Issue 391 2nd Amendment and Militias July 31, 2014

If you have read the second Amendment of the United States Constitution, you will know that it mentions militias.  But the right to bear arms is not dependent on the right to form a militia, but instead certifies our right to organize into militias to defend the nation.  So how do we reconcile that the 2nd Amendment mentions militias and what do militias actually have to do with the 2nd Amendment.  

First and Foremost The 2nd Amendment: 

A well regulated Militia, 

being necessary to the security of a free State, 

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, 

shall not be infringed.

History:  As I understand, the mentioning of militias has to do with the States and localities and their right to organize militias.  The militias at the time were drawn up from the local population and could range in age (depending on what State or area you lived in) from as young as 15 to as old as 75.  However, the States, and especially local governments could not afford to secure equipment for these militias.  As such, it was up to the local population to secure their own guns and other weapons so that they could serve.

A militia man had many roles, they acted as a police force, a military force, hunting parties to kill dangerous wild animals and depending on the local government could act as fire fighters or in any capacity the locals needed.  However, local governments and State governments did set standards for equipment for the roles these militias had to play.  So it was up to the militia members to again gather and secure their own equipment.  But unlike today’s military, militias were not a standing army.  They could buy a gun for the short period of time needed to fight and then sell it.  They received only informal training at worst and but are not the equals to their full time counterparts (in terms of training and equipment).  So to think that militias are on the same terms with an organized military in nonsense and corrupts the purpose of a militia which is to simply fight and then disband as the need arose.

Rectifying the situation:  To say that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with militias is false.  But to say militias have the exclusive right to bear arms is utter nonsense.  States and local governments dictated the age and equipment levels needed to serve in a militia when people were called up.  It was a volunteer based system, but people could be compelled (drafted) if the situation dictated.  So, in order to ensure everyone at least had marginally the same equipment levels, people were essentially compelled to get a gun without actual force of law.  Also these militia members had to be ready to organize at any time.  So the right to bear arms is partially secured by the fact that people had to buy their own weapons in case they were called to fight.  So securing the right to bear arms allows people to form militias when and if needed.

Conclusion:  The people are allowed to fight for their country whether that enemy is foreign or domestic, a national government or a terrorist organization or other possible enemy.  Guns play a smaller role today than in the past where people needed them to hunt with and maintain a livelihood in many instances (though in some parts of the country this still holds true).  The idea that a person who volunteers or the potential to volunteer for a militia aids in the proof that we have the right to bear arms.  They had to buy their own guns and so even if they were not in an actual militia yet, they knew they may (by circumstances) be forced into one at some point in time.  As such they need the right to bear arms to be ready to take action.  

Issue 390 Advantages of hunting July 30, 2014

Hunting, a practice that I have yet to partake in save in the form of fishing (if that counts), has very distinct advantages over traditional store bought food.  It also aids us in everyday life.  Read on to find out how.

Chemical free:  Yes that is right, hunting for food means acquiring game without all the additives and chemicals.  So no hormones, antibiotics or any similar possibly negative chemicals.  As such, you have a more natural and arguably more organic meal.

Empowers women:  Women who hunt are supposedly more confident, and capable of handling stressful situations.  They, having a gun or other hunting tool, gives them the same power as that of a man holding a gun in effect equalizing them.  These women are also more independent as well.  This however, is not based on scientific study, but let the girls play too.

Learning:  Hunting imparts lessons in patience, discipline and teaches survival skills.  The survival skills aid in everyday life by making the person more self-aware and likely to look into their environment to seek the tools they need to accomplish whatever task is put before them.  Discipline comes from the fact the hunter must keep cool and maintain a level head even in the most stressful of situations.  And finally patience comes from the ability to wait for the target to come to them.  So every aspect of hunting in fact becomes a tool to further oneself.

Conclusion:  I may not be 100% right in my assessment.  In fact, I expect a few hunters to maybe yell at me for not getting this all correct or leaving something out.  However, despite my never having gone hunting in the woods, I recognize this activity (survival for some) as something unique and special.   

Issue 389 ASAP-P vs. As long as it takes Prayer July 29, 2014

"As soon as possible prayer" versus "As long as it takes prayer."  This is the two forms of prayer we as human beings who have religion do in times of trouble, when we are week, and when we wish to help others.  But which is the correct way?  Let's discuss.

As soon as possible prayer: As soon as possible prayer (ASAP-P) is the prayer we say when we want something done immediately.  It is all about seeing it done right away because we demand that God exercises his power on our behalf.  But, it is selfish for this to occur.  Or at least I think it is selfish.  God works when the time is right, not when we wish him too.  So no, God will not get you a girlfriend, or a new car or any of the like.  Then in times of hardship we ask God to save us or others, but God only helps those who help themselves.  So if you just want God to solve all your problems, then it probably will not happen.  This is at least how I see it.

As long as it takes prayer:  For the "as long as it takes prayer", it seems to me that this is the correct way to pray.  It essentially is asking God for guidance to achieve the goals you wish.  God does want us to be happy, but his job is not providing the happiness to us.  Instead he whispers in our ear and our heart to make the right choices to make ourselves happy through our own effort and strength.  Sure God is helping in this scenario, but he is not doing the task for you.  Then there are those emergency situations like a loved one’s life is in danger.  This is where things get hairy.  Yes God probably can simply mend all the wounds, broken bones, and the trauma, but why doesn't he?  My guess is that it becomes a test.  A test on one’s faith, hope and love.  That the people injured need time to heal for a reason, and thus cannot be healed right away, while at the same time you the person praying is healing in a different way.  This is my guess as to why this form of prayer is the right way.

