Issue 407 Federalizing Abortion? August 29, 2014

There was recent talk by two Democrats who wanted to federalize abortion. I feel this is the stupidest idea I have ever heard.  So let's discuss why.

Why it is dumb:  If they federalize abortion, then they completely override all the safety protocols and laws that protect women in each of the 50 States.  It is legal in all States, but each State imposes specific and clear laws that are designed to limit abortions in such a way as to protect the mother from harm, and if the child is too old to be aborted from the mother’s womb.  If the Congress federalizes abortion it could make abortion permissible beyond the first trimester legal which means killing a viable child in the womb.  States like Texas make it so that all abortions use sonograms to insure that as the fetus being aborted in such a way that the doctor can see what they are doing in the womb.  All States limit abortion (save under very specific circumstances) to the first two to three months.  Many have parental consent clauses for thus under 18, and other laws designed to aid in catching rapists if the child was born of such a crime.  If the Feds have their way, they would have to not only right up new laws, but they could destroy all the safety nets applied by the States.

It will not happen thankfully:  For one, this law will never pass.  Congress is made up of two houses, a House and a Senate.  So long as one is controlled by a majority of pro-life individuals then the law will never make it to the President’s desk.  In addition, the nation as a whole is pro-life, so the level of outrage will overwhelm the elected representatives.  So for now, the abortion industry and the safety of women is secured from nationalization.

Conclusion:  I hate abortion.  I think it is a stain upon the country in the same way slavery was and in some cases still is.  Nationalizing abortion is something done by fools who wish to make abortion so pervasive that it goes unchecked.  Whatever happened to the idea of it being used in the rarest of cases?  Well you obviously know my opinion on the issue, and why I am concerned.  Even though I am not a woman, I know there are at the very least, alternatives to this horrible option.  So I am thankful that the majority of this country believes in the sanctity of life.

Issue 406 Computer whisperer August 28, 2014

Well the Israelis have done it again.  When it comes to spy gadgets this one is nothing short of incredible.  You can actually monitor a computer via the sounds it makes.  Well let me explain how it works (compliments of the magazine Economist).  

How it works:  There are two parts to this nifty technology.  The first is the listening device.  Did you know that each key on the keyboard makes a unique sound?  Did you also know that as the computer runs programs that the noise it makes is unique for each of those processes?  So this device can monitor in real time that information and then send it back to a home base.  But this is not all.  If the spy wants to get the data in the computer itself, then they have but to send a fake email and have it opened.  Once accomplished the email sends an encrypted file into the computer which decodes its software and makes it easier to digest information.  What I mean by this is that it allows the device to more easily decode and absorb the electronic noises and thus opens the entire computer and its files to being copied.  So for as long as the device and or the program goes undetected, a spy can monitor everything that goes on with your computer.

Conclusion:  Scary isn't it.  By simply having a listening device setup, you can decode what a person is typing up on a keyboard and what program(s) they may be running.  If you add the decoding program, then you no longer have any privacy on your computer.  The device to monitor the computers noise does not necessarily have to be in the same room, it just has to be able to listen to what's going on (like say from a drone).  And for all we know, they may be able to decode from more things than just sound?  For instance computers generate heat, and also electrons move in the computer as it goes through its various processes.  So who knows if they have the ability to detect and translate that as well?  Everything we do is capable of being monitored, so we have to figure out where our privacy begins and or safety ends.

Issue 405 Drones becoming more invasive. August 27, 2014

Well, I am back on the topic of drones.  You know those robots that reporters want to own, Amazon uses to deliver packages, and hobbyists use to have a little fun.  They are evolving and becoming cheaper, so let’s discuss the developments.

Price:  Drones as an item have gone down significantly in cost.  At the present time you can buy a drone for as cheap as $50 dollars.  If you equip it with a camera, you just spent another $70.  So for under $200 you can get a drone to spy on your neighbors by the pool.  Of course you can use it for other legal things but the price has become much cheaper allowing almost anyone to afford it.

