Issue 472 Should the National Guard take over the CDC November 28, 2014

With the recent events over Ebola, it calls into question if the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is still up to the task of fighting potential outbreaks of deadly diseases.  As such, perhaps it is time to dissolve the CDC and give their duties over to a more trusted group of individuals who have the discipline and the wherewithal to act on what is right, The National Guard.  Time to discuss.

CDC to National Guard:  While the CDC has served us well in the past, they seem to have botched up due to politics.  They no longer, it appears, care for safety of people in the country if it means them looking bad politically (such as the suspending of flights from African Countries).  However, the National Guard has no such problem.  They are there to protect us and even have training to deal with threats like Ebola (whether they have specialized divisions I do not know).  However, they are tasked with defending the people and thus can make these kinds of decisions without political approval.  They can even suspend traffic going in and out of a particular State in the nation if they feel it is no longer safe and have the resources to pull it off on their own.  Together with the CDC's old resources they can actually give people a plan to protect themselves from things like Ebola and customize each State's response in the United States.  This ability to customize per State an action plan to stop the spread of infection is useful and if the CDC was around they would be doing this particular task regardless.  Thus it eliminates another level of bureaucracy that may inhibit a quick and needed response.  

Conclusion:  The CDC was once one of the most trusted institutions in America's political system.  Now they pretty much are deemed a political hack.  They traded trust for million dollar offices and other waste over protecting the nation from an outbreak that potentially could have killed thousands.  With the National Guard however, we have a ready rapid reaction force ready to stop the spread of the infection by shutting down air traffic, land traffic and river/ocean traffic before the disease spreads further.  They will also have the equipment, and capability to aid doctors in fighting the infection by setting up emergency hospitals at strategic points on a moment’s notice.  Essentially, we get the military precision and discipline to get the job done.   This is an option to fix a potentially growing problem within the federal government, not a cure. 

Issue 471 Do we need a vice President? November 27, 2014

As far as politicians go, the Vice President is probably the most useless person in America's political system today.  So do we need that position anymore?

What does the Vice President do?:  Traditionally, the Vice President was to preside over the Senate in the Congress.  They would organize discussion, votes and then finally in the event of a tie cast the deciding vote. However, today the Vice President hardly ever embraces this part of his/her position as President of the Senate as they are typically at the beck and call of the president with respect to acting as a political tool for the current administration.  Also, members of the Senate typically fill the position themselves when the Vice President is absent, while party leadership prevents ties in the first place (if there is a tie, then I do not think it is a bad thing as it promotes more discussion). 

The other role of Vice President is to take over the office of the President in the event the President is incapacitated, leaves office, or dies.  In this role the Vice President has carried out their duties successfully on multiple occasions.  However, this can easily be done by other members in Congress, or even by the Presidents Chief of staff.  As such, the Vice President has become redundant.

What should they do?:  We have options.  For one, we should have the Vice President perform their actual duties with respect to presiding over the Senate. It allows for the Vice President to act as a liaison between the Congress and the President so that there is a line of communication at all times.  This should also allow for the Vice President to relay directly what parts of a bill a president will sign into law and what parts they do not like.  Potentially, the Vice President can also aid in writing the bills that may become law.   

Another option which may combine with the first is eliminate running mates during elections.  Instead have the runner ups become the Vice President.  The goal of this is so that a devil’s advocate, if you will, will be in the white house so as to allay concerns about laws, and act as a dissenter in front of the public if they feel the President is going too far in their actions.  Essentially another check on the President's power from within.  If combined with the first option, then the laws being crafted will be more moderate and thus more acceptable to both political parties.  In short, it allows for greater compromise.

One other possibility short of eliminating the post is to have the Vice President act as head of the diplomatic corps.  They will be in charge of early negotiations between countries with respect to trade deals and treaties.  So they can help build and maintain relations with other countries.  From there once an initial dialogue takes place the President can then step in to finish up the deals to add legitimacy, and then wait for the Senate to vote on it with the Vice President presenting it before them.  So here, the ambassadors, and diplomatic staff would all answer to the Vice President.

Conclusion:  All three options are good ideas (because I thought of them).  However, this would need a President who is willing to place much more power into the hands of a Vice President let alone a former rival.  So many will just opt to probably constitutionally eliminate the post over these changes which do not require constitutional acceptance.  Let us face it, such changes to make the Vice President more powerful and thus detract from the President can be scary to those in power and even the American people and thus needs to become acceptable to everyone before such an idea was to ever be carried out.

Issue 470 Do we really have the freedom of speech? November 26, 2014

So do we have the right to speak our minds?  Or are we limited in some way, shape or form?  Let us discuss.