Conclusion:  Truth is, I do not know which form of prayer is right or wrong.  I just have a feeling that between these two, the "As long as it takes prayer" makes the most sense and fits with what I have learned in my own faith.  So what do you think?  Do you do the ASAP-P type?  Do you think you are being selfish if you do?  Or are there situations that justify selfishness (if it is selfish in the first place)?  I cannot answer these questions for you.  I personally think I would be selfish if I did the ASAP-P type and thus violate all I believe with respect to my faith.  So I will learn to be patient and continue to be patient for the goals I myself have in mind.  I believe God is within us all, whispering to us to go down the right path.  Being patient and earning everything is just some of those whispers.  It just takes some effort for us to listen.  

Issue 388 Health and Nano-machines July 28, 2014

Here I will go over the potential problems with injecting microscopic machines into the human body.  Here we go.

Dependency: In the future our bodies may become dependent on these machines to actively fight diseases.  As such, our immune systems may actually become weaker and make us more susceptible to disease. 

Kidneys:  What is to say that as our kidneys remove the nano-machines from our bodies that they do not scrape and scratch them from the inside of our bodies.  This could result in irreparable damage to the kidneys and force us on dialysis.  

Further damage:  What is also to say that these machines will cause other damage to the rest of the body as well?  These machines can accidentally damage the heart, liver, lungs and other organs.  Imagine the bacteria they are meant to fight is in our lungs.  Now imagine a horde of small robots converging on our lungs to kill the bacteria.  We still do not know how that will affect our lungs as a whole.  The same goes for our heart.  The plaque that builds up in our bodies has pockets of bacteria in them.  If the nano-machines burrow through the plaque, that plaque will flake off and cause a blood clot.  So you can see that there are many problems here.

Differentiating:  As mentioned in the previous article, the machines cannot distinguish between good bacteria or bad.  This also means they cannot tell a bacteria from a regular human cell yet.  So this could be as bad as getting chemo therapy or worse.  As such, we can end up injecting the nano-machines just for them to rip apart our own bodies if we are not careful.  

White blood cells:  Now there is also the issue of white blood cells attacking these machines.  Will these machines defend themselves and thus weaken our immune systems by killing the white blood cells too.  Also, will these machines distract the body’s immune system from the real problem, such as bacteria or a virus?  Again another question to be asked, and hopefully answered.

Conclusion:  These possibilities are not the end to the research that needs to be done.  We must ask these questions so that our miracle cure does not become a curse.  However, if we can solve these issues, we potentially can create a superior fighter against a whole host of diseases.  Good luck scientists, and God's speed.

Issue 387 Solution to super-bugs July 25, 2014

We talked already about bacteria immune to antibiotics, but there is a possible solution.  This solution is microscopic robots called nano-machines.

How they work:  Nano-machines are microscopic robots built in factories or born from various biological methods (as in the case of DNA robots).  These robots can be programmed to hunt down and kill the bacteria.  All it needs is the right programming.  Basically, you build it, give it a task, and then inject it so it carries out that task.

Benefits:  Super-bugs as far as we know cannot fight them.  Robots are not something bacteria can get immune too (we think).  So the robots can doggedly carry out their task to rid the body of all enemy bacteria.

To make it work:  The only issue is to program the machines to go after bacteria that causes the human body harm, not the beneficial bacteria.  Also, if one of the good bacteria overwhelms the body and becomes detrimental, what instructions are we to give to these robots.  So we will have to figure this out and categorize each bacteria into categories and have a way to monitor their populations in the body.

Conclusion:  Nano-machines are a step in the right direction, but in no way mean that we cannot be vigilant.  Truth is, we have never actually pitted a machine against bacteria (to my knowledge), so more research needs to be done.  Also, we still do not know the potential side effects of these microscopic machines will have on our bodies.  We have much to learn, but little time to do it.

Issue 386 The antibiotic problem July 24, 2014

Antibiotics are a tool to fight off bacterial infections.  However, through our own negligence, and insecurities have caused mutated bacteria to thrive and be almost entirely resistant to modern medicines such as antibiotics.  Let's discuss.

We caused the problem:  The problem is caused by overuse of antibiotics.  There are cases when doctors prescribe antibiotics to a patient despite the patient not having a bacterial infection in the first place.  Also, doctors will give antibiotics to patients that are disproportionately stronger than needed to fight the infection.  The result is that bacteria immune to that antibiotic surviving and without competition living on to become a problem for the human host.  But this is only a small portion of this problem.  

The biggest problem:  What is hurting us the most in the battle against bacterial diseases is not doctors, but farmers.  Farmers use about 80% of all antibiotics on the market on their livestock to keep them from getting sick.  However, this has the same issue as it does on people, leaving behind immune bacterial stains.  On top of this, those antibiotics end up in our food, which in turn we take in and compound the problem further.  

Solution:  Less antibiotics is the only real way to solve this problem.  Doctors have to prescribe only the weakest antibiotics that are equal to the job, leaving the more powerful ones for later if and only if needed.  They also cannot just prescribe drugs to patients when it has no bearing on their condition.  

We also have to get farmers to stop using all these antibiotics on their livestock, the food we eat.  It is becoming detrimental to the health of all of us if we create a bacteria that cannot be cured.  Simply by not giving these animals antibiotics unless they are sick is the only real method to stopping the super bug problem.

