Taking 2 weeks off

So I got some friends who went out of town.  And now I have the privilege of dog sitting three big puppies (well one's a tiny puppy and the other two are big kahunas).  So I'll be preoccupied and thus have little time to write or post.  As such, I'll see you all in two weeks.  Feel free to catch up on posts you may have missed :)

Flexible Figures

Another Economist article with a subtitle of "Dynamic Pricing" it discusses applying electronic price displays and constant price updates to retail stores and its impact.  Here is what it entails.

So basically, stores would use electronic displays to show the prices of their goods.  This obviously eliminates the need for people to run around replacing price displays and obviously saves time and paper.  However this is not all it does.  It allows stores to adjust their prices every few hours or even every few minutes.  Apparently prices are affected by things like the time of day, weather, competitor’s sales and any other condition imaginable.  As such a store can pinpoint when a discount is most needed to push the sales of certain goods, and as such some sales can last hours as opposed to days.  In effect the electronic pricing displays smooth demand by adjusting prices based on want and need.  This allows the rich to pay more as they may come in during specific times of the day, or buy certain goods more regularly during certain events while the poor will save money as they require cheaper prices thus prices will adjust to move sales to accommodate them.  However this is still expensive for stores to do in the short term and thus will, once it becomes more affordable switch over. 

In the meantime other businesses have embraced the model.  Sports events, concerts, zoos and similar that all sell tickets can and have used this technology of constant price adjustment to exploit demand for high value tickets while stimulating people to buy unwanted tickets by making those ones cheaper.  Thus demand is stimulated in one event or part of a concert hall while the other is curbed thus ensuring more seats are filled and maximizing profit.   Toll booths too can and have used this technology to adjust their prices every five minutes to get drivers to keep moving so as to avoid a higher price.  Airlines already use this too by charging more for frequent flyers due to thinking that trips are job related.  (Even Amazon adjusts their prices every hour).

There is a risk however as Uber found out the hard way.  Their reputation was damaged when their prices shot up 8 fold during and post hurricane event.  People saw it as price gauging even though it was merely them adjusting for all the variables that affect supply and demand for their services.  As such they have capped their cost increases to 3.5% maximum during such events.  

People also learn to play this price game as some people will go to internet cafes or areas which are considered poor and buy an item thus fooling the algorithms put in place.  Truth be told. I have no problem with this as it means people will go and do business in less affluent areas and thus stimulate that area’s economy buy also buying local goods.

Final Thought:  This is a great idea as people can save more money and businesses maximize profits thus keeping them in business in the first place.  Sure there are people who may not like being charged more which is why balance is needed, but the advantages in savings for businesses and people as a whole is too much to pass up.  

Gender and Politics/Society

When I was growing up, gender meant something very different than what it does today.  Today it means sexual orientation, a person’s attraction to others and how that all manifests.  But what I learned back in school is that it was a description of people’s masculine and feminine roles in society.  That these roles were defined by society itself from generation to generation.  However the term is often used in place of describing a person’s physical sex as well as orientation.  Is this a good development?  What impact does it have?  Here is my opinion.

Between people of various genders and orientations wanting to be treated equal, to write the wrongs of the past and people lacking knowledge of people with other sexual orientations due to their suppression by religious and other majority communities we have created the modern version for the definition of gender.  It now is all encompassing for all people of all forms of sexual attraction with the word sex, simply meaning sex as opposed to defining if a part of a species is male or female.  To me this has resulted in a political class of individuals who have been repressed in the past that have joined together to make a society where it is acceptable to be a particular gender without the dirty or confused looks.  Basically, they reclassify gender to its current definition so that they could have a say in politics and use our politicians want for power and need to use victims against them (good show LGBT community, put the screws to them).  At the same time, references to gender that segment society are slowly being eliminated.  For instance, the "Founding Fathers" are now in text books called the "Founders" or Founders of America, eliminating the term Father and its traditional gender role.  The result of this is a society that does not see gender at all, and potentially will go the ways of the Ancient Greeks and Romans with respect to having sexual relations (basically have fun with whoever you like).  

Is this a bad thing?  Not really.  For one we eliminate a form of prejudice and stigmas that have been in place for thousands of years that have led to the persecution of individuals.  Also, eliminating some (perhaps not all) gender identity references can lead to a society where jobs, family roles, and more are not defined by societal standards, and instead fit the family unit no matter what form it may take (the Supreme Court Ruling on Gay marriage helped this along).  I think terms that define what people prefer will develop further as scientists, and the communities that embrace their gender identities seek to define who they are in the same way people try to classify their ideologies.  But are they going to fast?  I think so.  The issue over public bathrooms, showers and changing rooms is a big example and has caused a great deal of trouble.  Not because men, women and others get changed or release themselves in the same location, but because there are people who will abuse this.  People like Voyeurs, Rapists, or idiot collage kids have used this to attack people at worst or to take advantage of the situation at best.  Sure desensitizing people to other people’s bodies in the same way that violent video games desensitize youth to violence can be a benefit, but when people abuse the privilege of a public setting, then steps must be taken. 

As such where can we take safer steps to make a change that all of society will be ready to take? So maybe elementary to middle school bathrooms, and sports teams should be the first on the list for bathroom/changing room changes and even desegregating sports teams based on girls and boys teams to make them all-inclusive and ensure that children of all sexual orientations get to play (and I mean all people who want to play, not just the team’s top players).  Children should be focused on first because they learn their behavior from adults and Middle Schools/middle grades are when sexual differences begin to be noticed more.  Stores can help by eliminating male and female sections/marketing and re-branding items based on simply style or want (kind of like what Target Stores did).  Desensitizing students by having a sex education course talk about everything, and I mean everything, that has to do with people of various genders having sex, paying for sex and of course reproduction and safe practices to prevent diseases/pregnancy may become a must if this continues (some European countries start their children in these courses in fourth grade).  Other areas of gender elimination or redefinition may continue to occur as well (but I think that steps should be taken in this so as not to mistakenly alter history as has been accidentally done in the past when revisions to terminology have been made in history books as this can cause problems in the future).

Final Thought:  Basically I am OK with the way society is heading with respect to gender despite my personally being religious and my being a straight male.  I do believe we may be going too fast with respect to bathrooms, public showers and changing rooms, but typically liberals want to rush things along while conservative minded people like myself favor slow progress where people accept things over time.  I personally think the sex education courses should do the aforementioned but also include health and wellness type classes so that all aspects of the body are learned including how exercise, food, drugs and diseases affect the body and how to basically protect, diagnose and cure yourself.  But hell, that is just me. Also, what is done is done.  The bathroom changes cannot be taken back and society will adjust with time to the point where we may have public baths like old school Japan (yea, the hot springs and such were mixed bathing).  So at this point it is a waiting game to see what is in store for us and our society.

Can Organizations Become independent like Countries?

So can they?  Can an organization like a business or a charity become independent like a country?  In the past this was not the case, but now given the resources and power people have it is.  Allow me to explain.

