selling of stock, and even fear of risk itself.  So how do you protect this ultra-sensitive institution from a crash like the one during the great depression or the crash of 2007/8?

Protection?:  I am not a stock market expert.  Then again neither is Congress as they made that horrible law called Dodd Frank.  There is evidence that the processes that traditionally go on the market can be manipulated by just buying and selling as per normal.  And the fact is that it cannot be stopped.  Everything from currencies, natural resources, inventions and businesses are all invested in.  If someone buys a lot of stock and then sells it rapidly (and if the person, corporation or even country is well known) it could trigger a massive sell off by all other members trading on the market out of fear that they will lose money.  We unfortunately cannot protect from that as we may be able to control our own citizens and how we trade, but we cannot stop individuals from other countries.  So how do we fix this situation?

Mutual assured economic destruction:  We all know of the nuclear policy called MAD (mutually assured destruction).  However, they also developed a similar strategy in case of an invasion or non-nuclear conflict.  Basically the reason why the United States market crash affected the rest of the world is due to the ties between our stock market and the markets overseas. This was meant to be the solution that prevented such occurrences of economic or even conventional warfare attack as it would ruin the attacking countries economy as well. However, a rich country can position itself to reduce the damage while still destroying another country economically.  So what are we to do about this?  

Mutually assured economic destruction is still the answer, but it must be enhanced.  I believe that the market each day at 4 pm should actually never close (not just online but physically as well).  It is my belief that this will allow people to react immediately to any changes in the market including another crash (whether purposeful or not).  Traders can have an alarm set if any harm over a certain value happens to their investments which would wake them to counteract their losses.   In addition, I would allow insider trading to occur unchecked.  Reason being is that no one can really enforce the law in the first place and that as long as everyone is told publicly within a set period of time, then it should not matter who and when an individual reacts to that news.  This allows the damage to be reduced on the individual level by allowing faster reactions to market changes as they occur. 

Next ties between foreign nations and their economies should be strengthened as much as possible.  This will create an interdependence that will make any country think twice about an economic based attack.  For those countries that try to insulate themselves from economic crashes pre-attack.  A mechanism must be put in place to ensure that they suffer enough consequences for their actions that even if they wanted to further their attack via other methods that the suffering of their economy would prevent them.  What that method is, I do not know, but I do not advocate a financial penalty as that is too weak, as why would they even bother paying the fine.  Perhaps a more robust blacklisting of only those involved in the incident and only if wrong doing was confirmed (if they purposely made the crash happen).  Beyond that I do not know.

Recovery:  What is more essential will be the recovery after the fact. Right now America's economy is crawling back to its former glory instead of racing.  The reason is due to specific obstacles.  One is taxes on investments.  These taxes stagnate an economy making it harder for investors to purchase stock and for newer investors to invest in the first place.  Also, the government has even gone so far as to dictate, in certain instances, how certain businesses and individuals should invest and on how these businesses should perform their services which puts them at risk of financial ruin.  Government does not know how to run a business and thus should stop trying as all they are doing is risking that business failing which in turn negatively disrupts and harms to stock market.  Finally, licenses that hinder businesses opening should be made easier to obtain or abolished altogether.  These inhibit business growth which again harms and potentially stagnant the stock market.  Do these things and watch the market roar back to life.

Conclusion:  I apologize to anyone who knows the market better than I do.  Sure I am a novice (even as an investor) but insuring the safety of the market against fools who would crash it on purpose to suit their needs is something we must protect against.  I know not what to do against fiscally irresponsible governments like my own, or terrorists who manage to gain enough influence in the market to disrupt it using legal means.  All I know though is that there must be a way, and to do it we all have to work together (whether anyone likes it or not).

Issue 341 Protecting infrastructure May 22, 2014

Infrastructure includes, roads, bridges, tunnels, power plants and other energy generating sources, railroads and airports.  These various facilities facilitate the world we live in and make life as we know it possible.  However, whose job is it to protect these objects from possible attack?  Let us look at the pros and cons of government versus private yet again in the context of protecting the nation’s life blood of commerce.

Government:  Similar to yesterday, the government has the advantage of an unlimited money supply to make enhancements to protect our infrastructure.  They can fix it when it is damaged and maintain it when it is too expensive to repair by private company means.  However, that money spent is not always spent wisely.  Contract overruns, pulled budgets, and corruption take their toll. Also, despite having an unlimited money supply, printing all that money can cause negative economic consequences that could increase poverty.   

The government also has access to intelligence networks to prevent and preempt an attack from happening.  Not only does the government have access to its own intelligence network, but to other allied and neutral countries networks as well.  However, like with the Boston Bombing indecent, intelligence can be, and will be, ignored on occasion.  Thus, despite the sheer amount of resources at the government’s disposal to react, they may fail to act in the first place.

Additionally, unlike the private sector, the government has the judicial branch.  They can capture people caught in the act and then prosecute them.  However, private as of yet has no means of performing this delicate function of government.

Private:  Private has the advantage of it being small scale where they can focus on a specific facilities defense exclusively. As such, due to that focus it is not uncommon for them to innovate to maintain highly skilled and professional private security forces to act as guards and to develop security methods indicative to the particular object they wish to protect.  Government has trouble with this as they have a broader blanket approach to such things.  

When it comes to repair, the private sector innovates to ensure that things can get done quickly and efficiently.  They, who guard the facility, may not have to be able to repair the facility as they can have individuals hired to do that same task on their behalf as part of their job.  In their contract they can have a clause that even has them fortify the facility from things like electromagnetic pulse weapons and other forms of unorthodox attacks.  