We have limited speech:  According to the Supreme Court we can make a threat upon a person/place so long as there is a condition attached (person being threatened must perform an act/not do something).  If there's no conditions attached, then you are in for prosecution, even if you did not mean anything by what you said.  Priests can talk outside of official capacity, but not from the pulpit.  You cannot display Christmas trees on your desk if you work in a government building.  People need permits to hold demonstrations which can be rejected.  Government can censor former government employee’s books if they do not like the information/content written in them.  If a reporter refuses to reveal sources to the government, they can be arrested, or their homes raided.  The list keeps going.  So we do not have true freedom to speak our minds whether it be displaying the flag, or burning the flag.  People’s values and emotions are written into every law and are in every action a government official takes.  So if what you say or do is not liked, then your freedoms are typically taken away, even if you did nothing wrong.

Conclusion:  I made this article short to demonstrate something without going overboard.  That we can say things, but depending on who's listening which determines if we are suppressed or not.  However, we will always have the freedom to think for ourselves.  There has yet to be thought police that can enter our minds and arrest us for thinking.  So you should actually think about what you are going to say before you say it so you can adjust it to avoid getting into trouble.  Our actions too must be thought out first so as to prevent offending people or making ourselves look bad.  While it is a shame that we cannot make ourselves look foolish for speaking off the cuff, it is our society that we all had a part in building.  So if we want change on this matter, we must act as individuals to change ourselves and lead by example.  So you can learn when and where to hold your tongue, but do not let it stop you from expressing yourself in a non-violent, well-mannered way.  

Issue 469 Are we really free to worship? November 25, 2014

Are we free to worship the religion we want?  This is an intriguing question as I believe it actually depends on who you ask.  Let us discuss.

Worship and the State:  If you ask the government, then they will say you are free to worship.  In fact the government makes special dispensation toward certain religions or subsets of religions for them to practice the way they want.  This includes ritual sacrifice of animals (regulated), use of drugs (not the kill yourself by trying it kind), and even the use of public property.  However, polygamy (having more than one wife/husband) is not allowed even though it is a variation of the religious practice of marriage.  We cannot pray in schools because it is seen as church and State mixing even if that is not the case.  So in truth, we have limited freedom of worship based on what the government regulates what they deem dangerous with respect to values and practices.

Worship and each other:  While the government generally lets people do what they want with their faith (with certain exceptions), it is the general public that are most intolerant to religious worship.  Some atheists, agnostics, or even people that have religion try to deter and suppress those who have a faith or a practice within a faith.  Reason being is because they feel that the mere display of say a Christmas tree is infringing upon their own rights.  How do they say this?  Simple, they think it is shoving a religion down other people’s throats.  However, despite these feelings being misplaced, the government, or a local community responds to those feelings so as to either avoid lawsuits, or just because they sympathize with the person claiming foul.  So even amongst each other, we do not have true freedom of worship.

Conclusion:  Which one of these counts more?  The being blocked by government, or by our fellow members of our community?  Truth is it is our government as they are the ones that are forbidden from stopping us from worshiping via our faith.  With respect to the community, while those claiming foul are the ones actually in the wrong, we must still live together.  As such, if a display is on public property, then fine, let it be removed for something else.  But, if it is on private property, then the person claiming foul should never have a say.  Reason being is that it is our own property, or a rented one from a private company to advertise religion, the person crying foul has but avert their eyes and thus religion is no longer being "forced down" their throats.  So, it is simple, government has to butt out a little more save for upholding the basic laws, and people have to learn to mind their own business.  

Issue 468 Can priests speak on politics? November 24, 2014

There is disagreement amongst modernists with respect to the current idea on whether priests may speak about anything related to politics.  But in the past, this was not the case.  So let us try to get to the true answer on if or if not a priest may speak about politics.

History:  Today, priests are not allowed to speak about politics.  They are actually under threat by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) if they do.  In this case despite it being unconstitutional via the 1st Amendment, the IRS would tax the churches if they even attempt to openly discuss politics in the churches themselves.  Mind you that if a priest is not in the church, but is talking outside of their official capacity it is ok, but it is seen in poor taste.  In the past however, it was the opposite.  A church was the official gathering place for the general public outside of the town square or a tavern.  So as a group, a priest was allowed as far back or even farther before the American revolution to speak on political issues at the time.  In fact, the British burned many churches when they came to crush the American Revolution because it was the priests who spread word of the idea of freedom, and separation from the British crown.  So why did this change?  Well I am not really sure.  It seems to me that we grew intolerant to religion and the power the priests have over their congregations.  Perhaps it is our dislike of hierarchies, or organized religion that caused this to change.  Or perhaps just the change in respecting authority figures.  I cannot say.  But the fact is, priests can say what they will at the pulpit, but people either don't want to hear it, or the government does not want it heard.

They have the right:  Historically speaking they have the right to speak about politics.  We got that down already.  It is unconstitutional to shut a priest up because the IRS has no right to tax a religious institution due to the first Amendment.  If the IRS did attempt to tax a church it would be seen as an attempt to suppress a religion or a religious congregation as taxation is an economic weapon.  So as I said it violates the freedom to worship clause.  So a priest can say what they want wherever they want.