So in the past sovereignty and power were concentrated in physical property and thus, whoever controlled that physical wealth controlled all who lived on it.  However with time and technology this changed.  Property and wealth stopped being 100% physical and thus a king’s army or a countries military could no longer enforce their control via force.  The internet was the final death toll for countries consolidation of power.  Now disparate people can use the internet to generate wealth and power without need for permissions from a government.  The reason for this is that with the internet we merely have to pay for access and the rest comes free.  So a business need not need a store front, or a license to sell anymore.  Basically the internet created intangible property that is almost impossible to control or govern.  From their it was only a matter of time before things shifted and people began banding together via businesses, ideas, ideologies and religions into cohesive groups via this boarder less world created via IT.  But even then it was not complete until terrorists actually showed us the way, the Internet’s darker half.  They used the net to recruit, plan and act all in accordance to their own will and identity.  Now while we try to shut them down, people looked at how they organized and began to mimic it, but instead for the betterment of man.  As such, peaceful people can organize peaceful religions into online communities that span boarders.  The people who govern the internet itself are not governments anymore either, but instead various groups who meet and discuss how to maintain, enhance and preserve the internet and what it gives us.  Governments cannot readily control all these private groups because they are IT developers, businesses, entrepreneurs and more that span across multiple countries.  As such a single country cannot control all these groups to exert their influence.  They cannot go in and arrest them all if literally thousands of groups the world over based in over 50 plus different countries are all working together to overcome a single country that seeks to become a tyrant.  Not only that, there will always be a replacement.  As such, if a country is a Dragon hording treasure, the people who live, work and protect the internet are snakes who can never be slayed all at once and will always breed another to take their place.

Final Thought:  Essentially the internet created so many communities of people that they can amass equal or greater resources than that of a single country or even multiple countries as they can collect all the information and wealth they have in a single or multiple places making them practicably invincible.  These groups can function in any way they choose by mimicking a government itself or just dedicating themselves to a single task all the while coordinating themselves almost seamlessly.  They are a future where boarders do not exist and everyone can be a king of their own country.

Bernie Sanders: Betrayal or Honor?

Did Bernie Sanders betray his supporters?  Is he a hypocrite now for supporting Hillary Clinton, a proven dishonest politician?  Here are my thoughts.

While I did not support Bernie Sanders, I did find his honesty refreshing.  He told you exactly what he was and what he was about.  That is why so many people found it easy to support him.  But is he a hypocrite?  No, I thought he was at first for supporting Hillary, but he gave his word to support Hillary Clinton if she was to get the nomination.  He was true to his word.  But he knew he was forced out.  Sanders knew he was being pushed out by the corrupt forces in his own party, but he kept his word to maintain his integrity and his honor.  As such he fall on his sword.

Final Thought:  I feel bad for Bernie Sanders.  He did not deserve this, and I cannot imagine how much pain mentally he had to go through to support Clinton.  However he did it and what's done is done.  Hillary is the nominee and aspects of his promises will be done in Hillary's presidency assuming she manages to win with yet another scandal hanging over her head.  I may not agree with what Bernie Sanders thinks politically, but at the end of the day you have no choice but to respect him. (Note: He did get a private jet from the DNC though).

Political Debate Scheduling issues

There is a problem with the upcoming presidential debates.  They are all scheduled on the same day as major sporting events.  So why is this a problem?

The problem is that it reduces viewership of the debates and thus can swing the election from one side to the other.  Discounting the fact that people are going to purposefully miss such an important debate, let alone three due to a sporting event, this could very well mean that either Trump or Hillary would win depending on whose numbers are higher at the time.  Trump even went as far as claiming that it was electioneering based on how the Democratic Presidential debates were held on Saturdays when viewership would be lowest so as to sabotage Bernie Sanders.  Needless to say this has both political campaigns arguing on if and when to change the dates.

Final Thought:  Well I think the debate dates should be changed and be as close as possible to Election Day as possible.  Basically keep it all fresh in the minds of everyone of what each candidate represents.  I think the debate days will be changed and both candidates’ campaigns will have a hell of a time doing so.  And I think these debates will be very fun to watch.

The Khan family VS. Trump

Khizr and Ghazala Khan are the proud parents of a United States soldier who sadly was killed over in Iraq.  They were invited to speak at the DNC as one of many guest speakers.  There speech however included criticism of Trump saying that he probably has not read the United States Constitution, and that under a President Trump their son would not have been allowed to serve citing Trumps idea for a ban on the visitation rights of Muslims and travel into the United States.  Trump fired back targeting Mrs. Khan saying how she kept quiet during the speech potentially due to her being a Muslim Woman and not being allowed to speak.  This was a mistake as Mrs. Khan was quoted soon after that she did not speak because she was filled with emotion as a picture of her son was being displayed and upon seeing her sons’ picture she could not speak without letting all her grief flow out.  Trump screwed up as he basically attacked a Gold Star Mom (the mother of a member of our military) which has many veterans and other groups condemning his comments as stupid and pathetic.  Mr. Trump has so far not taken back any of his statements and has buckled down.

Final Thought:  As we all know, Donald Trump is abrasive, difficult to deal with, and of course 100% politically incorrect.  Should he have reacted?  Yes, but in a way that respected the family of our armed forces.  He has been quoted however saying that he respects Captain Khan who was killed and his service to the country.  If Trump really wanted to answer in a good way, he should have thanked the family for raising a good son and an honorable soldier, and then left it alone.  This never should have gotten this far and potentially sets a precedent that everyone is fair game to be attacked or counter attacked in this election cycle.

DNC and Russian Hackers

As mentioned in yesterday's article, Russian Hackers got into emails passed between the Democratic Party leadership and the Hillary Clinton campaign.  In these emails it revealed a scheme to remove Bernie Sanders from the race.  Obviously this pissed off a lot of voters in the Democratic Party and has a lot of voters either switching sides, to other candidates like Trump or just not voting at all.  But this is not the biggest issue that comes from this.

These Russian hackers potentially work for the Russian Government.  As such Russia is supporting Donald Trump in the election.  This is all left to theory, but it is my guess that they may find Donald Trump to be a deal maker and thus more likely to end the current proxy war between the United States and Russia going on in Syria with respect to ISIS/ISIL.  But why does Russia want this to end?  Simple, ISIS/ISIL are Sunni Muslim while Russia's allies are Shiite Muslim (Syria and Iran) and Russia can finally build their oil pipeline through the upper part of the Middle East and then reap the economic benefits.  Economic benefits they need as their economy is still not exactly stable.  Additionally Trump does not mind this outside manipulation and influence as it benefits him directly with him even jokingly calling for Russia to release more emails that would make Hillary look bad (something that Trump has taken flack for saying).  And WikiLeaks is going to apparently release more emails as well which may further hurt the Clinton campaign.  

Final Thought:  Do you find it as disturbing as I do that a foreign country is manipulating our elections?  Well if you do not, then you should think again as this means our government will stop being our own.  We could potentially get a puppet President in office and we would stupidly vote them in (Cough think Syria's President Cough Cough).  This is a dangerous situation and we must tread carefully with our want to know what else Hillary Clinton has lied about and the potential of a President Trump.

DNC Reaction

OK we all had a weekend to digest the Democratic national convention and while the presentation was good via excellent speakers, Hillary was overshadowed according to the pundits (Hers was one of the few speeches I missed).  But here is my analysis with some pundits analysis mixed in to make up for what I was missing.

So every speaker at the convention that I saw was great and that includes Michelle Obama and of course President Obama and former President Bill Clinton.  The crowd got swept up in the speeches and it humanized Hillary Clinton.  This was a necessary component as she is often seen as simply a cut throat politician.  Bernie Sanders though was booed by the crowed as he threw his support behind Hillary.  I think this is in part due to the honesty that Bernie represents in politics even if you do not agree with his politics, while Hillary is viewed as a liar and a cheat.  Even worse Russian Hackers released emails that showed that Hillary and the rest of the DNC conspired to remove Bernie from the race.  This is a black mark on Hillary and her campaign let alone the DNC.  This will make the DNC look like it is subverting the Democratic process even though political parties are technically not officially part of the election.  Selections of candidates have always been decided by the party heads and it is only recent that political parties allow any sort of Democratic control by its members.  

