Issue 368 Backing Money without Gold? June 30, 2014

You have all heard of the arguments to go back to the Gold Standard. But you probably do not know what that actually means or that there is an alternative to the Gold Standard as well.  Let's discuss.

Backing Money:  When they say they want to go back to the Gold Standard, they mean financially backing the currency by giving it an almost one for one value with gold.  The most simplistic way to describe how this works is that a government cannot print more money than the amount of gold in the government’s possession. This keeps the value of the currency from decreasing and thus prevents inflation.  At one point the United States looked at the Silver Standard which would have allowed the United States to print more money to pay its debts (along with people already indebted as more money at less value is much more easily earned to pay off debts in the first place).  As such, the United States does not have to rely solely on the Gold Standard.

Other backers:  Anything that holds value can be used to back money so long as it can be monetized. So this means coal, platinum, uranium, and other valuable items can be used to back the dollar or any currency for that matter.  Interestingly enough, Omar Qaddafi the now dead dictator of Libya wanted to create an international currency for Africa backed by its oil resources.  This meant that if a country wanted to pay back their debts to Libya or any other country using this African currency, they would be forced to possibly pay it back in barrels worth of oil. As such, depending on what you use to back your money, you can control the world economy.  The reason why Gold is typically used is because there is such a limited supply that its value can only go up.  It has been actually said on the show "Americas Book of Secretes" on History Channel that the total amount of Gold in the world is equivalent to a regulation size tennis court and about three stories tall.  Thus you can see why there is a search for alternatives to Gold. 

Conclusion:  We may need an alternative to Gold to get us out of the financial distress our country is in.  So the question is, is it actually worth it?  I think so, as the floating dollar we have now is too unstable for it to survive.

Issue 367 Bug Vaccines!!! June 27, 2014

Did you ever think there would be a day that you want to be bit by a blood sucking mosquito?  Well that day may be coming.  Here is why. (Compliments of Popular Science Magazine).

They are a delivery system:  Scientists have been discussing ways to use mosquitos as a delivery system for vaccinations directly to people with little to no expense.  Right now, vaccines cost a lot of money to not only produce, but to store, and then inject into people.  By using an animal based delivery system, it will allow for cheap effective delivery.  But how does it work.

Varying Methods:  One method is to place a weaker form of the disease into the animal (mosquito) for it to infect a person with so that the body can build up a natural immune response on its own.  Another is to place a bacteria, or special proteins inside the animal which when delivered to the person will have already attached themselves to the disease, but because of these bacteria or proteins it will make it easier for the body to detect and destroy.  Finally, you have retro viruses that boost the immune system, or add another element in the body that will attack the disease for the body, before the body itself reacts and destroys the retrovirus.  All these are feasible with today's technology and expertise.  

Conclusion:  This is a very interesting way to fight off things like malaria, and other pervasive pathogens.  It would be especially effective in Africa to fight off dengue fever and possibly in other countries to fight off polio and other diseases we have eradicated here in the United States.  So are you willing to be bit?

Issue 366 Island Prisons June 26, 2014

Let us talk about an old classical way of imprisoning the worst of the worst, an island prison or penal colony.  Why have we not brought this concept back to protect society from the worst of the worst?

Advantages:  In an island prison, the worst elements of society are stuck.  They have no escape save by boat.  As such, there is no need for walls, just obstacles to prevent landing by those who would try to get these people off the island.  Also, guards will not be needed for the prison is an island, there is literally no escape especially if its location is undisclosed.  At most, a patrol boat from a craft stationed off shore to prevent vessels from approaching would be optimal.  Well, this isolationist version is for condemned prisoners who the State does not want back into society.

The penal colony version of this is similar to the aforementioned, save that the prisoners work.  In this case, they will be made to grow their own food, with the excess being sold to businesses for them to sell.  Prisoners would also do factory work that is typically needed for the State, such as making photo identification, license plates and other unique tools and equipment that the government requires to be given out or used. In short, prisoners become cheap labor.  On top of this, it keeps the prisoners busy with work over fighting each other. It prevents them from banning together into cohesive groups as much as possible (if well designed) preventing the deepening of the gang and terrorist recruitment that now happens in jails today.

Negatives:  In the island prison version, you are essentially killing the prisoner off without actually physically killing them.  Instead, if they do not farm/harvest their own food they will die.  Also, they will be subject to the whims of their fellow inmates, which means many are likely to die harsh deaths.  

For the penal colony version, you essentially have slave labor. Slavery of course is forbidden in the United States under the Thirteenth Amendment with the sole exception of being a punishment for a crime (hence community service and prisoners being put to work in prisons).  However, we must be careful to maintain humane treatment, or we will be as bad as those who once oppressed people on the plantation, or sell children as sex slaves today.

Conclusion:  I want the prisoners to be put to work.  They need job skills in the first place.  Teaching them agriculture, factory work and other jobs can be useful once they finally get out of prison (depending on their sentence).  However, we must not give way to slavery like in the past.  We are supposed to have surpassed our failings.  On the other hand, an island prison to put terrorists, and condemned prisoners is appealing as we would give them what they need to survive by having them farm for themselves and slaughter animals, while also being able to maintain and build shelter.  This out of site self-sufficient island prison is an idea that will only be stopped by the guilty conscience of those who put them there.  So what do you think?  Are these classical forms of prisons updated for modern times worth it?

Issue 365 Belief June 25, 2014

What is belief?  Is it spiritual, mental or something else?  Is it a product of faith, or a construct of thought?  So what is belief to me?

My definition:  Belief to me is something that transcends faith.  My belief in God comes from an understanding that I am a small aspect of the universe trying to leave my mark.  It gives me strength and perseverance.  So to me, belief is the understanding that something greater than one self exists, and that it has the potential to influence all of us.  In this case that belief is in God.  