Conclusion:  I personally think priests and other members of religious leadership are afraid to speak.  They know they may suffer for speaking out in some way shape or form.  They will be targeted by the government and thus harassed.  A priest also risks isolating him/herself from their congregation which means the church itself may suffer.  Priests are already under pressure and scrutiny every time they speak and act, but they lack the courage to speak their minds in our current society.  So there you have it, they have the right to speak, but not the courage to do so.

Issue 467 Ebola and Superstition November 21, 2014

Well we are still on the topic of Ebola.  Yes, it is still something to be concerned about even if the media is shifting its attention away from the situation.  In this case I will be talking about the role of superstition with respect to the spread of this disease.  (Thank the world health organization for actually looking into this aspect of this crises).  Let us begin.

Superstition:  In Africa, some of the native peoples do not believe that Ebola is a disease, but instead either demons, or a curse.  As such, they will not go see any doctors to get treated.  Instead they go to witch doctors, and similar spiritualists to try and exercise the curse or demons from them (which obviously does not work).  In addition, some of the African peoples look at the doctors with disdain as some feel that the doctors are either quacks, that they will never return from their clinics, or are just afraid.  As such, doctors over there are having a rough time just trying to get the more superstitious population who is ill into their treatment facilities for Ebola and other diseases.

Consequences:  As a result of this, many more people in Africa die from disease.  Also, it makes it more likely that these infected people will infect others as well.  Now we also have people from Africa in the United States (legal visitors, citizens, and illegal) who never lost their beliefs in witchcraft/shamanism or whatever you want to call it.  So if they are sick, they will not see a doctor, but instead a shaman here in the United States which delays treatment and increases the risks that others will be infected.  So superstition is making it harder for doctors to fight Ebola and other serious diseases here at home and in Africa.

Conclusion:  Well, while we have to respect people's beliefs, there is no reason to cause health risks to someone else.  So to handle the truly superstitious, you can just replace the word disease with the word curse, and sickness with possession.  Saying they can possibly spread a "curse" in this case is more effective than saying spreading disease for those who reject medical science.  This may be lying, but it helps to work your way through a faith or belief than try to overturn it.  So doctors can be called shamans instead and propped up as superior shamans to tribal ones so as to get these people into the clinics to treat diseases and prevent infections.  Heck, it may even help to make the treatments seem more mystical to get these people coming to get help.   On the other hand, preventing the spread of the disease at home is easy by simply cutting off the travel between the infected countries and us.  Then you isolate the people who want to come over for 21 days and if they are not infected, then they may come over.  It really is simple, we just have to stop being arrogant about it.

Issue 466 Ebola and Illegal migrants November 20, 2014

Ok, so we know that Ebola is a dangerous disease, and that people coming into the United States can catch it from other people.  But does this not mean that people entering the United States illegally from Africa now pose a risk to every person in the United States?  Let's discuss.

Illegals and Diseases:  Back when Ellis Island was still open, they had a building specifically to handle people who were sick so as to prevent the spread of possibly dangerous and infectious pathogens.  Face forward to today and we have no such facilities to protect us from the masses of illegal migrants entering the United States each and every day.  As such, we are subject to the spread of diseases like Ebola from West Africans, or people infected in other countries as well.  Not to mention diseases that are just as dangerous as Ebola are out there which we have an obvious interest in preventing them from coming into the United States.  Apparently, the first victim of Ebola in the United States may have been an illegal immigrant from Africa.  In addition, polio (a disease the United States originally eradicated in our shores) has made a small comeback in the United States due to legal and illegal migrants alike entering the country.  So we now have yet another reason to encourage legal immigration exclusively.  But this is not where the potential problems end.

If we come up with a real cure:  There is a worst case scenario if we develop a cure in the United States which will of course be mass produced.  In this case it may cause a massive influx of people sick with Ebola or similar diseases to swarm the United States looking to be cured.  This will result in further infection of the United States populace if these people who are actually sick come in unchecked.  So in this case the cure must be brought to Africa and other continents/countries as fast as possible to prevent this nightmare scenario.

Conclusion:  I hate to jump on the secure our border band wagon, but between the evidence of terrorist infiltrators, rumors that Ebola is being weaponized by enemies of the United States, and illegals who only want to be cured storming in, we have a recipe for disaster.  So it is my hope that we fix the immigration system in this country and create new Ellis Islands which can handle all the immigrants coming here legally, and helping to cure the sick/prevent the spread of diseases.  I want good people to come to the United States, but it must be done the right way, and the legal/safe way.

Issue 465 Political campaigns: Presidents on the campaign trail November 19, 2014

We looked at why some candidates would want the president to come down and help them succeed, but we have not looked into what a president gets out of this deal.  So let's discuss.

What a President wants:  Basically, the President wants power and authority.  He goes on campaign trails to aid in winning seats in the legislative arm of government that will give him the bills he wants to pass as laws based on the same ideology.  A President does not like compromise, for they want instead a legacy of success.  So a President will as I said try to help candidates win who share the same ideology as him/herself.  

