Issue 517 The Church and studying diseases January 30, 2015

OK, I am here to advocate that the Church actively study diseases and report on them to the community at large.  Let's discuss my reasoning.

Reason 1:  First and foremost, having an additional body that studies diseases and shares information ensures that there is more diversity in the search for a cure.  In this, I mean that scientific institutions may focus on one or a dozen ways to find a cure for a specific disease.  As such, there could be numerous other methods and varieties of cures/treatments left untested due to lack of resources, funding or manpower.  So by turning over the more basic research, or even an entire avenue of research to another body ensures that another potential cure can be found, allows for a variety of research opportunities and also allows more information to be shared which could lead to other cures and treatments.

Reason 2:  The church also has a large sum of money to call upon to research a disease, or even act as a conduit to share information.  With the churches resources, even a village in Africa or other part of the globe with no access to the World Wide Web can provide information on a disease. 

Reason 3:  The church may be less political than some other government and private institutions funding and doing research.  Reason being is that the church does not seek to make a profit.  They seek to enlighten and empower individuals through the word of God.  So it is not a stretch to say they could add the fight against diseases to their resume for their own purposes of spreading the word of God and solving global issues for the sake of gathering new parishioners. 

Reason 4:  This also expands the capabilities of the Priesthood.  Now, not only will Priests bring forth the word of God, but they can advise their parishioners on how to stay healthy during flu season, or even how to avoid getting sick from all sorts of diseases.  This will bring new respect to the Priesthood, and allow it to be a viable career choice if applied correctly (basically more people may actually become priests as a result of the "selfless" nature of the research being done through the church).

Conclusion:  I do not know for sure if the church already cooperates on the search for cures, but they more than likely already cooperate in the prevention of diseases.  So my suggestions expand upon the status quo to transform the church into an organization bent on not just saving peoples souls but their health and general wellbeing as well.

Issue 516 Should the Church Preach Conservation? January 29, 2015

So we are asking if the principles of conservation are in line with the Principles the Church puts forth.  So should the Church preach conservation?

Possibly:  The ideas behind conservation is to use our resources more efficiently and to live in harmony with nature as much as possible.  Church's in general do not disagree with this sentiment as far as I understand for God created both mankind and all that exists in the universe.  As such, existing in harmony with nature so that we do not destroy ourselves by eroding and destroying our natural environment is a good thing.  On this angle, the Church agrees and thus the Church can promote things like clean energy, recycling, and the cleanup of toxic waste.  They can also preach safe and reliable food storage, limits to hunting, saving the environment for other plant and animal life and teach about how not to overuse a natural resource.  In addition the Church can promote things like community gardens, teach methods of conservation and overall good practices such as preserving water and other resources.

Where it gets sticky:  There is though some areas of conservation (the extremist section) that the Church would not agree with.  Mainly issues of population control and similar ideas that go against the Churches ideas on human birth and procreation.  As far as I know, the Church does not believe the same as those who want population control in order to save the planet from overpopulation and thus the overuse and destruction of our natural resources.  This is seen as an extremist view of the conservation groups and thus is not something the Church would support.

Conclusion:  So to a degree, we have a lot of commonality with respect to the basic tenets of preserving our planet.  However, the Church or the very least the faithful see overpopulation as a possible joke and the solutions for it (those solutions in the extremist camp) like sterilization, the choosing of marriage partners, and others to be against the foundations of the faith.  So yes the Church can and probably should preach about conservation, just for the sake of preserving our world and making it a little bit cleaner and more livable for the next generation.

Issue 515 Should the President Number 3 January 28, 2015

In the final leg of this series, we ask if the President should have the power to veto past laws that have been already been passed under previous administrations.  Let us begin.

Idea:  Like with the issue of too much government overlap, we have an issue of too many laws that over the course of time are rendered useless, or are usurped by current law, while the old laws are still being enforced for arbitrary reasons (some of which Congress simply passes when they are set to expire without actual review).  So the idea is to allow the President to again make a proposal to Congress on what laws to abolish, agencies/ departments to eliminate, and even programs to defund. And just like before, the Congress will have a veto power on each individual post Presidential veto.

How it works:  So the President would make a list of laws he/she wants to eliminate, and a list of agencies, departments, or programs (all passed into existence by law) to defund and thus eliminate. This list would be called the Post Presidential Veto due to it all being laws passed under past Presidential administrations.  From there the Congress like before would vote on the merit of each law if an objection to a laws termination was raised.  Of course again, the law could only be saved by a 50% plus one vote by congress.  However, the other laws will still be terminated.

Impact:  So this again gives the President greater power, but still at the behest of Congress to balance it out.  It would also allow the President to reduce government waste by not having to enforce or fund certain laws and their associated programs, agencies and departments.  However, there is still an issue of too much power, and the possible risk of necessary laws we have forgotten the purpose of being removed.  Also, with Congresses penchant for not actually reading laws before passing them, it poses an even greater risk to allow the President to have this power at this current time.

Conclusion:  Unfortunately, Congress would need to be responsible for this type of veto to actually take place.  The fact that Congress shirks its responsibility by not reading the bills it passes into law means such possible useful powers for the President and Congress become non-starters.  So for now, unless we give such power to the Supreme Court, we cannot have this type of tool be given to the President.