Conclusion:  Antibiotics already do harm to the body in the form of killing good bacteria and ruining the small intestines.  But to top it off we can be creating the next black plague.  So can we be responsible and fix this problem before it is too late.

Issue 385 Driver-less cars July 23, 2014

It has been announced by some experts that highways will be allowed to have driver-less vehicles within the next two to three years.  And you know what, I have one of my usual predictions.

Prediction:  I believe that this will spark a new industry.  While it will not happen right away, I think that highways will eventually be restricted to driver-less vehicles.  However, between that time and when we get driver-less cars an industry similar to the railroad will develop.  This industry will be comprised of rent-able driver-less cars that will take you to your destination.

How it works:  Basically, you will drive or walk to a driver-less car station.  From there you get into your driver-less car and type in your destination.  At this point the driver-less car takes you to the next closest driver-less car station.  At this point you can walk, bike or rent a regular car to finish your trip.  Basically, it is like a train on wheels that is restricted to highways.  

Evolution:  This industry will however be affected by changes in law and technology.  As such once the driver-less cars become legal to ride on the back streets, the industry will be able to deliver people door to door.  So you will be able to call a driver-less car to be at your home by a specified time and even give it the option to carpool which could give you a discount on you payment price.  While some people would still prefer to own their own driver-less cars (hence the auto industry not disappearing any time in the future) people will not need cars in general.  From there a new status quo will develop as taxi services are replaced entirely by these driver-less pickup vehicles and personally owned driver-less cars.

Conclusion:  Can you imagine a world where your car gasses up its own fuel tank when it knows its running low.  Or how cars can drive you from place to place via the highway in the same manner as a train would, which eventually would evolve to get you to your destination like a cab.  Of course the only annoyance will be paying by the meter for the amount of fuel to get to your destination.  We have an interesting future ahead.

Issue 384 Underground Diners July 22, 2014

Our final alternative is about underground diners and dining.  This elite group of chiefs escape the usual rules, regulations and taxes in their own way.  Here is how they work.

The underground diner:  The concept is simple.  The chief accomplishes their task in one of two ways.  They either go to the home of the individual who has hired them, or they have the clients come to the comfort of their own home.  In some cases, the chiefs will procure their own ingredients, and in others the clients will have to get the ingredients for the meal.  The amount of ingredients is of course based on the number of guests that will be attending what looks on the outside to be a basic dinner party.  From here, the chiefs cook their clients the meal.  Of course the chiefs are paid off the books so as to avoid the taxation by Federal, State and local officials.  In addition, the chief need not worry about typical health code violations due to all the cooking being done in the comfort of home.  Thus, he/she escapes the typical burdens of over regulation.  The government tries to crack down on this citing possible health issues, but in reality, they just want to tax the chief and his/her underground business.  

Conclusion:  This is yet another fun and creative way to bypass the system to embrace your chosen profession.  Yes, there are potential problems, but those same health problems exist in regular restaurants as well.  Also, you know the risks of cooking in your own kitchen, and as far as I know, these underground chiefs take precautions as well for their reputation and business is staked to their cooking.  So I say cook on underground chief, Cook on!!!

Issue 383 House Sharing (alternate to Hotels) July 21, 2014

Continuing with alternatives to over-regulated businesses from last week we have house sharing.  So how does that work?

House Sharing:  The way it works is similar to ride sharing.  The person makes a suggested donation which takes the place of a fee for service.  This is where the similarities end as far as I know. The methods of operation however vary and I see two models based on my knowledge of the subject.  

The first method is the house sitting model.  Basically, you rent your home to a person or persons for a specified period of time.  They live in your home for that period of time fending for themselves in the same manner they would if they were at home.  

The other method is the bed and breakfast model.  In this case, the homeowner is home, but is renting out extra rooms to clients to stay for a limited period of time.  The homeowner takes care of the traditional role of housekeeping and even providing breakfast.  Simple right?

As to the vetting process.  There are those who advertise on social media or other websites like Craigslist.  How they are vetting their potential customers for being respective clients is something that I do not know.  Thus I can only speculate that it works in a similar method to the ride sharing model where they use Facebook to identify their clients and gather information if they are a worthy client that will not be a home wrecker.  

Conclusion:  Again we have a method of bypassing traditional federal or even local regulations that allows businesses to operate untaxed and unhindered.  Sure, these people escape taxes, but I could care less.  The businesses who run their businesses in the normal way simply pass the taxes on to us, their clients anyway.  So why care as these people will be taxed in other ways in the first place.  We are bogged down by so many mandates by government, so I celebrate the entrepreneurs who have found a way to bypass the government’s red tape.

Issue 382 Ride Sharing (escaping the taxi) July 18, 2014

Did you know there is a way to escape the business regulations that govern taxi cab drivers and similar highly regulated industries?  Well there is a way and it is modeled a little on carpooling.  Here is how it works.

How it works:  The concept is simple, you set up your clients with you as their driver and you drive them to their destination.  However, you take a suggested donation.  How these drivers vet their clients varies (some use Facebook or other social networking sites) but the ultimate method of this underground industry is to set up a system that allows their clients to write reviews on them and them on their clients.  The drivers of course can write reviews on their clients so as to warn other drivers of bad tippers, bad attitudes or even black listing them. 