My thought process:  Why do I believe?  The reason is because I have reached an understanding.  I understand that me as a human being is but a small part of this universe.  That something created us and at times sees fit to try and guide us down the right path.  God allows for questions that in my case has deepened my faith further.  Each time I come to a conclusion I feel like in some way God is there aiding me.  While my values do not always match with my peers, I understand that as we are all the creations of God.  That we were all made to be a little different so as to achieve a better understanding that we are all individuals, not just clones of God created in his image.   As such I embrace individuality, and God's message through man is that we desire cooperation and that we fight over faith and the small things like ideology because we as human beings are imperfect.  It is those imperfections where we as human beings compensate for each other’s weaknesses that allows us to deepen ourselves and our experiences as we pass on our knowledge to the next generation.  

Conclusion:  I am Catholic, but I am my own variety of Catholic.  I freely admit that I question the pope and his authority over the Catholic Church.  I also do not believe that only one faith is right while the others are wrong.  This is because they may also be right.  We have our core tenets in the Ten Commandments and actions of Jesus Christ.  So I will continue to believe, question and deepen my faith in my own way.  I hope that you too can do the same. 

Issue 364 National Parks and Government June 24, 2014

So here I ask the question, should the parks be State run rather than federally run?  There are a number of Federal parks in the country, but they exist in State territory. Since when can the Federal government use land in the States without their permission for the purpose of a park?

Federally Unconstitutional: This issue came up back when the government shut down occurred last year.  It is already known that the Federal government has zero authority to run national parks.  Reason being is that nowhere in the United States Constitution does it allow for the Federal government to run a national park, let alone mention the word park in the first place. As such, despite the parks costing very little to no money in many cases to run, the Federal government continues to operate them and even use them as a political bargaining chip (as was the case with the government shut down).  So why do we not return these parks and the monuments that exist inside some of them to the States?  

The return:  Well, it is because of two reasons that the parks have not been given back to the States.  The first and most obvious was revenue.  These parks are a tourist traps and have gift shops that the Federal government (in the same manner as the State governments with their parks) get revenue.  The more people come to spend money the more profit is to be had.  

The other reason is fear.  We have naysayers claiming that the State governments will close the parks or harm the monuments.  Essentially the argument is that only the Federal government can protect and maintain these parks.  But, if you know your history, economics, or government, you know this is a bogus argument that inspires fear only in the less informed.  In truth, the States will get the money from these parks instead of the Federal government and to keep people coming the parks will be maintained by them.  No State government wants to destroy a money generating source, nor do they want to be known as the State that closed down a historic landmark.

Conclusion:  So yes, we can return this land to the States so that the States can profit from them and we the people can continue to enjoy them.  No more will we have to worry about these parks being shut down artificially by the Federal government to sway public opinion or the Unconstitutionality of it.  As such, give the States their land back, the Federal government has no right to it.

Issue 363 The Goat/sheep mower June 23, 2014

You remember my Issue 357 on using pigs to aid in recycling garbage?  Well here is another idea straight out of history.  Using Goats or Sheep to mow the lawn.  Let's talk.

Animal Mowers:  In the past, the White House did not have gardeners.  They instead had sheep and goat herders on the White House lawn eat the excess grass.  Why did they do this?  Well, for one, we were more of an agrarian economy, and the goats/sheep kept the lawn looking nice.  When the White House could finally pay to have gardeners, there were times, like in war where none could pay them.  So the sheep and the goats were brought in to keep the White House lawn looking nice.  Thus the inspiration.  Could we use these fuzzy animals to keep our national parks looking nice?

Idea:  So the Sheep and goats would be brought in to feed on the ever growing grass around our monuments and some of our national parks.  This means no need to spend on fuel to power lawn mowers or maintain machines.  The expense would simply come down to housing the animals at night, as the grass they feed on during the day would feed them most if not all of their nutrition.  On top of this, the wool of the sheep and the milk from the goats could be collected to be sold off.  This will help pay to offset the costs of caring for the animals.  So basically, the national parks and monuments get their grass trimmed, the animals help pay for themselves and we get a more natural way to mow the lawn.

Negatives:  The smell.  These animals poo often.  This problem can be offset by attaching poo bags to collect their feces to be sold later as fertilizer.  But, just as people complain about the smell of the lawn mower (the gas and the pollen it throws into the air), they will complain about the smell of poo.  

On the other hand, animals are not as efficient to doing a task, and need to rest every once in a while.  Also, while we can offset the costs of taking care of the animals, they take a larger amount of space to care for as well.  Thus, the sheep/goat idea is more for the national parks where people don't want to hear a lawn mower in the background, but the natural views and animals they may see.  So unleashing these animals in the parks may provide a lovely tourist attraction and reduce maintenance costs (especially if you prefer the let them loose as wild animals rather than domesticated and that's if there is more food than they can actually consume and be naturally replenished).  So basically, if you want to have a less human footprint, this is the better option.

Conclusion:  Yes, this idea, while historically supported, may not be the best idea.  In fact, most national parks require almost no maintenance in the first place.  So this idea can be for those key areas of the country, or when there is another government shutdown.  Heck, some people can offer it as a service for suburban and rural communities.  Free lawn mowing and fertilizer, compliments of the goats/sheep. It's at best something to consider.

Issue 362 Is Gambling Income? June 20, 2014

I say it is not. Gambling is a game of chance, and depending on the circumstances a game of skill too.  However, the Federal and State governments don't agree.  They see it as income so as to collect all that tax revenue.  So here I make my case as to why they, the government, is wrong.

Not earned:  For one, income is earned.  So you actually have to work for it.  In the case of gambling, you are simply playing some game or betting on an outcome.  As such, you expend a zero amount of physical labor to procure your winnings, and that is assuming that you win anything in the first place.  However, you may have to think (them gamblers loose so many calories by thinking right?).  By expending thought, are you expending labor?  Again I say no.  You think on a constant basis in all forms of decision making.  As such, thinking is not an act of labor but an action that occurs in everyday life.  Thus reason one as to why gambling winnings is not earned.

