Issue 623 Impact of A national Police Force June 30, 2015

There were approximately 88,000 police raids in 2014.  This is an outstanding number that mostly revolves around raids against non-violent offenders who own small quantities of pot.  These raids are conducted in full riot gear, and place many people in danger including the officers.  Now, with the possibility of police becoming militarized, can you imagine them in full gear all the time?  Are you able to see them as a member of your community if they carry an M-16 assault rifle on their back as part of a routine patrol?  These are a symptom of a militarized and partially nationalized police force.  But what would it look like if they were fully nationalized?  Let's discuss.

What it would look like:

1) Military style:  For one, there will be no traditional uniforms we are used to.  A nationalized/militarized police force would be outfitted with nothing but military equipment.  They would drive light tanks and armored vehicles around and pack heavy weapons reminiscent of what they looked like during the manhunt for the Boston Marathon Bombers with machine guns locked and ready.

2) They follow Federal, not local laws:  Whatever local laws are enforced by your police, kiss them goodbye.  The federal government would decide what to enforce, and how to enforce it rather than localities and States making their own laws anymore.  As such, bureaucrats in the federal government decide law and thus determines your innocence by default.  You essentially lose all control over what laws are followed.

3) Subject to political pressures:  The advantage of local control is that you have a multitude of police departments enforcing the law and thus our ability to compare the effectiveness of each department which protects them from political pressures of local politicians.  Once nationalized, we lose that and this results in politicians putting pressure on those who govern the police at the federal level to perform actions that may in fact violate the law or even ignore it, thus creating a hodgepodge of enforcement of laws and people either escaping justice or being unfairly arrested (think Watergate on steroids).

4) Becoming thuggish:  If nationalized, the police lose all checks and balances as cops can then do whatever they deem necessary to accomplish the job of policing.  So this means more illegal search and seizure, more illegal arrests with police writing warrants and not judges as per the Constitution.  They would be able to use any amount of force they deem necessary to do the job even if it is excessive.

Conclusion:  I do not want a national police force.  My Dad, and many of my family have served as police, and I do not want their service dishonored by turning our police into a bunch of government thugs (this is how I unfortunately see it turning out after a generation or two).  While it is for you to decide if there is merit in a central authority overseeing thousands of officers each and every day, I would still prefer the local patrol whom are my neighbors and friends any day of the week.

Issue 622 Nationalizing Police June 29, 2015

There seems to possibly be an effort to nationalize America's police force.  At the moment it sounds remarkably like a conspiracy theory, but it is a topic that can be and should be discussed.  Let us begin.

Where this theory comes from:  

1) Free military surplus:  The police are getting free military surplus with the expectation that they use it within the first year that they get it.  This is the reason why we have been seeing our police with heavy armor vehicles including bomb resistant MRAPs which are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2) Police raids:  Laws on the books have police conducting raids on homes for even the most minor of drug offense, this including small bags of "pot".  However, with thousands of raids being conducted, there have been mistakes with the wrong houses being raided and people being killed.  This at the same time endangers the officers as now the person being raided (whether guilty or not) may retaliate due to the amount of force being used thinking that they are under attack.  As such, this will lead to more injuries and even deaths as the American population questions police tactics.

3) Rising racial tensions: The flame of racism is ignited once more as riots break out in Ferguson, in Baltimore with respect to the death of Freddie Gray, amongst others.  However, racism may not have been involved, the fact that it was typically a white officer conducting the arrest allowed for race baiters to make their move.  As such the media harped on these stories, and thus police tactics and fears of police brutality have caused every officer of the law to be put under the microscope.

4) Politicians and activists:  During the Ferguson riots, President Obama said for the rioters to stay the course, thus showing support for the lawless criminals destroying the city rather than police.  In Baltimore, police were held back while in riot gear as if they were meant to look menacing rather than break up the looting mob.  And finally, we have powerful activists like Al Sharpton calling for the nationalization of police.  It no longer matters if the cops are white like in the case of the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore as three of the officers including the ones driving where black police officers.  As such, the narrative is shifting to a police versus black person story as opposed to a white versus black one.

Conclusion:  Taken together, and if these trends continue, we may see an actual true movement to nationalize the police in some shape or form.  As to whether this is good or bad will be for you to decide (and I'll be discussing it in tomorrow's issue).  But just these trends alone do not bode well with our sensationalist media, and Americans now feeling it is ok to riot to get their point across rather than follow Dr. King's nonviolent principles.

Issue 621 Ransomware June 26, 2015

Ransomware is a new term to describe a new type of crime.  Let us discuss.

What is Ransomware?:  Ransomware is when you get hacked by a hacker such as through email, advertisements or visiting infected websites.  At that point, your data/secrets get stolen or in most cases encrypted so you cannot access it.  From there, you either pay up, or you can never get the files back.  In the case of encryption, the now typical form of ransomware, your files, or a business's files become inaccessible costing the individual money and distress.  Hence, the hackers create a need for the individual to get the information back.  