Final Thought:  Overall it was all about clinching Hillary as the nominee as the first woman candidate for President in a major political party.  It was all about making her look less like a scheming politician and more of a human being with family values and a family (dysfunctional though they may be).  However hard liners in her party criticize her choice for Vice President saying he is too far to the middle, but this is a calculated move to appeal to the right in the general election especially voters who are disenfranchised by Donald Trump.  However, despite the success of the convention, the DNC and Hillary's campaign is bleeding money, while Trump is spending modest sums.  This may come down to who can out last who in with respect to funding so as to avoid fizzling out.

Hillary's VP: Who is Tim Kaine

Senator Tim Kaine was chosen as Hillary Clinton's running mate.  The man is a Harvard law graduate, attorney and a Senator since 2012.  Additionally he served as Mayor of Richmond Virginia, and lieutenant governor and then Governor of Virginia as well.  So who is he?

For one he is an environmentalist and a believer in climate change even going so far as preserving over 400,000 acres of land.  He signed legislation banning smoking on government property and in restaurants in Virginia.  He also expanded mental health care access in Virginia after the Virginia tech shootings and has it so that anyone involuntarily committed cannot get a firearm.  As Virginia's governor he made tough decisions on cutting spending to meet that State's requirements on balancing the budgets.  He also proposed a $4 billion in tax increases but none of these passed.  He also served as Democratic national committee chair from 2009 to 2011.  He served as a member on the armed services committee, committee on budget, and committee on foreign relations while serving in Congress.  While in the Senate he serves on numerous other committees and sub committees relating to national security and power projection including "Emerging threats and Capabilities", "Sea power" and also served on committees relating to counter terrorism in Parts of Asia and trade.  Basically this guy has experience in areas that Hillary Clinton may be lacking in and more.

Final Thought:  Senator Kaine is actually somewhat conservative.  He is personally against abortion, but supports Roe vs Wade.  So he basically does not want the Federal government to be making reproductive decisions but does support some restrictions like parental involvement for minors.  Also, he is in favor of LGBT community rights such as gay marriage (something I am not opposed to either).  Overall he is more middle of the road than Hillary Clinton and more likely to compromise on issues.  So a great choice by her to attract people who have not decided who they are voting for or are middle ground politically which normally would be turned off by Hillary's far left Progressiveness. 

Trump's VP: Who is Mike Pence

So Donald Trump chose Governor Mike Pence of Indiana to be his running mate.  Before that he represented Indiana's 2nd and 6th congressional districts from 2001 to 2013, before being elected Governor in 2013, a position he has held since.  But what does he stand for?

He is a supporter of the TEA Party and their support for limiting the size of government, taxes, and government spending.  He has served on multiple committees in congress including the judiciary committee, small business committee, agriculture committee, international affairs committee and foreign affairs committee.  Basically he has a well-rounded background with respect to government experience and knows his way around Washington, hence this is the reason why Trump chose him.  Trump needed someone who could help him know how to work the mess that is Washington D.C.'s politics and it turns out that it is Governor Pence.  Likewise Pence is a TEA party guy just like Ted Cruz, and just like Cruz is against abortion, something that will appeal to the more conservative crowd of the Republican Party and the conservative groups in between.  He also opposed the Wall Street bailouts, opposed "card check" (something that would have eliminated the secret ballot for union votes) and called for a flat tax that would allow for people to keep more of their income.  Pence even voted for Earmark reform, for partial privatization of Social Security, and is in favor of free trade agreements.  Overall a very staunch conservative and his policies reflect that.

Final Thought:  To me he is a white Ted Cruz!  They share similar views and ideas on reform, and both support the TEA party and reform in Washington D.C.  Even their views on homosexuality and abortion are similar.  This man, Governor Pence was a great choice in making Trump more palatable to the Republican base and staunch conservatives.  

Trumps Acceptance Speech

Ok, so some of the wording in Trump's speech had me and other libertarians worried, those libertarians being John Stossel and Glenn Beck.  Basically something did not sit right and sounded very fascistic.

In the speech the words "I am the Law and Order candidate", “I am your voice", "I will fix the problems", "I will end the violence" were all used.  It felt very top down.  As if a President Trump would be akin to an emperor and order all our problems away.  That the people had nothing to do but do as they were told.  For libertarians like myself this is antithetical to our thinking.  A president to many of my ilk want a President to hold back the corruption and say "yes you the people will" and "I will empower you and protect your freedom".  But instead we got chants from the crowd saying "yes you will" with Trump being the "YOU" as the person to take care of everything.  Essentially we are chaining ourselves to someone as metaphorical slaves.

On top of the aforementioned, Trump said that he will not allow businesses to move overseas, a statement reiterated by Ryan Priebus (current head of the GOP) and some of Trump's children.  Basically a fascist policy of punishing businesses from going overseas (a sentiment shared with the Democratic Party to my knowledge).  Problem is, no law and no government is allowed to infringe upon a business's right to leave the country or to do any sort of business overseas.  This is based on the principle of tacit consent where if you do not like the laws in your home country you can move with the expectation of obeying the laws of the place you move too.  Basically you can choose which laws to follow by moving somewhere else.  But the way it sounds from Trump and the current RNC is that freedom will be taken away.

Final Thought:  These are the key points that made libertarians wonder if Trump is the lesser of two evils and if such a concept can be accepted in American politics anymore.  At the rate it is going, Hillary and Trump are both potentially equally as bad as each other (Hillary being as bad with respect to government takeovers of businesses, the economy and health care).  Hopefully me, Beck and Stossel are wrong and that those words are merely for the impact and not the policy, but words tend to have deeper meanings behind them.  I hope I am wrong.

RNC reaction

We have come a long way from the old school politics of backroom deals, or have we?  The Republican National Convention and this week's Democratic National Convention both give the illusion of choice with respect to which candidates are chosen to possibly lead.  However, like all Presidential picks, it is the party uplifting select members of the party and then having the core of the party choose who will represent them.  In this case it is Donald Trump.  Which basically means he was chosen because he can bring in more votes than the other potential candidates and thus a win for the Republican Party this November.

Like most conventions, the family of the candidate is used like a chess piece.  You need to humanize the candidate so that people know that despite being well off that they are family men and women and thus can emphasize with the little people.  Also, if you notice that the media made sure to place emphasis on the fact that Trump and his children did not use Teleprompters.  This in part is a dig at President Obama and at the same time to show that these kids and this potential President are special (not many people can memorize a 50 to 120 minute speech and then say it as well as they did).  

There were some well-deserved critics of some of the speakers though.  Governor Christie among others mocked Hillary, but this was neither the time nor the place to do so according to analysts at Fox news.  The analysts said that this is supposed to be a time to prop the candidate up and show support, not a time to attack.   Needless to say when President Bush and his family, along with Senator Cruz said they will not be supporting Donald Trump it caused a stir in the crowd, especially Cruz's speech which was all about being principled.  Cruz of course was mocked, but he is standing up to his principles and there should not be anything wrong with that.