Not earned 2:  On the flip side, the government will seek to gather whatever money it can wherever it can.  As such, the government considers gambling winnings income.  However, I would argue that they are using a definition from the more "progressive" side of politics (this is not the good form of progressive thinking).  They view acquiring a certain amount of money income based on the fact that it may be unfair that the other people do not earn as much in a set amount of time.  In short, they want to punish you for achieving a victory against the "literal" odds.  Case in point is when you are taxed for receiving a set amount of money as inheritance or as a gift.  In the case of New York, if you receive anything in the value of $10,000 or more (not just as money, but the equivalent or greater value in property) you are then taxed on it. Likewise, the Federal government does the same with its Estate Tax, which is better known as the "death tax."  In the Federal government’s case, the taxed value is money received in excess of about $5 million. So this unfair advantage mentality is what drives them to consider money won by gambling the same way they do with getting free money from the death of a family member.  In short, it comes down to the foolish notions of fairness.

Conclusion:  So we have the fact that money won by gambling is not income based upon zero labor being used to "earn" it. Also, we have that the government is expressing the foolish notions of people complaining that someone has got more money than them "almost" for free.  My response is this, government, stay out of gamblers pockets.  It was never earned so you should not even remotely think that you can steal it from them.  Also, you people who think the world is unfair because someone got free money, try minding your own business.  Focus on what you have, not what others have for a change.

Issue 361 Reading the Founding Documents June 18, 2014

I re-read the United States Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence at least once a year.  And now I'm going to explain why.

Reason 1:  It is the Founding documents of my country.  The United States Constitution is the document that defines how the government is to run, what rights are to be protected and how the government is to interact with the people.  In short, it refreshes the memory on what government can do and cannot do for you.  It allows for people to know when the government goes too far and how often it may interfere in our daily lives.  In short, you know your rights, privileges and familiarize yourself with government.  The Declaration of Independence is similar in this respect, but defines the tyranny that America suffered and why we separated from Great Briton.  Knowledge of this also is important so that we can recognize tyranny in the modern age.

Reason 2:  The intention of the founders is also ever present in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  By understanding the intent it also gives a window into the history and culture of the America that once was.  It also, allows us access to the values that are important to the American Republic as well as helping to perpetuate those values.  These values I feel must be maintained in order to perpetuate a free and just society into any age.  

Conclusion:  So yes I re-read these documents ever year so as to refresh and preserve my knowledge of what my country is all about, Freedom.  You must remember that knowledge is power and those who know more about the rights and privileges that we as individuals have means they have power over you.  This of course invites tyranny, not just on the governmental level, but on the person to person level as well.  As such, so as not to be fooled by false promises and be controlled by others, I want to know more and understand better than those who would misuse the power of knowledge.  I also seek to extend and apply my understanding of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to my everyday life.  For this I watch, listen and learn about different points of view and government actions and make judgments based on my knowledge of the founding documents so I know what is allowed by government and what belongs to the people respectively.  This is my reasoning to re-read the most important documents ever to be written in the history of the United States of America.  Maybe you should re-read them too.   

Issue 360 Feared then Loved June 18, 2014

Here we analyze the other half of Niccolo Machiavelli's "loved then feared or feared then loved" question.  So is it better to be feared first before being loved?

Fear first: Here is where respect (unfortunately) is earned.  A leader must first be feared for their power and authority.  This makes negative influences in the populace less likely to react to a leaders actions.  Leaders command authority through that fear and thus, people tend to submit to them more readily. Of course this means they are also less likely to give you the truth or question you if you should make a wrong turn in your decision making.  Essentially, you have a series of yes men, ready to brown nose you in order not to be dismissed.  This works at the population level as well.  A strong leader has authority over the populace to sway them based on the actions the leader takes.  In short, they command authority through various levels of fear which can range, based on the leader, from denying privileges to outright violation of rights.  However, it is usually best in my opinion to use this on the level of governmental leadership to control your political allies and enemies.  On the population, the leader should avoid action unless it is necessary for the public good. 

The Love second:  In this case, once respect is garnered, whether by persona, decision or reputation, the leader can then begin acting benevolent.  So a little good here, a small pinch of benefit there.  It is all about getting the jobs done that need to be done first.  In the old days of Dark Age to Colonial politics, this would mean throwing a group or population a certain benefit, like trade privileges, or tax relief on occasion.  It could also mean aiding in farming through free labor to the farmer via workers paid by the government who are out of work.  Today, this could come in the form of political kickbacks, and access to key specific networking opportunities. In short, you give a little love toward those you want loyalty on an irregular bases to insure that "yes I am thinking about you, and I want your love returned."  The end result is loyalty.  But it may come at a price.  Some groups who do not benefit often enough, if at all, may feel like they are being left out.  In short, these groups will begin counting on their fingers who benefits more and how often then each other.  This scenario must be avoided, and as such, benefits given must be on a large scale in form like tax breaks to satiate the largest number of individuals possible. Slowly but surely the population will like you more as you open trade deals for cheaper goods, reduce taxes where possible, open up new opportunities for the people to benefit from various forms of research and aid the poor.  All of this is done flashily however, and the leader and his/her team must have the credit given to them to maintain the loyalty and the image that while fearsome, the leader is someone to be admired.

Conclusion: I would agree with Machiavelli that this is the better of the two options for it insures the safest and most likely chance for success for a ruler.  Presidents, and dictators both can learn from this example to succeed where their counterparts have failed.  So aside from a series of yes men who fear your wrath, and the population or group measuring each other up to see who may be favored more, I can find no determinable weaknesses to this method of leadership.  As such, this is the model to follow, rather than the loved then hated method which my government seems to prefer.

Issue 359 Loved Then Feared June 17, 2014

 Niccolo Machiavelli posed a question in his work known as The Prince.  That question was "is it better to be loved then feared, or feared then loved?"  Of course I'm paraphrasing a little bit here, but you get the idea.  In the case of this issue I will be focusing on the loved then feared component.  So let us analyze if it is better to be Loved then Feared?

The Love:  The advantage to this is that your people, whether it is in an organization or government, adore you for a time.  You lavish them with what they need and thus by making them love you more, they will do more to get more of you.  Essentially, this is a bribe. In order to perpetuate the love, more and more must be given.  Those on the receiving end will be insatiable and continue to want more even after you have nothing left to give.

