Issue 646 Children and Reverence/respect July 31, 2015

There is a core set relationship rules that children need when growing up.  This core set means teaching respect and reverence when and where it is needed.  So what do these terms mean, and in what capacity are they to be applied.

Reverence/Respect:  Respect is to hold someone with esteem, or high regard.  Reverence is a little deeper than typical respect, and can be a form of admiration.  Basically, it is when a person looks at another person and values them for their talents, abilities, or position.  But children must be able to do this.  Children who do not (in my opinion) will value themselves less, or mistreat themselves or others.  It is up to Parents and in some capacity schools to teach Respect and Reverence.  But who for exactly.  The categories are simple.  First and foremost, children must respect their parents.  As such, they should be made to help out with daily tasks their parents generally do for them to build up a level of respect for something they take for granted.  Then scale it up from there.  The next category is respect and reverence for others.  Recognizing others for their work, hardships and empathy with their situations aids in this.  Teaching children about the more fortunate and less fortunate and that peoples will power, decision making, talents, ability and life's circumstances can either make them rich, poor or in between.  That they are to a major extent in charge of what their future will be.  Next will be Authority.  People have hierarchies and people in charge require a certain level of respect even if one believes they may or may not deserve it.  This is teachable starting with parents being above the child, and bosses in a business being above employees.  Essentially teaching them hierarchies, and interpersonal relationships.  And finally, the most important is respect for the self.  They must be able to see themselves.  In this, they must realize that they have their own talents that can be refined and improved.  That their accomplishments are a result of their hard work.  Self-Respect must be taught at the same time as the others as the different forms of how respect is shown or perceived allow for the child to see all aspects of themselves and others.  All the while this can also be used to aid children in evaluating their worth as a respectable human being and drive them as they continue to learn and build upon the lessons of respect, so that they can enhance themselves.  So they can be able to improve themselves as human beings and decide who is worthy of a greater or lesser forms of respect and reverence.

Conclusion:  Respect and its higher form, reverence, need to be taught to preserve and protect appropriate relationships.  It insures that we treat the elderly with care, and that we do not diss our boss.  The earlier these are taught the better in order to enhance and nurture children to become adults who themselves will be worthy of respect.

Issue 645 Baptizing Pleasure July 30, 2015

I was watching an interview with Alice Von Hildebrand of the Hildebrand Project and she said something interesting.  That we must baptize pleasure.  Here is the explanation of why that I found this particularly interesting.

Baptizing Pleasure:  Hildebrand described pleasure as something that we share with animals.  It is something primal in that sense.  But she said we can separate it from animal pleasure.  We can separate it in such a way that we can detach it from our animistic urges.  To do so, we must baptize pleasure as a gift.  What Hildebrand meant by this was that we should be thankful when it is given to us from someone else.  That we should seek to give more than we receive, to the extent that we would be seeking solely to give it to others rather than seeking it for ourselves.

Thus, why I found it so interesting.  The idea that pleasure is animalistic, but that it can be converted into something higher.  Maybe even holy with respect to how she described it as being baptized.  The idea that we should seek to pleasure others over ourselves is obviously selfless, but I do not think she meant it to solely relate to sexual relations.  I think she meant pleasure in the broadest sense, from companionship, friendship, love, faith, and beyond, but still including bodily contact.  Obviously, this does not mean finding a random person to please, but to make sure that it is more than you or me being selfish.  It is about giving of yourself over receiving.

Conclusion:  Some of you may be having "dirty" thoughts, but Hildebrand being a religious theologian, does not talk from a "dirty" perspective, but a biblical one.  That, if we stopped being selfish with respect to seeking to please ourselves, and thought about others, that we may have a less selfish society. Well, these are my thoughts, and I hope you found them useful.

Issue 644 Influence vs. Authority July 23, 2015

Do you know the difference between Influence and Authority?  Do you know there relationship to power?  Well, let's find out.

What they mean:  Both of these have an integral relationship to power, with power being the ability to compel someone or a number of people to do something whether it is in line with or against their will.  Now, this power is exercised in a number of ways, but there are two ways that it particularly manifests itself with respect to people interacting with other people.  Those manifestations are both Authority and Influence.  But what are these terms and what do they mean.  The easiest to understand is Authority.  It is literally the ability to command or control what goes on.  So, when you have authority over someone, you can compel them to do something by simply telling them to do it.   However, Influence is different.  It does not use commands to make someone do something.  Instead it is the ability to guide, or cause a change in someone's opinions or actions.  Basically, when someone has influence over someone else, they literally have the ability to change people through what they tell them because they are usually trusted in some way.  So someone you trust and whose advice you act upon is someone who has influence over you.  This is how both Authority and Influence are an exercise in power over others.  

Conclusion:  Politics is the exercise of power, and authority and influence are two forms of power that people have over other people.  Your boss, your parents, people who make laws or enforce laws are those with the authority form of power.  Friends, people you put your faith in, or people you look up to have the ability to influence others.  While these examples are very simplistic, it is not my intention to say that people having authority or influence over someone else is bad.  Instead, it is that you should be aware of how much power you are giving to others around you or how they use that power over others.  This lets us maintain independent thought, and protects us from abuse by others.  So basically be self-aware of power and its forms so that you do not end up losing power over yourself.