Final Thought:  In my opinion, the RNC did what it normally does.  There was nothing unexpected that occurred at all during the event save Cruz's speech.  However Trumps acceptance speech for the nomination had some disturbing elements which I will be focusing on tomorrow.  Overall rating of the convention by me is a 5 out of 10.  It appealed to the base and people who are patriotic and that is it.

News overshadows News

It was an eventful and saddening weekend to say the least.  Thursday was a terror attack in France, then Friday was the coup in Turkey and then Sunday the Police being murdered in Baton Rouge.  With each incident the stories got overshadowed by one another in the media, even Trumps Vice presidential pick.  A cycle of attention flipping that seems to be never ending. Once Turkey's coup occurred the American media went silent on France, and then on Sunday they went silent on Turkey for the shooting of the police.  It goes to show you that when a news event occurs they are more concerned about ratings rather than the story that needs to be told.  All the events are important and should not overshadow one another in my opinion.  

This overshadowing I think plays into corporate greed and our attention spans.  The Media jumps from one event to another to keep people watching their ads. and entice more companies to buy ad space so that they make money.  Basically, the more attention grabbing stories will get all the focus because it is new and fresh. Thus  yesterday’s story becomes just that, yesterdays.  I find the lack of analysis annoying.  I want more details and knowledge of potential impacts on my way of life and the world at large, but the media just wants you and your money.

Final Thought:  Reporters are supposed to be historians as the first recorders of history.  They have an obligation to wrench out every little detail and then confirm all the facts so that history does not get it wrong and that we can learn lessons from these incidents.  But news just flips from one subject to another to accommodate our short attention spans while filling the news media's pockets with cash.  It is upsetting to me because the victims and those sacrificed in these incidents, including potential future victims, deserve more from our media.  They deserve more from us so that we learn how to prevent evil from occurring again.

Louisiana Police Shooting

On Sunday, Louisiana had a different kind of terrorist incident.  In this case it was domestic terrorists who sought to murder police in reaction (as far as we know) to police/black American conflicts.  

Police (according to CNN) responded to a call that a man was walking while carrying a rifle along the highway in Baton Rouge.  Once the police arrived the suspect and potentially two other suspects opened fire killing three officers and wounding another three.  The firefight apparently took place in a known drug trafficking area at a spot where police regularly go to for coffee.  Police were even concerned about potential bombs and the area had to be cleared and secured.  

It seems people are forgetting that our Justice system is supposed to judge criminals, not vigilantes, but in this case the murderers are terrorists through and through.  They did not act for the sake of justice in my mind, but instead targeted cops who had nothing to do with any of the past cop vs black American shootings.  While real vigilantes fight for justice, this was cold blooded murder.

Final thought:  Baton Rouge is now being described as a powder keg ready to explode.  It seems some people want a race war and more police on black American incidents.  Our nation is burning and crying out for peace and true justice, not cold blooded murder.  Pray for the families who have lost their loved ones.  Pray that this situation gets resolved before it is too late. 

Turkey's Coup.

On Friday last week the Turkish military attempted a Coup to take control from its current President Erdogan.  The military sees itself as a protector of secularism and democracy in Turkey and this coup was a direct reaction to Erdogan's Islamist policies and his crackdown on democratic freedoms such as freedom of the press.  However the coup failed.

This coup was the fourth in Turkey's history and this one failed.  The military failed to gain public support or even support from the rest of the Turkish security and military forces.  As such Erdogan escaped and is now using the security forces he has to rout out all the members of the military and government that plotted the attempt.  According to the BBC over 6,000 have been arrested so far and more are expected to be as military and governmental facilities are taken back one by one.  Interestingly, the Turkish people see Erdogan as tyrannical and yet they did not back the militaries attempted takeover.  This could mean two things.  One, the Turkish people favor democracy and its ideals and thus trust their system and or two, there is enough refugees from Syria and other places that believe in Erdogan's version of Islamic politics that the Turkish citizens are intimidated into supporting Erdogan and his dictatorial policies.  That, or they are more fearful of Erdogan and what he can do to them if they support the other side.

Final Thought:  The situation obviously ended in failure for Turkey's military.  But the question is, did the United States and other countries back the wrong horse? (Yea America backed Erdogan).  Should we have supported Turkey's military coup as a means to save their democracy and the gateway to Europe rather than let the country fall into Islamic Fascism and become a terrorist haven?  In this only time will tell.

July 14th Terror Attack

Yet again France was attacked, this time on their Independence Day, Bastille Day.  What occurred was horrific.  A terrorist used a truck to slam into a crowd of people killing over 80 people.  The evil man responsible waited for the police to remove the vehicle barriers and disperse so that the truck could obtain its maximum killing potential.  As terrorist plowed through the crowed he began shooting from the crew cab as some heroic members of the crowed tried to grab on to remove the driver.  That terrorist was shot and killed by police.  It was planned and it will happen again.  

This is what we can expect from terrorists from now on.  They seek death and destruction alone and everyone is fair game.  Isis/Isil of course later claimed responsibility for this heinous attack on innocents.  These terror organizations have to be taken far more seriously and we have to be willing to get our hands dirtier.  These people use others as human shields and some of those "human shields" do so purposefully.  But because of how the Middle East is and its culture you cannot tell who is good or bad or even what side they will be on that given day.  Even Senator John McCain was embarrassed to find that he had taken a picture with a known Isis/Isil terrorist when he was in Syria.  These terrorists, Jihadists, flock from terror group to terror group seeking martyrdom and death.  People think we are taking this situation seriously, but in my opinion we are not.  Simply using drones to bomb the enemy will not work.  Also, according to a report from the "Blaze" show "For the Record" they are not even bombing all the targets of opportunity such as Isis/Isil headquarters in Dabiq Syria because it is in the middle of the city.  We Americans have become squeamish in this fight.

Final thought: France and other countries are suffering because of terrorism because we are failing to use the full resources available to strike back.  These people in France, or the terror attack last month in Istanbul or anywhere should not die needlessly because we fail to fight back.  We must mourn our lost loved ones and then strike in the same way a General Sherman or a General Patton would and rend the enemy asunder. 

Tax Returns: Public Knowledge!!!

Should how much we pay in taxes be made accessible to the public?  Let us review some of the arguments for and against.

The against unsurprisingly sights privacy.  You can see how much people pay along with how much they deduct for their debts, medical bills and even charity.  Some people don't want others to know they have high debts or medical bills as they feel embarrassed or they feel it may hurt them when interacting with their peers or potential job opportunities.  Basically, an employer, or group can see if you look like a liability more easily, or people can learn of your financial situation and try to take advantage of you.

Those in favor of release, it helps insure people pay by embarrassing people who try to dodge their taxes.  So it makes it harder to hide them siphoning money into a tax haven, and prevents corruption as all eyes are now on the people who earn so much yet contribute so little.  It basically leaves no place to hide for people with respect to paying their taxes.  Additionally, Sweden, Norway, and Finland all have public tax records.  Their reasoning according to the Economist is that it spurs continuous debate on the tax code to see that it is not too burdensome and that it helps people see if they are pulling their own weight with respect to contributing to the government in taxes.

Conclusion:  I find myself siding against people's privacy on this issue for government is something that is owned by the people and people do need to see who is pulling their weight with respect to contributions.  Not to mention embarrassing people into not having a tax haven and preventing corruption and tax dodging is an extreme benefit as we can boycott those people who try to usurp the system.  It even ensures that our politicians don't take bribes as we can see all the money in all of the bank accounts if they multiple and are able to ask where the additional money came from that they did not earn through their job.  Basically we can tackle corruption and tax dodgers all at once.