Hackers vs. people:  Hackers have used ransomware to make hundreds of dollars.  Some hackers do not give the information back though or they refuse to unlock it.  Additionally some victims refuse to pay as well.  So hackers have been developing a sweat spot moneywise, where the money is payable to increase the chances of people paying up despite the fear that victims may not get their data back.  As such, typical ransoms are $800 or less.  

They want your money, and they are not afraid to spread the technology around.  Apparently these hackers now invest time into tweaking their code to defeat anti-virus software, and then they may sell or give this software as a kit to other hackers.  To make sure that they keep themselves safe, the kits even include transaction software that allows the victim to pay the hacker in untraceable currencies like Bitcoins.  In short, they are getting rich while keeping themselves safe.

Conclusion:  We exist in a technological age where we are dependent on computers.  As such, ransomware is a smart move by criminals seeking to get rich with minimal risk to themselves.  Governments are getting wise to this method of crime and beginning to act, but the only sure thing to defeat them is for the government to share their information with anti-virus software companies and for companies to share information as well.  From there the shared data can be used to better counteract a hackers virus program all that much faster to minimize the victims of this crime.  Additionally, finding ways to encrypt the information encrypted by the hacker so that they do not have to pay will potentially make ransomware unprofitable which seems to be in my opinion the only way to stop this criminal act.  This is now a popular crime (though it is preferable to actual kidnappings) and we got to work on a way to stop it.

Issue 620 Make them Stateless June 25, 2015

We have terrorists, or people who have worked with terrorists coming home to places in Europe.  Apparently, we cannot stop them from coming home because of international law.  Allow me to explain.

Can't keep them out:  Under international law, it is illegal for a country to refuse re-entry of a citizen.  So this means a citizen of England, who fought on the side of ISIS/ISIL, Al Qaeda, and/or others cannot be kept from returning home to their mother country.  According to estimates (source is the Economist Magazine) 5,000 terrorists have returned home to Europe (particularly the European Union Countries).  Some of the countries require these people to wear a tracking device, but others do not, thus increasing the danger of the lone gunman attack.  Additionally, even if they are not going to be violent themselves, they can recruit members to their terrorist group(s) who will do acts of violence in their stead.

This should be changed:  I do not know why such a rule that prevents people from being refused re-entry exists, but I can imagine it was due to political circumstances, and wanting to protect people's rights as human beings.  But these laws now pose a danger, as armed groups can wreak havoc anywhere in the world.  As such, a change to the law is needed to say that if the person coming back is so dangerous, that they can be refused.  That they can have their citizenship revoked?  This is a dangerous idea unto itself because the danger excuse can be used against a number of people, including delaying politicians, or political opponents from coming home.  So my question is, now, should this law be altered?

Conclusion:  I feel that safety wise, the law should be altered, by potential problem wise, it should not be touched.  The wording must be exact and so exact it is specific, like saying "if a person returning home is currently part of a group that has publically expressed a threat of violence to the country, or the individual in question has done so themselves within the last three years, then they may be refused re-entry to the country of their citizenship, birth or any country that deems them a threatening existence".  Of course, this would mean a court like setting will be needed to adjudicate the case to prevent corruption.  Basically, a host of problems will occur, but is our safety worth it, or will us refusing them re-entry make the problem worse?  These are questions needed to be asked, and laws need to be re-evaluated.  

Issue 619 Surveillance Smell Test June 24, 2015

In an Economist article I read it outlined a smell test of sorts so that people would know if the government is going too far with it’s spying on its own people.  Here it is.

The Smell test:  Basically the economist said that if your country (like mine) is not doing this, then it is doing something illegal. Here is rule one.

- Surveillance of an individual is approved by an independent Judge or Judges.

The reason for this is because politicians have been making laws that bypass the rules where Judges have the final say if there is enough evidence to violate someone's privacy rights.  In fact, Politicians have given law enforcement unrestricted powers to spy and arrest people despite the United States Constitution dictating that only a Judge can issue a warrant and only when evidence is great enough to demand an arrest or a violation of privacy is permitted. 

Now for rule two.

-Security/spy agencies must be held accountable by requiring a supervisory bias.  As such, agencies must make as much of what they, as security and spy agencies, do as public as possible.

This is reasonable as if we as a people (let alone the politicians) cannot see what they are doing (whether it is good or bad), then how can we know our rights are being violated, or that our security agencies are going one step too far.  While I understand that there is a risk that the public will not understand the methods used, this can be thankfully solved with public education campaigns to help the public know why certain methods are followed, and when they are to be applied.  In fact, as most of the public is patriotic, they may even try to help by making suggestions to improve upon these methods.

Rule three.

-Is the power used proportionate and necessary?