Intelligence wise, the private sector has begun to get into the spy game in the same way they got into the use of mercenaries to protect certain assets.  Since the war on terror started under President George W. Bush, the private sector intelligence groups have been used by the CIA and other intelligence agencies to gather information on their behalf, especially when they are shorthanded when there is no focus or obvious threat from that country.

Conclusion:  In certain cases, the government is better, while in others private is better.  For instance a private security force with adequate intelligence from government and private sources can protect an airport, a nuclear power plant or a bus depot very efficiently.  On the other hand, a bridge or a tunnel is much harder to protect which typically leaves government as the de facto protector (as was the case of the Lincoln Tunnel indecent which NYPD's anti-terror team stopped).  On top of this, private is typically more motivated as they can be fired while the government can't.  Best example is with the TSA guarding our nation’s airports versus those in private industry guarding our airports.  The private sector security is rewarded for their good work and activities by the private company. The private company even designs exorcises to enhance quality and motivation even further leading to a better success rate on finding banned items in luggage than their government employed counterparts.  So you can see that there is a certain level of difference with respect to how well we will be protected and by whom when you think about it.  So it is all a matter of applying which group to protect what based on capability.  So yes, I am fine with a private company protecting a power plant and fortifying it from attack over the government which would be better suited to the offensives role of terrorist hunting.

Issue 340 Protecting the Net (whose job is it?) May 21, 2014

So whose job is it to protect the internet?  Truth is, the people of the United States are still discussing the issue. So let’s go over go over advantages to both public and private defending the internet that we have all come to rely on.

Government:  The main advantage to the government is that it has an unlimited budget to develop the systems needed to protect the net.  Groups in the defense industry like the National Security Agency (NSA) already serve to aid in protecting the net via various firewall and software programs.  In fact it was one of their primary jobs until Congress allowed for private companies to develop their own and sell their own anti-virus and protective software.  Now the NSA mainly serves as a spy agency to collect data via electronic means with the Air-force taking control of the defense of the net, but primarily does so for the military.  With the governments vast resources they can fund any program and institution to develop any program they need for the past, present and future threats the internet may face.

Private:  Private companies have a major advantage over the government.  For one they are on a budget.  Thus, despite their limited resources they can get an equivalent program to defend the internet much cheaper than in most cases than what the government will put forth (as corruption is sure to occur at the governmental level).  Also, while the government may rely on a single program, the private sector may develop multiple types of systems for their own protection which will frustrate hackers and foreign governments. Basically variety and cost saving are typically the main advantages here.

Conclusion:  In my opinion, both government and private companies have a role to play.  But both lack attack components (though the private sector is changing that somewhat).  So it really remains to be seen if either will have a settled role in the defense of the internet.  However, it is my opinion that the private sector provides so much more in advantages including variety, and flexibility of defensive abilities and development, that they will take the prominent role in the defense of the internet (including themselves).  For the government, they will revert here to a source of information sharing for any potential threats (though the private sector will have an overlapping role in this) and act as a funding body for the private sector for any new emerging threats that the private sector has yet to have a counter for (of course that is if the private sector has not already taken steps to counter the threat).  Overall the internet is a valuable resource for all commerce and its collapse will result in market crashes and the loss of all defensive abilities that countries like the United States has.  So we can only hope government allows the private sector with its superior advantages to take the lead, less the government is more concerned about their ego than the defense of the nation itself.

Issue 339 Missile Troops May 20, 2014

Missile troops are a concept that comes from the Chinese Military.  These troops as part of the military would play a completely new and defensive role in protecting our boarders and our interests abroad.  So let's discuss what they are and how it works.

Goals:   Missile troops have a few primary goals.  The first is active defense for both air, land and sea (plus space in the not so distant future).  So their targets will be enemy satellites, aircraft, ships, missile and stationary or moving land based targets.  In being able to strike these targets, they in their second goal must be able to do so as far away as possible (as distance equals safety for them and those they protect). Finally, as these troops are primarily defensive with some offensive capability, their final goal is to control access to certain areas thus corralling enemy action to specific areas and denying access to others.

How it works:  This new arm, or additional capability to a branch of service will integrate capabilities from all the branches of the armed forces and their infrastructure optimized primarily for stationary long term deployments.  In this way the primary medium for action will be forward deployed land bases insulated from attack by being underground.  Control stations will connect to missile silos via fiber-optic cables (which prevents the enemy jamming the communication signals) which are equipped with rotating magazines to shoot various types of missiles to allow variety in meeting the various threats they may have to defeat.  These troops may also be equipped with energy weapons to allow for unlimited ammo against their targets that are within line of sight.  

In addition, mobile land based systems may be created to further defense and allow for the protection of military bases abroad.  Naval versions of this system will be given to Cruisers or Destroyers to act as the defenders of the fleet with the only disadvantages to these more mobile systems being limited ammunition and power consumption.  

Obstacles: The main obstacle is the Intermediate Range Nuclear Force Treaty between the United States and Russia which limits the range of short range to medium range missiles by prohibiting missiles with any range between 500 and 5500 kilometers. This treaty would have to be abolished to accommodate this system to make it effective.  Another obstacle is the Army's organization.  It consists of three primary groups, maneuver, strike and supply.  This new organization takes capabilities from maneuver and a lot from the strike (artillery) portions of the Army which will cause resistance by these groups.  Other branches like the Air-force and Navy may also protest as portions of their capabilities are taken to support the creation and successful deployment of this new form of soldier.  Outside of these institutional blockages, this must all be budgeted for by Congress.