Drones and cops

For the first time a drone was used to kill a person in the United States by police.  In this case it was the active shooter who shot police in Dallas Texas.  This is history making.

Now I do not celebrate death of anyone including a murderer.  However, it is important to note that a drone (one typically used to disarm bombs) was used to detonate a bomb close enough to the suspect to kill him.  It is these kinds of situations where a shooter holds an advantageous position that drones in my opinion should be used in place of an officer.  If police went in to apprehend the shooter, the shooter would have opened fire, potentially killed more police, and the cops would have shot the shooter anyway.  In essence the shooter was most likely going to die anyway.  And this is exactly the kind of jobs drones excel at.  They perform the dull, the dirty and of course the DANGEROUS.  Once a suspect is determined to be nonnegotiable and is a danger to police and those around them, then a drone should be sent in to settle the matter.   It was excellent police work by cops, in my opinion, in order to protect themselves and other innocents in the area.  

This however sets a precedent where cops may begin deploying drones more readily to "end" incidents.  As such this particular incident must be looked at with close scrutiny to help develop standards and procedures for when drones may be used to exhibit deadly force.  If not developed carefully by using the Dallas shooter situation as a case study, then the drones may be abused with respect to lethal capacity.  Remember, drones were originally used in war as recon machines and to disarm bombs which correlated directly with what police do in various situations.  Now the drone’s capacity for killing is being explored as well.

Final Thought:  Like I said, we must be careful so as to not screw this up.  Cops know this was an extreme situation and they also know this is going to change how they operate.  So cops, and lawmakers are going to have to decide how to use this "tool" in future situations.  I am glad it exists for it will protect more lives, but the potential for abuse and misuse is still there.  Thankfully I have faith in police to do the right thing. 

Should Cops wear cameras?

After all the incidents and questions of innocence or guilt between Black Americans and cops I feel cops have to wear cameras.  Not to protect the people from the cops, but to protect the cops.

An audio/visual camera recording a cop constantly especially during an incident can mean all the difference in keeping a cop out of jail in these situations where onlookers can be confused or misinterpret what is going on between a cop and an individual they are interacting with.  But to do this, a 360 degree view is needed and really good microphones.  So we would be able to see what happened in the Ferguson shooting, or the shooting in Dallas from the cops’ point of view.  No longer will we question what a cop is saying or what the suspect is doing/saying as we will get a clearer picture of who and what cops are dealing with.  It even may help with investigators seeing things they may have missed and can also help in court cases with the claims of suspects and inmates who resist while being detained and the public having a conversation on uses of force by police.  Basically a camera and microphone covers all the bases with respect to covering the cops from being harmed in the public eye.

Police may even begin to announce what they are doing to clarify what is going on via these cameras so that people who do not know of police tactics or procedures can readily understand why cops do what they do.  Basically it will aid in clearing up misunderstandings.  Also, a 360 degree camera may aid in identifying witnesses and cameras in the back of police cars and on and in police vehicles will help with cases like with the death of Freddy Grey.  

Final Thought:  Cameras and microphones can give us a 360 degree view of the world around a police officer.  They can even identify where a particular sound is coming from and from whom via technology and with a heads up display can warn officers of approaching danger from behind.  We can protect our police and even eliminate the select minority of bad officers who abuse their power.  Let us end the confusion and the potential race war by giving our cops a tool to help protect themselves.

On the Cops and Shootings

This is entirely my opinion and mine alone as a reaction to the violence going on between Black Americans and Police.  

I am watching the news and all I am seeing right now is misunderstanding, hate and anger.  If the cops in question are guilty, then let the system work. We must have faith in a jury, people chosen for their neutrality to judge innocence or guilt based on facts and arguments.  Yes, I know historically Black Americans did not get fair trials and likewise evil men got away with murder of black Americans.  I know my history, but we live in a different America where whites and blacks serve on the same jury and a consensus has to be reached.  In other words whites and blacks on a jury have to be unanimous for such trails in judging innocence or guilt.  So why are we not relying on the jury to decide?  Why are people commuting acts of violence against cops who had nothing to do with the indecent in question?  Those officers should not have been murdered in Dallas Texas or other places in the country.  We are not in a race war, but if we continue down this path then we may just end up in one.  

The media is not helping at all in disarming this violence.  All they show is an indecent without adding context.  As such all we see on the media is a black man being killed without knowing the circumstances.  Is not the media supposed to help report what goes on and provide all the facts they know as the first recorders of history?  I think they are, but all I see is a commentator making up a play by play of a man being shot.

Final Thought:  I think Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would be crying.  I think he would be asking where is the love for each other that overcomes violence and hate.  But no, we stab each other in the back because of a perception that people are out to get Black Americans, when I don't think they are.  I think the officers are scared because a country is turning on them which makes them jumpy.  I think they are victims too of laws that force police into confrontation with people who commit what are known as victimless crimes which in my opinion should not be crimes at all.  Our country is in pain and we must try to remember what we learned from Jesus and reiterated through Dr. King, to solve hate with love, to solve injustice with justice.

Living the Milgram Experiment

The "Milgram experiment" (look it up, it’s interesting) was a series of tests done at Yale University to see how willing people are to Obey someone in authority.  In the tests, a man (who was actually an actor) was put in a booth, and the unknowing test subject was set up as a questioner.  The test subject would ask questions of the person in the booth and if the person in the booth got the questions wrong they would get shocked, with each wrong answer causing the shock to be worse than the last one.  Next to the questioner would be the authority figure.  As the test was conducted the questioner, at the urging of the person playing the authority figure would continue shocking the person in the booth even when the person in the booth begged for the test to be over due to the pain of the shocks they were receiving (the shocks were of course fake as the person in the booth is an actor, but the test subject has no knowledge of this).  At some point the actor would stop responding to indicate they were passed out, at which time the authority figure would urge more shocks because of the failure to respond to the questioning.  Our test subjects continued to shock the passed out person and then the person in the booth (our actor) let out a dramatic scream to indicate the test subject had shocked them to death.  

Surprisingly the test results show that we human beings have a tendency to listen to authority figures.  Of the 40 subjects, 26 administered the lethal dose, but all subjects in the course of the experiment at some point questioned the experiment and apparently exhibited emotional distress.  Milgram would repeat the experiment with some colleges around the world with similar results (he and his colleges even tried it in groups of people).  Basically the reason why the Germans obeyed the NAZI's is because of this psychological flaw that we have.  Now the question is, are we being told what to believe even by people who want the best for us?

I say yes.  President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and those in power have the same authority and position that many of the world’s greatest heroes and villains had.  When Obama says Republicans are bad, how many think long enough to question him?  When Trump says to ban Muslims for a time, how many cheer?  We allowed concentration camps to exist in America during WWI and WWII for those people we perceived as our enemies (German, Italian, and Japanese concentration camps to name a few).  And do you know who gave the order for those to exist, President Woodrow Wilson, and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  People in authority ordered us to do things even though at the most basic level we knew it was wrong.  President Bush and our Republican and Democrat lawmakers ordered the spying on American citizens via the Patriot act.  And we blindly follow these authority figures by justifying our actions by citing things like safety, comfort and at times even greed.