This means that both rules one and two have to have a certain level of power applied without going over.  So we cannot have Judges becoming overzealous, or in contrast massive amounts of resources going toward spying on an individual from say the TEA party if they pose no threat to the public at large.  As such, balance must be had at all times.

Conclusion:  This is the smell test.  It may not be perfect as it leaves wiggle room, but it is more than adequate to be a start in my opinion to fixing the errors we have made in trying to protect ourselves from harm.

Issue 618 Privacy Versus Surveillance June 23, 2015

Surveillance technology is growing by leaps and bounds, but technology to keep our privacy is growing with equal measure.  Is there a balance to be had?

Spy versus Privacy:  As you already know, many private companies collect data on people, but the government (including the United States government) ignores their own rules with the hope to eavesdrop on terrorists.  As such, people are pushing back, with companies offering encryption technology and other methods to hide your private conversations, and moments.  While it is great that we are regaining privacy, it makes it exceptionally hard to listen in on terrorists as they will be using the same technology.  So what is there to do?  Is there a method to balance our privacy with the need for the government to protect us from harm?

Yup, but you will not like it:  There is a way, but you will dislike it I believe.  Aside from the government fixing its own system to follow the law and not collect our information, we would need the encryption and software companies to spy on us for the government.  In other words, Google will have a team dedicated to looking for keywords that the government provides them so as to look for terrorists, with the Google team deciding if each conversation, picture, or other piece of information meets the criteria for being passed along to government officials. In short, companies already collect and sometimes sell our data, so it will not be hard for them to look at said data to see if there is any red flags such as bomb making materials being bought, coded messages being sent (this so long as the government is willing to provide companies with information to find these), and other illegal activities.  Obviously, these special teams will need some sort of training as they would have the final say on if a piece of information goes to the government, save a court order saying they have to.  It is very reminiscent of the days when AT&T had a government office in their building monitoring all communications, but this time the government is becoming the equivalent of a tip line, with people spying on each other.

Conclusion:  This is the only foreseeable method I can see for this conflict to end between the government trying to protect us by spying on us, and for us to maintain privacy.  In short, we need watch dogs in the form of Facebook, Google, and others to be the first line of defense for now on.  Yes it is very 1984ish, but if codes of conduct and laws are followed, it should prevent it from becoming a corrupt deal for safety and security.

Issue 617 Conspiracy Theory Origins June 22, 2015

Conspiracy theories are just that, theories.  They are hypothetical ideas of what happened during an event.  But why do we have these theories?  Especially as these theories generally fly in the face of what actually occurred.  Let us discuss.

It’s about psychology:  Conspiracy theories developed because of people thinking that there is no way something so big can happen from something so simple.  Look at 9/11.  People doubted that the World Trade Center could have collapsed the way it did because of how similar it was to how we demolish buildings with explosives.  As such, radical ideas of our own government causing the horrible incident came about with people not believing that some terrorist organization could accomplish something of that scale.  

Let us look at it another way.  Can you have James Bond go against a small time villain?  No, you need Dr. No, and other supervillains.  People apparently want equivalency in the storytelling which results in these theories that do not have evidence to back them up.  We want the good guys to take down bad guys of equal stature.  As such the psychology of equivalency generates these fanciful, and foolish theories.

Conclusion:  People like to tell stories.  For most of the history of mankind, history was not recounted with the written word but verbal storytelling.  As such, it is ingrained in our very culture to tell stories which may be embellished from time to time to provide a source of entertainment to ourselves and others.  Conspiracy theories are the same thing, just using our desires to keep the story interesting and entertaining when the truth is so dismal, or sad.

Issue 616 Don't Convert Each Other June 19, 2015

People have a wall that separates them.  That wall is beliefs, ideas, ideology, and more.  In short, it is personal beliefs and the desire to form a uniform belief with the other person.  But people don't believe the same way.  They have their own ideas and feelings on an issue. As such, atheists and religious people, and people with differing ideologies have a hard time getting along.  What can we do to relieve the tension and the strife?

Scratch the Scab:  Scratch the scab means disagree with the other person to your heart’s content.  Even say that you think the other person is wrong.  But discuss it in a pure manner and discuss why you all disagree.  But do not have any ulterior motives such as trying to convert the other person to your way of thinking.  In fact, seek to learn why your companion with an opposing view sees something different from you.  Why they are an atheist and you are not or why they think Democrats are better than Republicans.  Likewise they should want to learn from you.  As such, accept they are different, poke fun at one another's beliefs, and most importantly, do not dodge each other’s beliefs.  If your beliefs, or ideas have merit, then and only then will the other person who accepts that you are different accepts those ideas and integrate (NOT CONVERT) into their own.