When do they go:  Typically, a President does not just go and help out party members on a whim especially if the candidate they want to win is already winning.  But instead they go for several reasons. 

1) One is to curry favor to get some politicians to owe the President something.  Basically, you scratch my back, then I'll scratch yours later.  

2) The next reason is too sure up victories so that they maintain party leadership (usually the same party as the President) in the legislative branch of government or else they become a lame duck President.  

3) Presidents also go on the campaign trail to boost their popularity as interacting with the public show that the president is paying attention to them.  

4) If the president's popularity is fading and they become toxic, the campaign trail acts as a distraction from regular decision making which serves to shield the President for a short period of time while a strategy is worked out.  (Though some candidates may reject the President's offer of help unless they are in desperate straits or in a district where the President is still popular despite national opinion).

And there you have it.  It is all about power and getting favors from one another.

Conclusion:  I personally think the President should not bother with the campaign trail unless they have too.  But this is real politic we are talking about.  Where gaining and maintaining power is all there is to life.  A President can only do so much on their own and needs the other branches of government on his/her side.  And thus you have the President waving their hands, making speeches and kissing babies.  It is not whether they care about us or not, but about them getting and keeping power an influence so that they can show they care whether that is for good or for worse.

Issue 464 Political Campaigns: Need a President? November 18, 2014

What does it say about a candidate running for office when they need a presidents help to succeed?  Well, let's discuss.

Needing a presidents help:  It actually can say several things.  

1) For one, it can say that the other candidate is better at drawing a crowd or has more charisma.  So the candidate would need help communication wise (as such they are probably losing).

2) It can also say the candidate getting help is really not that good.  Basically, the candidate is not worth the public's time and thus despite a President's efforts will more than likely not be elected.

3) On a different note, it could just be a real close race and the president going out to help a candidate could mean the difference between victory and defeat.  

Between these three which do you think is the most common?  Trick question as any of these scenarios can occur during a single person’s campaign.  The whole point of getting a President involved is designed to prop up the candidate that is either losing or is tied neck and neck with the opponent.  But should this be necessary if the candidates were worthy of being in the role of representative or as a leader?  Well the answer is yes, for sometimes the less than likely person (the underdog if you will) is actually the better leader/representative of the people.  A President called in is not going to just show up to some losers campaign unless they themselves are desperate for some reason.  So despite some misgivings on a president going on the campaign trail to focus on things other than their job, it seems logical for a president to help out someone he wants to work with, with respect to Congressional votes and leadership.

Conclusion:  Politics is kind of like a game.  You get the best looking and best speaking candidate possible with views that match their constituents to win power and authority.  But, that is simplifying it.  Getting people into office is a tough business and requires lots of money and sometimes a president to draw people in to just get the people to listen to what the person running has to say.  Presidents on the campaign trail are there to draw a crowd and endorse the person he wants to win (usually from the president's own political party).  So in this case it is about getting some sort of advantage over the other candidate to try and ensure a win.

Issue 463 Jihadists: the death worshipers November 17, 2014

Today I talk about why I do not see Jihadists as Muslims.  The true Muslims I have met are in no way bent on killing me, and are in fact ultra-nice.  A real Muslim is willing to be friends with me, but a Jihadist will try and kill me as soon as they look at me.  Jihadists to me are not Muslims, but savages who want nothing but death.  Allow me to explain.

My thoughts:  Jihadists believe that if they die they will be rewarded by God (Allah) in heaven with a kind of paradise.  That is how strong their faith is, because they actually believe this to be true.  That they can be rewarded for killing others and dying in the process.  But, God does not reward murderers like those in ISIS/ISIL, or suicide bombers of any kind.  This is because they are breaking God's command of not killing others save when you are defending yourself, others or are at war.  And there are even rules to go along with those three exceptions.  But a Jihadist does not care.  They feel that the murdering of innocents is justified for they see all others that are not of like minds as not human.  And you know what?  This is frightening.  These people have killed men, women and children without warrant and have in some cases turned their own family members into suicide bombers as well.  These people are no longer human when you murder a child, and become monsters when they commit acts of genocide like they are doing now as part of ISIS/ISIL and as components of Al Qaeda.  

Conclusion:  To kill a monster, you must become one, and then slay the monster you created within yourself or be slayed by another monster.  We live in a world where genocide did not disappear, it merely changed faces with a newer monster.  I may be a libertarian who wishes to avoid war and be friendly with others, but there is no negotiation with monsters who rape women, murder children and torture living human beings.  I hate to say it as my nation is war weary, but the time to fight these Jihadists (not Muslims) seems to have come again, for this may be a battle we cannot avoid.

Issue 462 Political Memoirs November 13, 2014

Why do politicians write memoirs?  Does it actually do anything for them?  How does it help them and their own situation?  Well I have gotten a clue, so let us discuss.