The Fear:  After you begin to run short on resources and things to give, you will be forced to make those who receive your "gifts" fear you.  The purpose of this is so that they do not betray you.  Why would they betray you even when you give them so much?  Simple, these people who follow you follow for the benefits, not because they are loyal.  Thus, if someone comes offering greater rewards to them, they will follow the other person in their own selfishness.  Thus, the fear component.  Here, if any of these "followers" dissatisfy you, then you must make sure it is immediately known and punish them in some shape or form.  This could mean denying privileges or access to you (their money tree if you will).  This keeps them from getting out of line.  As such, a psychological battle will be constantly waged in order to maintain control over these individuals. Likewise, it is the same for a local populace.  One must control them in this scenario or they will rebel once the free ride is over.  

Modern Day:  This idea plays out in American politics where both the Republicans and Democrats promise people and businesses certain benefits to garner their support.  Typically, the Republicans play up to the business owners and those industries under attack by Democratic supporters due to ideals of the environment and other causes.  Democrats play to the race, ethnic and economically less well-off groups by promising them more benefits.  Of course this will fail on both sides as they will run out of money to give these people (as we can plainly see based on Americas' national debt).  They fear imparting fear by cutting these individuals and groups off less they lose their support.  This same token is why Machiavelli said this was the least favorable option, as those not satisfied or denied their "presents" will rebel.

Conclusion:  Loved then feared is a dangerous game.  It risks disloyalty, treachery, and even open rebellion.  The leaders’ reaction is to clamp down on the populace or your circle of "allies" through some form of force and control makes you more akin to a tyrant than a leader.  In the end, it will result in the pain and suffering of either the leader, or a people ready to rebel at the first available opportunity.    

Issue 358 Medical Titles June 16, 2014

As you have seen, the medical field is changing in America.  New laws and regulations have left the medical industry scrambling to make things cheap and effective while the number of doctors shrink.  Here I share my opinion on who will be treating who based on their titles that they will have earned after they have gone through their medical training and what I believe the future landscape of Americas medical institutions will look like.

Nurses:  The basic nurse will have the roll of the grunt.  They will do every task imaginable save actual diagnosis.  So they will take blood, do basic readings of a person’s life signs and then feed all that information to the doctor.

Lead Nurse/ Nurse Technician:  While this title may vary, this group will be a step above regular nurses.  They will be in the lab determining results for the test results and even in some cases performing the tests themselves.  They may even lead a group of nurses in the tasks for testing blood for pathogens or other anomalies.  Other technicians will also perform the task of performing x-rays and other similarly more complex tasks where a higher level of training is required.

Note: the aforementioned I believe was already occurring, it is the following that I believe is the recent development due to Obama Care (or at least was accelerated by it).

Nurse Practitioner:  This is the replacement for the Doctor at your most basic level.  They receive all the same training that doctors do (with certain exceptions) to allow them to diagnose diseases like a regular doctor.  They, like doctors, will have the same struggle to acquire hands on experience which will determine if they are good quality like a traditional doctor with the title or not.  Also, they will handle writing all the prescriptions and offer medical advice based on your medical condition.  In fact they may even forward you to a specialist (those with the title of doctor) for cases that are beyond the level of the general practitioner (the Nurse Practitioner).

Doctor:  Here is where doctors become ultra-special.  Most doctors are already shifting to the more specialized fields as this is where they will make the most money.  As such, the title of doctor I believe will eventually become synonymous with the word specialist.  It will become very rare to see a doctor acting as a general practitioner in the future in my opinion.

Conclusion:  I could be wrong, but I also could be right.  Medical titles like money are subject to inflation (making them sound more important than what they really are). But due to changes in medicine and movements toward cheaper healthcare to cut costs without sacrificing quality, we may see new forms of doctors and nurses take up the mantel of the general practitioner or specialist.  What and who treats our injuries and diseases is, in my opinion, up in the air (for it may even be us diagnosing ourselves).

Issue 357 Pig Recycling June 13, 2014

Let's end the week with something a little fun (at least for me).  The idea is to use pigs to recycle the organic waste in garbage as landfills are filling up and finding places for new ones is getting harder.  This idea is not new, but it has merits.

Idea:  The Coptic Christians in Egypt and some farmers in the United States use pigs to recycle garbage.  In Egypt, the pigs feed in/on the food and organic waste in landfills which reduces their size as the people harvest the trash for goods they can refurbish and sell.  Farmers in the United States take food and other waste from restaurants in the cities and towns to feed their pigs (and sometimes other animals as well). So this is basically using the pig to help reduce organic waste rather than burn it, or use some other expensive process to recycle and take care of garbage.

Benefits: This reduces the amount of food waste that ends up in landfills which makes them less likely to be a hot bed for diseases and bacteria from rotting food.  Not to mention that food waste produces noxious gases that once concentrated can harm the environment around them, which may even be cities and towns nearby.  In addition, Rodent problems are also reduced as they have less to feed on as well.  Pigs in this case eat the organic matter in landfills and similar dumps which these rodents normally would feed upon.  If you study biology, more food means higher populations of animals, while less food means lower populations.  So cities/towns with rodent problems could possibly see a reduction of the rodent population.   

This also aids in recycling other materials.  By letting the pigs eat their fill, it becomes a little easier for machines/people to pick out the other recyclable materials such as metals, plastics and rubbers.  On top of this, pigs feces can then be used as fertilizer for crops and even used as part of the landfill to cover up the items that could not be recycled or are better off covered (feces properly dried does not smell, or generate new bacteria making it safer than rotting food).  Also, let us not forget, pigs getting fat means more bacon for us. :)

Conclusion:  This is a more natural means of cleansing food and other organic waste from trash.  It immediately gets recycled and it benefits farmers because they then have access to cheap food for their animals (namely the pig).  An already useful idea, it can be expanded to other animals depending on the waste collected and spring up a brand new industry of refuse sorting (because pigs are not allowed to eat bacon for obvious reasons).  A cheap method to a growing problem of not knowing where to dump all our garbage.