Conclusion:  I have been putting this into practice only recently as I could not fathom it until it was pointed out that I sometimes was, well, a jerk sometimes when having a discussion.  I let go of the frustration of why I felt alone sometimes in my beliefs and embraced my desire to understand and acquire knowledge in full.  So now I will at times come off as a know it all, but that's ok, as it is being less of a jerk, and it is something more manageable than being an ass trying to force my beliefs on others.  So try it out and see how much you can change just by letting go of your preconceived notions just to learn more about people and advance your knowledge and thus your own beliefs as well.

Issue 615 The Orange Ribbon June 18, 2015

I was listening to the Glenn Beck Radio program when he took a call from a woman named Nancy of South Carolina.  She had an idea.  Let us discuss.

The idea:  Nancy had heard Glenn talking about the current massacres over in Syria, and other parts of the Middle East by ISIS/ISIL.  She said she felt like she could do nothing about this and wanted to at least try to bring awareness to not just the persecuted Jews, but the Christians and others throughout the world.  As such, she proposed an Orange Ribbon to represent all the persecuted people throughout the world and the biblical figure Daniel who was persecuted, but saved through prayer.  I personally believe that that this is a great idea.  A visual representation of people who wish to stop persecution that can be used to show solidarity.

Conclusion:  This is a great idea.  Though people may not like the fact that it represents in part a Biblical figure.  However, Beck seems to have evolved this idea into his recent "Never Again is Now" campaign to raise awareness of persecution, and to have the American people remember that racial discrimination, violence against others here in the States, and then abroad should never happen again. So let us show our support for the victims and to speak for those who fear to speak.

#NeverAgainisNow

Issue 614 Not about the Resume June 17, 2015

Presidents have come and gone.  But great Presidents or bad Presidents are not defined by their past job experience.  Here are examples.

Don't focus on the Resume:  Let us compare some Presidents.   President Grant was an amazing general in the Civil war, but he failed as a President because people were not able to rally behind him.  He could not negotiate politically with both friend and foes in government.  As such, power shifted to the Congress when it came to political authority.  Additionally, Grant suffered from depression and his drinking undermined his leadership ability.

President Carter is considered one of the worst Presidents in United States history.  He failed at rescuing the American Hostages in Iran, he made poor economic choices that left the country in a recession and overall was as ineffective as President Grant.  However, his pre-Presidential experience is impressive.  He was a scientist, a farmer, and a graduate of the United States Naval academy.

President Obama, our current President has none of President Carter's pre-President experience.  President Obama was a community organizer which served him well in his election campaigns, but he for a reason I cannot fathom, apply it to working with the other members of government.  Also, he and Carter are using the exact same foreign policy scheme which resulted in disaster for President Carter.  For those who do not know, Carter and Obama's foreign policy revolves around giving gifts and concessions to other countries to appeal to neutral and enemy nations so that they see the United States as not a threat.  Also, the policy revolves around the United States depreciating itself and reducing its power in the hopes that other countries will fill the power vacuum and create a world where nations are a little more equal (this of course is naive because once power is taken, it is never returned without cost).

Conclusion: What does this all mean?  As you can see, each of these Presidents have very different backgrounds and skill sets.  However, this means nothing in respect to leadership qualities. And their application of those qualities.  As such, with the potential candidates warming up for the upcoming Presidential election, we must look less at past experiences and more at their ability to work with others, and their ability to apply their leadership skills.

Issue 613 Crocodile Policy June 16, 2015

A Crocodile Policy is a policy of appeasement.  A way to avoid war.  Why is it called a crocodile policy and what wars we are avoiding though?  Let us discuss.

What is a Crocodile Policy:  Its name comes from the idea that we are feeding the crocodile with the expectation that they will eat us last.  In a real world example, Neville Chamberlain in his appeasement of Nazi Germany so as to avoid war would be called a form of crocodile policy.  Ways this policy form is used is by ignoring actions of another government, placating the hostile government by giving them greater concessions and gifts in trade deals.  It may even constitute speaking in favor, or defending the hostile government’s actions or their excuses for their actions.  Basically any action taken that ignores, placates or supports a hostile nations actions to protect your own from war or hostilities as long as possible at the expense of the peace of the nations or peoples around you.

Modern Examples:  One example could be the United States and Russia.  When Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States just yelled, and moved troops around.  However, Russia saw this as toothless as President Obama does not want to be responsible for bring the United States into yet another war, especially one where nuclear weapons may potentially come into play.  

Another example is Iran.  Iran wants to continue its nuclear program, but that program could spiral into a nuclear weapons program (which to an extent it already is).  But President Obama and other world policy makers are looking the other way or making deals with a potentially lethal foe.  Remember, the power in Iran is centered on its religious rulers, not its President whom the United States is dealing with.  As such, any deals made without the consent of the Mullahs (who want non-Muslims dead) will result in nothing but a one sided deal.

Conclusion:  So this is a crocodile policy.  A policy of appeasement, placation, and inaction.  Basically, the policy type that gave us World War II.