Issue 643 Abortion Revisited July 28, 2015

Abortion is still an ongoing debate, but I wanted to give an update on the exemptions that most people know of.  These being Rape, Incest, and Woman's life in danger.  Here is what we know now.

Rape:  This will always be an exception, and I do not think many people will dispute this, despite misgivings.  However, morally speaking, the amount of women according to the news media getting pregnant from a rapist is very small.  In short it is rare.

Incest:  Incest for those who do not know is when two relatives have sexual relations.  Sometimes this will result in a child with disabilities, but that is not the reason why this is one of the exceptions.  The reason is because this is typically associated with rape as it usually occurs in the act of a rape.  That’s right, it is one family member raping another.  As such, under current law, this exception is really not necessary from my perspective as it is already covered under the rape exception.

Women's Life in danger:  Now this one may hopefully go away soon.  Technology has made this form of abortion (partial birth) almost irrelevant and stands to continue to do so.  Science has made it possible to either avoid the woman's life ever coming to harm, in any process of the pregnancy or to remove the child safely during childbirth.  So while this one will remain as a key exception, the need for it is slowly vanishing.

What does this mean:  Now this brings us back to the debate, is this a women's rights issue trumping the life of another.  My opinion is yes as the baby beyond a certain level of development is viable let alone recognizable as a human being while in the womb.  It may be technology that ends the need for partial birth abortions completely as we can see and save these children in the event of an emergency and see for 100% certainty that they are human children and not a cluster of cells.  But, others do not see it that way as they still believe that they are a cluster of cells despite that the baby in the womb is formed.  But if you want more evidence on if the baby looks human beyond a certain stage of development, simply look up when the baby has all the body parts formed.  Also, look up a partial birth abortion.  I guarantee you, you will never be able to unsee it, and that the right to life is being overridden.

Conclusion:  Abortion has been a debate since before the American Revolution.  We are all alive and people forget that even if the baby cannot fully survive outside the womb yet.  Remember, they are human too.

Issue 642 Transracial July 27, 2015

Is it possible to be born white, but believe you are black?  Rachel Dolezal former NAACP president was born white, but identifies as black, even going so far as to change her hairstyle, and skin color to match.  Is this something bad?  Or is it a step in the right direction?

Transracial:  For Dolezal, she felt she was black when her adopted black son said that he felt she was his natural born mom.  Thus, she apparently felt the need to be black for him (though this was not the start of her racial identification).  But can someone identify as a different "race".  It is possible when you look at it from the context of adopting a type of culture.  For instance, Irish Americans that were born in the United States are not ethnically Irish, but have adopted a part of the culture here in the States.  Therefore, if you do not identify as Irish, despite your heritage, then you are not Irish.  Likewise, Black Americans have their own unique culture in the United States, and thus it may be possible to identify as a Black American despite not being Black in any form.  In short, culture and how we identify ourselves is something flexible irrespective of skin color.  Also, if you believe it is ok to alter your body, or to be a hyphenated anything, then you must accept that people of different heritage could and will identify as a race as opposed to an ethnicity.

As to whether this is a step in the right direction is subject to perspective.  By not viewing oneself as an ethnicity, it lends people to looking at themselves in a larger cross country context (especially as there are far less races than ethnicities).  But on the other hand, if anyone can be any race, then what happens to the culture and spirit when wannabe black, or Asian etc. try to become part of that group.  It blurs the lines between us further, and purists will fear it, while it slowly blends every culture together and makes race into a tribal thing as opposed to a genetic thing.  So people born as a race may lose their racial identity overtime and therefore the traditional separations we know of and create disappear.

Conclusion:  Now whether Dolezal is crazy or not I do not know.  But if this is a turning point with respect to racial identification, then many things will change, hopefully for the better.  People will possibly see themselves as just that, people first and adopt aspects of the various parts or sub cultures that make up the larger global community.  As such, race ceases to exist as a boundary.  But this may not occur as like I said, the woman may simply be nuts.  Only time will tell.

Issue 641 Sheep stealers July 24, 2015

Now this is funny.  A sheep stealer is not someone who steals sheep, but when a priest is so compelling that parishioners leave one church for another.  So how does this affect us?

What does all this mean:  This fear of one priest stealing another's is the reason why some churches will not work with their fellows.  The congregation and their donations are what support the church to keep it open and thus if a "sheep stealer" is present they want to avoid their parishioners interacting with this potentially more compelling Priest.  In short, they do not want to lose your money.  Now if that isn't disappointing I do not know what is.  A priest is more concerned about cash than the salvation of his/her flock.  Very, very stupid in my opinion, despite my understanding that they could shut down if enough people leave.  However, it would show how good a priest is and how much faith they have if they do work together with other priests.  In short, you will know for sure that the priest cares more about you than your money when they willingly works with other priests from other churches nearby.  Also, when you think about all the good one church does for the community, what would happen if more of them work together for the greater good?  Think about it.