Issue 356 Intolerance June 12, 2014

Intolerance is pretty much a bad thing.  It means that, from the standpoint of an individual, that the person will not tolerate something.  Many of the Liberal and Conservative members of the American community however, preach tolerance.  In short, they ask why we don't we all just get along with one another.  However, judgments are made by people on what they see as tolerant or in tolerant.  So this judgment call is what I will discuss today.

Example:  An example of intolerance can come from racial groups like the KKK and the Neo Nazi's.  They do not like Black Americans or anyone whose skin is darker than themselves.  So KKK members will burn crosses on Black Americans' lawns, Neo Nazi's will assault people, and both overall will attempt to make life as uncomfortable as possible for those of another "race." This is an obvious example of intolerance.

Now a different example.  A person who is a Black American, has a prescription from a doctor for narcotics.  However, that prescription comes from a doctor who works in an area where both legal and illegal drugs are abused.  On top of this, the individual in question is filling at a different pharmacy in a completely different town.  Is refusing the script while just knowing these details racist/intolerant?  Well it depends on who you ask.  Some may say that it is due to the individual with the prescription being Black.  But if you take the skin color angle out, would that influence your decision toward filling a prescription that is suspect?  This is actually a real life scenario that happened to a pharmacist I know and as to the rest of what happened in this case I cannot tell you, but this is actually an example of tolerance.  If the script was rejected merely because the person filling was black, that would be both racist and intolerant, however the other details that were checked and factored in (regardless of the race of the individual) make it tolerant.  Long story short, we don't care about your skin color, if it’s a legitimate prescription, get it from a legitimate doctor.

Example 2:  There is a major issue of gay marriage currently going on in America currently (or at least it is being hyped up).  But there are people like the KKK, and other intolerant groups who assault gays and other same sex couples.  Obviously this is intolerant.  But what about the Churches rejection of gay marriage.  Is this intolerant?  In this case it is fully tolerant.  The Churches (at least the majority I know of) do not ban gays from their Churches, do not make them uncomfortable, and the clergy and congregation have gay friends.  So they are in fact 100% tolerant (with few exceptions).  But why no gay marriage?  Simple, their faith does not believe in marriage between two people of the same sex, because God does not permit it as per the Bible and you cannot create a child the natural way (i.e. the miracle of life).  This is the reason why.  It has nothing to do with the church hating gays, but that faith says no to gay marriage.  In short, due to these reasons the Church is tolerant.  However, there are those who disagree and say it is not tolerant.  Thus my point, that people make judgment calls.  Thus while people are in general tolerant, they are intolerant of that which they perceive as going against their values and that which does not to conform to those values.

Conclusion:  Intolerance is a curse we live with.  We tolerate what we want and shun the rest due to not conforming to our values and predetermined notions of what life should be like. This is because intolerance, I believe, comes from fear of change.  That is why every group, race, religion and all in between have been subject to intolerance.  It is the fear of what will be different.  Once we recognize this, and accept (not just tolerate) change, we can move forward together. 

Issue 355 War theft 2 June 11, 2014

Here I am going to discuss a different type of war theft.  In this case it is not soldiers raiding the homes of abandon homes due to battles, but of governments at war raiding each other’s money.  Allow me to explain.

Concept:  Once war is declared, countries try to defeat each other.  But this does not mean it has to include violence, or the minimization thereof.  One of the growing concepts of war is to attack the financial means of the enemy country to weaken it so that can be rendered powerless or at least less powerful.  So why do we not take money directly from the enemy countries treasury.  In short, the attacking country uses electronic means to hack into the enemy countries bank account and steals all their money to help fund their own war efforts.  And if not done by financial means, then soldiers would be sent in to directly take money from the enemy’s banks in the opposing country.  Also, if say we are fighting terrorists and their supporters, why not do the same to them and take the money that they have as well to fund war and defense efforts, and even pay off national debts.

Advantages:  For one, no country or terrorist group can survive without money to fund its operations.  By finding and taking their money, you can effectively shut down the enemy government or organization for an extended period of time.  This is especially effective against governments as they will have to be careful not to print more money least they cause inflation which could cause prices to rise within their country and increase poverty.  In short, taking the money can be devastating.

On the flip side, the country doing the taking can now use that taken money to fund their war efforts instead of using tax payer dollars.  Also, money taken that is not spent on war efforts may go toward the public debt, or fund other projects like roads and hospitals.  So the money can be put to a good cause.

In practice:  With the recent Russian annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, the international community has frozen the assets of many power brokers and government officials in Russia.  However, this only affected those who had assets outside of Russia.  However, if the Ukrainian government instead took their money via hackers on both the individual level and the governmental (like the money in the Russian military budget), the Russians may not have been so quick to annex Crimea, let alone be reluctant to give it back.

Conclusion:  Unlike individual war theft, this form has some moral ground as to defeat an opponent, possibly before shots ever having to be fired.  Money really does make the world go round and by removing the enemy countries financial assets, it creates major repercussions that they cannot hope to face without aid of an ally.  In addition, if the money of the enemy country is taken away and your country is the victor, your country can then replace their currency with a different one your country will control.  Thus, your country can adjust its value at will making the enemy now dependent on you once victory is assured.  So the only obstacle now is finding some really good hackers, and finding a way into the enemies banking systems.

Issue 354 War Theft 1 June 10, 2014

War theft is the act of stealing during a time of war.  We know this to be a wrongful act, but some consider it justice for the trouble of being forced to fight in the first place.  Let's discuss.

Against:  Those who see theft of a person’s property during war see it from the traditional standpoint of stealing.  There is no justification for stooping down to the level of a criminal.  Usually though, this form of theft is committed by soldiers in the field who see no reason to let go of a battle souvenir.  Others see it as a way to get rich off of rare and valuable items.  But again that is still thievery and has no justification and is highly dishonorable.  In the same fashion as the Nazi's, a soldier stealing from civilians in war time is just as wrong as what the Nazi's did in stealing from the Jews.