Issue 612 To advance disease research June 15, 2015

Disease research is being stifled by government to an extent.  Because of this, cures we may have gotten are not able to be accessed.  Here is what can be done to correct this problem.

Solutions:  

1) Combining research: Both animal and human diseases are studied separately.  However, animal diseases can mutate to affect not just people but a single mutation can make it affect multiple species.  Therefore cures for animal diseases can potentially cure people, and vice versa.  So by combining the research we can make gains in fighting cancer, the flu, and similar health problems we all face.

2) Unlimited volunteer testing:  Human testing is very restrictive in the United States and thus cures take longer to come to market.  However, this can be resolved by the government allowing for terminally ill people to volunteer to take untested medications.   The reason why this is restricted is due to the government wanting to protect people, however some people are willing to take a risk to cure a deadly disease like Pancreatic Cancer as they know they are dying and want at least a shot at curing themselves.

3) Allow testing on Illegal drugs: This final one is the most likely to come to pass.  Marijuana is being experimented with on the State level in the United States to aid in combating seizures, cancers and more.  However, the Federal government frowns on this due to it being illegal at the Federal level.  But if all illegal substances could be used as part of medical research, then potentially we can open up the market for cures, treatments and therapies that did not exist before.  As such, Cocaine, meth, and others should be explored in the same way they once did on chemical weapons like mustard gas to cure cancers.  

Conclusion:  At the moment, these are the three ways to advance disease research.  Humans and animals studied together, let people who are dying/terminally ill risk their lives for a cure, and let colleges, laboratories and the like test illegal drugs and chemicals to see if a poison can be turned into a viable treatment.  We can do so much more if we just get rid of some restrictions and rules in the healthcare system.  It is time to free up the system.

Issue 611 How much Religion June 12, 2015

Rand Paul, the Kentucky Senator who is running for President said that religion can be part of government (not vice versa).  But what I want to ask is how much?

How much Religion in Government:  I personally believe that government and religion does have a degree of separation. That religion should not dictate policy with respect to a faith based institution ever telling the government what to do, nor the government telling a faith based institution what to do.  But I do believe that people should be able to express their faith freely.  It is fine if you personally want to use your faith, your Bible Study and similar to guide your decisions as that is all a personal relationship with God and your faith.  I have zero problems with a politician doing that.  I would also say, that Masses, and other religious gatherings should be allowed in government buildings including Congress, but no group should be denied access.  This also means allowing government personnel to have a cross hanging on the wall of their office, or other religious/religious holiday items be displayed on their person, or on their desks/offices (this is currently not allowed in some government institutions which violates the first amendment).  Beyond this, I see no other room for religion in government.  I find no way that I can see where it can fit in save expression, and personally guiding someone in their actions.

Conclusion:  I have no idea how much religion Rand Paul wants back into government.  Do not get me wrong, I believe he would make a fine President, but this needs to be clarified before we/if we let him into the White House.

Issue 610 Sacred Cows June 11, 2015

The following is based on a conversation between Penn Jillette and Glenn Beck.  A sacred cow is a term used to describe a policy, or part of government that people are unwilling to change or remove due to backlash, favoritism or popularity.  However, if you are serious about cutting government you must be willing to cut your own favorite institutions within the government.  In this case Penn Jillette said pick your top three government programs and institutions and if you can willingly remove your favorites then you can cut any and all parts of government.  Basically, it is proof to yourself that you actually want smaller government, and that you personally are able to achieve it.  I, my readers took up this challenge.

The First Cut:  The Military is one of my sacred cows.  I come from a family that has at least one member having served or is currently serving in every branch of service.  But if I am serious, then I need to be willing to cut parts of the military.  For my cuts, the Air Force and Navy will be fused together, along with any and all cyber security institutions run by the government.  My reasoning is that the Constitution says we can have a Navy and an Army, it makes no mention of anything else.  So the Navy in this case will take care of all roles that relate to dominance on the battlefield.  These include air, space, oceans, beneath the oceans, cyber warfare, and intelligence.  By placing all these together (as each shares overlapping intelligence gathering roles, resupply roles amongst others) we streamline the military and its bloated bureaucracy.  This also means the NSA, and other intelligence agencies will be fused together as well.  As such, this new Navy will be organized into separate corps each specializing in its roll, but working together.

The Second Cut:  In this case, my next cut is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  It has for years since its creation under Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt aided in keeping our food safe and in some cases fighting the drug war.  However, it is due to the drug war, its restrictions on new medical technology, and it inefficiency that I am now willing to drop the hammer on this institution.  States already have laws regarding drugs (legal and illegal), and food which led me to my overall conclusion that this agency no longer has a purpose despite all the good it has done or could still do.  In fact there is no reason to doubt Sweden's, or England's drug and food agencies if they deem them safe which each State can copy or even use to see if something is safe for us.  So each State can make its own drug policies and liberate the system, or they can even work together to keep policies harmonized throughout the country without any federal input.

