Issue 72 Guns: why have them? May 8, 2013

Lets face it people both fear and respect people who have a gun. It is a weapon and at the same time, a tool. But is it truly needed in civilian hands. I say yes.

Hunters: Hunting at its core requires guns. Without the gun how would a hunter hunt for the animal he/she is tracking? Some may wonder why people hunt when we have farms to get our food from. Is not hunting all just fun and games? Well, you would be wrong to think it is all fun and games. For one, hunters play a vital role in controlling animal populations. Some of the animals like dear lack enough predators to cull the population and thus many may find there way into suburban communities and even cities. Also, if a large population of dear or other animal goes unchecked, they may eat all the food in their environment and thus die out. Part of why these populations explode is due to past human interference like killing the predators that eat them or trying to revive a dying and endangered species in a very successful and unexpected way (such as the American Alligator). We cannot expect hunters to maintain those populations with bows and arrows as getting close to such creatures risks both failure to make a kill, or the creature in question attacking the hunter. Guns have the range necessary to keep hunters at a safe distance while also being powerful enough to kill the animal as painlessly as possible.

Life style: There are those who cross the boundary of hunter, farmer and traditionalist. These people are Outdoors Men and Outdoors Women. These people live a very simple hunter gatherer lifestyle out in the countryside and rural areas. They care not for most traditional amenities, but they hunt to survive. These men and women need guns for food and protection from wild and dangerous animals like bears. Like wise, small farming operations require guns to prevent wild animals from eating their crops and other animals like wolves from coming to eat them.  Don’t bother trying to understand why these people live the way they do, as it is their choice and that is all that really matters.

Self Defense: In some places in America, it can take up to 15 or more minutes for police to arrive if there is a breaking. Thus, these people in these dispersed communities need some form of first response to anyone trying to do them harm. It is just as likely that that perpetrator coming into their home is armed and thus the gun acts as an equalizer.

Women need guns as well. Let’s face it; while women are strong and very independent in general, but a 200 pound man is much stronger than a 100 pound female. They need to equalize the situation and a gun does just that.

Some may think why not a taser or pepper sprays to try and fend off attackers? Problem, are you afraid of such weapons, weapons that do not kill unless there is an accident? Guns however, people are very afraid of due to there lethality.

What if those guns are taken from you and used against you? Simple, you’re out of luck. There is always a chance that your weapon will be taken away from you, but in the encounters where this has happened is rare. Most people who own guns have a basic knowledge on how to use a gun and defend themselves. These people are very responsible and have for the most part, never committed a violent crime. In America, about 48% are believed to own guns legally and there are approximately 300 million guns in the United States in total. Culturally speaking, America is gun country.

Radical Defense: Yes there are those who fear a dooms day scenario like a foreign invasion, or the government collapsing and chaos taking over. But, these people hurt no one. They like the safety and security they get from feeling prepped for the worst that can happen like the government needing to be rebelled against. (Note: I don't own a gun and probably never will, but I will not take away your right to protect yourself).

Conclusion: People want security and guns aid in that. Women want to protect against rapists, parents in dispersed communities want to defend their homes in case of an assailant and hunters need to protect themselves from their pray. Did people not think that people in the witness protection program and those who are being stalked might want to be able to defend themselves? We cannot all afford high priced body guards like some celebrity mom and dad. Has no one thought of the need to protect the families of law enforcement and military personnel from people who might hold a grudge? I know police who have had people they arrested and incarcerated placing bounties on their heads and their families. Are they not entitled to some protection? Guns are a very serious matter and trying to weed out a collector of guns from those who actually need some form of protection is down right stupid. Trying to justify a fear or a possibility to a government official is like talking to a wall. Not to mention it would make it impossible to try and obtain guns for those who may need protection as the arbitrator who decides if you can have one is not in the position you’re in. Fact is that the idea of a basic background check is fine, but you should not have to justify yourself to anyone when it comes to protecting yourself and your family. This is my view and understanding of how the world of guns works outside of a war zone and a law enforcement capacity. I just hope you read this and find that the issue of guns is not a black and white issue, but a very big gray line.

 

Issue 71 Do we need Tanks? May 7, 2013

In the world today the way wars are fought have changed dramatically, or so we thought. We still have large armies smashing against each other in some conflicts, while we have guerilla fighters in others. There are even cases where traditional war and insurgents mix to form a complex war front that can only be a field commander’s nightmare. At current, there is a debate due to the changing face of war about how useful the battle tank is. So do we still need tanks?

Those against keeping tanks: Surprisingly, the ones wanting to get rid of tanks are the U.S. military. Well, let me correct my self, they wish to reduce the force by approximately 1/3. The reasons for their thinking are the budget cuts and the altered war front. They feel that the battle tank in future of war is a lumbering war machine that while useful is burdensome to transport, labor intensive and a waste of fuel. If you study the militaries tanks in most Army's including the American military you will know that the tank is generally a gas guzzler. Also, it takes a lot of time to train troops to use tanks effectively. America has a crew of 4, while other armies have a crew of 3 due to an auto reload system and teaching them how to be a team and then how to fight with allies is very costly. Militarized video games help, but even that is not enough.