For:  In this case there are those who do favor it as a means to pay for the war.  In this case, soldiers who are paid low wages to fight are allowed to take items they deem valuable to make up for the costs to them and their families.  In short, they may even act like treasure hunters or even pirates, taking the valuables of people whose homes have been abandoned due to the fighting.  This may even include valuable works in history like art pieces and rare historical specimens, which the soldiers can either keep or sell to give themselves a monetary boost.  Let's face it, soldiers are paid meager wages and deserve better to make up the money they should be making.

Pragmatic:  Instead of just letting soldiers just take goods home with them, there can be battlefield salvage rules.  If there are items that are left abandoned in a home after a battle, soldiers can lay claim.  However, they will only be allowed to keep them if no one comes to claim the items after one year.  In this instance, a special note will be left behind for the original occupants to aid them in finding their lost wears.  In the meantime, items claimed by soldiers will be held at a holding facility in country until the time limit comes up or the items are claimed.  This also protects items from being stolen by other individuals or soldiers we are fighting to fund their own war efforts.

Conclusion:  The only two that come remotely close to being moral are those "against" and the "pragmatic" views.  War theft that is unregulated can lead to many problems, not least including law suits.  However, I am personally against this form of war theft, as it is immoral to me on the societal and religious level.  Taking what is not yours is a crime and thus I am against it.

Issue 353 Can Cyborgs Vote?! June 9, 2014

OK, here is part two of the articles based on the show Futurescape with James Woods.  Here we look at if cyborgs can still vote as people during an election.  You are asking why aren't you?  We looked at last week to try to figure out if they are still human, but that is not the end of the solution with the factor of being an eligible voter. So I’ll go down the list of concerns.

Licensing:  Some people with implants, prosthetics or people who are cyberized may not own the parts that are hooked up to them.  Instead, a prosthetic limb, an implant for a disabled person may be still owned by the original distributor/manufacture of the company.  In short, the mechanical components are being rented.  So can these individuals be considered eligible if they do not even own the mechanical parts that have replaced or augmented their original bodies?  Also, can't these people have their votes corrupted by the companies that own these parts do to threats of reclaiming them, or sticking their families with a hefty bills after they pass on for the parts themselves.

Hacking:  What’s more is that these parts are mechanical and most likely will be run by computers.  As such they can be hacked.  So a clever hacker can make the individual, by force, vote a specific way.  It gets even creepier with those who have brain implants or partial brain replacement as a hacker can hack into the persons brain itself to control them to vote a certain way.  Lest we also not forget that hackers can in this instance threaten people to make them commit suicide (really murder) by controlling them or even a loved one with a cyber-implant/mechanical parts.  This is a very disturbing reality.

Total brain replacement:  Just like with the last article, can a person who no longer has their original brain still vote, for it goes to question if they are merely acting on a pre-programmed impulse.  So, in the same way we can question if this person is human, we can question why they are voting in the manner they are.

Conclusion:  For licensing, the laws can be amended where a person has a right to any and all parts of their body, whether they be a replacement or augmentation.  As such any form of threat of coercion will also be dealt with by the law in the same manner as any blackmail or similar case.  So in the Licensing scenario, they as people should be allowed to vote.  In scenario two with respect to hacking, the individual is not responsible for the crimes of others.  So a hacker taking control of cyberized person, or threatening another is not grounds for the exclusion for a person to vote.  Instead the hacker must and always be punished in this case.  Finally, scenario three with its total brain replacement.  Here it still comes down to if the individual can be proven to still have independent thought and personality over just becoming a pre-programmed machine.  Until that is answered, I don't think anyone can be sure if these people are human, let alone vote.  Yes there may be other scenarios where we can question if these individuals who we can classify as cyborgs are eligible to vote.  But, I will leave that to you my dear readers to ponder.  Enjoy racking and wrapping your brains over this very likely future issue of the United States and other countries around the world.

Issue 352 Are cyborgs still human? June 6, 2014

This is the first of two articles based on the show Futurescape hosted by James Woods.  Here we will look at if cyborgs can still be considered human.  So let's discuss.

Why ask?  Well it is important as people throughout history have redefined the meaning of human.  So there are instances where people are left out of that category and are thus sometimes subjected to some of the harshest and most awful forms of treatment imaginable.  And thus these people who we can classify as cyborgs must not be excluded.

What constitutes a cyborg:  It is a person who has had parts of their body replaced by that of a machine.  In some definitions this means a certain percentage of their body is replaced by mechanical parts.  So people with prosthetic limbs and even some implants can be considered a cyborg.  But the cyborg we are talking about are people who are more Machine than man.  They must have over 50% or greater of their body replaced by a mechanical device.  

So let's question:  So is a person with over 70% of their body replaced by machinery still human?  What if their brain is replaced (or partly replaced) by mechanical components?  Do we still classify these people as human?  For me, so long as the brain is there, then you are still human.  In other terms, you can have your brain in a glass jar which is controlling a robot like in the Star Wars movies and I will still consider you a human being (even if you may be disturbing to look at).  But those who have their brains partly replaced or completely replaced are another matter.  I can see if you have brain damage and you replace the parts of it that control motor functions and involuntary functions as still human.  But what about memory and personality.  Can these people who have those components of the brain be replaced be considered still human?  Or are they merely acting out the part?  I personally hope that these people are still human, but technology is not there yet where we can know for sure if people, who I believe in the future will try to obtain immortality via this method, can still be considered human.  The reason I believe this is because a soul is not something that can be copied onto a hard drive?  Right?

Conclusion:  So long as the memory and thought functions remain independent from the machine and the person is able to think for themselves, they are still human no matter how many mechanical parts they have.  But I fear once we go beyond and do full brain replacements as some scientist hope to one day accomplish, will it spell the end of humanity?  More answers, can and will lead to more questions.  So I leave you to ponder how far we can become a machine before we stop being human.