Final Thought:  We have a problem.  Maybe we listen too much to authority.  On top of this, we give radicals like Trump and Hillary our tacit consent to seize property, ban our freedoms and harm individual groups simply because it is convenient.  I think we rely on them so much that we think they are indispensable.  Truth is the old boss is the same as the new boss and is the same as every other boss.  They are expendable and our politicians don't even realize that is what they were designed to be with respect to being public servants.  It is time we questioned everything and stop listening to people who tell us to throw away our morals and our ethics.

Religious/Ethics in the Workplace

Taken from an Economist Article subtitled "Cross the Boss" it looks at how displaying religious values and ethics in the workplace affects how you are treated there.  Here are the conclusions of what that study revealed as conducted by Ms. Sreedhari Desai of the University of North Carolina.

Bosses ask employees to do unscrupulous things.  Nine percent of American employees said that managers pressured them to do things that violated their beliefs (Ethics and Compliance initiative).  However, this was not the case of those employees displaying religious symbols on their desk/person, or having a virtuous quote in their emails.  In these cases the study showed that the boss was less likely to ask them to act unethically.  Even simple displays of religious symbols in the workplace impacted the managers want or desire to ask employees to do unethical things, but when symbol actually belonged to the employee, then the boss was even less likely to ask that particular individual.  Basically, if you do not want your moral compass violated by a boss, then display you faith proudly.  Both Americans and Indians (people of India for those who cannot differentiate the term from Native Americans alternative post-colonial name) were used in these studies.

Interestingly bosses who were religious were more likely to discriminate in favor of those who openly share their faith via symbols as opposed to people who displayed nothing.  As such, people who hide their faith or have none were at a disadvantage to the openly religious people in this situation.

In contrast white collar people in India did not give preference or discriminate as much compared to their American counterparts with respect to if they shared the same religion.  Instead Muslims in India were more likely to respect people displaying their Christian or Hindi symbols.  Thus this demonstrates to me that it is partly culture and religious values that impact how people are treated in the workplace.

Final Thought:  Interesting isn't it.  People will be less likely (at least in the U.S.) to pressure you to do unethical things simply by displaying your faith visually and shield you from work place pressures.  Food for thought.

Respect those older than yourself

People older than us have experience and wisdom that only we younger people can only hope to have.  I used to think differently when I was younger, but then I noticed changes in myself from year to year and began to understand.  I understood that people older than yourself should be respected because they are more knowledgeable due to life experience.  Now why is this important?

This is important because of the knowledge we can obtain from them.  Sure, they may have some facts wrong or they perceive things differently but their opinions and knowledge hold value which can be used by those younger than them.  Basically, I talked even more with the seniors in my family and took in their stories and their experiences and learned from them whatever I could.  Actually it is part of why I know even half of what I know today.  Some cultures and groups recognize this such as people of Spanish, Japanese and Chinese decent.  When they walk into a room, they will go to great the person who is the oldest in the room first and then make their way down based on age.  It is a way of paying homage to the life of those older than.  Some people even take this a step further by worshiping their ancestors in a form of ancestor worship.  They have shrines to their dead family members and pray to them for help and guidance.  

Now what if the whole world did this.  What if we remembered the people in our family for the deeds they did and the knowledge they passed on and wrote it down.  It would resemble a Bible, save for the fact that it was written based on the knowledge and life experiences of our current and past members of our family.  No, it would not be just the good deeds, but the bad deeds as well so that we remember them so they are not repeated.  A shrine to our own ancestors works too to show respect to the people who guided us in life.

Final thought:  This can lay the foundation for a more respectful and peaceful society.  No one wants to be remembered for being stupid, or even being evil.  They would rather be respected by those around them.  As such, showing respect to those older than you (obviously as long as that respect is not abused) can lead society down a more enlightened path.  We can all become Confucius, Buddha and more.  Rather than creating a faith, we can turn men and women into idols even after death in a more pronounced way where our ancestors are worshiped and mimicked like they were deities.  Will they ever replace Jesus?  Heck no, at least not in my book, but for those who don't have faith and those who need that extra motivation to be morally and ethically better, it could do wonders.

Happy July 4th

America is another year older and still one of the most successful Republics in the world.

So on this Fourth of July I would like to say thank you.

Thank you to the Founding Fathers and their families for their sacrifices.

Thank you to our Soldiers that gave the ultimate sacrifice both during the Revolution and to the Present.

Additionally, I want to thank all the inventors, entrepreneurs, businessmen, and all the dreamers that built this nation.

Thank you all for the country I grew up in and for its limitless future.

Happy 4th of July and God Bless. 

School administrations: Outmoded!?

Have you noticed that money we pay in taxes to public schools seems to not go anywhere near the teachers or the students?  It makes me question what we are paying taxes for in the first place.  We got these Superintendents in some places making in excess of $300,000 dollars a year.  I mean come on.  If you see the documentaries "Waiting for Superman" and "The Cartel" you can see why I am questioning the very existence of school administrations in the internet age.  So what would a modern school using internet technology for governance look like?

Ok, here is the hypothetical 21st school governance model.  Schools will be run by their principals and vice principals.  They are supported by secretaries who handle accounting, budgeting, human resources, and procurement.  Accounting, budgeting and procurement secretaries will work together to insure that all school supplies are stocked and maintained with money being given to teachers if necessary so that they can secure the supplies they need for their classrooms.  Human resources will handle monitoring of sick days, logging clock ins/outs, and provide for the hiring of all school personnel including teachers, and payment of janitors for jobs students cannot handle (students will clean their own classrooms so that they have a vested interest in a clean learning environment).  Students will even serve each other lunch in shifts so as to not interfere with classes with them cooking for fellow students (for children of younger ages or those who need monitoring lunch personnel will be hired by the school and paid by them just like with janitors).  Teachers will act as career/guidance counselors to students and be the primary source of discipline over students, with principals/vice principals taking over if the child is beyond the teacher's ability.  The school basically runs itself with these key members in each school (some positions being combined if it makes more economic sense and does not interfere with children's education).  

However, you may be asking, "what about our tax dollars?"  "Where and how is that monitored?"  Simple, County level government officials will collect taxes on behalf of the schools and give them the money, but the county government will have complete oversight over how that money is spent, and all school spending will be public knowledge in addition to all school personnel's salaries.  Additionally, the county government will also perform the background checks on school personnel and has the ability to veto the hiring or firing of any school official.  Not to mention, the teachers’ salaries, and the school principals vice principals and secretaries salaries will be handled by the county government, not the school itself.  The schools themselves will be able to hire out contractors to fix school buildings and equipment that is beyond that of janitors or students themselves, but the county has the right to interfere if they suspect that the school is not getting a fair deal.  Also, any leftover tax dollars that the school does not spend in a given year can go into extracurricular activities for students, additional special classes like shop class, or photography, or even special field trips.

Now, school education standards and classes will be created on a case by case basis.  The schools personnel, its principal/vice principal and secretaries, the country government and the State government will develop these standards.  At no time will teachers ever be told how to teach, but instead on what to teach. As such, what classes provided to students will be dictated by the State government, county governments will be responsible for funding these classes and adding additional subjects/classes they feel students will need to know and the equipment needed to teach them. The schools and their personnel will decide how those classes are to be taught, as the teachers who will teach the subject will be the ones developing the curriculum themselves (this includes tests and quizzes).