The suggested donation part makes it actually legal to do however.  While by law, it is a donation (terminology is subject to change based on changes in what is taxable by law) it is actually income, with the terminology being the fine line.  However, we do not care about that as if these drivers go through traditional methods including becoming a taxi cab driver, they would be forced to pay thousands of dollars to be licensed to a company and would not be able to keep most of their earnings.  If fact to become an independent operator, a taxi cab driver would have to pay almost one million dollars just to get that "privilege".  But this ride sharing scheme ensures you keep your earnings as a private driver who can pick and choose their clients (untaxed).

Conclusion:  No I am not saying break the law, but this business is a reaction to the over-regulation that squeezes out the little guy.  Those independent drivers now have a place to practice their preferred trade without the extra burden. So pardon me, but I am rooting for this underdog and the success of these men and women who wish to bypass the illogical regulations and embrace the true spirit of capitalism and freedom.

Issue 381 College should be a job finding company July 17, 2014

We know that certain industries need colleges to train their employees.  However, the number of industries that actually need some level of college of education is limited to around 20% of the job market (and that number is being generous). Colleges are losing out to online courses including in areas that requires traditional training that is usually required for one of those jobs that require a college degree.  As such, they are inevitably going to lose money and may even go bankrupt in the long run.  However, colleges need to adapt.  Some and soon all will offer online courses, but even that is not enough.  Hence why they need to become brokers for businesses with respect to finding new hires.

What needs to happen:  Colleges are losing the battle for cheap education.  So they need to offer a service that is not offered by the online institutions.  That is being a job hunting agency.  So the college will market you, groom you and then help place you in a business or corporation.  Some do this to a certain extent based on connections with former Alumni, or small scale partnerships.  But, they need to scale that up and then offer courses that are flexible for the needs of both the students and their business clientele.  

It works as follows.  Essentially, a business would contract with a college and give the college a set of specifications for training they want from a new hire.  The college would then develop the course on demand with the students wanting to work in the particular business or even just that field of study attending.  The business would then have its pick of perspective new hires, and the students have a chance at a good job.  These courses would be more adaptable than the current ones as they would be able to be modified on demand due to the changing nature of the business market.  The results are obvious, businesses, colleges and former college students especially benefit.

Conclusion:  Yes, this is a dream scenario.  However, it is feasible with the right tools and technology.  Of course this would take vast sums of money to even develop such a system in the first place, but it may spell the survival of brick and mortar colleges. So, the question is, is this worth the cost, or will the advancement of technology render colleges completely obsolete.   

Issue 380 School to work program. July 16, 2014

How about a way to get children into the working world as soon as possible so as to give them a head start.  Would that be beneficial for the country, not to mention the children themselves who will come out of high school with hands on working experience?   Here is my idea.

The idea:  The premise is simple.  At the age of 13, the student with the parents’ permission would get their working papers.  Hence they would be allowed to work at a place of employment.  From here the program takes over where the student either works for four to five hours each day (excluding weekends, unless the parent gives permission or circumstances dictate) to gain work experience.  But some of you are saying now that this will interfere with their schooling.  Well, I can alleviate your fears, you just have to read the next section.

  How it works: It is fairly simple.  Yes the student will be working four to five hours each day, but this is set up in a way that does not interfere with time in school or with private time at home.  To accomplish this, the core subjects of reading, writing, math along with elements of history and science will take up the first few hours of the day (or the remainder of the afternoon).  The students will have a lunch period and a study hall time so as to do their homework and other assignments prior to going to work or starting their school day.  So as an example, a student will be dropped off by their parent at the place of employment (or by bus) to work.  Then, a bus will pick them up and drive them back to school where they will eat lunch and have a study hall.  For those who work in the afternoon, the children are dropped at school first and then are dropped off at their place of employment.  Thus, all the core subjects are accounted for and the student will most likely leave school (or work) approximately around three, four or five in the evening depending on the situation and the nature of the job.

To ensure a diverse range of experiences, a student will work at a particular job for at least two months (longer if parents give approval due to the student wishing they can stay at their place of employment and the business owner accepting).  By giving a two month window, the student can get a sense of what the job is like.  Essentially it is trying to get as many job experiences under the belt of the student as possible.  This accumulated experience will give the students the knowledge and skills necessary to hold a job after they get out of school.

Advantages to all:  The first advantage is to the students as they will gain work experience and be trained to do multiple jobs depending on how well the program is run.  As such they get a head start in life with respect to knowing and retaining job related skills (and cash too).   The second advantage is to the businesses. They get a work force of students being paid minimum wage (or more depending on the circumstances), which means cheap labor for them.  Finally, the schools can rotate their students which allows for smaller class sizes and thus cost savings with respect to certain elective classes or man power.

Conclusion: Is this a good idea? I only think it is because I thought of it, but what about you?  Do you think that this is an option that can be used to give students a head start in life with respect to the job market?  I hope this idea will at least spring forth a better one as at this point in time, the next generation will have to work very hard to adapt to this ever faster changing society. 

Issue 379 Can you pray for your enemy? July 15, 2014

Jesus told us to both love and even pray for our enemy.  But why is that?  What was the purpose of Jesus telling us Christians to do that?

What I think:  I think Jesus wanted us to pity them.  An enemy who only knows hatred is someone to be pitied.  Thus you pray for them to find peace that does not use violence and bloodshed which inherently begets more.  There is also the notion that by praying for your enemy, you can pray that they are enlightened to stop whatever foolish notions or fighting they are committing.  Thus, they are better able to negotiate with and a possible future trust out of the ashes of conflict can come about.  