Issue 514 Should the President Number 2 January 27, 2015

Continuing with this series, in today's issue we ask if the President should be able to fire top level advisors without oversight.  Let's talk.

The idea:  So the President has many advisors following him/her, and generally seeking attention.  But there are times the President no longer has need for said advisor and they thus take up space and taxpayer money.  As such, an advisor becomes dead weight.  However, the President cannot fire these advisors or even high level staff because of corruption that occurred in the Presidency.  I cannot remember which administration it was, just that it was a President from before World War II who sought to fire members of their staff when they did not agree with what the President wanted.  It got so ridiculous that Congress actually took power from the President and claimed power to review any firing of any high level official.  As such, the President cannot fire whomever he/she wants, but instead isolates that individual and denies them access to the White House or to the President him/herself.

Is changing it back worth it:  In this case, turning back the clock is not worth it.  The fact that a President would fire an advisor over a disagreement on policy is stupid and would demonstrate the Presidents arrogance and foolishness.  Sure the Congress has oversight which is good, but the whole denying access to the President is also really dumb as well.  Hence why many of these advisors and staff usually stay until they find a better job or are able to curry favor with the President once again. A fairly idiotic situation is it not?

Conclusion:  So for right now, there is no viable solution to this idiocy that I can see for the foreseeable future.  Making a slimmed down government, or implementing any libertarian or conservative reforms will not stop this issue what so ever because this is a problem the President has, the disease known as arrogance, and so long as there is no cure for this, we will simply have to deal with this problem with each and every President we elect.

Issue 513 Should the President Number 1 January 26, 2015

In this issue we ask if the President should have the power to merge overlapping programs, agencies and departments within the Federal government without congressional approval.  So should the American President have such an ability?

The idea:  So the Federal government wastes a lot of money on the Federal Bureaucracy each year due to overlapping agencies, departments and programs.  Obviously this is a bad thing as multiple groups doing the same exact same job is inefficient and thus wastes a large amount of money.  So the idea is to let the president merge these existing programs, agencies and departments so that efficiency can be maintained without having to resort to relying on Congress to pass a law.  In fact, Presidents used to have this power, but it was later taken away because it was felt that Presidents could corrupt this power to their own ends.  So there is a tradeoff here.

How it would work:  So to prevent corruption while allowing the President and our government more efficiency, we can allow the Congress to have a veto power over the merger of individual programs or departments.  So say the President wants to merge the agencies and their associated programs that oversee the feeding, care and slaughter of poultry (yes each of these departments exists and some exist for specific species of farm animals).  The President can first propose the merger, and what the new agencies organization would look like and levels of responsibilities to Congress.  Then Congress would then look at each individual agency and decide if this merger should or should not be allowed.  Congress would only vote if an objection to an agencies merger was to be voiced and that merger would only not take place if a 50% plus one majority vote was to occur.  However, this would not stop the merger of the other individual agencies from becoming a new singular entity, it would just stop that one particular agency(s) from being merged into the larger one.  As such efficiency can be implemented and Congress can maintain its oversight.

Conclusion:  Obviously this idea has merit as it would make it easier and cheaper (hopefully) to run government and keep an eye out on its activities.  Obviously this grants the President broader powers, but with the Congressional veto in place to usurp it if Congress feels that there is an issue helps to alleviate the President over stepping his/her bounds.

Issue 512 Making Health Care Cheaper January 23, 2015

So there are a few things that could make it cheaper for us all to afford prescription drugs and insurance.  Here are a few things that can be done to do just that.

Free trade on health insurance:  This is very basic.  Health insurance is sold both here in the United States and also in the countries of Europe and Asia.  Usually though, European health insurance caters to the rich while the rest of the populace relies on government care.  In the United States, the insurances companies must be licensed in each State and they must abide by a certain level of prescribed coverage based on the law.  This in effect creates mini monopolies on health care for each State.  So for this to work, a universal standard for what is covered under the most basic health coverage must be established.  Once this is accomplished, the insurance companies can sell across state lines and international borders.  The result would be lower costs due to the fact that health insurance companies would not have to be established in each State or country (thanks to electronic billing) and thus these companies can settle in a particular State or country that is the most business friendly.  This saves money and allows them to either increase their services and/or make their premiums cheaper.  Also, because they now can sell to people globally, they have a larger group of people paying for their services which means more money to go around.  This will also result in not only cheaper care for the people in the United States, but will also make private health care more affordable in other countries too.

More OTC's and Generics:  Here we have something that is fairly standard when it comes to making health care cheaper. Generics are drugs that are copies of brand name drugs once the patent runs out (as such they are typically cheaper than their brand counterparts).  In the United States, these generics typically are allowed to be sold for a specified number of years before the FDA says they cannot be sold anymore (this also may be due to a superior generic that has come to market).  However, Canada allows such drugs to be sold much longer which results in cheaper health care for their people.  So in this case, increase the number of generics and the amount of time they are available to consumers and that will save the people money.

Additionally, there are many drugs that can be changed into over the counter medications (OTC's) which are drugs that do not require a prescription.  Things like allergy nasal sprays, and stomach acid reducers can easily be shifted from prescription drugs to OTC’s.  As such, once a medication becomes an over the counter product the price for said drug plummets because the drug does not have to abide by as many regulations and restrictions as their prescription drug counterparts.  This again means cheaper health care as the drugs become more affordable.