Solutions to the Problems:  I hypothesis that the treaty can be easily revoked by Russia if the United States asked.  They have their own strategic interests in revoking the treaty and it can be altered to simply restrict nuclear warheads of that range rather than all missiles in general. 

As to the institutional blockages by the other members of the military.  Most of the commands will be integrated into the new structure, but rather than create a brand new group (in my opinion), the Army's strike portion which governs the use of artillery can integrate these new capabilities into themselves.  By doing so, the overarching members of the Army will overrule the maneuver portion, and thus lessen the blockage by one of the most important groups in the defense of our nation.  In effect, all defensive and offensive land based systems will be integrated into the strike component of the army which will include specialized infantry equipped with specialized indirect munitions all the way through intercontinental ballistic missiles.  

To take care of the Navy and Air-Force, (I believe) they each should get their own role in this new system.  The Navy will act as sea going versions of this system to defend bases and fleet operations (though they already have this capability there is a chance it will expand further to include newer more powerful systems).  In the case of the Air-Force, they (if developed) will have satellite based versions of this system and also if feasible air based versions of this defensive system as well.  As this entire concept is supposed to work with area denial technologies like mine-warfare, fighters to intercept enemy air craft and missiles, subs and cyber warfare the Navy and Air-Force will gain or reorganize existing capabilities to use these functions as part of their support of this new group of soldiers.

Conclusion:  This new form of defensive system which obviously integrates many forms of new missile technology, newer energy weapons and (if my opinion holds) older and proven classic artillery with technological enhancements will streamline offensive and defensive options for the military.  It will streamline costs and logistics as a whole while improving the defense of the nation.  China has already created, adapted and deployed this new form of soldier.  So I ask, if this truly is a good idea with respect to national defense and cost savings, why are we not doing this too?

Issue 338 3D printers and the military May 19, 2014

It has recently been talked about using 3D printers on Navy ships to create remote/pre-programmed drones (robots).  But this may expand even further as the technology progresses.  So let us extrapolate on the future potential of 3D printers in combat (in this case for the Navy). 

Munitions:  The Navy has a need to resupply often at sea and of course they have a lot of rockets, bombs and other items that go boom.  So instead of storing those munitions on ship where they risk possible explosion or having to be transported to a safe port to be loaded on ship, the chemicals to make the explosives can be made on ship instead using a 3D printer.  Keep in mind that warheads for these munitions are attached right before takeoff if loaded on an aircraft, but this is not so for munitions stored in missile silos on Cruisers, Destroyers and similar water based craft.  So by manufacturing what is needed aboard ship, they may be able to reduce this vulnerability as the warheads can be attached right before combat.  The other components of the missiles and other ordnance can be stored and assembled on ship as well by a 3D printer.  Fuel and materials can even be harvested at sea to minimize need for resupply ships which are vulnerable, and it will also reduce need for recycling and refuse disposal on ship as these materials can then be recycled to make more weapons of war.

Tools and equipment: Just like munitions tools and equipment can be made in the same way with 3D printers.  Need a specialized tool, then it can be designed and manufactured right on ship using harvested materials from trash on ship and from the sea water itself.  Some equipment is so simple that they can be made with 3D printers.  As technology progresses, 3D printers can even print an entire computer or alternative materials can be used to make that same equipment.  Literally, as time goes on, the limit on what can be made will be based on the size of the 3D printer and how fast and reliably materials can be supplied to it.  

Conclusion:  To be honest, the limits on 3D printers are very small.  They will eventually usurp much of the traditional manufacturing processes already existing.  On top of this, materials that traditionally would be incapable of being used to make a computer may finally be able to be used as such based upon how well 3D printers convert the material into its new form.  For the Navy, a powerful and fully capable 3D printer may eliminate the need for resupply ships save food and fuel (fuel is questionable as well though based on how well the development of technology to get fuel from sea water progresses).  The main focus of the Navy or the military in general is to reduce the need for a supply chain that is vulnerable to attack and limits range and maneuverability.  So just by having this technology aboard a ship and using it to make replacement parts, tools and whatever other needs the ship has by using some stored materials, trash (or even human waste) and materials retrieved from the ocean waters, the Navy (and taxpayers) can save massive amounts of money, and improve the safety of our servicemen and women at sea.

Issue 337 Control (information) May 16, 2014

Information control is essential for any dictatorship or tyrannical government to control the hearts and minds of a people.  But what are the ways they do so?

White Propaganda: White Propaganda is propaganda that makes a country, a group or organization look positive or beneficial.  It can be used to make a losing side look like it is winning by manipulating perceptions.  This also affects the enemy (or dissidents) as it makes them feel as if their efforts seem useless.  So when a government spins information to make things look better than they really are it is white propaganda.

Black Propaganda:  The opposite of the white version, Black Propaganda is about demeaning the enemy.  It makes them less human and viler than they may actually be. So when the Japanese portrayed Americans as beasts and us Americans the same way it was a form of Black Propaganda.  This form of propaganda was used by the Nazi's to demean the Jews, the Gays, and the disabled as well.  Obviously this is all about portraying countries, groups or people in a negative light.

Censorship:  Censorship is where certain information is purposely withheld from public knowledge.  This can be done by the government, or even groups or people.  Here it is about preventing information that may counter the narrative being put forth by a government.  So any information that may display a negative light on the government, or make them look like hypocrites will be withheld.  Other forms of this may be used to ensure that particular morals are upheld.  Similar to how in the Cold War a censorship office in the United States prevented displays or information that was either "obscene" or purported the ideology of the Communists.  In this way, they could prevent the "corruption" of the people.