The naive answers:  Jesus never wanted us to look down upon others, hence his quote "may the first without sin cast the first stone".  So we do not look down upon the enemy, but respect them for their prowess.  We do not wish them dead for then would they not wish us dead?  Wishing ill harm to others can and possibly will bring ill harm unto yourself.  So any of the negatives where you wish harm or ill fortune and looking down upon the "enemy" as pathetic rather than basic pity is from my perspective a non-starter.  

Conclusion:  Praying that once a conflict is over, that you can get alone with your former adversaries is good.  Asking God to enlighten them to halt their path of destruction is also good.  In short, the purpose of praying and even loving your enemy is to understand that you will not always be enemies.  Are we not supposed to be above the foolish notions of hatred and twisted revenge?  Yes you are allowed to defend yourself from harm, but not if you become as violent and horrid as those who had attacked you wrongfully in the first place.  And thus why we pray for the conflict to end in a way that lets us acquire the peace we seek, not the peace forced upon us by desperation of war and hatred.

Issue 378 Anti-homeless studs!!! July 14, 2014

Yes that is right "anti-homeless studs".  I first learned of this on the Blaze Network and it had me wondering why anyone would do such a thing.  Well, let me tell you the back story.

Back story: In England, high priced hotels do not want homeless people begging for money or sleeping by the entrances by their hotels.  They feel it drives away business (which they are correct about).  So they had studs placed into the ground (the equivalent to those spikes that keep birds from landing or nesting in certain spots).  And thus, the story on the Blaze asking if this is moral or not.

I don't find this moral:  There are better and much nicer ways of keeping the poor from sleeping or begging near your business.  What could possess you to place spikes on the ground so as to drive the homeless away like they are some animal.  We have police who can drive these people to shelters for a reason, or at the very least a facility that can help them get out of poverty by finding them a job.  The spikes are what people do to animals, they should not be used against other people ever.

Conclusion:  People are treating other people like animals because we, not just as a nation, but humanity as a whole lost its values of life and liberty.  We need to reconnect to what is most important or else worse things than these anti-homeless studs will begin to happen.  And when that does I'll be there to say I told you so.  So reconnect with what is important, God, humanity, humility and the like.  Before we can correct others, we must correct ourselves.

Issue 377 Child learning: at own pace July 11, 2014

A child is a knowledge sponge.  They take in the world around them and then process it, which then constitutes their abilities and also determines their future.  The issue today is that schools (usually government run ones) cannot allow the child to move through their education at their own pace.  As such, they are held back by their peers who may need extra time.  So what can we do about this so that children can push themselves to learning excellence without being held back?

Material based, not grade levels:  One method is that children are not advanced using a grade level based system.  Instead they advance as they acquire knowledge and the proficiency in that knowledge.  So you go from basic addition and subtraction to algebra, to geometry and finally to calculus, but this is not learned as you move up each grade level.  You simply just move onto the next level of math and its complexity instead. As such, grade levels are irrelevant as the child will move from subject to subject based on their own personal performance.  So they can go from studying the American Revolution to world history in as short as a year if the child is capable of doing so, even if they are still struggling to understand algebra in their math class.  You could say this idea works on a system similar to the United States high school curriculum with each subject taught by a different teacher, but in this case geared toward fostering the child's ability to advance based on their own innate capabilities.

Cycle system:  This system goes by a few other names, but here the same teacher you had in first grade would be the same teacher you had all the way to fifth grade.  In addition all your classmates would be the same too.  This allows for a relationship between teacher and student where the teacher can act as an adviser to the student as the teacher will hence know all the students weaknesses when it comes to learning.  This can allow the teacher to adapt other teaching techniques to prevent that student from ever falling behind.  Basically, why bother getting a new teacher each and every year when you can get to know one who knows you and knows what it takes for you to catch onto the material and succeed.

Self-taught:  Here the teacher hands out dittos to students who are deemed capable of teaching themselves a problem simply by following a few examples on a page.  These students once done with the ditto simply need to ask for the next ditto so that they can either reinforce what they learned or move on to more complex problems like in math or science.  This is basically how the computer based learning works, save with the advantage that lectures can be given to each student via computer at the same time, before quizzing them on their knowledge.  The only other advantage with computer based learning here is that a student may be able to skip a subject and move onto another one if they so choose due to how hard it may be for them.  Both have good advantages and teachers can then look at their work and determine areas of weakness in which dittos or computer programs can be used to help the student get a more hands on approach to learning that subject matter so that they get it.  The teacher in this scenario really focuses mainly at monitoring the progress of the students and providing extra help and advice when required.

Class A, B, C, D, and F:  This approach is very classical, but may be combined with any of the aforementioned.  Here they identify the students who have the most learning difficulty and the least difficulty.  Those with the least learning difficulty are in class A with each of the students who have progressively worse learning difficulty placed in to class B, C, D and so on with the slowest students who have the hardest time absorbing information and knowledge in class F.  The purpose here is in part to keep the fast learners from being slowed down by their counterparts and for the slower learners to get that extra time and attention they need to succeed in the first place.  Of course, students can test out of a slower class and move into a higher one based on how well they perform as well.  Similar to the Honors classes and the A.P. accredited classes (where you can get college credit) in my old high school.  And no, this is not saying any of the students are dumb by any means (or super smart for that matter).  It just means some need more time to get a better handle of the material.

Conclusion:  These are all ideas that can be applied to current school systems to help students advance at the pace they need.  We need to cultivate a student body that can learn and advance on its own because if the course moves too slow, or is uninteresting, then the students will become uninterested and thus end up failing or missing opportunities.  This is why computer based learning is so good for the students who can take advantage of it, they no longer need to wait for the teachers or their peers to catch up.  