Equipment:  As drones get cheaper, so does the equipment they can carry.  They do not need to just carry a video camera.  There are cheap listening devices that can be equipped to drones to eavesdrop on conversations.  Think your private conversation indoors is safe?  Think again as they have laser microphones that can not only listen to your conversation in a room, but isolate your particular conversation from all other noise.  This works of course if your room has windows as the laser measures the oscillations (vibrations) the window experiences caused by your conversation.  Sonic sensors can be used to map out an area.  Ground penetrating radar can be equipped to get a detailed map of one’s home.  Even thermal devices can be equipped to see through walls.  While all these have practical uses outside of the perverse, it brings up some very important privacy concerns.  There are even components that allow for these devices to remote monitor people for up to two miles with range increasing as the technology grows.  If the drone goes out of range an auto call back system returns it to its master at a preset location.  Not only this, the drones need not be in visual range of their intended target.  They can be off at a distance where unbeknownst to their target, they are watching and listening.

Conclusion:  As technology increases, privacy decreases.  We have created our own panopticon, but instead of prison wardens we have each other.  How this affects us and what legal or social actions will take place will remain to be seen.  But in this day and age, we can all be spies.

Issue 404 Obama Care Byproduct: Legal Cases August 26, 2014

Well, Obama Care has caused nothing but controversy, and looks to be set for another date in the Supreme Court yet again.  But this is a good thing.  Why you ask?  Because for one, it can help us here in the United States reinforce our rights, and two it can correct flaws in the law or cause its repeal which will cause it to be replaced.  Let us discuss what is going on.

Religious rights:  The case against Hobby Lobby (a family owned and operated business) went to the Supreme Court because the family owned business refused to cover certain forms of birth control.  They refused on account that the birth control they were being compelled to cover for their employees violated their religious rights as Christians.  Key fact is that they provided other forms of birth control that fit with their values as well.  So the Supreme Court ruled in the families favor saying that a religious exception under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevented the government from forcing businesses from providing certain forms of birth control.  As such, Hobby Lobby which already pays for the health care of their employees was no longer required to abide by the contraceptive mandate issued under the law.  Note, the Obama Care law actually says nothing about birth control, rather the department of Health and Human services issued it as a mandate under the law as part of the stack of legal regulations.

So this is a victory for those who have faith, in that they do not have to violate their values to provide a certain set of services.  This one case opens up court precedent to allow a number of lawsuits and other legal actions based on religious grounds for businesses and possibly individuals to get a religious exception (businesses are classified as individuals under a Supreme Court ruling).  So who knows what other mandates and laws can be turned over next.

The next court cases:  Now there is another issue arising from this terrible law.  Two courts just issued conflicting rulings on subsidies (the money coming from the federal government to pay a portion of an individual's premium).  These two courts were just miles away from each other in Virginia where one ruled the subsidies were legal as the program was to be administered at the federal level, while the other ruled them illegal as the program (like Medicaid) was to be administered at the State level.  So now it is a conflict to see if the States or the Federal government have the right and authority over who gets subsidies and who does not.  

Now for those who do not know, this is big.  Basically, once this goes to the Supreme Court, it will decide if the Federal government or the States have the final say on who gets what in Obama Care.  If the Fed's get it, then they can continue as they already have, but if the States get it, then they have the right to bump people off the program if they deem these people can afford to buy their own health care.  It can also allow States to opt out of the program completely if ruled in the States favor, which will essentially kill Obama care (because many Republican controlled States may opt out which will cause Obama care to lose significant tax dollars toward the program).  In addition, this will determine if the Federal exchanges are legal because those are based on the subsidies given out by the Federal government.  If the States gets the authority, then those Federal exchanges are as good as dead, or are to be turned over to States to have complete control over.  What happens next and when this issue reaches the Supreme Court, only time will tell.

Conclusion:  It turns out that Obama Care has turned out some good things for America.  In this case, the people with their religious values scored a major victory, and soon the States may gain some of their rights back from the Federal government.  Of course we still do not know the outcome of this next legal battle over subsidies, or how far the religious exception goes, but this bodes well for America in so far as freedom is being upheld and maintained.

Issue 403 Obama Care byproduct: Micro Clinics August 25, 2014

Continuing from a week ago, we have a byproduct of the Obama Care fiasco.  In this case it is small clinics and doctors’ offices staffed not be doctors, but by Nurse Practitioners.