Disinformation:  The most powerful form of information control, it combines propaganda, censorship and an element of storytelling to control information.  So basically it is the creation of a believable story line and supported by the three aforementioned forms of information control (sometimes with planted evidence or information) in order to either make things look positive or negative, or to steer the population in a certain direction and away from what the group controlling the narrative deems undesirable.  For instance in WWII the Pope hid Jewish families in the Vatican, to hide them from the Germans.  But a disinformation campaign by Joseph Stalin's intelligence agencies portrayed the Pope as complicit to Hitler’s extermination of the Jews.  Truth was that the Vatican had so many Jews being sheltered that they were living on the Vatican steps and in the hallways.  But until recently with information slowly being declassified everyone believed the disinformation that Stalin had put out to turn people away from the church and lean toward atheism which the communist government espoused.    

Conclusion:  As you can see, information control is powerful.  It can mean the rise and fall of nations and reputations.  Any government, group and organization can pull this off.  Think of how little we knew about the stock market crash in 2007/2008.  They withheld information and used propaganda until they could no longer withhold the information.  Mudslinging during election campaigns is propaganda as well with a small dose of disinformation depending on how creative the opponent can be.  So all I can tell you is trust but verify for you are not getting the full story in school or from the media in the first place, but spinets of information that they can cram in.  So who knows how much more there is to a story or to history that we are not being told.  Always remember, to do your own research and break out of the box that these con artists want you to stay in. 

Issue 336 Control (military) May 15, 2014

Keeping with history but also keeping with modern forms of control, the military has always played a role in controlling populaces.  Let's go over how they have been used.

Genocide:  One that typically comes to mind is genocide.  Used by the Romans, the Nazi's and even today by various African tribes, the military have been used to wipe out resistance or target populations throughout history.  During the Rwandan Genocide the Hutu's wiped out a large portion of the Tutsi population partly in support by the militia consisting of the Hutu majority.  In Russia, a protocol of extermination was used during the Cold War to wipe out undesirables in the Ukrainian region and the population replaced by ethnic Russians.  All done with the support of the military.

Fear:  The military has also been used as a replacement or as part of the police force.  They become instruments of intimidation and fear as the military is used to suppress dissidents like in China, in Tiananmen Square. In other cases they use them as blunt instruments of oppression by brutalizing members of the local populace by destroying their homes or just ransacking them.

Suppression:  Other times the targets of the military are simply assassinated of dissidents, suppression of demonstrations and even propaganda campaigns.  A leader can use them like tools to kill anyone they desire.  Think of Kim Jung Un and his regime in North Korea as he keeps the population under his direct control where if they smile wrong they can be shot.  The military even runs the prisons where dissidents are kept.

Conclusion: A military in the hands of a mad man, or if out of control can force a population suitably unarmed to do whatever it pleases. This is the nightmare that countries around the world face from secret police, or showy military dictatorships.  If not controlled and constrained in a similar manner to how the United States has with its civilian control apparatus, then we may just face a serious threat from those who would use the military to force people from their land, or to make them silent to the abuses they suffer.  

Issue 335 Historical Control May 14, 2014

I went over two forms of control this week so far, but have not touched upon one of history’s most sinister forms of control.  This form happened during the age when colonies were used as cash cows by the British and other Empires around the globe.  So here is how they manipulated an islands populace.

Step 1, replace the subsistence farming:  Subsistence farming is farming for food.  But when the British and the Dutch came to these island nations they had all the food crops replaced by cash crops like cotton, tobacco and the like. Basically whatever crops they needed for industrial use were grown on these islands instead of food. But how would this make the people there dependent?

Step 2, provide food:  As the local populace no longer produces their own food they must be provided for.  The British and the Dutch would have ships come in and deliver food and supplies to the locals to keep them alive and working.  In exchange they would load up the cargo of cash crops like the tobacco and cotton and make their way back to port. This is thus how they made the populations dependent and a little more as well.

Step 3, Suppress resistance:  If the local population would rebel, then the British and the Dutch simply stopped supplying food to the populace.  As the soil generally got depleted of nutrients by the cash crops and that it would take months for food to grow in general, starvation would take hold and weaken the populace of the colony.  Then when suitably weakened, the British and the Dutch would send in troops to suppress the populace and reassert their control. 

Step 4, continue back at step 2:  Basically, after a rebellion was suppressed the Colonial powers would again push the population to farm the industrial crops that they wanted.  The locals would be forced to submit or be replaced by locals from other communities to keep up production.  Of course the locals had no say in the matter as they would be starved to death if they did not comply.

Conclusion:  This is the most blatant and traditional form of control.  In fact it can still occur in the world today, but on different scales.  So it can happen in the home in the case of child/sex slavery, or on a national scale like Russia denying oil to other countries that are dependent on them.  Land locked regions can suffer the same fate as these island nations of the past.  Basically, it happened before and it can happen again.  This is my warning to you all, don't let it happen to you.

Issue 334 Control (water) May 13, 2014

Did you know that water is also a finite resource?  Water is required by the human body to survive every three days.  We use water to grow crops, to wash ourselves and our dishes, and to just survive in general.  So controlling the water is a very big deal.