Let them make more drugs:  Apparently each year, drug companies must ask permission to produce a drug in a certain quantity.  Once the FDA gives the approval, the drug company can only produce that amount of their drug with no more and no less being made for that given year.  The original goal of this was to reduce the chances of price gouging by the pharmaceutical companies, but it has the negative effect of artificially raising prices of drugs. What I mean by this, is that if said drug could not meet demand for that given year, by the laws of supply and demand, the cost of that drug would go up.  If the drug company was to produce more than demand required the price of that drug would drop, but in return other drugs that company produces will have their prices raised or the drug next year will be sold at a higher cost for the drug company to make up for the lost revenue.  Obviously, causing drug prices to rise is a bad thing, so my solution is to allow drug companies to produce as much product as they want per year.  They can still set a minimum if they expect demand to be low, but can go beyond that minimum if they choose to keep up supply if demand increases.  As such, it keeps the drug costs down.

Conclusion:  So these are some basic solutions.  The more OTC's, generics and drug companies being able to make more of a product are simple reforms that can take place within less than a year if implemented.  The free trade one though has to be negotiated on for it to go through and is thus, harder to implement.  However, these are all options to decreasing the costs of health care which would work.  In fact the more OTC's, generics and allowing more of the drugs being produced removes our reliance on prescription drug insurance to a certain degree as certain drugs become much more affordable.  So we can make health care cheaper, it is all a matter of actually putting the reforms into practice.

Issue 511 How I would Run a Union January 22, 2015

Well, you are probably wondering why I am writing this one.  The reason is, I am disturbed by how some of the union bosses make millions a year off the contributions of their membership.  On top of this, the union bosses also use the money to fund political campaigns which may go against the ideology or values of the membership.  As such, I write today's issue on how I would run my own union (if I was a boss of one).

Pay: For one, union bosses should not become multi-millionaires off the contributions of the union membership.  If a union boss becomes a millionaire, then how do we expect them to keep their own values and relate to the workers they are supposed to represent.  As such, the top wages of a union boss should be equal to double of the highest take home pay of a union member.  So say, I represent a steel worker who gets paid from his boss $45,000 a year, and then after taxes takes home $40,000.  As such, my pay as the union boss would be $80,000 a year.  If the highest paid worker should have a pay cut, then so does the union boss so as to feel the same pain financially (or a semblance of pain) the union workers might feel. From there the secretaries, the accountants and other union staff have a pay scale based on whatever the union boss makes and has it fluctuate along with the bosses as well.  As such, the union boss, and the staff have an incentive to maximize pay of each of their membership so that they themselves can make more money. 

Healthcare and Insurance:  If the union membership is going to be useful and maximize pay, then they may as well provide healthcare and insurance in various forms to the workers.  This allows the businesses the membership works at to not have to provide such benefits and thus maximizes the businesses productivity which typically means them hiring more workers which expands membership, or by them raising wages which enriches the membership.  

Support Services:  Say members are dealing with financial issues at home.  The union should help them by providing aid in the form of financial counseling.  Also, as the union will typically have lawyers on staff, or on retainer, these lawyers should be made available to answer any legal questions and provide any legal aid to members of the union.   This also includes tax help and even help for home issues like substance abuse.

Banking:  To ensure that the membership is safe from market depressions, the union will also act as a credit union.  This protects union membership money as the money is not subject to market influences, and allows the union to give loans to its membership that are more in line with the pay the member makes on a daily basis.  It also insures that loans are fairer, and that the union can make a small profit on the side to support its activities and benefits without asking for additional dues from the membership.  (This means that people outside the union can also bank with the union’s bank so that again profit can be maximized while ensuring that the union has money to support its activities.)

Outside revenue:  In order to maintain these activities and collect revenue while ensuring maximum take home pay for the membership, businesses would be allowed to buy advertising space in union offices/facilities and the union will allow them to put ads on/in official emails and correspondence so that the union can profit off the bought advertising space.  This also may include coupons and other discounts being distributed as well.  So by allowing businesses (union and non-union alike) to advertise with the union, the union can acquire the money it needs to support itself beyond what can be done solely via member dues.

Restricted spending:  The final component of this would be that money collected will be restricted to union activities and operations.  Political campaigns and donations will be done individually so as to ensure that the views of each member of the membership can represent themselves as opposed to the union boss supporting causes the membership may not agree with.  

Conclusion:  This is how I would run it.  A union boss has a responsibility to protect and serve its membership.  Thus by providing all these benefits, and removing responsibilities from the employers, a union came maximize take home pay and thus continue to enrich its membership.

Issue 510 The Church Should Provide Health Care January 21, 2015

Ok, I am going to criticize the Church.  The Catholic Church, my own faith. I am annoyed that they keep saying that government should provide health care.  You are probably wondering why I am against such an advocating.  Well I'll tell you why.