Conclusion:  The idea is to give the schools the autonomy they need to succeed on their own.  They only really need the teachers, the secretaries overseeing specific aspects of the school, and the principal and vice principal guiding them and ensuring everything runs smoothly.  Basically, the administration is integrated into the schools themselves by allowing them to essentially run themselves, but with appropriate over watch from county level governments.  I don't know if I am forgetting anything, but if I am, those roles can easily be taken on by the schools themselves, the county government, or even the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) if the school needs/wants to do fund raisers or provide for special events.  Schools can even gain additional revenue from showing movies in their auditoriums and other special events like school plays with students taking on roles like ticket taker and other jobs so that they can get a taste of working experience.  I am sick of these school superintendents and the school boards being nothing but paper tigers and wastes of space and money.  It is time for a change, and the aforementioned is one possibility.

Selling Debt

Did you know that banks and other institutions actually sell peoples debt?  Some of you are thinking, what the heck is this guy talking about.  Well apparently banks group bad loans together with some good ones and then sell them off to other business or people to collect the money instead.  In short, banks do not want to deal with people they know will probably never pay back their loan and then sell the debt to someone else to recoup some of their losses.  

The people who buy the debt do not buy it at its full amount, as some people can buy someone’s debt for as little as $50.  I guess the debt that banks sell are ones they made most of their money back on and the sale of that debt makes up for the remaining loss.  However, the person who owes money still owes the full amount they have to pay, but this time to the new owner of their debt.  So you get a loan from Bank of America, then they sell it to Citibank.  You now owe the full amount of what you were loaned to Citibank and not bank of America.  An issue arises where you could be still sending checks to your debts original owner, which they will gladly take, but it will still not pay down your loan as you now legally owe it to someone else.  As such people have inadvertently become delinquent on debt payments ruining their credit scores and preventing them from taking out new loans or lines of credit (I think the term Zombie loan is used to describe this situation).  The icing on the cake is that many States do not require a license for people to buy a person’s debt and thus becoming the equivalent of a loan shark.  

What can be done?  John Oliver of "Last Week Tonight" actually bought a bunch of people’s debt and forgave it.  As such, you could even potentially buy a person’s debt and then say they no longer owe anything anymore.  Another is a business that negotiates with the current debts owner and the debtor.  In this case the business agrees to buy the debt from the current owner.  From there the business now owns the debt, but rather than collecting, they charge a fee to the debtor equal to what they paid to buy the debtors debt plus an additional amount of money so that they can make a profit.

Other problems with this system are that people are not always properly notified of the transfer of ownership of their debt.  As such, the people who buy the debt typically notify their new debtors, but the original owner sometimes doesn't do so.  Therefor people discard the notification as spam mail or fraud.  You can figure out what problems occur from there.  But this can be solved if the original owner of the debt (the seller) notifies the debtor of their debts new owner.  This could help to alleviate some of the confusion people have when paying back their loans.

Final Thought:  So we got a business model and a charity model to forgive peoples debt.  We can help people in debt in a way that many probably did not think possible before.  It is amazing how selling debt, something that helped contribute to the financial crisis that ushered in President Obama can now be used to help end debt crisis for millions of individuals and businesses suffering from punishing debt.

Brexit repercussions.

Now to the impact of Britons exit from the EU.  Obviously if you watched the news then you saw that the stock market tanked.  So our 401k's, stocks and anything that relies on the stock market lost a lot of money.  So oops, British citizens just screwed a lot of people.  

With the British pound no longer supporting the Euro, Americas money just gained value.  In short, Americas Dollar can buy nearly any foreign goods on the cheap.  However, this makes American produced goods more expensive as they now will need more American money to produce.  As you can see the value of money is not fixed and can causes prices to fluctuate massively and alter the dynamics of international trade.  Something a single vote just made happen.  

Another major impact is that President Obama has stated in his reactionary speech that he will put preference on trading with the rest of the EU and its larger economic block and its trade rules rather than trade with Britain.  Economically it makes sense as the EU and its trade rules give America and other countries access to trade with 26 nations rather than Britain which is a smaller market.  

Additionally, Scotland and Northern Ireland are going to be holding their own referendums to become independent from the rest of Britain.  With more than 60% of Scotland voting to stay in the European Union it seems likely that Scotland will leave Britain behind and then rejoin the EU as an independent country.  Northern Ireland on the other hand may reunite with the rest of Ireland and thus be part of the EU once again as well or join as an independent State as well.  This leaves England and Whales as the only remaining members of Britain save a few foreign territories.  

And finally, David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Great Britain has resigned.  He pinned his leadership on the outcome of this election and he lost.  Now Great Britain, or what soon will remain of it, will get a new leader and thus world relationships will change as the men and women set to potentially take power in Britain are much more conservative and nationalistic.  It would not be surprising if Britain turns toward Russia, another country embracing its nationalism, as it seems the rest of the world is marginalizing Britain in the wake of this vote (my opinion).

Final Thought:  This is going to be interesting.  If Britain can eject themselves from the EU, then so can others.  But, at the same time it means there is a power vacuum in Europe and other nations may try to seize some power.  Also, other countries in Europe have issues with national identity which may cause countries like Belgium and Spain to break up into smaller countries as they embrace regional nationalism.  Some analysts believe that this nationalistic fervor is a reaction to Islamic nationalism.  But I disagree.  I think it is deeply rooted in age old identities that have been smoldering for years.  As to whether this leads to the EU's collapse or not cannot be determined, or it could instead lead to it solidifying instead and making it that much stronger.

Brexit!!!

So the British have left the European Union.  Their nationalism has taken hold and said no more to open boarders that leave them vulnerable to terrorist incursions.  No more to subjecting themselves to other European nation’s political agendas.  And most importantly they embraced their pride as British citizens.

Note this vote was close.  Super close.  So much so in fact that the losing side wants to hold an additional referendum because they feel that the 50% plus one majority is not enough to make this decision.  However, the vote was fair and square and the losing side is just being a spoiled sport.  

I personally think this vote needed to happen.  Britain was always independent from the EU because they kept the British pound as opposed to switching to the Euro.  They supported the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush Administration whereas the rest of Europe either sat back, gave token consent or denounced America.  Britain is still a world player and it is flexing its conservative roots.  Basically, they never needed the EU, but as to whether the EU needs them remains to be seen.

Final Thought:  The EU has been expanding and changing itself since after WWII.  It started as a means to prevent future wars in Europe and then expanded into a faceless bureaucratic monstrosity that barely has any semblance to democratic ideals.  British citizens didn't want that and thus they are out (my analysis).  See you tomorrow for my analysis on the Britain's exit.

Eliminating the Payroll tax!

The payroll tax is a tax all Americans in the U.S. pay.  This particular tax is a name for the two taxes that are used to pay for Social Security and Medicare part A.  So how could they get rid of this tax like so many Presidential Candidates in the current 2016 election have promised?  

Basically, candidates like Ted Cruz, Trump and former candidate Rubio would integrate it into the regular tax scheme.  Basically, you would be taxed at the current tax rate with no payroll tax being taken out.  This allows you to keep more money in your paycheck and apparently could mean the elimination of tax returns as the payroll tax is taken out first and causes issues math wise with the IRS.  But what about actually contributing to Social Security and Medicare part A?  Well, the IRS would take a percentage of what you pay to the government in taxes and pass it on to Social Security and Medicare part A.   This is much easier to do as you are still contributing by you paying taxes with just the exception that the IRS takes the money out of the total amount you pay in taxes rather it being two separate (three technically) taxes.