Water as an element of control:  You usually do not hear of water being used in a fashion to control people, and yet it is feasible to do so.  Say there is a region of the country that has scarce water resources and you cut the pipeline off that supplied their water.  Would they be able to survive?  The answer is no.  It is impossible for any civilization to survive without a water source.  If you look at where people settled in the early days of mankind you will see they all settled by a water source that supplied fresh water.  As such they could grow their crops and drink to their hearts content.  With aqueduct and pipeline technology we as human beings were able to settle further and further away from rivers and lakes.  But an enemy can kill off an entire civilization simply by cutting off their water supply.  One similar situation is in California where a valley had its water cut off due to an endangered fish species.  The result is that they could no longer farm as they required that water to irrigate their crops.  This cutting off of their water may result in not only a loss in business, but the loss of their homes and higher food prices in the country.  As you can probably see now, water is a highly valuable resource.

Why not just get fresh water from the ocean?:  Ideas have been placed on desalinization of sea water and other salt water bodies to supply fresh water to communities.  The technology exists and is used in many countries around the world including the United States and many Arab countries.  But there is a catch.  In the process to desalinize water, it costs lots of energy.  As such paying for the fuel, and the facilities and even the filters are cost prohibitive. Unfortunately, the methods of desalination are still being researched to make it even more cost efficient, but results are moving at a snail’s pace. So this technology is used when the access to water is so scarce that there is no other choice.  To top it off these facilities may require special parts, which again must be supplied by certain manufactures.  So these facilities are also subject to control as if a part breaks or the filter expires, you will need a replacement from the person, company or country that makes it.  So they can say no to replacements and thus bring an entire country to its knees.  This is how precious water is, a country may be forced to beg so as to save its people from starvation.

Conclusion:  Water can and most likely will be used as an element to control people and even countries.  Like fuel, fresh water is limited based on supply, demand and the resulting cost.  Unless we somehow find other methods of supplying water or preserving it, we find ourselves with a shortage.  That shortage could mean another OPEC, but this time controlling the world’s water supply.  

Issue 333 Control (fuel) May 12, 2014

Fuels like oil and its derivatives are very important to industrialized countries around the world.  It allows us to heat our homes, generates electricity, and of course fuels our vehicles (cars, trucks, boats, planes etc.).  But what happens if that fuel was to be cut off.  This is the threat the United States and Europe face and I'll explain why.

Russian Control:  Russia controls much of the fuel in Europe.  In fact the closer a country is to Russia the more dependent they are on Russian oil.  This is because many of these countries either lack the resources for an alternative source of energy or do not have industries built to access their natural resources.  Therefor Russia becomes very powerful in deciding what they can and cannot do in the region.  Still scratching your head?  I will make it simple, Russia can force any country that relies on its oil to do what it wants by threatening to cut the oil off.  This is how oil is used as an element of control in Europe.  Russia has sway over the entire region due to their monopoly on oil there.  

OPEC:  Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is a menace to the United States.  Unlike Russia who holds sway over Europe, OPEC has sway over the United States in a different way.  OPEC can artificially raise the price of oil to influence United States policy.  While the United States gets most of its oil from Mexico and Canada, OPEC holds sway over the stock market when it comes to oil.  So if they hold back on production they can disrupt the market and cause prices to rise to whatever level they see fit.  As such they can make a nice profit or suppress policies in a country like the United States that would disrupt their profits.

Why fuel is important:  Oil is very important to commerce in general.  No train, or plane could run without it in our current energy environment.  We need it to fuel our cars and heat our homes.  So what would happen if the fuel ran out?  Nuclear power is limited due to the number of reactors, solar and wind are nowhere near energy efficient enough, and dams have a limited amount of power they can supply too. In short coal and oil fired plants produce most of the electricity per market share.  If fuel prices go higher it can causes businesses to fail, prices of goods will rise pricing people out of being able to afford food and medicine. Hospitals may be forced to close as they too will not have enough money or power to stay open.  Think of it, if you are diabetic, or are dependent on some form of technology for survival, how are you going to survive if the power goes out for an extended period of time.  The answer is that you won’t.  The elderly and the sickly will die first.  People who need blood transfusions or other treatments will also die because how can we store blood without power.  We will not be able to diagnose cancer patients due to the inability to use the machines we relied upon to diagnose.  Riots over food and other goods will create more havoc as all goods will become so scarce that bread alone may well be worth $100 or more.  It is a nightmare scenario that all nations fear.  If you were alive during the 70's you may remember the long lines for gas and the rationing that went on in the United States.  Well that will be the tip of the iceberg of trouble we all will have to face if fuel becomes too costly or inaccessible.

Conclusion:  Fuel is a tool that helps us get around, get to our jobs, to get things where we want them to go.  It is essential to commerce and our survival.  So far there is no replacement to fuels like oil and so we are currently dependent on oil for most of our needs like plastics and other products which are a byproduct.  So we have to account for this in all future needs of the County and the world. There is a reason why I like green technology.  One is that we reduce waste and our impact on the environment.  The other is that we no longer have to pay the power company money to keep our homes and businesses warm and cozy for we can hopefully begin to make solar, wind or even nuclear viable in the home itself.  In short, be reliant upon no one but yourself.

Issue 332 Joint Radicals May 9, 2014

If you have noticed, certain elements on both sides of the political isle want to limit your choices.  This ranges from who you can be with/friends with (gays vs. strait/people vs organizations), to even what you can eat.  It is these elements of the political right and left that share another form of radicalism.  That radicalism is them believing that they know best over the masses as a whole.  So here are some examples of this radicalism.

Food Choice:  Throughout the country both the political right and left have this notion that they must protect us from ourselves.  This includes food.  In New York City salt is banned from restaurant tables because of its apparent link to heart disease.  But is that not a conscious decision by each individual to add more salt to their food? 