What is it?:  These clinics are set up by companies looking to offer cheap healthcare to their employees and to the public at large.  So CVS, Walgreens and others will set up these small miniature doctors’ offices to see patients.  However, they are not staffed by doctors, but by Nurse Practitioners.  I know what you are thinking, "Who wants to see a nurse" when you can see a doctor.  Well, the position of Nurse Practitioner was created by the medical industry as an answer to the costly training to be a full-fledged doctor and that many doctors were training to be specialists (where the money is) rather than a general practitioner.  As such, these Nurse Practitioners has the same knowledge as a doctor when it comes to medicine, but with less years of schooling.

Advantages of the smaller clinic:  The main advantage is that it is cheaper.  Because you generally will not be seeing an actual doctor, the cost is roughly half of what it would be without insurance (estimated to around $60 to a normal $120.  Also, the Nurse Practitioner is the same as a regular doctor when it comes to general medicine, so there is no loss in quality of care (this is because like regular doctors, the nurse practitioner gains experience in the same way, but with a condensed amount of schooling).  Also, these small clinics may be set up in more convenient locations like in a mall, a store like CVS and Walgreens or even in a supermarket.  Cost and convenience all rolled into one.

Conclusion:  With Obama Care making everything cost more, everyone looked to do less with what they had to save money, but at the same time stay competitive.  So they created these cheap clinics to make it cheaper for their customers and so that employees can even see a doctor for free without employers providing insurance for the lower end of the healthcare spectrum (aka, they will only need to cover catastrophic care instead).  This also gives Nurse Practitioners a chance to show their metal as they have also begun to replace doctor in offices around the country already (not to mention giving an alternate cheaper route to being a doctor minus the title).  So while Obama Care made costs rise, everyone has been busy innovating to make it cheaper everywhere else.

On Vacation!!!

So I will be on Vacation the week of the 18th....I'm going to Disney World!!! (and Universal etc.)   So I will not see any of you all till Monday the 25 where I will resume my regular schedule of blog posts.  Please use this time to catch up on past issues and maybe comment so I can answer questions and be inspired on other topics to write about.

Anyhow, thanks for reading and see you all in a week.  Happy reading. :)

Issue 402 Obama Care Byproduct: Tele Doctors August 15, 2014

So with Obama care making healthcare more expensive, the healthcare industry has been racing to cut costs.  One of those measures is some doctors getting rid of their brick and mortar offices to practice medicine via video conference.  Let's discuss.

How it works:  Basically, the doctor sets up a hotline to perform a video conference with his/her patients.  The doctor through the screen can look at the patient to see any abnormalities in skin color or in the eyes.  Do it yourself kits like blood pressure monitors take care of the general checkup needs.  From there the doctor simply diagnoses the patient and then sends a prescription to the pharmacy for the patient via phone, fax or email.

Simple right?:  This allows doctors to see hundreds of patients from around the country in a short period of time and without the cost of maintaining a healthcare facility (which eliminates most regulatory costs).  In addition, due to the cost savings involved, the tele doctor charges anywhere between half to a quarter of the typical doctor visit ($120 without insurance on average, last I checked).  As such, this becomes an attractive option to mothers who cannot or are unwilling to drag their sick children to a doctor’s office full of other pathogens, or for patients who are too sick to drive and cannot acquire transport.  Therefore it fills a useful niche in the healthcare industry.

Hurdles:  One of the hurdles to this form of medical practice is government regulations.  Some State governments require the patient be seen in person to be treated (this is the same requirement in some States for tele care veterinarians).  So in these States, the doctor cannot practice.  Also, only truly experienced doctors can give the best results (which is true of the entire healthcare industry).  This means reputation is everything and so you will have to find an established tele care doctor to get the best healthcare out of one of these tele doctors (which you want to do anyway whether it is a tele doctor or even a regular doctor).  Beyond this, I cannot see many problems that do not already exist.

Conclusion:  I first learned of this through a commercial on one of the many news networks I watch.  The tele doctor in this case treated children and was originally retired but came out of retirement once the start of the doctor shortage hit.  He felt (if I remember correctly) that these children need access to healthcare and thus restarted his practice via video phone.  So this is a great option for those who want cheap healthcare at cost.  Obama care made health care worse for everyone, by making it more expensive, creating larger deductibles and higher copays, this tele doctor solution answers the call for cheaper and equally effective healthcare.