The Church Should Just do it:  So the Christian ethos is all about helping thy neighbor.  So basically be kind, be helpful, and do the right thing.  This includes voluntary charity.  That voluntary charity also may include health care.  As such, the Church wants the governments of the world to provide health care (a form of charity) for everyone.  Ummm, one question though.  Where does the Church get off pushing its Catholic beliefs (mine) onto other peoples?  And on top of this, the charity is supposed to be "VOLUNTARY", but the way the Church wants it, is so that governments around the world will provide it for the poor, tired, and huddled masses.  Yea, this does not fly with me.  The Church to me in this case comes off (from my perspective) as shirking its responsibilities.  The Church is supposed to be Gods implement to show the light of God through various methods including charity.  So why does the Church shrug off this responsibility to someone else.  Sure, yea, there are Catholic Hospitals, but that is not the kind of healthcare I am talking about.  The one I'm talking about is free clinics and providing universal health care itself.  I mean, the order of the Knights Templar during the Crusades became the world’s bank for a while (this caused them to gain power and thus why they were destroyed), so why cannot the Church accumulate this amount of power and use it toward a positive end like health care.  Every Priest and Nun can be trained in the basics of health, hygiene and physical exercise.  They can be nutritionists, herbalists, farmers, and instructors in yoga, tai chi, and more.  Heck the Buddhists first adopted martial arts to stay healthy, so why cannot priests become the peaceful monks to the Asian warrior monks.  The Church can raise masses amounts of money to educate young priests to become Nurse Practitioners or other lesser equivalents to doctors and even pharmacists.  There is so much potential for the shepherd to educate their flock in more than just the word of God, but on nature's laws created by God, and in doing so help prevent disease and if the time should arrive treat a disease.  As far as I know, the Catholic Church dominates almost all of South America, North America and Europe.  And it has outposts throughout the rest of the developed and developing parts of our world.  And when even this is not enough, we have Christian brothers and sisters in the greater Christian philosophy that would be more than happy to join in.  I definitely see the scion of Christianity, the Mormons, joining in along with the Orthodox Church, and many Protestant sects looking to do some greater good.  I also have no doubt that our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters would be more than willing to fill the gaps left behind.  Yea, we can do it if we try.

Conclusion:  Yea I am a little annoyed.  I mean why the hell would you tell someone to do your own job when you are more than capable of doing it yourself.  There are numerous methods to making this work cheaply and successfully, but instead the Church just brushes it off.  So I say quit telling someone else to do your own damn job, and then maybe I will actually donate more than $5 to my Church every Sunday cause at least then I know it will be helping to do more than just keep the Priests fed.

Issue 509 Fighting Ebola with cellphones January 20, 2015

Ok, you are like, "how do you fight Ebola (and other diseases) with a cell phone"?  Well it is elementary my dear reader.  It provides doctors (and people) with information.  Here is how it works in a nutshell.

How Cell phones fight Ebola:  No, the cell phones do not transform into crime fighting robots akin to Optimus Prime, but they do link people together.  What you must understand is that most of the Africa's electronic infrastructure is based on cell phone technology (and who in America or the rest of the world does not have a cell phone?).  And that means we have access to the cell phones data.  It is fairly big brotherish, but by looking at the data a doctor can see all the places an individual has been and thus make it easier to see who they have interacted with.  From there they repeat the process until every individual who has come into possible contact with the infected person(s) can be found, quarantined and then treated if they should prove sick.  Cell phones act almost like mini-tracking devices and if a person passed through a crowded area, it is possible to see what other people were in the immediate proximity via their cell phones (or other electronic devices).  So by doctors playing the part of an electronic stalker, we can prevent outbreaks from spreading and thus save lives.

Conclusion:  Yes it is intrusive, but in an emergency this will be an approved method by which to stop the spread of any sort of contagion.  Sure, the fact that you can be located 24/7 365 is kind of scary, but so long as it is done for something like this, then I really have no problem with it.

Issue 508 Postal monopoly: Letters and magazines January 19, 2015

The United States postal service still holds a monopoly on two forms of U.S. mail.  And last I checked, monopolies are never a good thing and that government supporting one is even worse.  Allow me to express why I believe this monopoly should be broken.

The Postal Monopoly:  I believe that due to the post office having total control and authority to deliver letters and magazines that it has caused businesses to go under (case in point are certain businesses that could not afford the prices of the post office to deliver advertisements or their wares, or the actually shipping companies falling under due to not being able to deliver a wider variety of goods).  My reasoning is that if letters and magazines were allowed to be delivered by say DHL, or UPS that they could actually deliver the mail cheaper and possibly easier than say the United States postal service.  This is because competition is the mother of invention in a free market society like ours.  An example of this is when Cablevision on long Island New York had sole monopoly on providing channels outside of broadcast channels.  When Verizon and Dish network were allowed to begin selling their services Cablevision reduced the price of its services.  From there, the cost fell further, or services were added that made the continued use of their other services more worthwhile.  As such quality improved.  This same thing can happen with the breaking up of the monopoly that is the United States postal service.  By allowing private companies to deliver letters and magazines, businesses could get better deals and we the consumers will get more options with respect to price and quality of service.  Not only that, but if Congress allowed it, the post office could be freed up from most of its constraints to allow it to act as a real private enterprise that would as a result increase its quality as an institution and thus its revenue.  Sure, letters are slowly disappearing with each passing generation (though they may become a novelty item), but magazines are here to stay.  So let us remove the monopoly already.

Conclusion:  No this is not about eliminating the United States postal service, it is about doing the counter intuitive things to save the post office from obscurity.  What needs to be done is increase competition and variety in services so that it can survive (this means allow it to run like a true private company).  But to do that, it means creating a real even playing field with the other companies who are in the package delivery business.  So shall we increase the quality of services or are we just going to continue to allow the post office to languish into obscurity forever.