Conclusion:  Sheep stealing is so dumb in my opinion.  If your church cannot keep parishioners then maybe you should question yourself on whether or not you are a good priest, or what else is going on in the community that could be making people not want to come to the church.  Do not let fear prevent you from doing what is right.  Work together, help each other and set an example for your parishioners to follow.

Issue 640 Courage or faith July 23, 2015

So what came first between the two of these?  Was it faith that gives us courage or was it courage that gave us the faith to believe?

Courage 1st:  In this case it is courage that gives you the ability to believe in a higher power.  It allows you to take that leap of faith to have faith and thus reinforce your ability to believe.  The courage to believe is to possibly remove doubt or to overcome doubts in the first place.  But courage is a unique emotion.  It is the reinforcement of our will to do something against the odds.  As such, to have courage with respect to faith is to overcome doubt itself.

Faith 1st:  With regards to faith first, courage is not there yet.  Faith itself is what enables you to feel the courage to do something.  It gives you the strength to have courage to do the impossible.  The impossible could be anything, such as overcoming doubt to literally laying with lions.  It provides the fortitude to stand alone when needed.  In essence, faith is the backbone to all that you are.

Conclusion:  Thankfully this is not anything like the chicken and the egg debate.  Faith or courage coming first is something personal for each person.  No answer is right or wrong or makes anyone’s faith less flimsy than another's.  It is all a personal decision, and whatever reinforces that faith or whether faith reinforces who you are is unique to you as an individual alone.

Issue 639 Pay the kids! July 22, 2015

I really mean pay kids.  In this case, for what they do in school.  There are three areas where I think they should be paid.  So let us discuss.

Sports:  At the high school level, sports become very competitive and can be a money maker for schools (same with colleges too).  As such, let these kids get a cut for entertaining us.  It allows them to make money that can go toward college, or other activities these kids may want to partake in.  It can also help poorer communities by allowing poor students who otherwise would not be able to afford to go on school trips or afford school lunches to have money to pay their way rather than having their parent(s) scrounge around for money.  It also adds a level of professionalism that these students will need when they enter the real working world.

Tutoring:  All kids who tutor other kids through the school should be paid a wage.  Let's face it, tutoring is hard work (well depends on who your tutoring), and the teachers cannot be there for all students.  So the kids can handle the tutoring for the teachers as the information is fresh in the student's head and they can relate to any issues with learning the problem or piece of information.  Thus they are better equipped to teach their fellow students if they have recently learned it themselves.  So for helping with homework and studying can be one fee.  Editing papers and even grading their fellow students on the teacher's behalf can be another.  Also, this experience allows students to develop social skills, conversation skills, and information transfer skills.

Economic Rewards:  Students should be rewarded for their performance.  So when they do well in class, they could get money as a prize based on how well they do in a test or quiz.  If they are a tutor to their fellow students, then if that student scores well or has an improvement, that tutor can be further rewarded.  Basically, reward them with money for doing well.

Conclusion:  In case you haven't noticed, I cover the sports kids and the academic kids.  This ensures that a vast majority of students can have access to earning more money outside of simply rewarding them for good grades.  Also, non-sports clubs like chess can make money in the sports area for winning contests.  If there is a school garden, then they can sell some of the flowers to make a money too.  Sure most of the money will go to the school, but with this scheme, you get students motivated to get into clubs, into tutoring and into their academics.  Yes it is controversial, but, unconventional approaches are what make the world work.  So what's not to try?

Issue 638 We need rich old people July 21, 2015

We really do need rich old people.  You are wondering why you aren’t.  Allow me to explain.

Rich elderly wanted:  One of the main reasons is that they are out of the workforce sooner.  This frees up jobs for younger individuals who otherwise would not be able to move up, or get hired if the senior were still working.  Also, rich elderly do not need as much aid or can pay for their own aid which means less need for our seniors having to go on welfare to simply live their lives.  But how can this be achieved?

Making more rich seniors:  For one, just like increasing access for the poor with stocks, not taxing any investments in any way and not pre-taxing investments when they are invested like a 401 K allows for the possibility of more disposable income.  However, we should not tax any of their income past a certain age.  As such, they can hold out longer with respect to supporting their daily living arrangements without the need for any form of aid.  Basically do not tax them under any circumstance.  Even if you do not change anything else, by simply not taxing seniors they are able to live their lives with less out of pocket cost and less stress.

Another thing we can do is use Social Security to increase the money they would get.  To do this, the money would be invested as soon as someone starts paying into the system.  First it will go into high risk stocks and then into low risk as time goes on.  However, to ensure they do not lose money, the government will have reserve funds to make up any loses, and a portion of the money being gained from the investments will help to rebuild this fund after a loss.  As such, the fund is being built up constantly to protect from market failures.  Also, once reaching retirement, a guaranteed minimum of money will be there for the least fortunate of seniors.  In this case, the poverty level of a given area will be determined, then money will be tacked on so that the poor person reaches the economic level of lower middle class citizen of that area.  Basically, enough so that they will live comfortably without need to have their money increased yearly by a cost of living adjustment.  The money should also be given in a large lump sum so that they can budget themselves accordingly without fear of delayed or lost checks or computer glitches in a direct deposit.  