Issue 401 Why Tesla never got his free energy. August 14, 2014

It is sad to say, but mans greed is what prevented Tesla's idea of free energy from ever coming true.  Let us discuss.

Free energy:  As you know from the previous article that Tesla coils can send electricity through the air.  It is these same coils that would have generated free electricity to America and eventually the world.  But business had other ideas.  While Westinghouse wanted to embrace Tesla's ideas, J.P. Morgan would eventually get Tesla and shut the idea down.  Reason was due to maneuvering by these giants of industry to one up one another.  So when Tesla placed a light bulb in the ground and it lit up due to his Tesla coil power station, he was asked how do we charge people for its use by Morgan.  Tesla's answer was that you don't.  And that spelt the death knell for free electricity around the globe.

Last laugh:  Today we have an energy crisis.  We need all the options we can get in order to survive in the current century.  Innovation is key to our survival and Tesla's coil may just help us do that.  It still has the ability to give out free energy through the air in the same way as radio waves, that we are bombarded with every day.  All we have to do is build one again.  On top of this, inventors will not let the idea of the Tesla coil go, and have thus continued to improve upon it and even find other uses such as in the realm of photography, music and of course electricity generation.  So we can do it again, we can have free electricity that everyone can enjoy.  Just got to figure a way around the big utility companies and their political supporters in government.

Conclusion:  Yes, we can make Nikola Tesla's dream come true.  It is possible as we are already expanding this free wireless energy concept to power all our home appliances and more. There will be no need to fear a downed tree or power line ever again.  So let us make it happen, the free electricity the world has always dreamed of. 

Issue 400 What is a Tesla Coil? August 13, 2014

Nikola Tesla was a competitor to Thomas Alva Edison and won. Tesla invented light bulbs, and other inventions that would leave their mark on history and would have his Alternating Current surpass Edison's Direct Current electricity. One of these many inventions was the Tesla coil, a magnificent device that could generate and send electricity through the air.  So what exactly is it?

A Tesla coil:  This device is a type of transformer for electricity.  The idea was to send electricity through the air to power electrical devices.  So here is how it works complements of: www.realclearscience.com (web address to article:  http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2014/01/29/how_tesla_coils_work_108474.html )

"The power of the Tesla coil lies in a process called electromagnetic induction, i.e., a changing magnetic field creates an electric potential that compels current to flow. Conversely, flowing electric current generates a magnetic field. When electricity flows through a wound up coil of wire, it generates a magnetic field that fills the area around the coil in a particular pattern, shown with lines below:

Photo modified from Los Alamos National Lab.

Similarly, if a magnetic field flows through the center of a coiled wire, a voltage is generated in the wire, which causes an electrical current to flow."

"The electric potential (“hill”) generated in a coil of wire by a magnetic field through its center increases with the number of turns of wire. A changing magnetic field within a coil of 50 turns will generate ten times the voltage of a coil of just five turns. (However, less current can actually flow through the higher potential, to conserve energy.)"

"The Tesla coil requires ......... a capacitor to store charge and fire it all in one huge spark. The circuit of the coil contains a capacitor and a small hole called a spark gap. When the coil is turned on, electricity flows through the circuit and fills the capacitor with electrons, like a battery. This charge creates its own electric potential in the circuit, which tries to bridge across the spark gap. This can only happen when a very large amount of charge has built up in the capacitor.

Eventually so much charge has accumulated that it breaks down the electrical neutrality of the air in the middle of the spark gap. The circuit closes for a fleeting second and a huge amount of current blasts out of the capacitor and through the coils. This produces a very strong magnetic field in the primary coil.

The secondary wire coil uses electromagnetic induction to convert this magnetic field to an electric potential so high that it can easily break apart the air molecules at its ends and push their electrons in wild arcs, producing enormous purple sparks. The dome on the top of the device acts to make the secondary coil of wires receive energy more fully from the first coil. With some careful mathematical calculations, the amount of electrical energy transferred can be maximized."