Issue 507 Jobs for the less skilled January 16, 2015

We talked about skilled labor making the big money while the less skilled of us getting relegated to being the working poor.  But there are jobs out there that the least skilled of us can learn and thus overcome this gap to a degree.  Let us discuss.

Jobs that last forever:  Basically, the unskilled will still have the opportunity to find jobs in the lower end jobs with respect to skills.  Jobs that are often looked down upon, but society thankfully cannot exist without them.  Those jobs include farming, plumbing, auto mechanic and other repair based jobs.  These three job types will last forever.  The reason being is that despite the jobs taking in more technology, the jobs simply become easier, but the human eliminate so far has yet to be seen as replaceable.  You still need the human touch to harvest most crops, and even if grown inside special facilities, the food grown there requires human beings at certain points and times.  Plumbing still as of yet is not idiot proof and thus plumbers still have their jobs.  Also, computers still need fixing along with cars, trucks and other pieces of technology.  Sure mechanics jobs have gotten easier with diagnostic computers to say what is exactly wrong with say a car, but it takes a human being to replace those parts in such a way that they will still work.  So there you have it.  The less skilled jobs that will be unskilled labors salvation.

Conclusion:  Yes I know, these jobs may not be enough to save all the unskilled members of the labor pool.  And no, there are other jobs they can learn that ultimately require even greater skills so that these unskilled members of society can achieve a higher standard of living.  But here I just wanted to make a point.  That point being that despite the future looking so grim for a large group of our society, there is still hope and places where you can advance and thrive in our ever changing world.

Issue 506 Technology: rewards the skilled January 15, 2015

Well, the gap between rich and poor is only going to increase.  The reason being is that technology rewards skilled labor and reduces those who are unskilled to the poorest class of society.  Allow me to explain.

How the skilled are rewarded:  In a technology driven society, the business climate and technology itself is constantly in flux.  Basically it is adapt or die.  As such, people with skills generally are able to survive in this environment as they can adjust to these fluctuations on the fly.  So skilled people who specialize in computers, using computer programs or repurposing techniques and technologies become the upper middle class and higher.  In addition, people who once worked the dull, the dirty and dangerous jobs are slowly being supplanted by either new methods of doing those jobs, or those jobs becoming outmoded due to technological changes.  Case in point is the robots working an assembly line as opposed to traditional workers.  But this too rewards skilled labor.  Blacksmiths, carpenters and others who make things by hand can know sell their wares at much higher prices due to the fact that what they sell is hand made.  Their skills allow them to create novelties that fetch much higher prices at markets and thus makes them richer as well.  

The Unskilled:  On the other hand we have the unskilled.  Those who are just starting out in the workforce, and without any particular skill set.  These people get assigned menial jobs that pay very little and thus they are relegated to a less fulfilling existence.  As such, these people are the new working poor.  Until they find a skill of some sort or they move up the corporate ladder (something that becomes much harder with the slow decline of middle managers) they will always be on minimum wage.  Hence why skilled labor makes the big money, while the unskilled will not.

Conclusion:  We are in the start of a new industrial revolution that will see the rise of new methods of manufacturing and greater standards of living.  However, it comes at the cost of many people becoming poor first to get there.  So my best advice to you my readers is find something you are skilled at and embrace it while you can, you never know if that skill will save you from obscurity.

Issue 505 Mandatory Minimums and Judges January 14, 2015

Mandatory minimums like plea bargaining has its problems.  With mandatory minimums we have people who are declared guilty in a jury trial forced to serve out a sentence of say a set 30 years even if the other facts in evidence would be cause to have the guilty person to have a much reduced sentence of say five years.  Let us discuss.

Mandatory Minimums:  As I said in the opening, Mandatory minimums mean that a petty theft charge could bring a 30 year sentence, the same kind of sentence an individual could get for grand larceny.  Obviously this is unfair.  Another example is that a drug dealer, and a drug addict caught with their personal stash would be given the same criminal sentence of 25 years in jail.  Obviously their crimes are not equal, but this is what mandatory minimums unfortunately do.

Solutions:  Well, many judges are calling for the mandatory minimums to be scrapped altogether. Some think this a good idea because it allows maximum flexibility when it comes to judges deciding sentences for a convicted individual.  It allows for judges to take into account all factors in a case to the point that an individual could be remanded to a rehab facility for six months as opposed to a jail cell for five plus years.  However, this does risk people being under sentenced for a crime, or even being let go for a crime despite being guilty (case in point is the judge who let the Muslim husband who raped his wife go without penalty because his "religion" allowed it).  Also, mandatory minimums support plea bargaining by making it easier for prosecutors to convince suspects to take a lighter sentence.  On top of this, mandatory minimums also reduce costs because it prevents lengthy sentencing trials after the guilt of the individual has been determined.  Taking all this into account, if mandatory minimums was to be removed from our system, then strict conditions on punishments or even newer updated penalties that allow for flexibility in sentencing will have to be implemented.