Conclusion:  I am really drawing a blank on what more can be done to make more seniors that much richer and make it so they have to rely on others less.  Technology will certainly help with home delivery of groceries, smart homes that handle tasks for people, and even exoskeletons to keep the seniors moving so that they remain physically healthy.  All of these aid in reducing costs in one way or another for seniors.  Remaining healthy and active alone is a major benefit for they do not have to pay medical costs, or waste money paying for gas.  Heck, even the hybrid homes idea by Elon Musk will do wonders in savings for our seniors’ energy bills.  There must be more we can do?  We just haven't thought about it yet.

Issue 367 Poor and Stocks July 20, 2015

Stocks are a gamble on your money.  It is you giving a company money in the same fashion of a loan in the hopes of profiting off the interest.  However, the poor in our country has limited access to a degree in my opinion, and I feel that if they did have access, they could benefit greatly.  Let us discuss.

Access:  The poor generally do not have access due to a lack of disposable income to risk on investing.  As such, they do not even bother learning how to invest, which makes it harder for them to try and do so later on.  Also, even if they do invest, they are taxed on it for taking it out for it is considered income.  This becomes another inhibitor because, why would you invest money when you cannot use/maximize the money you just earned.   Additionally, stocks are intertwined with business as more investment means business expands and generally means more people getting jobs.  So how can we increase access?

Increasing access:  For one, we can make this money non-taxable when taking it out.  This would benefit everyone as this means people can freely invest and could potentially become millionaires overnight with the right investments.  Likewise, this would allow people and companies to invest more readily which means business expands and unemployment decreases.    We can also make it non-taxable going in just like a 401k which also preserves money for the poor and especially for those transitioning out of poverty.

To ensure that people do not make poor investment choices, all financial data will be readily available upon request and in real time as opposed to the current law which says simply that they have to release data in a timely fashion.  This has the effect of eliminating insider trading laws as everyone would know what is going on with a business's finances and market value at any given time.  In combination with the real time knowledge, a real time report on stock stability and investment can be devised along with predictions so that the people investing can buy, sell and trade freely without limit so as to avoid any losses.  So one company or even treasury bonds of a particular country or any form of stable investment can be deemed safe for an upcoming collapse, which would provide flexibility and aid in avoiding losses for the investors.  This of course means all companies and all countries that can be invested in must be able to be freely traded globally in a manner similar to free trade among nations.   To also aid in investing and to avoid middle man costs, companies could and maybe should allow for open source direct investments.  This scheme would literally be a link on their website, or a kiosk in their store that allows you to buy stock in that company directly.  So no more brokers to get in the way of your investing.

Conclusion:  So access can be increased, though obviously disposable income is still an issue.  However, everyone can benefit from these changes with respect to monetary gain, and jobs open up simply because investing gives companies disposable capital to expand and thus creating a need for jobs to be filled.  A freer system equals more chances to get out of poverty.  Investing is simply one tool to do that.

Issue 636 Evil Is Anti-responsibility? July 17, 2015

People decide their own outcomes.  As such every action they take is their responsibility.  So is it evil when you are anti-responsibility?  

Responsibility:  Do you remember the Disney Cartoon with the dog Pluto.  In it Pluto is put in a quandary on whether or not to do something and his devil self and angel self appeared on his shoulders.  However, both urged him to do the wrong thing.  But Pluto decides whether or not to act.  This is the same with all of us.  We decide whether or not to act.  And when we act we become responsible for our action that we take.  At no time are we manipulated like a puppet.  Sure, our options can become limited in situations that are extreme, but it is still our responsibility.  But is us not taking responsibility evil?  The answer is that unto itself, this is not evil.  If no responsibility is taken, then is it evil in practice?  Think about it.  You're in a situation where people will not become a victim, nor you yourself, and a person takes an action, or you take one.  No one is harmed and thus despite the action, whatever it is, the lack of responsibility being taken is not evil.  You are never without some form of responsibility to begin with, but not taking it is not evil or necessarily irresponsible.  But when does taking responsibility, or avoiding it become evil?

In this case taking responsibility or not becomes evil when morality is in question.  Volunteering to do harm to someone is taking responsibility for doing another harm.  Not acting to preserve another's life is avoiding responsibility in the face of someone getting hurt.  Get it?  Evil is doing an action or inaction regardless of the responsibility involved when a person gets harmed in some serious way.  Introducing a kid to drugs and then abandoning them to their now addiction is anti-responsibility, and thus is evil.  Being a soldier in Nazi Germany and killing the Jews and others without question despite knowing it is morally wrong is taking responsibility and thus because of the moral (let alone ethical consequences) is evil.  Evil is anti-morality, not anti-responsibility.