Money:  The most obvious reason to write a memoir is to get money.  If you are a famous politician in some way, shape or form people will buy your book to know more about you and why you did the things you did.  As such they will buy your book and thus line your pockets with cash.

Ego:  Let's face it, many of these politicians have big egos thinking that they are the best thing since sliced bread.  So they want to stroke that ego by writing a book to see how much people will spend to read what they have to say.  

Their Say:  The final reason is because they want to have their own say as to what went on and when.  Say there is a scandal, a crisis, or some other big event that occurs while they are holding office.  They want to say how they were involved (on not involved) so as to boost themselves up or save themselves from looking like fools.  It is their chance to give their biased opinion on their bosses and how they themselves feel they would have handled a situation differently.  These politicians do not want just anyone saying anything they want about them.  They want people to think in the context that they want on whatever issue or world event that has occurred.  And a memoir is a way to do just that.

Conclusion:  So we have money, ego, and their own take on what happened.  Basically you can view a memoir by any politician as something selfishly written for their own benefit.  But that is not to say that they are not a useful tool for political scientists, historians or reporters.  It gives us insight into the goings on inside our government and depending on how much a politician is trying to cover their own ass due to a crisis or a scandal, we can infer answers to questions on the leadership of even a president.  As such, stroke the politician’s ego, line their pockets and see what they are rambling like idiots about, for we somehow get something in return.  That return is a look into the psychology of the writer and insight on what we are too far away to see in our government.

Issue 461 Political campaigns: Outside money November 13, 2014

Political campaigns are always annoying.  Candidates try to convince you that they are the best choice when we all know the truly intelligent people avoid political office in the first place.  But what many seem to not find fair is the money coming from outside the Candidates jurisdiction.  The money from other towns, corporations, and political parties that would not represent the constituents. Many see this as corruption, but as a political scientist (I have that silly Bachelor’s degree in this shell game called politics) it is in fact an equalizer.  I'll tell you what I mean.

Views on outside money:  As I said, money coming from say California to support a Congressional race in New York seems strange, out of place, and to many it is just plain wrong.  Likewise if the money comes from a corporation, a political party or an interest group, it is viewed with disgust and seen as corrupting the election.  However, this may not be 100% true.  In fact it may be giving the candidate running a more equal chance of talking to you the voter to plead their case as to why they should be elected over the other candidate.  You see, most elections are about money.  The candidate with more money or spends the most almost always wins save in certain circumstances.  This is because they can buy more exposure to the public.  In short, that candidate now has face recognition and thus you feel you know them.  The other candidate with less money will now typically lose due to being overshadowed.  However, with outside support the candidate who would have solely relied on money from local support now has an equal chance of success.  You see the money advantage can be eliminated with more money to buy a certain amount of face time to see the public, and have them hear the candidate speak.  So at some point, it will not matter how much the guy with more money spends as they will both have been in front of the public long enough to where they will both be recognized.  Sure, outside influences can potentially throw the election depending on the integrity of the candidate (something we ourselves evaluate at the voting booth), but it equalizes the chances of success so that someone new can be chosen.

Conclusion:  So there you have it.  Money coming in from all across the country is not a bad thing.  It instead becomes an equalizer in a political race so that people can choose the best candidate instead of being restricted to knowing only one candidate and knowing nothing about the other.  Yes, there may be corruption, and that no matter how many laws you put in place will never end save by electing candidates with integrity, but at least with outside money it increases your chance of finding a candidate with that integrity in the first place.

Issue 460 Death of Columbus November 12, 2014

Now we are not talking about the actual death of Christopher Columbus, the man who discovered America which spurred its colonization.  We are instead talking about the holiday, which was once a time of celebration, but is now seen as a backwards worship of a monster.  Allow me to explain.

Differing views:  Christopher Columbus was once one of the most celebrated historical figures in history.  Without him and his voyage there may not have been a colonization of the American continents.  As such, Columbus was a hero and thus we have things like the Columbus Day parade.  These parades were not solely in big cities like New York, but was celebrated across the country.  But as time went on and American values changed, people began to see him in a differing light.  The most extreme view of him today is that of a genocidal maniac.  You see, Columbus did kill many of the natives here in the America's and brought with him diseases and the concept of slavery.  So, people of my generation and later view him less and less as a hero, but as a villain.  Thus, many in my generation just look at this federal holiday as a day to get off work early or get extra pay.  It has come to such a point that some places in America either do not even celebrate Columbus Day, or as in the case of some California towns, have changed it to original people’s day to celebrate the natives who lived here first.  Thus this is why he is viewed as a monster.

Impact:  With this change in our values it means that Christopher Columbus will not be celebrated as a hero in any foreseeable future.  So it is my belief that Columbus day my one day no longer be Columbus Day.  It will either be replaced with another holiday like they did in the case California towns, or just vanish.  Hence why I say it is the death of Columbus, a man who is slowly becoming a footnote in history.