Conclusion:  This is how it works in the most basic of ways.  We use systems based on this for Tesla's alternating current in our transformers outside our homes.  Though they are not sending it through the air in this case, just converting electricity to a more manageable level for our homes.  But Tesla's Coils are now being used as wireless chargers for phones and is predicted to eventually replace all electrical wiring in the home at some point in time when it is deemed cost effective to be in the home.  So Tesla, thank you for your hard work.

Issue 399 Eating oneself to death!!! August12, 2014

Ok this one is similar to the previous, the only difference is that instead of drugs we are talking about another medical condition that we ourselves place ourselves in.  In this case becoming overweight and obese due to our eating habits.  Time to discuss again.

Government should not pay!!!:  Here we go, the government should not pay a single cent toward your health care if you get a disease due to you over eating.  We again must be responsible to ourselves and pay our own way for something that is our own fault.  Government should thus, not pay a single dime while compelling taxpayers to meet the costs. You can have your private healthcare pay for it, a charity, or yourself, no one else.

Splitting hairs again:  As I stated, Libertarians believe in personal responsibility.  And getting fat and needing a forklift just to escape your house is the same as committing slow suicide. You should not have others obliged to pay for your own faults and mistakes in life.  Sure there are exceptions, like those predisposed to diabetes and thus cannot help their condition, but the rest are a nonstarter.  Basically, you must have been born with the disease or genetically predisposed to get the disease to get any aid as this is not a life choice in this case.  Those who become overweight and obese by choice due to their eating habits will not get a thing for they made a choice (in this case it must be directly linked to their physical condition from overeating).

Conclusion:  This again is about making people uncomfortable in their own shoes.  How are we supposed to pay for the life choices of others when we ourselves are struggling?  Government has no right to tax us to help those who place themselves into harm’s way.  Again, I am sorry for being harsh, but you made the decision to make yourself unhealthy, so you have to fix it and hope that someone is charitable enough to possibly help you.     

Issue 398 Government should not help addicts August 11, 2014

I am going to sound harsh, and very callus here.  In truth I am only saying this because this is how libertarians in general believe about people who are addicted to drugs.  We should not have government spend a single penny to help these individuals.  Allow me to explain.

Reasoning:  Libertarians believe in personal responsibility.  As such, we believe in legalized drugs.  How do these two thing go together you ask?  Simple, if you take an illegal drug that is harmful and get sick from it then it is your responsibility for making yourself healthy again.  Basically, you break yourself, then you got to fix yourself.  

Splitting hairs:  While we believe in personal responsibility, we also believe in being charitable.  As such, if any help was to come from anyone, it will be 100% voluntary out of the goodness of their own hearts.  So there will be no government aid of government footing the bill for your health care if you get sick because of an illegal substance.  Sure a church or other charity can, but government no.  Reason being is that government uses force, and forcing you to give up tax dollars to pay for someone’s mess is just plain wrong.  In addition, if you are on an illegal substance, then the government should deny you any health, and welfare benefits.  So no unemployment, no Medicaid, not a thing until you test clean.  It is not the government’s job to pay for your food and shelter if you waste your actual income on trash.

Conclusion:  Benjamin Franklin once said "we must make them uncomfortable in their own shoes" (I paraphrased here).  He was referring to welfare and charity as a whole.  This concept was so that the kindness of strangers was not to be taken advantage of (and also why many of the founders argued for any aid from government being at the local level exclusively).  We are now at a time where people will take advantage of government for free stuff and thus we must pull back from our over generosity.  Florida has taken the first step with their welfare system and we need it copied and expanded.  Libertarians are done paying for people's bad habits.  You put yourself into the health situation, now embrace the consequences.  Sorry, but it is your responsibility, if you get any help it will be out of the kindness of others hearts, not out of the hands of a massive government who knows not generosity but human greed and manipulation.

Issue 397 Should Illegal Border crossers be Punished? August 8, 2014

This is a quandary for libertarians.  We value the law, but generally believe in the idea of open borders.  While we recognize the security situation of fighting terrorism and thus needing some way to keep track of those who come into the country, we want people to still be able to cross the countries border and live here as citizens.  As such, many libertarians like myself have changed our opinion on open borders to one of a controlled entry so that terrorists and drug smugglers cannot get in, and so we do not cause an economic burden to our own country.  Thus the debate on how to deal with those who have crossed our borders without permission.  How are libertarians and the rest of our fellow citizens supposed to deal with this issue?