Conclusion:  We generally take responsibility for our actions when it benefits us, and avoid it when it is inconvenient.  You could even say this is a survival mechanism.  But learning when and where we can make decisions is crucial to actually making this choice.  Additionally, understanding the moral consequences beyond what affects us is also a necessity to making sure we do not even accidentally commit an evil deed by simple inaction or avoiding responsibility.  As such, people have to be able to think beyond themselves and place themselves into others shoes.  But our society has a very short attention span.  We lack focus because we are no longer deep thinkers.  As such, I wrote this little issue based on another conversation Between Glenn Beck and Penn Gilet on the Blaze (they make interesting points) because we need to become deep thinkers again.  I feel that our attention spans have grown so short and that our incessant need for immediate gratification so large that we forget there are people even around us.  So just remember morality at the least, that if it will cause harm to another person then it may be evil.

Issue 635 Spa's and Medicine July 16, 2015

I talked a few weeks ago about the abortion industry trying to combine a spa and a clinic in one.  While I am completely against that idea, they may be on to something with respect to treatment and recovery for other conditions.  Let us discuss.

Relax and heal:  Basically, pamper a patient before a procedure and then after to promote healing. A person going for an operation is nervous and thus tense, which means they lose their natural harmony with the body and their everyday life.  Also, a doctor's office invokes stress with some people thus giving false readings on things like blood pressure, so creating a spa like atmosphere is essential to keeping the patient's mind off treatment and more on healing.   Relaxed patients are less tense and to my knowledge, that decrease in stress and tension aids in the bodies healing process.  If a treatment is ongoing like cancer treatments, then a day at the spa to remove the bodies stress, and even to remove toxins through the skin reduces the amount of work the body has to do to recover from treatments.  Heck, even a basic massage will do, with some sort of meditation or yoga like session in a spa like format.  

And you know what?  Even the doctor can get in on the act with the nurses.  They are stressed during the procedure as they try to do everything in their power to help you.  So periodic spa treatments for them will aid in reducing their health, reducing their overall stress, and maybe make them more personable with their patients.  As such, this mental and physical health break can be positive for all involved.

Additionally, if these spa like rooms are set up, then patients with similar ailments and procedures and the doctors and nurses who treat them will relax together.  It will help patients to relax to know that they are not alone in their discomfort and fears.  And with the doctor and nurses there, the patients can get to know them rather than having people they barely know cut into them, let alone treat them.  So this is a possible side benefit if it can be set up to allow for this.

Conclusion:  Mental and physical relaxation are needed to advance healing.  Patients and those that treat them can both benefit as a positively thinking relaxed person has their immune system function normally, while to my knowledge, a stressed person will have a weakened immune system.  So is this a good idea?  Can this truly help patients and thus make it worth the cost?  Maybe hospitals can use it to garner extra revenue as part of pre-emptive treatment and thus help patients boost their immune systems so they can avoid needing to go to the doctor.  Who knows, but if I owned a hospital, I would add a spa in it along with yoga, tai chi and similar relaxation and meditative components so as to insure the health and happiness of patients.

Issue 634 Recycle Fibers July 15, 2015

So all that lint from the dryer is wasted in my opinion.  Is there something we can do with it?

Can it be recycled?:  Lint from natural and unnatural fibers can possibly be used to make new fibers to make clothing or other woven together materials like carpets.  As such it would be cheaper to make clothes, rugs and the like simply because of the fact that it is a recycled material and not have to be harvested from a plant, animal or made in a factory.  Additionally, human hair and animal fur from barber shops or from our pets can also potentially be used.  Basically, it would be sanitized, then spun together with possibly some form of glue to keep the small component fibers together, dyed to give it the appropriate coloring and finally made into a product. I think people would be sort of squeamish about the clothing, but a rug would potentially work or blinds, or maybe the fibers compressed into a solid block to make sandals or parts of furniture to replace hard woods. What could we do potentially with this wasted material?

Conclusion:  I believe in recycling as much as possible. There is no reason to throw away plastic in regular trash when it can be recycled, so why throw out fibers in the form of lint or hair clippings when it can be remade or reused in another way.  If we are going to live more cheaply, and live more in harmony with our planet, then we go to start looking at things in a different way.

Issue 633 Food Parks July 14, 2015

So this is a concept where parks and food meet.  Sounds strange, but allow me to explain.

The idea:  Basically, rather than a traditional park that simply looks nice and is nice to relax in, why not add in edible plants.  As such there would be fruit trees like apple, berry bushes, and naturally growing edible plants.  At places where you can relax and sit down in the park there could be trellises or other barriers that act as a base for vine based fruits like grapes.  Basically, nearly every plant in the park is edible.

Additionally, there will be a stream and/or a lake in the park for people to fish for well "fish".  Also, slingshots can be rented out to hunt small game, like squirrels and birds.  But you are probably wondering about the purpose of this.  Read on to find out.

Purpose:  I was inspired by the idea of urban foraging where people could make a meal out of edible plants that grow naturally in urban environments like in the city such as dandelions.  As such, I wanted to take that idea and make it more purposeful with a real park dedicated toward people being able to harvest food themselves without going to the supermarket.  I thought that it could aid the poor, those on a budget and those who value naturally grown food to gather food to fend for themselves.  So this concept would need free entry, and possibly paid classes to coach people on cooking with these natural ingredients (which means fire pits for cooking or grills).  Of course this means, with respect to the animals, they would teach people how to cook with bugs, the small game killed by the slingshots, and the fish caught while fishing.  Therefore food prep would be taught as well, which is a useful skill while cooking foods that you may normally never prepare yourself.  Obviously teaching how to cook with every part of the plant or animal would be necessary as waste is the last thing needed here and the leftovers can be composted to be used later as natural fertilizer. It is important to note that food sustainability will be taught as well, which means people will only be allowed to take/eat what they need only, which teaches people responsibility to the environment and to their fellow man.  Basically a cheap meal prepared by natural ingredients in a pseudo natural environment.