Issue 376 What guns should be unregulated? July 10, 2014

Well, you’re probably thinking I am nuts for even posing the question.  However, if you think about it, there are numerous firearms that are completely outdated in which they do not even make ammunition or parts for anymore.  This group is called historical firearms and I am going to make my case on why they should be unregulated to you.

Long reload:  Muskets, and classic muzzle loading fire arms from the days of the American Revolution and back need not be regulated when it comes to being bought and sold.  Main reason is that they can fire off 3 rounds max in one minute (and that is if you’re really good at loading them).  There is a group of gun collectors who shoot these firearms and really only need a license to purchase the gun powder (cause it is a possible bomb making material) in order to shoot them.  You probably never heard of this, but there is a segment of the gun culture here in the United States that likes shooting historical firearms like muskets and similar weapons.  Other firearms like the wheel lock and flint lock are also in this category as they require a long and lengthy process to load and then fire.

Out of date:  Another grouping that overlaps slightly with the first is firearms that are considered outmoded and thus their parts and ammunition are no longer made.  Basically, old French 8 mm rifle rounds, and other similar guns need not be regulated as they can only be fired in controlled situations and after a pricey process of making the ammunition.  Even then, if said weapon is in disrepair it will lose value if forced to manufacture newer parts or convert it to modern standards.  Even guns that shoot up to 28 bullets in a single trigger pull (back before the Machine gun was invented they tried numerous ways to barrage the enemy including guns with literally 28 barrels to fire all at once) are in this category and are thus regulated to the historical class of firearm.  So, as long as the gun is not being updated to fire modern ammunition, or the ammunition cannot be easily made, then it makes no sense to regulate said firearms.

Less than lethal: There is one other grouping that (I'm not 100% sure on this specific one) may not need be regulated.  These firearms are guns that shoot small caliber bullets or other types of ammunition that are so small, that they cannot kill anyone save with a lucky hit.  So you may have this tiny palm gun used for a last ditch defense against an attacker, but at most all you will be able to do with it is put a small hole in him and scare them half to death.  So these guns, depending on the lethality of the ammunition need not be regulated (much).

Conclusion:  Some guns just do not need to be regulated due to their being outmoded (depending on the situation).  As such, why waste money regulating these firearms any further when the real killer is the hand gun.  The hand gun is a last ditch personal defense weapon, but also the weapon of assassination and murder.  If anything need be regulated, it is the hand gun, not the historical and now ineffective musket.

Issue 375 What's an assault rifle? July 9, 2014

Assault rifle is a scary term.  In fact when you hear assault rifle you may think of the guns the U.S. military uses.  You would be correct to think of it as a military fire arm, but looks does not define an assault rifle as many lawmakers seem to think.  So allow me to define it for once based on my own personal knowledge of firearms.

What constitutes an assault rifle?:  Well the simplest way is to define it is that it shoots 3 or more rounds each time the trigger is pulled.  It may be equipped with a selector switch to enable the rifle to fire a single round at a time or to fire on full automatic like a machine gun (fires until it runs out of bullets or the trigger is released).  Also, it has to shoot rifle rounds.  So ammunition used in a pistol like a 9 mm, or a 45 ACP, do not count (though they would count for a sub-machine gun).  And that is it.  This is what actually constitutes an assault rifle.

Legalities:  However the law would have you believe that a rifle with a telescoping scope, an extra grip, or any other accessories added to the gun make it an assault weapon.  False, the accessories add to accuracy, or capability of the gun to either shoot in dusk or complete darkness and possibly at longer ranges.  That is all.  Collapsible stocks, extended magazines of ammunition and similar accessories serve to either make the gun easier to carry and to shoot, or in some cases for bragging rights.  However, the people in government think things with these accessories are scary and thus deem them to be deadly assault weapons.  Truth is you can have two M-16 rifles (standard issue for the U.S. army) but only one is considered an assault rifle.  The reason, because the civilian model one shoots one bullet at a time, while the military can shoot 3 or more.  So looks mean nothing.  It is all about capability.

Conclusion:  I hope this clears this all up.  While I own no guns, I support the second amendment and our right for self-protection.  My only grip is that they should stop blaming the gun and instead blame the shooter instead.

Issue 374 Real rich: buying power July 8, 2014

I feel as if I have discussed this before.  That people who have lots of money are not truly rich.  Instead it is about buying power.  But what is buying power?

What is it?:  Yes it has to do with money.  In this case it is about the amount of things you can buy with the smallest denomination of money.  So if you look at the American past, a movie used to cost ten cents, but now it can cost as much as $20 in some places.  As such, the buying power of an individual to go to the movies went down.  Same thing with respect to buying gas here in the United States.  A gallon of gas used to cost about $1.75 at most, but now it costs $3.50 or more.  This is a loss of buying power that reduces our ability to spend on other things that we may want to buy, whether that be necessities or on recreational items.   Those who can afford to spend more on other items whether that is due to better budgeting/saving or having more disposable income are and can be considered richer as they can afford to spend more without fear of possibly pinching pennies to get by.  So a person with a ton of money may not actually be rich as they may not have enough money to buy things outside of what they deem necessities based on their lifestyle or other mitigating factors. So no matter how much you have, you may never actually be rich.

What influences buying power?:  There are a few things.  The one you have the most control over is your budget.  With careful planning on expenses and taking opportunities to accumulate a more advantageous financial position, you can gain in buying power.  But if you spend on the non-essentials, or do not monitor your money properly, then you will decrease your buying power.