Idea 1:  The first idea is an economic penalty.  This idea basically charges the individual a fine for crossing the border without permission.  Practically speaking it can work, but some of these migrants come over with nothing.  Thus the problem of actually collecting the fine.  With only one solution in mind to solve that problem, it would mean that the individual who has already broken the law would have to be able to stay in the country and find work to pay this fine and at the same time pay taxes.  This could result in people being homeless who may not even speak the language.  Plus we would still need to keep track of these individuals which is no easy task in a country with over 300 million people (with an estimated 11 million or more being here illegally).  So this idea has its ups and downs.

Idea 2:  Prison is another idea that has been floated around, but libertarians dismiss this idea as not only too harsh, but financially impractical.  Why on earth would you throw people into prison with the likes of murderers when they committed a nonviolent crime?  Plus, prisons are already overcrowded and expensive to operate so for libertarians, this is a nonstarter.

Idea 3:  Send them home!  This is the only practical idea that we all unfortunately have in our arsenal.  Yes, many of the individuals sent here at current are very young. In fact there is currently an explosion of illegal migrants under the age of 18 coming over the United States border which is now financially taxing our local communities.  Thus, for libertarians like myself, the only option is to send all the kids under 18 who came over without their parents back to their country of origin.  Those over 18 who are caught get a hearing and then are sent home if they cannot prove that their life is not in danger.  No other excuse will be accepted.  After that, they may be allowed to come to the country legally and only through legal channels.  If they violate this after they are sent home even once, they will be barred from the United States unless they get a written statement from their government certifying that they must come to the United States due to their life being in danger.  

We pay for this by charging the countries the cost to ship their citizens back home.  They will owe us that money and the United States can place duties and taxes on goods imported from those countries till such time that that debt is paid off.  They will also be allowed to pay this off by giving us natural resources or other forms of collateral of equal value.  Interest will not be charged so as not to make this a massive economic burden.  In addition, any illegal immigrant that has committed a crime will be charged at the federal level with the country of origin paying the court cost and incarceration costs as well.  This is to deter these countries letting their criminals leave for other countries to make it a financial burden on them instead.  Also, there will be no exceptions in criminal penalties for any crime committed either, if say an individual illegal migrant murdered someone in Texas and is found guilty, they will receive the maximum punishment for their crime (execution in this case).  They will have only one chance to appeal and if that appeal fails, the individuals’ punishment will have to be carried out within one week of the final ruling.  Obviously I am citing the most extreme example, but criminal penalties for rape and murder cannot be weakened because of someone’s squeamishness.  And yes, the country of origin will pay the costs for their execution as well if it comes to that.

Conclusion:  You probably think I am cold hearted after reading this.  Well in truth, I want those who generally want to come here and live peacefully to come.  I just do not want people coming here and essentially spitting on the law that is meant to protect us from overpopulation, terrorism and economic collapse when the burden gets too much.  I want the poor, the tired and huddled masses because I know that they will value their freedom that comes with United States citizenship (something many of us born here now take for granted).  So when it comes down to it, please do not break the law by coming over without permission, but instead do it the right way and not spit on your forbearers who came here legally.

Issue 396 Crime: politicians punished double? August 7, 2014

Should a politician be punished double for the commitance of a crime?  Some people will be shouting yes!  However, I will say, NO!  Let's discuss the reasons why.

Those in favor of double:  The idea is simple, a politician or other government figure breaks a law, and as such they will pay a harsher punishment.  From this perspective the basic reason for doing a harsher punishment is that a government official who has been elected or appointed to a public office has broken the public trust.  Yes, a sacred trust that the politician or bureaucrat will uphold and protect the law.  That the individual in government will maintain that all are treated fairly under the law and that no one escapes.  Sound reasoning is it not, for a public official who breaks the law spits in the face of the people.