Conclusion:  I do not favor mandatory minimums for most crimes.  In fact, for a majority of crimes, a televised public trial where the defendant is humiliated (or exonerated) becomes the main source of punishment.  Then if the defendant is guilty (crimes like petty theft to grand larceny) the individuals become forced to pay back all the money they stole (no jail time).  People who are drug addicts would go to therapy and other programs to aid them in resisting their addiction and the economic and social consequences associated with it.  Rapists and child molesters on the other hand is another story.  I want penal colonies where they stay for life and that they can volunteer for medical experiments to receive extra "privileges".  Murder though is entirely different and thus needs maximum flexibility with respect to sentencing (the nuance in these cases is a little beyond me and thus why I have this opinion).  But I think you my readers get my view and the issues surrounding the tool known as mandatory minimums in criminal sentencing.  Hope you enjoyed the read.

Issue 504 Plea bargains: should they be scrapped? January 13, 2015

Plea bargaining (where a defendant pleads guilty so that they get a lighter sentence) has come under fire as of late. And this may be so with good reason.  So let us discuss.  (Inspiration for this issue comes from the October 4th issue of the Economist)

Why plea bargain?:  The primary reason for the plea bargain is so that an accused individual can reduce their sentence in jail.  This works by the prosecutors offering shorter sentences in behind closed door meeting toward defendants.  Due to this, many courts have reduced costs and the government has saved thousands of dollars.  However, this power that the prosecutors have has been likened to a defending attorney bribing a witness.  According to the economist article Jed Rakoff (a district judge in New York) thinks it is unlikely the 95% of the defendants are guilty.  Rakoff believes that it is possible thousands of innocent people have been put behind bars because they wanted to avoid the mandatory minimum sentences for say 30 years in jail (if a trial was conducted normally) for a lighter five to 10 year sentence with a plea bargain. So basically, this power has been both good and bad for people all around when it comes to the criminal justice system. 

Solution:  The primary solution as proposed is to have a separate arbitrator or judge oversee the plea bargain process.  The goal is to remove the prosecutor from the lead role and that the independent arbitrator will make the deals with the defendant(s) instead if a plea bargain becomes the prefered option.  This allows for the plea bargaining process to continue without say an individual going to jail for a crime they did not commit (or at the very least reducing the chance of such an event occurring).  Obviously there's more detail to this, but you get the general premise that preventing an innocent person going to jail (especially in a case they can actually win) is preferable to the status quo.

Conclusion:  While I cannot say I am an expert on such matters, it is clear to me based on the articles I have read that there is room for reform in America's judicial system.  While I get that we want to keep costs down, it is no excuse to allow an innocent person go to jail based on fear of a heftier sentence.

Issue 503 If the Bureaucracy does not want it!?

Did you know that Congress and the President of the United States pass laws on spending that the Federal Bureaucracy does not want?  So the Pentagon will be forced to spend money on a new missile launcher that it does not even need.  The FDA will be forced to spend money on visual inspection agents for food, when a simple chemical test will due instead.  So what am I proposing?  Well read on to find out more.

The Proposal:  Here I am proposing that the Congress and the President pass a bill into law that would allow federal agencies and departments to eliminate programs that they deem redundant or are no longer useful.  So no more wasteful spending on missile launchers in the pentagon if they deem it redundant or possibly inferior to the ones they have already.  The State department can stop giving money to foreign countries when they do not vote the same way as us in the United Nations.  Departments that deal with welfare can drop programs deemed ripe with corruption or that are considered completely useless.  So many programs would be able to be cut, so much money could be saved.

How it would work:  So the idea is that the law would do one thing, that is to allow federal departments and agencies to cut programs and cease spending (even before it begins) on programs or expenditures deemed redundant, duplicative, superfluous or wasteful.  Of course, Congress will have oversight of this and have veto power over each program or expenditure cut with the stipulation that each item be voted on individually.  If the cuts get passed the Congressional veto, then the money will be deducted from the federal agencies/departments budget equal to the amount of money that was allocated that year for the continuation of that program or expense.  This will thus prevent corruption by the bureaucracy of cutting one program just to shift the money to a program or expense they favor without the consent of the people via their representatives.  This also has the advantage of letting Congressional representatives save face in the eyes of the public as they will no longer have to publicly defund a failing welfare program, or a school support program which would make them look like the evil bad guy taking money from the poor or from children.  Thus everyone can save a little face in the eyes of the public.

Conclusion:  This is a possible idea to help us deal with federal programs run amok that are deemed not needed.  Though it will have the problem of ideologues in the bureaucracies cutting programs they don't like as opposed to the ones that do not work.  So methods like an outside auditor or even a separate group within another federal branch like the treasury could make these decisions for the department/agency heads (with department heads making recommendations for cuts as well).  Again it is an idea to be flushed out, but it is an idea at the very least worth thinking about.

Issue 502 Dealing with Angry people January 9, 2015

While we discussed how we dealt with our own anger yesterday, we did not discuss how to deal with people who are angry at us, or the world.  So how should we react to an angry person?

Ways to react:

1) Don't get hurt:  For one, keep your distance.  If these people are violently angry, then you will want to avoid interacting with them as much as possible.  Also, if they attack you, then defend yourself so that you can avoid injury.  This is obviously an extreme case, but it is usually best to let angry people be, especially if they are expressing themselves publically, which usually means they want to engage in an argument.  Thus, avoid them so that you do not allow them the satisfaction.