Issue 351 Privatize the V.A. June 5, 2014

With the recent events of the Veterans Administration scandal of the two lists which hid the fact that the V.A. was covering up veterans dying while waiting to be treated, a solution must be had.  Even before this, the V.A. could be considered to have lackluster care in certain areas of health care.  As such, just like with the U.S.O. toward the end in the late 40's after World War II, I believe the V.A. should be privatized.

Why privatized:  Reason being is that just like most bureaucratic bodies in government, organizations are either top heavy or duplicative.  As such money is wasted, patronage appoints the least skilled, and most of all it affects quality of the services that are meant to be delivered.  So like the U.S.O. which is one of the prime examples that we can provide for our troops without government aid, we hence can use the same model to care for our soldiers in uniform, whether they are still active or not.  Other private organizations like the Fisher House Foundation and Hospitals work off of donations to provide care on par or equal to those of other and possibly better funded organizations. People like Bill O'reilly of Fox News, Glenn Beck of the Blaze, and many actors and others in various industries aid in the cause to help people like our Veterans, and more each and every day whether that be by acting as spokesmen/women or starting and running foundations themselves as non-for profits.  The U.S.O works off of private donations and volunteers to provide troops with entertainment and other services around the world, so what makes health care any different?

Generosity:  Some may be skeptical about the privatization of the V.A.  Maybe because health care is typically more expensive than most things in existence for various reasons, with issues stemming from war possibly becoming more expensive.  However, I present to you a list of the top 50 non-for profit medical institutions in the United States via this web address: 

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/50-top-grossing-nonprofit-hospitals-2013.html  

The reason these hospitals can function is due to them having so many generous people seeking to help.  Also, there are other hospitals that are non-profit that specifically treat one of the most expensive diseases known to man, cancer.  So hospitals like the Shriners Hospital for children fight for the lives of children with support from people like you and me.  So why can't the Veterans Administration do the same?  Why do they have to be different and for them to screw up so royally like this?

Conclusion:  We can take care of our Veterans without the V.A. or a newer privatized version.  This is because we as Americans see it as a privileged to be able to give back to those who risk their lives to protect us, who sacrifice so much for our wellbeing and freedom.  So I say privatize the V.A.  and let those who see Veterans as more than numbers on an account sheet take care of them.

Issue 350 Parental rights: when revoked June 4, 2014

We talked yesterday about to overarching rights that parents have over their kids (education and health).  However, at what point do we take children away from their parents to get them out of harm?  This is the question we ask and will discuss in today's issue.

Limits to physical abuse:  There is always a fine line on when government or some other intervening body should step in on anything.  So we have to come up with that point and time upon which a line is crossed where a child must be taken from the parent.  With children being snatched from parents do to small things like a spanking to discipline them, our current standards are too loose.  So when it comes to corporal punishment, it is not a defining line.  Instead, it must be proven that the physical force being used on the child is both constant and unwarranted.  In short, it must occur on a regular basis, and that the punishment is actually abuse and not to correct a problem behavior(s).  In addition, the amount of force used must be factored in to this.  As such, if a parent simply slaps the child on the rear, or the face then it is fine.  But, if the parent proceeds to brake the child's arm "purposefully" then there is obviously a problem.  As such the limits that are set for physical abuse must be clearly structured with a small amount of flexibility depending on the type of physical force being applied.

Limits to psychological abuse:  This set of criteria is very different.  Here the parent or guardian performs the same kind of abuse that would occur in a torture room.  The parent verbally abuses and threatens the child, but does not do any physical harm (though this is not always the case).  Instead, once the verbal abuse is done, the parent shows small amounts of love to keep the child latched to them, as if they must do everything to please their parent (their "master").  Simply yelling at a child is not verbal abuse.  It must occur on a regular basis, and show long term effects that would undermine the child's wellbeing.  So we must not jump to conclusions at any time or risk undermining the parent(s).

Malnourished:  In this case, determining if a child is malnourished due to poverty or neglect is very important.  If it is due to poverty, then in general, the parent is still a good parent.  But, if that parent chooses to ignore the health of their children and buy and clothe themselves over the needs of their children, then it is abuse.

Addicts:  Drug addicts do also constitute a situation where the children may have to be taken away.  Abusers of alcohol, and both illegal and prescription drugs can be a very detrimental problem that leads to the aforementioned.  So if the parent is purposefully getting their child high or drunk, then there is a problem (obviously).  But if they do it recreationally, or are a recovering addict, then there may not be a need to take the child away.  In fact, a parent who keeps the drugs and addictions secret and keeps their child away from their weakness may in fact (I believe) keep their children.  If discovered, then they should be given help to overcome their addiction without breaking the family up.  This is hard however, as the law in general lacks flexibility.

Child's Voice:  One of my biggest gripes as an outsider looking in is that they ignore the child's wishes with respect to the children of possible child abusers.  Police are told to ignore the children and their screams as they are dragged off away from the parents they love.  While this may be right in the case of a mentally abused child, it may not be right in other situations where there may be mitigating circumstances.  For instance, a child was pulled from the school bus on the way to school by police.  That child was part of a bad break up between an abusive father and a non-abusive mother.  The child, due to the custody hearings called for that child to be put in the care of the father (where the mothers’ testimony did not produce enough evidence of the fathers’ abusive nature).  So as the child was being taken off the bus, the child screamed and cried to not be given to his father.  When he was placed in the custody of his father, the dad whisked him to south of the boarder of Mexico.  Eventually the father was brought in on kidnapping charges, but this would not have happened if the police and the courts had listened to this child (who I believe at the time was 10 or 12 years of age).  Thus, we should and must listen to the children too.

Conclusion:  This issue is not cut and dry.  Every scenario has major exceptions, but because there is little flexibility children are separated from parents who may in fact be good parents in the first place.  On top of this the Federal/State governments have no incentive to listen or change the laws because the federal government gives money to States for each child put into a foster home.  Sick is it not?  Hope you enjoyed the read, and remember, there is more to a story than what you think.