Conclusion:  Does this idea have merit?  Would you risk having an apple fall on your head in a park if it meant you could eat the apple?  I personally think it would be fun, but that is because it is my idea.  Hope I inspired you a little and see you next time.

Issue 632 It's Your Property July 13, 2015

We now know from last Friday's issue that property is a right and that government owning it is a bad thing.  But what does it mean to have property rights?  

What you can do with your Property:

1) Sell it:  You can sell your property to anyone you want. Additionally you can rent it out as well.  As such, you can make a profit on your own property.

2) Buy it: Since you can sell it, you can also acquire more property.  There is no limit to the amount of property that you can own.  And this is not just houses, but items, businesses and your own inventions as well.

3) Improve it/Change it: If you have a house, and add a new addition, then you have changed the value of the land and made it (hopefully) more livable.  Or you can cut away at it and build something new on your property.  So you can alter your property as you see fit.

4) Mortgage it:  You can put up your property as collateral for money.  As such, your house, car, or anything you own with value can be used as collateral to acquire a loan.  

Conclusion:  These are the basics of what you can do with your property.  If you want to build a house out of beer cans, then you can.  Your property is yours and thus you can and should be able to treat it in any way you see fit.  If you want it as a dumping ground for trash, then that is your prerogative.  Some localities however block the ability to do anything you want and even tax you if the value of the land improves, which in turn violates your rights.  As such, there is pushback on who can do what with their property, but ultimately, so long as we keep government in check and respect each other’s own rights and privileges, then our property is ours to do with as we please.

Issue 631 Property rights under big government July 10, 2015

In the United States people are allowed to own their own property (for now at least).  But what would it look like if the government owned the land?  Read on to find out.

Big government control:  To understand what would happen we only need to look to the past.  In Europe under Kings and Queens, or even in communist societies, the government owned all the land and its resources.  Kings and Queens would give the land away to those that curried their favor, but if they displeased the king and queen, the land could be taken back at any time.  Under communist rule, land was equally distributed to an extent with those who played the system being able to get more land than the common person.

Today it would be the same thing.  Government would own the land and then distribute it in a way they saw fit.  However, if you fell out of favor with the government or you were just in the way, they could and would take the land back to accomplish whatever their goals are.  Understand that government is not benevolent, and that everything comes with a cost.  In this case, you cannot speak out against the government, or act against their interests or else they will make you homeless. Basically they can suppress your rights by threatening to take all your property away.

Conclusion:  Property is a right that is given to us under the Constitution under the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment.  The U.S. Constitution even makes it so that Congress can punish certain crimes like piracy which is typically a crime against property.  So the U.S. is unique.  But, people with respect to ideas and good intentions gone bad are not.  Slowly but surely we are reinterpreting our constitution which results in things like Kilo Vs. New London where people's property was taken and given to someone else because government thought the new property owner would improve the land (which they did not do).   As such, be cautious and remember the abuses that can result if the government should gain full control over property.

Issue 630 Does the Constitution Protect Us?! July 9, 2015

Well the obvious answer is yes, but there is conditions that makes sure that it does.  Do you know these conditions?  Well, you will now.

The Conditions:

1)  Know it:  This means that you actually have to read the Constitution.  If you do not know what it says then how do you know when and where you are protected.  This is an essential first step.

2) Understand it:  This means you got to know what it is your reading.  As such, when there are exceptions if any.  The history behind each clause and how it is still applicable today.  By doing so you can make sure that you are secure from illegal harm by the government.  For example, the U.S. Constitution says in the 4th Amendment:

 "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It means that your cellphone texts and emails are also protected as that is part of the papers and effects protections.  As such they cannot look at them without either your permission or a warrant.

3) Accept its Consequences:  Our Constitution makes no distinctions on what rights are protected.  As such, hate speech, and stupid speech are both protected by the 1st Amendment.  Likewise, churches that we disagree with like the Westboro Baptist Church are protected despite them preaching hate.  These are the consequences that burden us, but must be accepted for if we can silence one person by law, then all can be silenced.

4) Enforce it:  Enforcement means living life through its lens.  So if you know the government is doing something that is illegal constitutionally, then you must speak out or else the government may get away with it.

Conclusion:  If these steps are followed, then we will be protected by a simple paper document.  For you see, words on paper means nothing without the knowledge, and the wisdom to know, understand, accept and enforce them.

Issue 629 Approach History With an Open Mind July 8, 2015

History is something we share.  It does not belong to any single one person as much as we like to think so.  But we try to twist history at times because of ego, or our desire to control it.  What do I mean?  Read on to find out.