The cost of items also limit or enhance your buying power.  One influence is taxes on business, the shipping costs for their products, manufacturing costs, and any government regulations that are imposed on those items.  All this increases the cost of an item and makes it less affordable and can even limit salaries of those individuals working.  So people can be priced out of being able to afford a simple lough of bread.  You can also factor in the stock market as well, as like with oil, investors can cause an items price to rise or fall, or even remain stable in most cases depending on the situation.  Though the stock market typically acts as a stabilizing influence to prevent sharp price increases and thus protects buying power.

Inflation is another problematic factor.  This one is caused by government and its manipulation over the value of the currency in use in the country.  By printing more money, the value of the dollar goes down in the same way that an items price goes down if more supply is created.  So because the dollar is affected by the same supply and demand factors on the market as everything else, if the dollar’s value goes down, then prices of goods will naturally increase to accommodate the larger sums of money needed to make those goods and for businesses to get a return on their investment. As such, this is governments fault.

Conclusion:  I am sure my explanation could be more detailed in respect to examples, but this is the simplest and shortest way I can explain it without it becoming a total headache for you may dear reader.  So I hope you liked the issue and gained a better understanding on who the real rich really are, for it may even be you.

Issue 373 Boarder crossing July 7, 2014

Sergeant Tahmooressi has been imprisoned by the Mexican authorities for well over 2 and a half months.  He was imprisoned for missing an exit on the American and Mexican border in which he claimed his guns were in the vehicle when stopped by the police down in Mexico (thus following the law).  The Mexican authorities then for some unknown reason imprisoned the Marine and has since been in fear of his life from the gang elements that run Mexico's jails.  We have no idea when the Sergeant will be released.  Hopefully by the time of this issues publican however this issue will be resolved.  Yet, no matter what, have to show a firmer hand with respect to border crossers, and I'm not talking about illegal migrants.  Allow me to explain.

The other border crossers:  Apparently numerous people accidentally cross the U.S. Mexican border each day.  When caught by the members of the U.S. border patrol, they are simply escorted back over the boarder after about three hours’ worth of paperwork (source: discussion on "Real News" on the Blaze Network which airs at 6 pm each week day).  Sometimes these individuals who have crossed have drug paraphernalia and even guns of their own.  These illegal crossings range from basic civilians to even Mexican military personnel.  Sometimes the line between drug dealer and Mexican police/military is ultra-thin.  So here is my proposal based on what happened to Sergeant Tahmooressi.

Proposal:  When a person crosses the United States and Mexican border illegally and are then caught, any and all drug paraphernalia should be confiscated immediately.  Any weapons that are non-Mexican police/Military with the exception of personnel who are caught with some form of illegal drugs will also be confiscated.  Then and only then will we send them back over the border.  This is to send a message to those corrupt officials in Mexico who, I would guess, want to hurt us, or follow the orders of the cartels.  On top of this I think it is stupid that we don't confiscate the drugs and weapons that they accidentally cross over with in the first place.  I mean, why are we not trying to hurt the cartels financially by taking more from them and taking the guns that result in deaths on both sides of the U.S. Mexican border.

We can also profit a little off of this.  Those drugs being confiscated can be tested for their purity and usability in either legal marijuana or for conversion to medicinal/medical purposes.  Once tested, they can be sold off to the highest bidder to either drug companies, universities doing drug research, or basic distributes that sell medical/recreational marijuana.  This money can then be used to fund the border police in further operations or other purposes they deem permissible via congress or through the State governments to secure the U.S. Mexican border.  The guns on the other hand can also be checked out, this time to see if they were used in a crime.  If used in a crime, they can be used to bring up charges on cartel members in Mexico or here in the United States to put them in jail.  If not used in a crime (or cannot be proven to be used in a crime) the gun can be stripped of its parts and sold as scrap or be sold as a whole to gun enthusiasts or licensed gun dealers for resale. Again, the border patrol gains more money to fund operations in this scenario.  

Conclusion:  So what do you all think of my idea as a reaction to what happened to Sergeant Tahmooressi?  Is this a good idea?  Will it really aid in or striking back at the cartels?  I really do not know, but what I do know is this, it is dumb to just let these illegal crosser's go back with drugs and guns untouched.

Issue 372 4th of July July 4, 2014

Today is America's Independence Day.  

We celebrate our countries birth, the sacrifices made to make it and then hold it together.  

We honor our soldiers who sacrifice for us and those who made this nation great.  

Yes America has gone through sever trials and tribulations, but we always come through and we always seek to correct our mistakes.

Today we celebrate our founding and our principles that made our nation so strong and resilient.

We will continue to grow, stumble and then set ourselves back in the right direction.  

However, we can only do this through the people who call America home.

It is the American people who make up our nation and to whom we owe a debt of gratitude to for our continued perseverance.

So God Bless the people of the United States for you are what makes this country strong.

Happy Fourth of July.

Issue 371 Computerized Education is Feared?! July 3, 2014

Why computer is based learning feared by teachers?  Well it is simple, it revolutionizes teaching so much that it may make a lot of teachers lose their jobs.

Why it's feared:  Computer based education does not require numerous teachers to be trained and employed.  In fact, the smallest number of teachers needed is one.  That is right, one teacher who is really good at presenting information can teach the entire country via computer.  While realities of competition will mean there will be more than one and that children may learn better with one teacher based on teaching method than another, there will be much less need for teachers to even exist.  You see, that same teacher who is teaching a video can end up teaching for 100 years or more without the need to be replaced even after they die.  Let's face it, if a teacher is that good at teaching via computer, then why hire someone else to take their place.  So what happens to all those other teacher's?