2) If you are targeted:  Once the angry person has you in their sights there are a few ways to react.  If they want you to engage in a verbal sparring match, then you must meet that with "love".  In this case ask them what made them angry.  What went wrong with their day today to make them feel that way?  So you are just going to ask questions of them until they get frustrated and walk away or it turns into a discussion where they are basically venting to you and you are lending them a kind ear to listen to their problems.  Another option is to give short one to two word replies like "yes", "no way" or similar responses.  This prevents your interaction with the angry person into an argument and keeps the angry person from lashing out at you if at all possible.

Conclusion:  These are the two primary methods of dealing with angry people that I know.  Basically avoidance or converting the anger of the angry person into venting/having a discussion are the two best methods.  Obviously, everyone has their own methods of dealing with other people’s anger, but like I said, these worked for me and I share them with you so you can see if they will work for you too.

Issue 501 Dealing with Anger January 8, 2015

We all have to deal with anger.  In fact we all have anger issues.  But how should we deal with our own anger?  What ways can we stop ourselves?

Dealing with it:

1) Self Control:  For one, you will have to try and maintain self-control.  If you react to the situation in a negative way, you can make the situation worse.  Either that or damage yourself or the image people have of you.

2) Take yourself out of the situation:  If a particular person or event is causing you anger, then it is best to take yourself out of it if you feel yourself losing your cool.  Thus, you can nullify your anger.

3) Venting and exerting:  Finding ways to let your anger out in a positive way is a very good thing.  For one, a simple rant or going off on a tangent with a friend who is willing to sit there to listen to you can help greatly.  Either that or you can talk to your pillow.  Another way to let it go is to exercise in some way.  Whether it be kickboxing, weight lifting, or other form of physical fitness it can help.  Also, yet another way to unleash your frustration is by writing it down, painting, or other form of art that lets you unleash your inner torment. 

4) Isolating oneself:  While it may seem counterproductive, isolating yourself so you do not lash out as you slowly let go of your negative emotions is a viable tactic to dealing with the situation.  Even ignoring the other party that caused the anger and disengaging from them will aid you in stopping yourself.

Conclusion:  No one likes being angry (unless you are a little crazy), but there are healthy ways to deal with it that are not destructive to yourself or others.  So these are just a few tips from the times when I myself had to deal with anger and frustration.  Hope these help you as much as they did for me.

Issue 500 Getting Rich January 7, 2015

Well now, getting rich is something we all want to do right?  We want to be financially secure so that we can spend on the things we want or on those most important to us.  So here I would like to present some tips on how to become rich in an increasingly expensive world.

Tips:

1) Avoid spending money:  One of the basic misconceptions about being rich is that you have to spend money to get rich in the first place.  This is a misconception.  The primary way to accumulating money is by avoiding having to spend it.  So when given the choice between an expensive new car, and a used one, you would choose the used one.  If you can use a coupon to save money at the grocery store, then use it because you are able to keep the money you earned in your pocket.

2) The right investments:  There will be times when you must spend money in order to accumulate more wealth.  This is only for when making an investment into something that will increase your wealth later on.  One such investment is life insurance.  This insurance will protect you and your family from possible problems such as deaths and unforeseen life events.  Stocks and bonds are another form of good investment if you know which to buy (do your research on these please).  These long term choices on what to spend will dictate if you have to keep working until you're 70 years old or can retire early.

3) Healthy living:  Another important way of keeping you from having to spend money is to live in a healthy way.  Basically, eat right, exercise and avoid getting sick.  With the right maintenance to your body you will be able to avoid having to spend on healthcare and thus insure you can spend money on other priorities in your life.

4) Buying Choices:  Do you really need the $100 bag when they have another for $10?  Do you need that limited edition action figure?  Should you spend $20 on that new tattoo or invest it in next week's grocery bill?  Should you buy the pizza, or that box of spaghetti which will feed you for an entire week?  These are all examples of buying choices.  Similar to tip number one, but in this we are deciding what the better investment of our money is in the first place.

Conclusion:  Getting rich quick is the least likely way to achieve becoming rich.  In fact, becoming rich is all about making the hard choices from now and until your death.  No, it is not easy to become rich, and it is a lot of work (I'm still working on it myself), but in the end it is better to make these choices that leave you in a better position financially today than the day before.

Issue 499 Faults vs. Greatness January 6, 2015

We all have faults that we sometimes try to avoid looking at.  However, this does not mean we cannot achieve greatness.  Allow me to explain.

Faults and Greatness:  The best examples are from history. President George Washington was a slave owner.  However, he did not want to continue owning slaves, despite continuing to do so. He feared a life without the lifestyle he had achieved and the riches he had garnered, so in his last will in testament he wanted all the slaves freed (a way to alleviate his guilt perhaps).  He was also prone to fits of anger according to what we have read from testimonies of those who knew him.  These were his faults.  Yet he achieved greatness as a General who helped lead the fledgling United States to independence, and would go on to be its first President.  So greatness can be achieved despite one's own failings.

A more modern example would be Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  He apparently was not a very loyal husband according to accounts from the FBI (The FBI did not like Dr. King and thus looked for anything to discredit him).  However, Dr. King despite this failing managed to lead the civil rights movement to its final victory.  And today we only have small pockets of resistance left that fall back into old hatreds.