 Republicans and Democrats also limit the choices on school lunch menus by their advocating healthier options.  However those "healthier" options are either not filling enough or do not taste good to the school children.  Some schools have even denied second helpings to students based on this health fascism culture on both sides of the political aisle.  As such there has been instances of children fainting in class due to a lack of food or nutrition. 

 Trans-fats and other food items or ingredients, because of their perceived unhealthiness (which is usually due to them being overeaten) have also become banned or restricted in both restaurants and from consumer products. However, is not the better solution to keep consumers informed of what they are eating?  Well even this can go overboard as places like restaurants would have to be forced to put calorie count, grams of fat and other information about the food they make on the menu.  Problem is that it takes money (lots of it) to do which may force struggling businesses out of business.  Those information boxes on food already are misleading as a high calorie count is not necessarily a bad thing as some people need that amount of calories, fat or sugars just to stay healthy.  Sure it is nice to know what you are eating, but having it pushed in your face or being used as a deterrent by government to steer you away from certain foods is downright dumb.       

Item choices:  In this case the tax system limits choices you make.  States, municipalities, and the Federal government itself tax foods, alcohol, restaurants and other items you buy to push you away from using them.  These are called sin taxes.  So you may pay an extra five to 45 cents just to buy a particular item.  For instance plastic bottles in the United States have an extra five cents tacked on each bottle you buy because the government does not want you to buy things like soda or things contained in plastic.  Tobacco products are also taxed highly despite people on the right, left and center of politics wanting to completely un-ban marijuana and its associated products.  Hypocrisy is the name of the game here.

Health choices:  The government also seeks to protect us from our own selves by controlling our health choices.  Obama-care (the Affordable Healthcare Act) forces people to buy healthcare from insurance companies or otherwise pay a penalty.  Basically, the government saw fit to decide that we cannot choose for ourselves if and when we needed health insurance and decided to force us all to get it.  Think this was strictly an idea from the political left, then think again as a similar idea by the Republicans was proposed back in the 1990's.  So now you may be forced to buy healthcare that either is un-affordable, violates your beliefs (as they may cover euthanasia or contraceptives which violates religious or moral beliefs), or very simply violates your choices as a whole. 

Conclusion:  These are some of the many small to big things that impact our lives with this radicalism of big brother knows best. We are forced to subsidize with our money planned parenthood, big oil, green technology, corporate welfare, and other items that the Federal government has no business spending our money on. If we want to give money to a green business or oil then we will simply buy their product.  If we want to spend or donate to Planned Parenthood or a charity of some sort then we will give our money to them by our own choice.  But government gets in the way and say that they decide who is worthy and thus our money goes to whomever they want and not what we want.  This radicalism has to end and to do it, we must elect people who do not have this radical notion of believing they know better than everyone else and elect people who will refuse to spend our money save for what the Constitution allows. 

Issue 331 Radical right on Immigration May 8, 2014

 The radical right has immigration confused with invasion, or at least some do.  Let us look into why they believe this notion.

Radical rightist view on immigration:  Here they believe immigrants steal the average American workers jobs (same in any country).  They also see a bunch of people unwilling to conform to the culture, learn the language or even embrace the same values as those already living in the country in the first place. But why believe this way.  Why should these people be rejected from working at businesses where they are legitimately hired and work?

Fear:  One reason they are rejected is fear.  Some people see them as a form of invader that corrupts the culture of the country.  They are used to people living in a certain way and when a person of another culture comes in, they experience a cultural clash which may make them question their own values.  People do not like feeling uncomfortable and so they reject these people.  Another reason is because of language.  There are those who automatically see an immigrant speaking in their mother tongue as scary for they cannot understand what is being said.  In essence the loss of that sense of security of knowing what the other person is saying makes others uncomfortable.  And finally the thing that makes people fear immigrants the most is reputation.  If they come from a crime ridden country or the people are from a country with a certain reputation, people will stereotype them and thus fear them based off of that stereotype.

Economic crunch:  Whenever times are ruff economically, people look for a scapegoat.  And the immigrant, legally here or not, is usually the one labeled the one responsible or as contributing to job losses.  Truth is they do not as they were hired in good times where there was plenty of jobs in the first place, but people who are angry and upset over losing their own jobs simply wish to vent.  (This can be characteristic of both the political left and right).

War time:  People also fear immigrants or those who look like them when in times of war.  So during WWII people feared the Japanese, the Germans, and to an extent the Italians in the country, which resulted in internment camps (concentration camps) to keep them away.  Similar fear and actions have happened again with respect to 9/11 and radical Muslims who turned to terrorism being responsible.  Again it all relates to fear. 

Goals:  The radical right does not really have an ideological component here with some leftists joining into their cause.  In this case it is all about alleviating the fears of the populace who feel this fear.  Though the only thing that makes it a political rightist radicalism is by it being usually being associated with them.  So they typically choose to alleviate the fears by getting "tough" on immigration and hope enough time passes until the fears and what caused it blow over.

  Conclusion:  Immigration is a complex issue with these fears having to be addressed regularly. They seek a balance between meeting the needs for new people (immigrants) to enter the population that will make our country better and making the newer voter base happy, while satisfying those irrational fears of those already here.  This is not to say that infiltrators cannot get in, but others should not be punished because of that. As such, the right typically sides with those who fear first as a knee jerk reaction and thus why they are usually blamed for being anti-immigrant.