Dividing history:  History is a human connection that we all share.  However, we sometimes try to improve it, or change it.  As such we have things like Black American History, Jewish American History and so on and so forth.  But the truth remains, in each of those histories, American is in them.  That is the connection with respect to our American history.  This is not to say you should not study from different perspectives, but do not change history to suit one's needs, such as the types of slavery, who enslaved who, do not hide the hard, but sad truths involved. If we do change history to suit an agenda, then the history that we share will fail to unite us.  For example, I am white, but two of my biggest American heroes are Fredrick Douglas, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.   They are black, but they are American before being a skin color.  As such, if we keep in mind that we share our history and our identity as Americans, or even as people of Earth, then we can begin making those connections that we are all cut from the same cloth.  That we are all fundamentally one people who must and will learn from each other.

Conclusion:  History can either unite or divide us.  But if we can keep an open mind and see that we all share it as we learn from it, then and only then can we progress forward as a people and surpass our former selves generation by generation.  It is our human connection, and we must always be willing to learn from our past.

Issue 628 Living Wills and Health Proxy's July 7, 2015

A Living Will is a form of Will for a person who is still alive but unable to speak on behalf of themselves.  In this case, a proxy is appointed for the individual to carry out said Will.  But what are the implications of this?  Let us discuss.

Living Will and its implication:  Typically a Living Will is associated with healthcare, such as a do not resuscitate clause if the person dies on the table.  As such, if a person writes a Living Will they could in effect be signing over their right to life to someone else.  Living Wills may apply in any area where the person is alive but incapable of thinking for themselves (let alone responding) to carry out their own decisions.  So if a person is in a vegetative state which they may or may not come out of, if your living will decides that you request assisted suicide while in such a condition, then they will carry it out despite you possibly being trapped in your own body.  As such, even if you may be able to live normally again, or function in general, you are morally choosing to die.  Likewise we have the opposite.  If your body is so broken, that you will never live a normal life again, but your Living Will says save me, then they will and thus you must now live with a destroyed body and all the challenges that come with it.  Morally speaking you are either deciding to commit suicide or to warp the lives of your loved ones by living and making them share in a burden they may not be prepared for.  

Those who carry out the Will:  Now we add in the added issues of the people who carry out the Wills.  The Proxy has to make a moral decision to let a person they care about die.  Also, this means the doctors or other medical professionals who are trained to try and save people must now stand by and watch the person die.  In the case of an assisted suicide, they must in effect become a murderer to kill a person.  This is made even more burdensome by the very notion that if the person is in a vegetative State, or similar, in which the person could wake up and live normally, then they are killing a person by their own will who may get "better" with time.  Let us also not forget that the family can look upon the proxy as a villain at this point for letting their family member die.  All this takes a mental toll on individuals, both family and otherwise which a person must be willing to grapple with when placing this burden on them.  

Conclusion:  Living Wills have their purpose, but they come with moral and even ethical implications attached for all involved.  This is something to remember when giving the authority of your own life over to someone else.

Issue 627 Police order of Battle July 6, 2015

Here we talk about how police may look like if it followed a more traditional, more conservative line up.  Let us discuss.

Local PD:  Local Police would consist of two groups.  The first group is a community watch group that looks out for signs of trouble and reports in any suspicious activities to the authorities.  The second group is the professionals who investigate and do the arrests.  Simple right.  Also, all involved must take an exam that demonstrates they know the Constitution with an emphasis on the laws regarding property and free speech rights and knowledge of civil law like theft, and similar crimes indicative to their area they will serve. The second group would obviously have formal training to investigate and perform arrests as well.   Also, in both cases the members of these two groups must have at least 50% membership from the town or community they live in, and another 25% may be allowed from up to two towns away. 

 Members will be responsible to the community itself, thus once training is complete, the community will decide if the person is good enough to become a police officer with their pay done in a similar manner to schools or fire departments.  So the community will put in a specified amount of money per year and maybe donate goods and vehicles toward the police so that they can maintain themselves and their lives.  A board of citizens (elected by the community) that are not members of the police/watch and have no family relations to them will govern the donations and aid in procuring equipment.  This same board will also deal with all criminal law with respect to introducing laws to the community that are proposed by the police and watch groups, with the community holding referendums to enact those laws or amend already existing laws. Thus, murder, assault, sexual assault, theft, traffic, reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter and property law, will be dealt with at the community level exclusively and in a community court house (all other laws and oversight will be governed at higher levels of government).  In order to maintain harmony with neighboring towns, the community boards will gather together to look to harmonize laws as much as possible.

 For both these groups it will also be encouraged that they interact with the people of the community as much as possible.  So if there is a football game, the cops may be allowed to participate if they so choose while on patrol.  As such it will require the use of more foot patrols. A reconnection with the community is key to maintain relations and ensure that people recognize that the police are members of the community too.

SWAT:  This category is the specialists.  They are recruited from the professionals in the second group to do specialist jobs and serve entire geographic areas, with their equipment and training specialized to match.  These jobs including police divers, dog handlers, professional instructors, and the like.  A special group within this one will handle hostage rescue, and dealing with criminals whose weapons and lethality exceed that of the regular police. So aside from these special roles, they will have no further function. (Note: in case of riots, police and watch members, under the direction of SWAT leadership will gather from multiple communities to handle the situation if the situation calls for it).