Issue 349 Parental rights: responsible for what? June 3, 2014

Our parents do a lot for us.  They feed us, clothe us, and raise us.  However, this means they have very specific responsibilities in two key areas of our life before we are old enough to move out on our own.  Let's discuss them.

Education:  Parents are the sole providers of education.  This includes basic reading, writing and arithmetic (math), cultural/societal training, and religious education.  Parents have sole responsibility over these areas.  If they cannot do it alone then they enlist help from schools and institutions to insure that we do get this education. But, even if they give some of that responsibility away, they are still responsible for insuring that the education their child receives stays true to the family values the parents want to impart.  If said education fails to provide all of what is needed, then the parents supplant it in whatever ways they see fit to ensure the total core of what they believe is required for their child to know is imparted.  If the educators they hire do not teach the values that parents want, then parents by obligation must either shift their child out of that education system to protect them, or find a way to counter the unproductive narrative of the education their child is receiving.  First and foremost, parents should always have the opt in clause given to them by any education institution, whether that be to use their services or to attend specific lessons and classes.  A parent has sole right to this field and it should not be infringed.

 Health:  Just like education, a child's health, until the child is of age, is under the sole authority of the parents.  They make any decision on who treats their children, to how the treatments are to be carried out.  Parents can adjust how their children are treated by healthcare professionals based upon fear of harm, alternative solutions that parents believe are better, and even meeting certain religious ethics.  In this, parents rights again should not be infringed as the parents are just that the parents.  Their child is theirs and theirs alone, and no one has a say on how to raise another person’s children.

Conclusion:  First and foremost, this is not a lecture to parents.  They in general know their responsibilities.  This issue is geared toward young people like me who have yet to have children.  It is a reminder that raising a child is about more than playing catch and the main rights and responsibilities a parent has outside of giving birth and letting the child live in your home.  Also, there are some parents who are content just letting others do their job for them as well.  They looked for an out from their responsibilities for parenting by giving all responsibilities to the public education system, and to doctors who your child has no affection, or feelings for.  Thus, a relationship like that is cold and unfeeling which I believe results in a child that is distant and cannot connect with the parents on the most basic of levels (love).  So this is for them.  Those who have yet to raise a child, and to let parents look and evaluate themselves to see if they feel they are doing enough.  God Bless all the parents and future parents in the world, for they hold the future in their hands.

Issue 348 Racial Comments: Donald Sterling June 2, 2014

You are all familiar with the Clippers owner Donald Sterling and his racially charged comments that happened a little over a month ago.  Now that everyone has settled down a little and we know his fate, I feel safe in reacting to how he is to be punished. So let us discuss his punishments and how his punishments should have really been carried out.

Fined:  He was fined $2.5 Million over his racist comments.  This is the max allowed by the NBA as per their guidelines.  However, I disagree from a freedom standpoint with this part of his punishment.  You are punishing speech, "free speech" whether you agree with it or not.  Yes you are responsible for what you say and must suffer societal consequences (will discuss the alternative later), but punishing speech with a monetary fine (especially one that is a drop in the bucket for this multi-millionaire) if foolish and sets a bad precedent.  Why a bad precedent you ask?  Well, any speech can be offensive, and as such nearly any form of speech can thus be fined.  The result is people not talking out of fear of being fined for what society (or segment thereof deems negative).  Thus fining speech is not the answer.

Banned:  Sterling is also banned from all NBA related facilities.  This means he cannot even see his own team play.  However, this makes very little sense. If he owns the team (the Clippers) then would he not own the home stadium in which they play and practice?  Can we actually ban someone from walking on their own property?  The only way this could work is if the NBA owned the stadiums, in which case this would be perfectly legal.  If it is the case where team owners own the stadiums however, then it should be left up to each individual team and their owners to decide if they will allow Sterling on their property.  As such, the teams themselves can ban Sterling if the NBA has no ownership over facilities they do not own.

Forced to sell:  Ok, being forced to sell your own property (the franchise known as the Clippers) is very disturbing.  It is your property, you own it and then someone comes along and says you must sell it.  No, that does not fly with me.  Sure, he is a racist jerk, but that is not an excuse to be tyrannical and forcefully make him sell his team. As such, the individual teams should be able to decide if they are willing to play against his team or not.  And if they refuse to play, the NBA can ignore it so that the team that refuses does not have it counted against them as a loss.  Simple right?  Of course this rests on if the team is actually owned by Sterling and is not owned by the NBA itself.  In this case Sterling is a shareholder charged with certain responsibilities.  So if that is the case then they can force Sterling to sell without question.  However, I believe it is the former and thus Sterling should keep his team.

My punishment:  All the aforementioned punishments violate freedom in one way or another.  But my solutions and critics I mention above and what I am about to tell do not violate anyone's freedom of conscience.  So we have each team deciding if they will play the Clippers or not and if they will have any other dealings with him and his team (as mentioned above).  Now as to the rest of the solution, we as members of the population of the United States can ostracize him.  Essentially refuse to go to games in which the Clippers play, not to buy Clippers merchandise or any merchandise put out by Sterling's other business dealings, and even refuse to sell or associate with him.  Essentially a form of boycott that does not harm the team directly, but Sterling's income from our boycott.  Team members can also refuse to play for him so long as he owns the Clippers, thus allowing them to be free agents with the NBA protecting them from breaches in contract.  These are some very simple solutions that do not violate freedoms and yet embrace the freedom of association we all hold dear through the freedom of speech and peaceable assembly clause in our Constitution.  Yes, in this case we can punish Sterling for holding his backwards and hateful views through our God given rights.

Conclusion:  No form of speech is without consequence.  Also, any form of speech and expression will be offensive to someone in some way, shape, or form (including this issue of Jormungand).  So punishing people via institutions can become haphazard and result in tyranny in the long run.  Aiding by my suggestions, at the very least does not allow for a future institutions abuse via precedent, but does still keep the risk of mob rule (the weakness of all forms of Democracies).  So I embrace the freedom of association to punish, not the NBA trying to look tough on a foolish old man.