The Final Cut:  This was harder for me.  The top two were easier because I have done research on making things more efficient in the military and that the FDA could be replaced easily by existing institutions.  However, this last one I feel is more difficult.  The last cut is the State Department.  Originally part of the War Department (which became the department of defense) it became independent with the idea of maintaining relations between countries. It has since spawned many branches and has helped maintain relations with other countries.  However, all of its many components and overlapping agencies has become bulky, and they have been in the past been responsible for international incidents (the latest of which is the Benghazi terror attack).  It is my belief that if the State department wants to play spy, then it should be eaten (along with the other agencies it overlaps with) into the Central Intelligence Agency.  By doing so, the intelligence gathered within diplomatic circles will be more readily accessible, and at the same time could be shared with allies, friends, non-aligned and allies of convenience more readily.  Also, with the knowledge being acquired and distributed, diplomats will have a leg up on negotiations and also aid in maintaining balances of trade, and other varieties of political, economic and military relations.  I would need to do more research to justify this, or look for another viable alternative.

Conclusion:  These are my sacred cows I would cut and or modify.  Yes, I know that they can be deemed controversial, but if I am not willing to cut these, then what good am I to the people of the United States if I should ever be in the position to make the changes necessary/needed to protect and uplift our nation.

Issue 609 If Business Come Back June 10, 2015

I was watching the news one day and they said something interesting.  That if all the overseas businesses came back, that it may cause hyperinflation and thus crash the economy.  Here is a summary as to why they said this.

If they return:  At current, the United States has high inflation with its money.  This means we are printing more money and thus the value of the dollar itself has decreased.  This is due to the same supply and demand principles but this time in relation to money.  Businesses overseas do not bring money back to the United States so as to avoid taxation.  As such, that money is removed from the United States economy and thus does not contribute to inflation of our dollar.  Basically, country borders add a degree of separation and thus keep our dollar’s value up artificially.  However, people want these businesses brought home so that we in the country can benefit from the jobs that will be created.  As such, the businesses will bring all that money they stored overseas back with them, and this will flood the United States with massive amounts of currency.  The problem there is that all that money coming back.  It will result in hyperinflation as so much money will be returning to within U.S. borders and its economy that the value of the dollar will plummet due to the large supply and thus a loaf of bread could be worth $100 or more.  In short, we may be burning money just to stay worm like in the great depression.

Conclusion:  In truth, we only want businesses to come back if the businesses can make a profit.  Right now they profit because it is cheaper to make goods overseas.  But the real issue is inflation and the policies that contribute to that.  As such, the Federal Reserve would have to set up a method of raising the dollar’s value on a one to one scale as each business comes back one by one.  In short, a long and lengthy process will need to occur to avoid an economic depression.  This problem can be avoided, but it will cause economic issues and thus harm businesses already here in the United States.  So businesses coming back from overseas may not be worth it after all.

Issue 608 Free Range Kids June 9, 2015

So there is a segment of parents who wish to teach their children responsibility.  To do this they allow their children independent action.  What do I mean by this?  Read on to find out.

Free Range Children:  The idea is simple.  Parents let their kids walk to school alone, or in a group with other children.  Or they may allow their kids to go to the park by themselves if the park is down the block.  Advocates say that it allows these children to be taught responsibility to themselves and that it boosts self-confidence.  Basically, as they do not have the crutch of a parent to protect them all the time, they gain self-awareness, and develop psychologically in a way that enables them to protect themselves and also perform independent actions.   As a result, the advocates say that these children are less likely to be targeted by say a bully, or are better able to adapt to a situation on the fly to protect against say an adult.  

Counter argument:  There are people who disagree with this idea (obviously).  They fear the horror stories of the child being kidnaped.  Halloween fears of razors in apples, or something bad happening at the convenience store.  Basically it is fear of the unknown that can harm their children.  And this is understandable, the kids are not adults.  Children can panic, but that may be what initially happens if they are allowed to venture out on their own in the first few weeks.  Over time, the children will become empowered, self-aware and thus less likely to panic in a situation as they will have confidence.  Also, nothing says that a parent has not discussed self-defense, buddy systems, or avoiding criminals.  As such, it really should be up to the parents to decide how much autonomy a child has and at what age.

Conclusion:  Obviously allowing your kids to go off wherever and whenever they want is a bad idea.  But setting limits and allowing them to stop off at the store on the way home to pick up milk or allowing them to go down to the park around the corner is not a bad thing.  Ground rules will be set, defenses and what to do and when will be discussed, but in no way is the child ever truly alone.  I myself was allowed to walk home from my elementary school three blocks away when I was seven years old.  But that was because my parents discussed it, and had friends along the established route I would take home every day to ensure my safety.  As such, I was never actually alone.  I am not a parent, I do not have the same worries yet that a parent would, but this time alone did shape me and made me a better person for it.  So I ask parents who are reading this, look into the idea and see if it is right for your children.