Conclusion:  This can happen to any holiday. If the values in America change, then even Christmas may lose its meaning and thus vanish as well.  But it again depends on our values, and even our outlook.  People fail to see the historical context with Columbus and what actions were acceptable during the time period.  So I personally believe Columbus should be celebrated for his good deeds and held to task for the deeds we despise as a teaching moment to each generation.  These are just my thoughts and I feel that I am regretfully in the minority as many do not wish to think deeply about such issues and answer such questions.  People just do not want to think, but to simply react.  In this case we are losing a valuable moment to teach history, for we chose to erode it.

Issue 459 Digital modeling November 11, 2014

Ok, so this is not about crafting 3d designs for buildings or products. Instead it is all about you and seeing what you look like in cloths before you buy them.  Confused?  Well allow me to solve that by getting started.

The idea:  We have all these cameras and equipment that can help us create 3D figures on a computer, and yet why have we not done so with ourselves.  We can literally scan our bodies into the computer to make a 3d image for use in whatever capacity we wish.  We can use them to create avatars for interacting in the digital world or doing tasks.  But here I want to talk about the clothing industry and why they should embrace this technology.  Basically once you’re scanned in, you can place any clothing design you want onto your body digitally.  So you will see yourself in that tuxedo, dress or bathing suit to see how good you look.  And basically it works the same as a regular website, seeing the different colors and such.  But an advantage this method has over others could be you mixing and matching outfits to see what looks good on yourself.  See yourself in a complete clothing set like, shoes, shirt and pants with jewelry/accessories.  To make it even better, it could accurately tell what size you are so that whatever you buy will fit.  With the 3d modeling it could even tell you where you would need to alter it via a tailor to make it fit all that much better.  On top of this, this would reduce the need to have models model cloths for a company as they can just use your image whenever you yourself visit their website, or digital changing room.  Financially speaking, it can be advantageous, as clothing companies could even rent your image from you to use as models (and no this is not limited to just clothing companies either).  So maybe we can ditch those high priced ultra-thin models for our own more natural looks.

Conclusion:  3d scanners and modeling has numerous applications, and benefits.  But with the clothing industry this can change the way we view modeling and how we view ourselves.  Let us face it, even plus size models look ultra-skinny.  So this can eliminate any psychological issues that have occurred by children and young women viewing models in magazines for the model will be replaced by they themselves.  I know, this is only an idea, but the technology only has so far to go until it is ready and able to be used in this capacity.  So, how good do you look as a 3d model?  We may not have long to find out.

Issue 458 Unisex and gender neutral November 10, 2014

There has been a growing movement to make the United States more gender neutral.  From what I can tell, this push partly comes from the feminist movement, LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered) community and its liberal ideological cohorts.  But what is the purpose and is it a good idea?  Let us discuss.

Gender neutral:  As far as I can tell, the goal of making things more gender neutral is inspired in part to avoid hurting someone's feelings.  What I mean by this is that the gay, lesbian and transgendered community typically do not have their own bathrooms, locker rooms, and other similar private changing areas.  So heterosexual people typically become uncomfortable around these groups of people because they do not know how to react to them and makes the LGBT group feel ostracized.  So the idea, I believe, is to get everyone from a young age used to interacting with people of different sexes, gender roles and sexual orientations.  Basically, have people of opposite sexes be used to each other in such a manner that they do not get that awkward feeling anymore in more private/intimate settings.  As such, I believe the supporters of this idea hope to change society’s outlook on gender and sexual orientation in a similar manner to how it was done with race/skin color in the civil rights movement.  The reason the feminist movement seems to support it is due to the age old separations between men and women being seen as antiquated and thus anti-feminist.

Problems:  Some have taken issue with this gender neutral approach.  However, the goal is not necessarily disagreed with, but the methods of achieving that goal.  For one, unisex bathrooms have become controversial because some schools have allowed them for children in high school leading to complaints about peeping toms, and privacy concerns.  Others have taken umbrage with reading materials which feature gay penguins, or books with explicit sexual content being read by young readers (without informing the parents or opt out clauses I may add).  So the issues generally are not with having the lesbian, gay, transgendered (or any sexual orientation in between) becoming more integrated, or the de-masculinization of society but the methods.  

Conclusion:  Parents are the main group that should and do show concern for what is going on with this growing trend.  Many traditionalists look upon supporters of this idea as backwards as they are supposed to focus on preventing hatreds and discrimination (which they have largely achieved), not changing the entire cultural landscape from the ground up.  As someone who is not a parent, I personally do not have a problem with unisex bathrooms or other unisex like facilities so long as people can have the privacy they want when they want it.  To me it is a privacy issue with respect to most of this gender neutrality debate.  I don't want to show my "junk" to some random person regardless of sex, sexual orientation or anybody for that matter.  As to the education front, I just hope schools stop with the crap of forcing this stuff on kids.  It should be up to the parents to decide what material is pertinent to their kids’ education with respect to these kinds of education materials, not anyone else.  These are my thoughts on the issue, give me my privacy and stop forcing things like gay penguins into kids’ faces.  And that is as they say is that.