Those in favor of equal:  Well, while the public trust is sacred and extraordinarily important, that is no longer equal treatment under the law.  Basically, by making the political experience double the punishment, you are certifying that they are above the people that they are elected (or appointed) to serve.  Therefore, you make them the first among equals.  Here in the United States, we already have this culture in Washington where they think that they are above those who elect them.  Doing double the punishment will not solve this issue.  The law treats people as equals, it is not supposed to treat people as special, for it is the only place and concept that allows for equality which inherently does not exist in nature.

Conclusion:  So what do you think, are politicians supposed to be our equals, or be treated special?  My personal solution is simple, if you commit a violent crime, then you are barred from serving in all public offices for a set period of time depending on what form that violent crime comes in. In addition, enforce the law by punishing the politicians when they break it.  It should not matter if it is the lowest of the low on the scale of power, or the President him/herself.  All must be punished with equal measure.  So what do you think, can America finally enforce its own stupid laws to punish those who deserve to be?

Issue 395 Reincarnation and God? August 6, 2014

God is all powerful and all knowing.  Those with faith in God agree on this.  So is it out of the realm of possibility that God can allow for reincarnation?  Let's discuss.

What is reincarnation?:  This is the religious concept that a person who passes away can be reborn again in a new body.  Typically, the individual will not have memories of their past life, but aspects of one's past life can show through, such as a similar personality, body type and possibly personality, talent and physical attributes.  Some places have reincarnation of the individual being reborn for the sake of proving themselves worthy of the next life after failing in the previous one.  In some cases, the reincarnated can be reborn as animals as well, or even spirits.  However, the premise remains the same, you die and are then reborn.

Can God cause someone to be reincarnated?:  Seeing as God is all powerful and mighty, this is a possibility.  God could use reincarnation as a tool to further test his children who have yet to prove themselves worthy, or even sending them back for just a single moment in time to save a person from themselves.  It may even be used as a punishment as well rather than sending someone to hell.  Imagine the worst people in history being reborn as slugs just to be stepped on.  Some faiths don't believe animals have souls, or that at the moment of death the person’s soul is taken from their body.  Now imagine this, what if as the harshest punishment imaginable, that as the one soul is extracted, the soul of an evil person is inserted long enough to experience pain and suffering equal to what they caused on earth.  So going from God being all powerful this is all possible.

Another way to look at it:  Baptism actually has to do with being reborn.  It is not the forgiveness of original sin, but the rebirth of the individual into the Christian faith.  So this cleansing can take the form of reincarnation?  Perhaps, while we cannot know for sure, this definitely implies the possibility.

Conclusion:  Does any of this prove God can reincarnate people or has done so?  No.   However, it is a fun thought exercise to know that God may be capable of sending us somewhere else other than hell.  Enjoy pondering my readers on the question of reincarnation.

Issue 394 Why God?: Death August 5, 2014

Death is a factor of life.  It is inescapable.  But, why did God make it so that we are even capable of dying?

Limited life span:  On earth our time is limited. We know and understand this as unfortunate.  However, there may be a purpose to this.  As we all know, we are being tested by God for our worth to get into heaven.  So what we do with this limited life span as we slowly begin to find out ways to extend it, is part of Gods big test.  God wants to see what we do with ourselves and is routing for our success as he attempts to guide us on the right path.

Our life is not limited:  The fact that we even have a concept of an afterlife demonstrates that our death here on Earth is not the end.  In fact it is a new beginning.  Who knows what awaits us once we leave our physical bodies and ascend to becoming another state of being.  We believe heaven to be a paradise, while hell to be horrible, so which do we go to?  Do we know where we will end up?  Heck, do we even know if the next step after our deaths here on earth is heaven or hell?  These are things we do not know for only God knows.

Why some die before others:  Have you ever wondered why some people get sick and die so early in life?  I definitely have.  I believe this too is a part of the test that is placed before us as how we deal with grief is also another piece of the puzzle that God has laid out for us to solve.  I personally believe this, as unfair as it may seem to those who die early in life and to those left behind, that sorrow may be necessary for us.  Perhaps so that we can resist temptation and evil?  Maybe so that we ourselves if we should be granted power in the afterlife do not do anything beyond what we are allowed to do in the living world?  But we can only found out why when we finally meet God in person. 