However, if the Candidates really wanted to do the right thing, they would eliminate the income tax with the payroll tax and switch to a national sales tax.  We would get to keep all our money, but we get taxed when we buy stuff.  The more you pay for something the higher amount of taxes you pay per year.  Under this system, just like the income tax system, a portion of what you pay in taxes will go toward Social Security and Medicare part A.  The only difference is that you don't have to file for income taxes any more, and illegals, criminals, foreign visitors and others all contribute to Social Security and Medicare thus adding more money to the system.  

Conclusion:  Obviously I want the income tax gone, but I'll settle for just the payroll tax going away for now.  Reason being is that Social Security and Medicare will still get funded, and it saves time and effort with respect to filing taxes.  Eliminating taxes is a good thing as it frees people up monetarily so they can buy the things they need (or want).  Still, I think a sales tax makes more sense, but this is just my take on the issue and why I'll be voting Republican in the United States 2016 Presidential election. 

Monuments to evil: What do we do about them

I was reading the Economist and there was an article about old Confederate monuments and monuments to Southern heroes who are by all respects and purposes racists.  With the Confederate flag controversy and its removal from government land, should such monuments be removed as well?

The answer is not clear cut.  Some can be removed and some should never be removed.  The Economist writer believed that such monuments should have a plaque added that performs an educational function to inform people of our country's past and to serve as a reminder to future generations that we should not commit such atrocities and evil ever again.  Basically these monuments to segregation, slavery and massacres are artifacts and thus can become a learning tool.  

Another idea was to place monuments that countered the original message of the current monuments next to them or replace them altogether as a memoriam to the victims and people's defiance to racism and evil.  This is also a nice idea that people can get behind, but I don't like the idea of just replacing the "evil" monument with a new one.  Instead I would like a museum to be made to house these removed monuments when applicable or mock ups of the originals along with other artifacts of our country's racist past to serve as a reminder of what evil looks like so we can say never again.  These museums can be called "Facing History Museums" where we look at massacres, slavery, segregation and discrimination of all peoples in the United States.  As such, a section on Native Americans, Black Slavery, and Internment of the Japanese in WWII among others, and the 1960s discrimination and our nation overcoming these evils one by one will be included.   We can use these museums and monuments to say we have made mistakes and we want to embrace them so we never make them again rather than try to hide them.  

Conclusion:  I like the ideas of the plaques and of the alternate monuments that were suggested by the article.  However, under no circumstance should a monument be destroyed if it is possible to move it instead.  A museum with these removed monuments to Indian massacres, racism against Asians and more should be created or one per State in the major cities so that people can access the information there.  Even small halls in America's Natural History Museums could work and have artifacts dedicated to educating the public on the darkest parts of our history.  We have to say never again, and we can do this through education.

Drug costs

I seem to always come back to this issue.  Heck I work in a pharmacy and some of the prices for prescription drugs are outrageous.  But I will continue to revisit the issue as drug prices do not need to be this high.

Drugs cost a lot due to a number of things.  You have the obvious shipping and handling costs, liability insurance if something goes wrong, and of course profit motivation so that the companies that make these drugs can stay in business.  Then there is federal regulations which does testing, dictates how drugs are shipped and handled, and basically controls every aspect of production to sale to the person with a prescription.  Actually, the federal regulations in my opinion increase the cost the most because you have things like generic Flonase (the allergy nasal spray) costing $200 for the original prescription version, but the OTC version (which is exactly the same drug) costs $26.  That is a major contrast.  It went down to just $26 just by the regulations by the federal government being eased up because the drug is no longer a prescription item.  So if the drug Flonase is just as safe as an OTC with its regulations as it is as a prescription drug and its more numerous regulations, does that mean that we can reduce, or even taper down federal regulations from year to year that do not add to the maintenance of the quality and safety of a drug.  That alone would reduce drug costs.  Another method that deals with the regulation problem and saves money is by accepting drugs from other countries with equivalent or superior safety regulations.  This would save money for drug companies to get their drugs to the market faster if the drug is approved in Britain or Sweden first as the United States (last I heard in 2007) has the most numerous regulations in the world which adds onto the cost of everything.  Or we can just make a bunch of drugs OTC's and save a lot of time and hassle.

With regulations reduced or adjusted to meet real world safety standards for new drugs, and potentially adjusted for drugs on the market for a specified number of years, costs will go down dramatically.  But this is not enough.  Patent laws are one of the biggest issues we face with respect to drug costs.  Most U.S. drug patent laws give drug companies a 10 year window of ownership of a certain drug formula with the potential for renewal.  However, almost seven years of that 10 is all research and development for that drug of which over 70% of those potential drugs never making it to market.  So when a drug finally goes on the market after 7 years of development the drug company has to make up the costs for all the money invested into the drugs cost and all the failed drugs too.  As such, by removing this 10 year monopoly on a drug formula we actually slow development, but at the same time free up time constraints on the drug company.  This means the drug will go to market at the same time as the patent kicks in, meaning the drug company will now have ten years to make up the enormous costs rather than three, thereby distributing the cost over time. 

Another way to make drugs cheaper is to eliminate labor costs or even the production of drugs at the drug company’s factories all together.  This can be done by 3D printer technology.  Already approved in the United States for certain drugs, 3D printers eliminate 90% of the labor costs at the drug factories themselves.  To eliminate manufacture of drugs at the factories, the drug company can license pharmacies equipped with 3D printers to make the drugs there in house.  Thus the cost of materials, and labor shift to the pharmacies which means drug companies do not have to worry about labor or shipping costs which reduces the costs to produce the drugs as a whole and potentially reallocating the saved money for research and development costs.

Final Thought:  Some of the regulations on drugs also apply to medical devices and products.  Therefore, eliminating costs or reducing the things that artificially increase costs aid in making medicine cheaper for all.

Harambe

By now most of the world knows the name Harambe.  The silver back gorilla Harambe was shot and killed because it was perceived that it was a danger to a child that had fallen into Harambes enclosure.  I have seen multiple videos on what occurred (all were edited) and this is my opinion on the matter.

For one, that child should never have been able to fall into the enclosure to begin with.  I do not understand how a modern zoo enclosure is capable of being penetrated by a child.  I do not entirely leave the parent of the child blameless in this as any parent has looked away only briefly to find their kid doing something they are not supposed to do.  However it is obvious to me we have a zoo enclosure problem.

Now as to what happened after when the child had fallen in.  I am not the zoo keepers.  I do not know how that gorilla reacts to various stimulus let alone a crowd making a lot of noise and panic after a child falls into a silver back gorilla enclosure.  I have seen video of the gorilla agitated and also calm in the videos I watched.  As such the zoo keepers get the benefit of the doubt with respect to do, and thus unfortunately made the right decision.  

Final Thought:  We now have activists calling for the complete shutdown of zoos and some more moderate people calling for gorillas in general to be released back into the wild.  Zoos however serve a purpose.  They are designed (at least currently) to support awareness and money for programs for conservation, studying animals in ways that cannot be done in the wild, and even act as endangered species breeding centers.  We need zoos, and enclosures can be designed in ways that maximize space for the animals to mimic their natural environment and habits, while at the same time keeping the general public out of the enclosure itself and thus ensuring the safety of both the animals and the people visiting.  For animals that are too old or need freedom, a preserve can be set up to protect them.  Harambes death does not have to be in vain.