Conclusion:  This is a hypothetical organization if we were to redo our police departments.  In fact, in the past, the same community watch members would also serve as fire fighters or other unique roles in the community.  So this is, to say the least, not out of the realm of possibility.  So before we talk about nationalizing police, or other reforms, let us talk about bringing the police and community back together and remove the government's involvement as much as possible so that police no longer have politicians breathing down their backs and forcing them to do things that they are constitutionally not allowed to do (like militarizing).  

Issue 626 The police I know July 3, 2015

I just want to write this to let everyone know that it is not the cops that are the problem.  It is the system that is the problem.  As such I have a few things to say.

The two key problems hurting police:  The first problem is that when the police are not taught the actual Constitution in the United States, but are instead taught case law.  This means that even if a law or action is unconstitutional, the police will not know it for they have never read the actual Constitution as part of their training.  If they did, then they could refuse that order or not enforce a law as it could be considered unlawful. 

As to the other key problem.  Police used to be able to interact with the community more.  They could stop in the middle of their patrols on foot and then play a game of football with the kids in the community.  In short they were more a part of the community as opposed to now where many are not allowed to interact in this manner anymore or it is discouraged in favor of patrol cars.  Thankfully in my community, off duty police try and do participate in community activities which does help, but my community seems to be the exception and not the rule if we are to believe the media.

Who are the police:  The police are people like everyone else who have taken a special job within the community to protect us from elements that would seek to do people harm.  Police make every attempt to be a part of the community and are generally good people.  Sure we get a few arrogant people in this fraternity, but they deserve our respect regardless.  So please remember, they really don't want to bother anyone, or have to arrest anyone, as they would prefer everyone respecting each other and getting along.

Conclusion:  So there you have it.  Two key areas I believe are hurting police and who I see the police as.  Believe me or not, that is up to you.  However, I will always say God Bless the police.

Issue 625 The Bubba Effect July 2, 2015

So there seems to be a reaction by people to the military equipment used by police.  Allow me to explain.

What is apparently occurring:  According to Glenn Beck and some conservative commentators, there is something called the bubba effect.  This "effect is the idea in people’s heads that if they will not or cannot protect me, then I will protect myself."  So this is being spurred by the fact that the police are militarizing with heavy weapons and equipment, and on the opposing side is the protestors with everyday people stuck in the middle.  As such, people in the middle which include the fearful and open carry people amongst others want to now protect themselves from both.  However, what is possibly more worrisome is the fact that as police guns get bigger, some people who want to protect themselves also try to get their hands on bigger and better guns.  And then to compound the issue, it is possible that criminals will now do the same to possibly take on the police as well, which compounds the idea that the middle people are not safe spurring to arm themselves even more.   If the bubba effect continues it could result in a fatal shooting at some point (Beck's biggest fear) which in turn would lead to larger riots, and violence.

Conclusion:  This is very frightful as if it is true, we are looking at a potential powder cage in the making.  People feeling unsafe with two powerful opposing groups’ leads to irrational thought.  So, with this as my warning as I am leaning on believing in this, look out, take the right steps to protect yourself if you feel it is necessary, but do not become the person that causes the chaos.

Issue 624 Do we need SWAT? July 1, 2015

So, do we really need SWAT (special weapon and tactics) teams?  Let us discuss.

SWAT:  SWAT teams are the teams who are the ones conducting the thousands of raids per year.  They go in by breaking down doors and accomplish their mission.  But, does the EPA, or the department of education need SWAT teams?  You are like, they don't have teams!  But alas, they do.  In fact in addition to the 88,000 raids in 2014 and the number rising this year in 2015, SWAT teams are being deployed everywhere including nowhere towns with populations of 300 or less.  As such, they are being used to issue arrest warrants, and other jobs that are frankly in this commentator's opinion very silly and the force used is excessive.

Teams like SWAT are supposed to be used in hostage rescue situations and where criminals are armed in such a way that normal police are out matched.  However, people want a false sense of security, and thus the SWAT teams expansion into areas that regular police normally do.  Issuing of warrants, daylight searches against non-violent offenders, visiting a witnesses or a suspect's homes when retaliation is not expected in the slightest, which are all general officer duties, have been turned over to SWAT.  Frankly, these duties should be returned to regular officers, and SWAT should be reserved for hostage rescue, riots, special teams for bomb disposal, and where their military equipment is needed to take on heavily armed criminals like a gang, the mob or even terrorists.  So we need SWAT, but not in the way they are being used now.

Conclusion:  SWAT teams if used correctly are an asset that protects other police and civilians from being harmed.  But, our desire for security has caused them to be used to do things beyond the scope of their job description and thus place them, other officers and regular people in danger.  The department of education, the EPA and similar do not need SWAT teams, and small towns do not need them unless it is one team serving an entire geographical area.  As such, we need SWAT, but they just need to be used in the right capacity again.