Issue 330 Radical rightist religious fascism May 7, 2014

Even the rightist ideologies are not exempt from this stupidity.  In this case the radicals want a form of religious fascism that all should embrace. Let's go over their ideas.

On Gays:  The radicals here whether they be here in the United States or in another country do not like gays.  They see them as an abomination and in some cases either wish to see them dead or are willing to kill them.  All this anger and hatred over come from their belief in what the Koran, The Bible and similar with respect to "laying with another of the same sex".

Purity:  There are two forms of purity that this group like.  The first is racial/ethnic.  Some believe in the concept of chosen peoples who share some form of racial or ethnic background.  So it can be all white, all Italian, or some other silly example with others being exempt.  Here the purity is partly about genetics and having a clear chosen perfect people that God chose.  

On the other hand there is the religious purity group that believe one must believe in a certain way in order to get into heaven.  So those who deviate can be punished or even silenced by murder.  It is not uncommon for the most radical to completely exile an individual for questioning their authority and thus force a divorce from their spouses and cut off all contact with their families and the rest of the congregation.  The best example of this is from the Westboro Baptist Church where its leader preached hatred of those who did not believe the same and hatred of gays in general.    

It is important to note that the only difference between radical left and right on racial and ideological purity is that leftists have ideologies that take the place of religion.  Otherwise the basic concepts and radicalism is the same.  For instance, the Nazi's are considered fascists from the political right and Communists on the political left.  Russian Communists and German Nazi's in World War II had really one minor difference from each other, that the Nazi's killed millions based on race, while the Communists killed millions based on economic class (or perceived notions of class, such as the Jews being very rich or being from a rich region). So one prefers ideological purity and the other racial.  

Goals:  To impose upon the world (or just their country) a religious fascism that disregards those who disagree.  The best example is Iran with its fascistic State as it kills gays, and would make war with those who disagree with their Shiite version of Islam.  I cannot imagine America becoming the same as that country and I hope we never do, as some in the United States Congress seem to think they can change the Constitution to define marriage and other religious based sacraments to meet their own ends.  

Conclusion:  This form of radicalism is just as dangerous as any and can degrade into a cult.  Obviously not all people of faith (or non-faith) are like this, but people should still be aware of these segment of the population.

Issue 329 Radical leftist Environmentalism May 6, 2014

Part 2 of the radical leftist segment is on the radical environmentalists.  Here we look into what these people want to happen to accommodate their cause.

Population Control:  Like yesterday, many of these radical leftists believe in the same overpopulation problem as their counterparts.  Some in this category are willing to go just as far to reduce the human population and its "detrimental" impact on the environment.

Animals before People:  Here people are not as important as the animals existing in this world.  So if a farmer who has been farming for generations on land he/she owns happens to share that land with an endangered species, the radicals will attempt to force the farmer off the land (some through legalities, and others through force).  This also includes anything that would disrupt their perceived notions of the "perfect" untouched environment.  So if a rail road that would be built, a factory or anything that would provide jobs, and bring the costs of goods down, the environmentalists would reject it if it goes through untouched lands.  They would prefer ejecting people from their homes than harming nature.  So much so that some of their supporters in government are pushing for laws that would allow people to sue on behalf of rocks, trees and of course the animals themselves. 

Fuels:  Well, environmentalists where opposed to oil so they went to natural gas as an alternative.  Then when they did not like that they switched to ethanol, and then strictly to solar and wind.  Basically, so long as it protects the environment from emissions then they are for it (unless it is nuclear which they fear due to radiation and disposal of waste material).  However, while they favor these emission free methods of power generation, they refuse to accept temporary alternatives like natural gas to help transition over to them over time.  They want immediate results which does not work.   

Global warming: They believe wholeheartedly in the global warming agenda and that people caused it.  So much so that some have openly advocated arresting people who disagree with them (some even more radical than them have called for murder).  They have blamed decreases in populations of animals like the polar bear, turtles having more sex and animal over population, people being depressed and more all on global warming.  At this point anything can be blamed on global warming and they may just believe it. 

Goals:  Their agenda is to create a perfect society that has no environmental impact at all. As such, some are trying to force vegan-ism (eating only plants and no meat) on the population by having legislatures tax the methane that cows fart (yes I am being serious).  They do this because it increases meat prices causing vegetables to be the more affordable option.  In addition they advocate urban farming (something I am not opposed to), but they want this so they can move the entire population into mega cities so that all rural farm land can be given back to nature.  As such they wish to do away with cars, and embrace more public transportation and other forms of mass transit.  Anything that would mean people living in the city and nature having all the rest of the planet is something they will always be in favor of. 

Conclusion:  Like the previous, this does not list all of what this portion of the radicals believe in.  Also, it does not categorize all who believe in global warming as a radical (some are quite nice and do not want to use force or any silliness at all).  But, there are those who are so radical that they overshadow the good people who just want a cleaner and better environment for the next generation.

Issue 328 Radical left: Population Control May 5, 2014

In this week I will go over some of the radicals in both political parties in the United States.  Today's is about the radicals who believe in population control due to their belief that the Earth cannot maintain its current population growth.  So let's discuss.

The why:  This group of leftists think that due to the population growth of humanity that the food and other resources will dry up and we will go extinct.  Problem with this is that an equilibrium will always establish itself regardless and the population will stabilize just like any other animal species.  But, they don't want to hear that and thus continue with crazy ideas to keep the population at acceptable life sustaining levels.  So I guess it is time to talk about their solutions to this "problem".