The other teachers may never see a classroom. Reason being is that there will be no need.  While the teacher teaching via the computer can sit back after doing one single lecture which will be viewed by millions while they reap the copyright benefits, the other teachers will be relegated to a support role.  They will have two key roles, grading essays and providing one on one sessions for those who have questions on the material.  A teacher will never have to grade a multiple choice test ever again as that can all be done via computer.  They will never have to issue report cards and progress reports, or tell where the student is having trouble as the computer is easily able to pinpoint that.  So when it comes to something a computer cannot do, it means these supporting teachers will be grading essays and other documents written by students.  The other job they will do is be there like a tech support person to answer questions and troubleshoot where a student gets stuck on a part of the material they are studying.  So these one on one trouble shooting sessions will be these teachers niche roll, possibly with a rating system so that even these individuals can be in demand and receive special privileges like their video teacher counterparts.

Unions:  In this future where students learn at their own pace, unions will lose lots of money as there will be very little teachers left to represent, and even then, the teachers they do represent may not need them as they will be contracting directly with parents and students rather than government bodies or private institutions.  Basically, you will have private tutor capable of teaching a million kids at once and be paid for it.  So why would a teacher subject themselves to union dues and rules?  The fact is that they will not.  And as such, the teachers unions and its supporting bodies will cease to exist as we know them.

Conclusion:  The future of education is looking bright for our children and our wallets, but is dismal for the profession of teaching.  This is not a bad thing though as those horrible teachers that give other teachers a bad name will be completely pushed out, and the teachers who are better at grading (being tough on students written work) will be able to focus on that to insure students become better at reading and writing in general through tests.  Also, who knows how much education will evolve in the future once teaching becomes almost exclusive to computer based learning.  The sky is the limit and we may even see a resurgence of a new form of teacher instead of the near extinction of the ones we have now.

Issue 370 Stay at home Representatives July 2, 2014

 It has been debated and discussed since computers and the internet have become so reliable and world changing.  That debate centered on seeing if our representatives can vote via the internet so that they may be closer to us the people they represent.  So what are the arguments for and against?

For:  One of the key reasons that some want their elected Representatives closer to home is because they are typically unreachable.  Many stay in Washington for most of the year and thus the only way for a constituent to reach them is by phone, via a home office staffed by interns and employees who may not forward your message or to spend large sums to go to Washington D.C.  When a Representative is far away they lose touch with the wants and needs of their constituents and are thus more susceptible to special interests.

Right now it is easier for special interest groups like lobbyists and others who want their causes funded or supported by government to manipulate and bribe our elected officials.  It is easy because the Representatives that make law and dictate where money is spent are all concentrated in one place.  Thus, they only need to rent an office to lobby on the cheap.  If Representatives where to vote from home, it would be much less feasible for these special interest groups to meet up and bribe our politicians.  Also, cause they will be at home, we the people will know who outside of the community is meeting up with our Representatives and when.  Thus, it makes it harder to bribe politicians by keeping them in their home districts and keeping them decentralized.

This decentralized approach has another advantage.  It protects our politicians from terrorist attacks.  If a terrorist wants to attack our government, they have only to attack while congress is in session.  But if all the Representatives are voting from home, then there is no centralized target to attack.   

Against:  The biggest fear is hacking or some form of disruption of the voting process.  Voting by proxy of computer has the same issues as voting using a messenger or by mail.  It can either be intercepted or changed, or not arrive in time due to some other form of disruption.  So Meeting in person is much more secure with respect to keeping such corruption from occurring.

Conclusion:  While I am in favor of Representatives being home more often, I am not in favor of computer based voting by our lawmakers.  While voting for a representative is much more easily fixed if the constituents vote via computer, the idea that a law can be easily fixed after it has been corrupted is not.  So I am open to other alternatives that are more secure.

Issue 369 Characteristics of the wise July 1, 2014

What are the key characteristics of the wise?  I think I know what they are.  So let's discuss.

On thought:  When a wise person obtains new information, they listen.  It is the unwise that ignore information or outright dismiss it.  In short, the unwise will choose to remain ignorant.  However, the wise man/woman will say to themselves "I have never thought of it that way before."  The wise man/women seeks knowledge and understanding as they believe that they are right, but know still that they could be wrong on those issues, facts or opinions.  So they open their minds to all information, process it and then see if they come to the same conclusion they had previous, or if their opinion has changed.  Wise people do not regret having the wrong opinion either as they are instead great full that they were able to gather the information to improve upon themselves.

On Intentions:  A wise person can also see through others intentions.  In essence they can perceive the motivations behind what people say and do.  This is something that comes with a wise men/woman's ability to accept and process new information.  If the wise man/woman is incapable of absorbing new information even if it is counter to their own, then they will not have the ability to judge why and how people present certain information and opinion in a specific way.  As such, once a person absorbs information they can then gain the ability to make judgment calls based on how and why people talk and act a certain way.  In fact they may even be able to see why, over time, those other people’s opinions change based on how society itself changes. Interesting right?

Conclusion:  I hope that I am a wise man.  Though I think that I like debate more so I have my doubts.  But I enjoy learning and I know, depending on the subject and how it is presented, you all do too.  So all that knowledge that you accumulate throughout your life, no matter how small, means something.  You, one day, can be wiser and you will be.  It’s just that some people limit themselves which makes it a much slower process.