Conclusion:  Our souls created by God are immortal and transcend understanding.  While we will never make it to the same level as God, we know that death while being inevitable is not the end, just another step in an endless journey.  Yes, we cry, and feel sorry for those that leave us behind, for this too is a test, but take heart in knowing that someday we'll all be reunited together once more.

Issue 393 Why God?: Helping themselves August 4, 2014

Why is it that God wants us to help ourselves?  God is all powerful, and yet he has us do all our own grunt work.  This is a question asked by many.  Well, I believe I know the reason, so let's discuss.

Why help ourselves:  God does not do our work for us.  He exists to guide us as the creator of us all.  In this effect he is like a parent who guides his children.  But that alone does not explain why we have to move to accomplish what we want from prayer or to accomplish what we want in everyday life.  The reason I believe is that we are also being tested as well.  By having us seek out the methods to accomplish what we want done, we prove our worth.  Hence why the ends do not justify the means.  The journey which is a part of this test is just as important for the sake of passing what tasks and hardships God lays before us.  While we are never truly alone, we also must be independent.  

Another perspective:  Another possibility is that God wants us not to have blind faith.  Would God be happy with people worshiping him like robots?  No of course not.  Robots are emotionless and lose heart.  Thus, there is no faith in blind faith.  Thomas Jefferson Said it best in the letter to his son: "Question with boldness, for surely God prefers inspired questions over blind faith."  In other parts of the Bible and even the Quran, God is negotiated with and even questioned by Jesus, Mohammad and even obscure members of God’s chosen like Honi the Circle maker.  So we can question or even negotiate with God, but how does this relate to helping ourselves?  It relates because by helping ourselves, we are exercising independent thought.  It demonstrates to God that we are capable of following his guidance, but at the same time showing that we are independent and able to decide how to follow that guidance.  Even not following that guidance is a test (but God will always try to lead us back on the right path).  Make no mistake, God is always with us in our hearts, we just don't always listen like typical children.

Conclusion:  We are children when it comes to God.  God wants to raise us good and proper for what limited time span we have here on Earth.  So we helping ourselves is proof that we think, feel and can act for ourselves even while following God.  This is how I see it, so how about you?  Do you see it in the same way?  Keep questioning because God wants our questions, not mindless drones.

Issue 392 War: The Endless Waltz August 1, 2014

There is now a dismissed school of thought that believed that war was an integral part of humanity and that we as a species cannot escape it.  But, I believe that as unfortunate as it may be, war is an inevitable part of not only our past history as human beings, but our future history as well.  Let's discuss.

War is endless:  Unfortunately, war is going to continue to keep slapping humanity in the face time and time again.  Reason being is that war is fought for a multitude of reasons.  The most justifiable is typically self-defense.  But that requires an attacker.  As such, why would another nation attack another?  Nazi Germany did so out of revenge and the concept of uniting the Germanic peoples to rule over the others they deemed genetically inferior.  Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda seek to rid the world of the infidels (non-Muslims) and unite the world into a Caliphate.  So you have anger, religion, and race all as reasons for starting a war.  Others like the ancient Trojan War was fought over a queen who left her husband to be with the king of Troy.  Many of these are in truth trivial reasons to go to war and do battle.  But, religion, ethnicity, race, revenge, and fear are all common throughout human history.  Even the American Revolution was fought in part because of simple anger over abuses by the British Crown.  Add onto that the desire for one's voice to be heard in government and you have a recipe for a revolution.  However, there is one other type of war, the war for resources and territory.  This occurs when a country's resources like metals and other natural resources dwindle.  It can also occur when there is economic trouble.  But, the most common reason which results in the former is that the country’s population has grown so large that the economy of the country cannot hope to keep up.  From there excuses that defame the neighboring countries and make their peoples look less human occur to justify war.  So these are, but not limited to, the reasons for war.  Conflict is inevitable, but how far we take it is up to us.

Conclusion:  You can see why it is dismissed by most current historians, for this view means that you would have to believe that humanity is inherently violent.  Although, I do believe we are a violent species due to the natural aggression we have, I personally believe that we can rise above such things. War of course is typically started by our world leaders, not the basic populace.  So if we really want to make war part of ancient history and stop this Endless Waltz of blood and terror, we need to be careful in whom we elect as world leaders.  Then and only then we may have a chance to avert war.