Their solution number 1:  They see the nationalized healthcare system (single payer system where the government handles all coverage for medical benefits) as a means to an end.  To use this system to meet their ends of population control they will implement what is known as the complete lives system.  In this system those useful to society such as workers between a certain ages will be given financial and preferential treatment in terms of healthcare.  However, this means that people deemed useless to the benefit of the overall country and its prosperity will receive less help if any at all.  So the terminally ill, invalids (unless they prove useful in other ways), newborns and children under a certain age, and people over a certain age will receive less care and attention than their healthier and more useful counterparts.  Young children as they age of course would get better and better care into adult hood, almost like earning the States confidence that they will be useful to society.  Those reaching their twilight years will have benefits decrees over time as they are deemed useless.  And guess what, this is taking place in places like Canada and other countries that use single payer (to varying degrees).  In Canada, there are terminally ill people who the government will not treat because they are deemed a lost cause as in the case of "baby Michel” who was dying and could have lived an extra 3 months if an operation was performed.  The Canadian system refused to cover it and so the parents thankfully whisked their child off to the United States where he did receive the operation and did live those extra few months before unfortunately dying.  Even here in the United States, where people use the States version of healthcare (Medicaid which is another form of single payer) a woman was denied cancer fighting drug coverage.  In this case, the pharmaceutical company that made that particular drug heard that the woman was denied coverage by the State of Oregon, and provided the medication to her free of charge which allowed her to live an extra six months (the cost of that drug was over $1,000 a pill).  So as you can see it will be like what Charles Bernard Shaw (the play-write and Fabian Socialist) envisioned where people go before a committee to justify their own existence and where if they could not they would be killed. A.K.A. DEATH PANELS!!!!

Abortion:  Their solution number two is abortion.  Here they envision population control in various methods.  For one, they encourage abortion as a means to an end (such as getting rid of undesirables). In fact this is partly how it was envisioned by Margret Sanger who sought to use abortion in a coerced genocide scheme against Black Americans as well as her solution to her ideas that pregnancy was nothing more than a disease.  In this case those undesirables are the poor and if they have children, they become a burden that requires more money from the State to support.  So abortion is a solution for them to relive a financial burden on the State and be rid of useless people.  Some however are really radical and want the ability to abort children even after they have already been born and even up to certain ages.  In Belgium, you can actually kill a child as young as two years old if they meet a certain level of mental or physical disability as it is seen as being humane to that child.  Disgusting is it not.

Their third and final solution?:  It seems that these radicals like the one child policy in China and wish to implement it here in the United States and elsewhere.  To enforce it, they will resort to forced sterilizations of women and men to support their goals.  Also, some want couples to have to go before a panel before they can get "permission" to have a child.  There are those who have gone even further to suggest that sterilizing agents be introduced into the water supply of communities to sterilize people in mass.  Sick is it not?

Conclusion:  These are the most common ideas that I have heard in my research and through news outlets.  I will not say people who believe the overpopulation rhetoric are bad as not all of them wish to implement such horrible and evil solutions, but instead endorse peaceful means that require nobody dying.  So if you must judge them, judge them based on their words and deeds, and reject those who would endorse the forced and coerced killing of millions on what I believe is a bogus idea that has been proven wrong time and again throughout history (it was proposed in the early 1900's well into the 21st century). 

Issue 327 Market Retrain May 2, 2014

I have in the past talked about technology replacing workers in the dull, the boring and the dangerous jobs in America.  As such, some have predicted that if this trend continues unchecked that it could result in 60% unemployment.  So how, and who should retrain the American populace to counteract this potential problem?

Employers:  The ones in the best position to retrain people are the employers themselves.  They will need high tech skills, mechanics and programmers to fix any problems that may arise from issues with the machines/programs they will be using.  However, colleges and trade schools can only get a worker so far as they usually lack experience in the field and often students must be retrained to gain the skills that students should have gotten at these colleges.  Usually this is not a problem for trade schools that teach welding, metal work and farming, but traditional college classes like law, and business cannot keep up with the way the world is advancing.  So the employer, or business itself has taken it upon themselves to train individuals for the skills they need.  By using a combination of computer learning and on the job training, an individual can become whatever the business needs them to be.  This is already being done by some businesses to address their need for skilled workers without the cost of needing their workers to go to college or pay for someone else to teach them the skills they need for the job they will be doing.  On top of this, if the technology changes in some way, the job can simply provide supplemental classes and on the job training to accommodate.  As such, no need to hire new workers to replace old ones, as the old ones who the business has invested so much money in can be kept and can continue to take advantage of their experience.

 Trade Schools:  While traditional colleges are facing a battle for survival against online education, trade schools are going strong, but are not emphasized by the Federal leadership.  Men and women will always be needed to repair cars, machines, farm, and operate equipment and the like.  Trade schools offer this knowledge that is recession proof and is almost always likely going to have a job.  Electricians, carpenters and Construction workers in general will never ever go away. Basically, these jobs will always be in demand. 

Government:  The Government will try and help as well.  However, they are even less adaptable than the colleges that we pay thousands to each year.  Sure they can hire private companies to teach people jobs, but that is no guarantee of getting that job, let alone them knowing which job is really needed in the overall American Community.  Typically the government will pay a group to train people in a job that fits their agenda (like the so called green jobs) but they usually waste their money as these trainees either have no access to a job that fits their training in the local area or lack the equipment to take advantage of it.  But they will try anyway (much to my chagrin).

Conclusion:  We are looking at a two tired economy here in America.  On the one side we will have highly educated computer programmers, designers, and architects while on the other we will have the back bone of America who build what the highly educated only dream of.  It is going to be an interesting future for the future of America.