Issue 607 Gift shops in Churches June 8, 2015

So, I was in a Church in the city for my young cousins christening and I noticed that in the back of the Church was a gift shop.  I was very, to say the least displeased.  So allow me to discuss with you all why Churches should not have gift shops.

Why they should not have gift shops:  My reasoning is as follows.  It to me is like monetizing faith.  You are playing to a certain degree on naive members of the faith based community to buy goods distributed by the church.  But this is like buying salvation from the olden times such as Europe's Renaissance period.  We generally realize that faith, or salvation cannot be bought, but it disturbed me that even during the service, there were people going into the gift shop to buy stuff.  It just seemed very, very wrong to me.  Needless to say I held my tongue for it was a special event for family, but I am expressing my opinion now since the celebration is over.  I feel that no matter how great the economic need, a church should not have a gift shop in its back area.  Additionally, it should not be selling goods during a mass.  To me, this is just irreverent.

Conclusion:  Yes, I know that churches are losing parishioners, and that they need the revenue to stay open.  But could they at least put it in the church's basement and sell goods there.  My home church has always kept the shops either in the basement or in the parking lot, but they were ready to sell once mass ended, not during.  Maybe, the church is drifting away from faith, or maybe they are simply just that desperate. Whatever their reason, unless it is a special occasion with family, I will not attend mass in a church that feels it is ok to sell trinkets during a mass or that has a gift shop in the back.

Issue 606 Non-violent Radical Militant June 5, 2015

Have you heard of a Non-violent Radical Militant?  I did not until I heard Glenn Beck talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Here is what I learned.

Non-violent Radical Militant:   It was the basis of Dr. King's marches.  In other words his organization style to bring people together to correct societal wrongs.  Basically, it would use an organization style similar to what a militant would use.  It would be radical, but for Dr. King, this would mean placing people, values, love of our fellow man, Justice and Freedom all first and foremost.  And finally and most importantly, be non-violent.  These together formed the basis behind the marches themselves.  But how is this applicable today?

Applying King's organization:  In this case it would be based around organizing to fix societal wrongs like Dr. King and his followers did in the civil rights movement.  For instance, say a man is arrested by police for child neglect, but that man brings his kid to the park every day, ensures the child is fed, and basically, the child is healthy.  There is obviously something wrong with that law, because there is nothing wrong mentally or physically with the child.  As such, people would organize into non-violent militias, to march and place pressure on lawmakers to change that law so that an innocent man never goes to jail like that again.  Basically, we must move when change is needed.  We do not stand aside if something is wrong or needs to change.  This is how we apply it to our everyday.

Conclusion:  There is many things that need to be changed.  Laws that punish the innocent, laws that make good people into criminals, laws that make governments tyrannical, laws that solidify power in the few, all these are things that must be changed.  Yes, change is slow, and it will be difficult, but it must be done.  We can do it if we follow Dr. King's methods.  So now we just need a coalition of the willing to push forward with the changes that are needed.

Issue 605 Legalize Drugs: stop the raids June 4, 2015

There are 80,000 raids approximately per year by law enforcement.  Somewhere around 40,000 are done by federal law enforcement last year.  Much of these raids are conducted to go after drug paraphernalia.  But are we wasting our money?  And are the non-economic costs even greater?  Let us discuss.

The heart break:  The cases where raids are botched are rising.  Numerous stories can be told of where the wrong house has been raided.  In fact the house of a Mayor was raided when it was supposed to be his neighbors.  The Mayor was quoted saying that if he attempted to go for his gun to defend himself, he would be dead.   There was another incident where a husband thought the raiders were burglars and held his gun with the safety on in an attempt to intimidate the intruders while he had his wife hiding in the closet.  In this case, the man was shot 72 times by police.  Another time, a girl was shot while she was sleeping on the couch, and meanwhile the police held the farther on the ground as he cried out asking why they had shot his daughter.  It was apparently the wrong apartment being raided.  Additionally, in a different incident, parents asked the police not to go into a room where their sleeping baby slept, but the police instead threw a flash bang grenade into the room which in turn burned the baby severely.  As you can see, these incidents are not isolated.  These raids continue yearly with little to no drugs actually seized.  

What can be done:  Many libertarians are starting to think that even if we cannot legalize all drugs (or at least the least harmful), that drug laws and similar should be handled by the State governments.  In short, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), along with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) should be abolished in favor of each State making their own separate and distinct laws regarding food and drugs.  While it may sound chaotic, it will eliminate the federal government from a function it was not Constitutionally allowed to do, and it means States like California, Colorado and similar will not have to worry about the feds coming in and arresting their citizens for something that is legally allowed in their States.