Issue 457 The risk of sending help. November 7, 2014

With even me talking about Ebola, we have to discuss another issue that comes with it.  That issue is the risks posed to us for even sending people over to Africa (or any country for that matter) to fight diseases like Ebola.  Let's get started.

The risk of help:  By sending help over to Africa to fight this disease we are in fact risking further spread of the infection to not only our fellow Americans but to other countries around the globe.  Case in point is the doctors and nurses who have returned to the United States that are infected with Ebola.  They went there, got infected thinking they were safe, and then potentially infected others.  So now that we have sent soldiers and other medical professionals to fight this contagion, we have increased our risks of it spreading even further into the United States.  So even though we are only trying to help, we may also be digging our own graves.

Conclusion:  I am not saying that these people who are infected should not be helped.  I am never going to say that we should not send help either.  But, we must be aware that our desire to help can and already has come at a cost.  So we must be wary of who we send to Africa to fight this disease and other deadly pathogens or else we can become infected ourselves.  So we must be smart, and now that gaps in our disease protocol have been seen adjust to fix them so that we can help these people in need without hurting ourselves.  So good luck and Gods speed to all those who wish to protect and save lives from disease.  

Issue 456 Ebola: what to do about it. November 6, 2014

Well Ebola is a major thing that is happening around the world (despite the flu killing more people each year).  Ebola is a very hard disease to get but has the potential to become equivalent to the next black plague (I have my doubts).  However, my country (the United States) has become very sloppy with their handling of this potentially dangerous situation.  So let us discuss the smart way of handling this problem.

How I would handle this crisis:  For one, all flights from Africa (if any) would cease.  So this means only charter flights and proxy flights via other countries would be the only way for anyone coming from Africa to get to the United States.  This however is a temporary situation until a regime is in place to detect people who are sick.  

The regime that would be established is a special housing facility for each potentially infected person.  This would mean that they would be in a special home where they will be monitored and isolated for 21 days until they can be cleared of not having Ebola or any other potentially infectious and deadly disease.  Once these quarantine facilities are established and proper maintenance and sanitary protocols are in place, then and only then will these people be allowed to go home via regular flights to the United States.  

For the infected however, they will remain quarantined and be treated there in Africa.  So this will require special hospitals that can be built by charities without spending a single taxpayer dime.  From there we simply treat the patient with the best medicine and care possible. 

As for the people who are infected that unfortunately pass away.  We will have to burn the bodies to prevent animals from eating the diseased and potentially spreading it around further (in this case dogs).  Also, any animal detected with Ebola, if not already free of the disease will be quarantined until their immune systems remove the disease so that they are no longer a carrier.  However, if there is no chance of that occurring, then the animal will unfortunately need to be put down.  The body of the animal will then be cremated in the same fashion as the infected people who perish.  

While all this is going on, efforts will be made to further educate the African public on preventing infections and proper sanitation.  Also, charities will use their resources to help improve the African people’s homes as thatched roofs and mud floors contribute to the spread of disease.  So by building them a floor, and giving them tin roofs we can cut down on other diseases as well.  Basically any education and improvements for the African people will be needed so as to protect against diseases.  

Conclusion:  And there you have it.  This is how you fight Ebola and other serious diseases responsibly.  You do not bring the infected home, you do not mismanage a hazardous situation.  You get the job done right so that you can save people’s lives.  No room for mistakes or excuses.  So I hope my government gets its act together for everyone's sake.  

Issue 455 Pee Cycling November 5, 2014

Catchy title right?  Well there is a reason for it.  Apparently many green movement people wish to use human waste as a form of fertilizer due to the vast amounts of nutrients that are contained within.  And you know what?  I agree with them.  Let's discuss why.

Advantages to recycling human waste:  Human waste as I stated is full of nutrients that can help plant growth.  From pee, to poo we contain vast amounts of nutrients in our bodies that can, once excreted, be used to replace or supplement fertilizers.  Why this is being advocated for is simple.  For one, it turns our sewer systems into collection tanks for vital materials which now will not have to be as purified and dumped into earth's oceans.  That is right, we cleanse the poo and pee of bacteria at waste treatment plants, and then send it out into the ocean and sometimes landfills.  The problem with the current method is that it uses a lot of energy and has the potential to reduce the salt content of earth's oceans and thus hurting the ocean environment.  This has secondary impacts on available drinking water, and on the fishing industry.  So by harvesting this waste sooner and not purifying it to the point that it is almost drinkable means we save energy and protect the coastal environment for fish.  Also, energy wise, this means less fuel is required to run the waste treatment plants where they can then switch roles to removing bad bacteria and then replacing it with bacteria needed to break down the waste.  On top of that, the waste can give off methane and other natural gases which can be harvested to make the waste treatment plant self-sustaining and can even be used to power nearby towns.  So overall it saves allot of money and the environment.  