Conclusion: So you have a series of fault, in the same way I do.  In fact, everyone is full of some form of human failing or another.  However, we can overcome these faults as the two aforementioned examples show.  And you think these examples are rare, then think again.  The founding Fathers all had one failing or another (alcoholism, couldn't hold a job beyond a specific period of time, slaves, adultery, anger issues, debt).  Then we have modern examples like Jack Welch, Steve Jobs, and each and every one of our Presidents including President Obama with his fault of arrogance (you can tell when he is questioned on his actions as he gets visibly perturbed).  So all these men (and women as the case may be) achieved greatness despite the problems that they caused themselves.  So the real question is, can you and I do the same?

Issue 498 Take back your community January 5, 2015

I am writing this because the number of broken towns and cities feels like they are increasing.  I mean look at Ferguson after the Cop and Michel Brown had that altercation resulted in the death of Michael Brown.  So here is my advice on how to take your community back.

Taking it back:

1) First you have to use the "see something same something rule".  If you see someone or a group breaking into a home, or a store, record it and then turn it over to the police.  Not all police are bad and the majority only wish to do their jobs.

2) If someone just admitted they committed a crime to you, or they told you about an acquaintance who has, then tip off the police.  This is a sure way to rid the streets of drug dealers and other trash in your community.

3) Start a community watch.  People who care can patrol the town and report incidents that occur.

4) If a person comes into your town to make trouble, report them.  The majority of the violent Ferguson protesters were from places other than Ferguson.  Do not let them ruin your community.

Conclusion:  These are basic and they all rely on the police for we cannot arrest malcontents.  We can however strike back by reporting people.  However, we can also educate our kids and each other on right and wrong.  Teaching the children of our towns not to act like a criminal who burns cars, robs stores and such just to express their anger is the least we can do.  Remember, it is your town, and you live in it.  Don't let yourself or the people around you ruin it.  

Issue 497 Anti-idols January 2, 2015

Well, we all have people we idolize right.  People who have lived and inspired us.  Basically people like Jesus, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and many more.  But do we need an anti-idol?  Someone to spurn and for us to strive to never be?  Let us discuss.

The concept:  The idea is fairly simple.  In the same way we pick heroes for us to idolize, we pick someone to despise for their misdeeds and their evil ways.  Basically, people like Mao, Hitler, members of the Black Hand, Osama Bin Laden and other nasty people like Charles Manson, the Unabomber, and Timothy McVey.  So while we would try to emulate people like Jesus and Dr. King, we would actively seek to avoid or to not do what these anti-idols would do.  So we would thus study their behavior, where they went astray and thus try to insure we would not go down a similar path of destruction.  Basically, this is a thought exercise for people, and even for students of history and psychology. 

Conclusion:  So what would be my own anti-idol?  I would think Chairman Mao.  He sacrificed hundreds of thousands in his five year all for the sake of his version of progress. Basically he was a totalitarian dictator who killed people or worked them to death (literally) in order to achieve his selfish goals.  To further his atrocities, he brainwashed kids to rat out their parents if they even dared to complain about his regime.  And he even destroyed thousands of years’ worth of Chinese history to "reset" China to his communist rule.  So what about you?  I chose Mao because he trampled over everything in his ends justify the means approach.  But you can choose anyone to be your anti-idol.  So pick the one person you would never ever want to become.

Issue 496 The Unelected Should Butt Out January 1, 2015

Every November we have an election in the United States, but the new people taking over the positions of the unelected do not do so until January (this is the case with the President of the United States and with the members of Congress).  Now this is potentially a problem, and I of course am going to tell you why.

The issue at hand:  The reason why this delay in transitioning over to the new members is bad is because the unelected individuals may still make laws.  They now can make and vote for any law they please without voters being able to un-elect them again.  You see the biggest fear of lawmakers is being un-elected, but once you take that away, they can pretty much do whatever they want.  This is obviously bad for now they can pass laws on increasing your taxes, creating more penalties and make it harder for the majority of Americans to afford to live in our own country.  You get the picture.

Solutions:  There are a few possible solutions.  The first is the un-elected members of Congress vacate their offices and no longer have any voting power.  Thus, a district will lack representation until January when the new members are sworn in.  Another possibility is to put Congress on vacation until the new members are sworn in after the New Year.  This means no laws will get passed, but it also removes the possibility of a Congressional district (and the people being represented) not having a say in the making and passing of a law.  Mind you these same ideas apply to Senators as well. A State may have two Senators, but that means the State will have one less person to represent them in comparison to the rest of the country.  As such it is unfair.  

The President's position is also one that is affected by such solutions.  We cannot have a President vetoing or passing laws of Congress without the possibility of a Congressional override or evaluation.  Not to mention, the President could try and claim emergency powers and maybe start a war.  But at the same time, we need a national leader to be there if there's an emergency.  As such, a President would and should be limited in their actions during this transitional period.  Basically, they would defend the country if attacked and that is it.

However, there is one real solution to this entire problem.  That is to have the new members of Congress, Senate and the President take up their positions as soon as they know that they have won the election.  Just because they do not have an office to sit in does not mean they cannot perform the duties they were just elected to do.  So this kind of makes the most sense to me than waiting a full month and a half for them to kick the old people out and bring the newer people in.

Conclusion:  Well my last solution makes the most sense.  I mean come on, do these representatives actually think they are worth waiting for?  Do we want to continue risking the possibility of a legislature gone wild?  So let us kick these bums out already and bring in the new blood.