Conclusion:  While I respect police and what they do to protect us, it is not the police who dictate law.  Instead it is the law makers who have the police enforce and perform such acts.  Essentially, the police are scapegoats, and victims in this drug war as well.  So the only solution I feel is right is to end the drug war once and for all.

Issue 604 1st Amendments five freedoms June 3, 2015

Did you know that the first Amendment of the United States Constitution has a total of five freedoms?  Well some of you may have, but not many can actually name all five.  So let us refresh our memories in today's issue.

The Five:

1) Speech:  This means we can say almost anything and everything we want.  However, we must always remember that we are responsible for what we say.  So no causing a panic or starting a riot please as you will be arrested as the instigator.

2) Press:  An extension of speech, it insures that reporters and commentators can say what they want and publish it too for money.  But the main importance is that they tell us what is going on in the world and are designed to look out for corruption and misconduct.

3) Religion:  We are free to worship our God or gods however we want (with specific exceptions).  

4) Assembly:  This one is where we get our ability to form protests, boycotts, go to religious services together, and any other activity that makes it so that people can come together to both discuss or act toward a common goal.

5) Petition the Government:  The final one allows us to meet with our representatives to ask them to change their opinions, enact laws and similar.  Essentially, it is the right to talk to people in government which is essential to keeping the government in check and acting on behalf of the American people.

Conclusion:  The last two are apparently the two people usually forget, but they are practiced just as much as any of the others.  It is important to know our rights as knowledge of those rights protects us from wrongdoing by the government(s) at large.

Issue 603 Commercials?! June 2, 2015

So we all hate commercials.  They are very annoying to us, and frankly, many people don't even bother listening anymore, let alone watch.  However, commercials are what pays for the movies and shows we like.  So what is going to replace them so that we can have commercial free shows?

The options:  So there is a few methods to go commercial free so as to help pay for movies, and shows.  The first is subscription based.  In this case they will use a model like Netflix which buys entire libraries of shows and movies.  That subscription then plays a part in paying the actors and production costs for the programming Netflix puts out. Remember, these people have to earn a living and while production of movies and television shows is getting cheaper thanks to technology, it is not 100% of the way there.  So a subscription works.  

Another option is that you put the products into the movie or show itself in what is known as product placement.  So you can have an actor sipping a Pepsi or a Coca Cola on film.  This includes cars, cigars, mobile phones and computers, etc.  So we may see close-ups of Iron man (Tony Stark) taking his phone out of his jacket where a close up will reveal that it is a Motorola or an Android.  This means even billboards in the background of a movie like Fast and Furious can be used to gather revenue for the film.  As such, even if the film or the television show is a bust, the costs to produce the film, and pay for the cast and crew can still be covered.  

Conclusion:  I like both these options over a show being interrupted by a commercial for Sham Wow or similar products.  And the fact that actors may be using them in shows and movies the ways they are supposed to be used in the first place allows people to envision themselves using the product too.  Even small plugins by the actors like them bragging about their Oxiclean are feasible so long as it does not detract from the story.  From there, if there are any commercials, they will be between shows advertising for upcoming shows that the company wants to get people to watch and thus increase their profits so that they can stay in business (and entertain us the viewers as well).  

Issue 602 All at the table Jun 1, 2015

When the riots happened in Baltimore, people of the media, and celebrities expressed the opinion for the need for an open discussion.  However, they wanted everyone represented to hash it all out to try and find a solution.  Today I am going to explain why that will not work.

Everyone actually represented?:  Well, it is impossible to represent everyone in a discussion of this sort.  Think about it.  Every person from each group must be represented.  So that means we need a black male and female, a gay black male and female, a male and female Jew, gay male and female Jew, Puerto Ricans of every sexual orientation, and religion, etc.  Now notice by putting everyone at the table, you now have a vast variety of groups with their own interests weighing down and distracting from the primary subjects of Police and Black American relations, police uses of force, race issues between whites and blacks, and Black crime in America.  In short, dragging gays, Spanish, and other religious, racial and ethnic groups in, the subjects become blurred.  However this is not the sole reason why this is a bad idea.

The other reason why this is a bad idea to bring all the groups together is that everyone has their own unique opinion.  As such, any one single black male or group thereof, cannot speak for all black Americans.  Likewise, no single white male, Catholic, or person of Irish, Italian ancestry can speak for me.  Basically no one can speak for each other. 

Conclusion:  So what are we to do to have a discussion?  No matter what, do not put down anyone’s opinion no matter where it comes from.  Unless a person calls for the annihilation of a single group, or that they are less human than another group, they are not racist.  We have to not only start a dialogue, but be able to listen to the hard truths despite our desire to not accept those truths.  Then and only then can we begin to finally talk it out and work past the rising racism and hatred that is rearing its ugly head once more.