Impacts:  This method makes us less reliant on other forms of manure production from cows, horses and other animals.  As such, less fertilizers need to be produced, or it adds a cheaper alternative to the fertilizer market to help poorer farmers grow food more cheaply.  Newer waste treatment plants can now be closer to the cities and towns they serve as they no longer need to dump the waste into the ocean.  This again saves vast amounts of money for the waste need not be pumped as far. If they hybrid the plant as an energy production facility using it to collect methane and other flammable gases, then the city can essentially form a partial electrical grid which saves taxpayers money on their electric bill.  Overall taxpayers save the most money from this cleaner energy approach as food will become cheaper, and energy and sanitation bills can also be cut down as well.  

Disadvantages and negatives:  The potential negatives though come from the biological material.  Human diseases can be carried in human waste, so a facility that does not treat the material properly can potentially cause people to become sick.  Also, depending on how the facility is established, the smell can also leak out which is a negative to some people.  Of course there is still the usual potential for malfunctions in the facilities themselves causing sewage backups.  However, the most important hurdle is the infrastructure involved.  You need buyers for this form of fertilizer.  No buyers means that we end up wasting money on these conversions of these waste treatment facilities. Thankfully, the green movement also advocates hydroponics gardens and urban agriculture which could potentially solve the problem, but that depends on city ordinances which will have to be changed to accommodate.  So a lot of money will need to be spent first to both alter the facilities to make human waste fertilizer, and then market it as a cheap alternative to other fertilizers. 

 Conclusion:  So there you have it.  Human waste as a resource for the further development of agriculture and saving the environment.  So does this mean we can all be proud to sit on the toilet bowl?  Well I do not know about that.  But if this should come to pass, we could see a totally different outlook on waste management and sanitation in the not so far off future.

Issue 454 The Disappearing visitors November 4, 2014

Recently there has been a problem with some of the illegal residents and legally entered guests who enter the country.  They are disappearing.  You are probably asking Hugh?  How?  Well let me explain.

How they disappear:  So here is what is going on.  People who come here legally that are not citizens, and illegals caught are not showing up for court dates or to leave.  Once they are found, they simply run away from the hearings (if they are illegally here) or they disappear into the crowd to hide from authorities.  So they are not being kidnapped or anything bad.  They are just staying illegally and then fleeing once they get caught.

Why:  You are probably thinking why can we not keep track of these people once found?  Well it is no easy matter and many believe within the legal framework that these people will just show up when told to even when they did not want to be found in the first place. News flash, they want to stay.  So it comes down to our federal police and court system being naive.  

Conclusion:  This has the potential to very serious.  If they cannot even keep track of the majority of illegals and people who overstay their welcome, what does that say about terrorists and foreign agents who seek to do us harm.  To make matters just as bad, some of those caught have committed acts of murder and rape!  While most illegals are people just trying to make a living like the rest of us, there is a small element that in my opinion needs to be put in lockdown.  But these violent members escape as well with sometimes disastrous results.  So I ask if our NSA, FBI and CIA guys along with the State department and our courts to get their act together and fix this problem.  Our world is no longer disconnected and naive, we can see your mistakes. Losing people who are not supposed to be here is a big mistake especially if they pose a potential risk to citizen and non-citizen alike. 

Issue 453 Illegal Immigrants and the Armed Forces November 3, 2014

Welcome to a new week.  Today’s topic is all about whether or not the military should allow illegals to enlist in the armed forces.  So let's get started.

The Military and its non-citizens:  It has been announced (though this is speculation) that the United States will let illegal citizens serve.  So is this a good idea?  Personally I think it is. For one, these individuals wish to serve in the United States armed forces which proves that they wish to be an American citizen (at least this is my take on it).  This builds up the numbers of soldiers who are willing to defend the country and it means illegals who generally may not be able to work due to legal barriers will hence have an income with benefits.  They can also get an education via the military while learning other valuable skills.  What can sweeten the deal is that if a husband or a wife serve, then their spouse and any children will become citizens upon completion of their first tour of duty (basically enlisting for the two to four years in the armed forces).   As a path to citizenship this is great as it eliminates the need to punish illegals financially for entering the country illegally.  Overall, I think it is a great thing.

Conclusion:  As an idea it is great.  It can be used to help so many poor individuals in other countries who wish to come to America, or are already here, but have entered illegally.  However, there is only one concern. Terrorists can infiltrate the military as it is now.  But, if this comes to pass, the terrorists may have an easier time infiltrating.  Or at least if precautions are not taken this can be the case.  I have nothing against someone wanting to serve, no matter their country of origin, or if they committed a victimless crime such as crossing the U.S. border without permission.  So I say let them serve, and show us their pride as someone who wants to be a citizen of the United States.