Keep the tanks part 1: The group that wants to keep tanks is the politicians in America. Through various dealings the manufacturing process includes contracts with multiple companies to make parts all before being shipped to be assembled. Literally almost every politician has some company in their districts building something and they don't want them to loose their jobs. For if that person or company looses the contract, then that politician looses a vote. A little political corruption goes along way.

Keep the tanks part 2: Another group who wants to keep the tanks is those who see that the lumbering behemoths of the battlefield still play a role. They cite that despite the disadvantages, tanks, particularly the U.S.'s M1A1 Abrams, is still a very effective combat vehicle. The Abrams is used in situations where lighter vehicles would be easily destroyed by man portable anti-vehicle weapons (something that is becoming more common with insurgents and terrorists). A tank like the Abrams can shrug off most of such weaponry. Also, currently the Abrams tank outranges most other tanks with its main gun and is highly maneuverable with a top speed of around 60 miles and hour. A tank on an active battle field can reposition and provide line of sight firepower to targets directed by infantry (less risky than calling in artillery further away). Tanks when employed properly can change an entire battle.

Conclusion: My opinion is as follows. The tank is going to evolve again. It is going to be able to provide direct and indirect fire support for troops. They will be used as mobile communications links and surveillance tools. And they will change from being gas guzzlers to fuel efficient power houses (they need to because a fuel truck is a very tempting target and no fuel means the tanks can't move). They will use new engines and fuels to be more fuel efficient, new targeting and tracking systems to hit harder and faster and new munitions that may even be guided by GPS to their target. Also, tanks may become lighter, as the heavier a vehicle is the harder it is to transport. As to armor, they may get lighter more advanced materials, but they may also get active protection systems that intercept incoming rounds before they hit (the Israelis have this technology already). I will even predict that the tank may eventually replace traditional artillery systems save the furthest reaching of that class of vehicle. The tank no matter what its incarnation may fade, but will reappear when needed to due battle and do the job it was designed to do, support the troops on the active battlefield.


This issue is my reaction to a Huffington post article and a journal entry in Foreign Affairs.

Issue 70 What is a Constitution May 6, 2013

"Constitution" has become a sacred word for the people of the world. To people it means freedoms guaranteed by and from the government. It is essentially the law that governs all law in a given country. But what exactly is it?

What it is: A constitution is a legally binding document that acts as a contract between the people of the country and their government. Enshrined in such documents is rules governing how elections are run, what requirements are mandated so a person may serve in public office and even (like the U.S. Constitution) enshrining the basic rights that are required to maintain freedom. Essentially, what rules a people want a government to follow and abide by are placed in a constitution. It is the law that governs the government and tells them where and how they may govern the people.

Can it be used against us?: Well the answer to that question is yes. If a constitution is altered or written in a way where government may seize power from the masses then it will be used against the people. Constitutions are made to limit governments’ ability to do things and force them to respect the rule of law, but a poorly written constitution leads to turmoil. For example, not placing a limit on what forms of taxation could lead to abusive tax policies. Cronyism may develop if the equal treatment under the law is not enforced through a constitution. You are now beginning to see the big picture. Governments are made of people, and once those people get power, they corrupt themselves and constantly seek all power they can get their hands on.

Can a constitution be ignored by government: If we don't watch what the government is doing.  People must constantly be vigilant or else the government will take advantage of our not paying attention. My own government (America's Federal Government) has taken advantage of the situation to provide benefits to corporations while ignoring others. They have violated the equal treatment under the law principle under the 14th amendment to the constitution (that is because corporations are run by people and thus may be considered people). Other forms of abuse may occur, such as pocketing money, or even inflating budgets for pet projects to later be used by government employees. Government can make people rich.

Does a Constitution have to be written?: No, it does not have to be written. For example, the British (one of America's closest allies) has no written constitution. Instead they have a series of documents that do the same thing as a constitution like the Magna Carta and other official laws and court decrees. Israel on the other hand also has no constitution, but they also don't have any written documents like Britons either. They have basic rules and moral restraints that society places on them to maintain their rights. This is not to say that countries do not need a constitution, it just happens to be easier to look up what can and can't be done if all the rules are in one place.

Conclusion: A constitution is a document that gives the people comfort. It makes us feel that are rights and our voice matter in a government. It is designed to keep government from grabbing too much power and also tells them to protect the people’s rights. I know I am lucky to live in America and that is because of the laws that protect us and preserve my precious rights, the rights we all share. So all I can say is thank God for the Constitution for without it, who knows what America would be like.

Issue 69 Future of Driving May 3, 2013

We have long pondered what the future of driving will be. Thoughts of flying cars and cars that drive themselves are the most prominent, but what else?

Drive by wire: Airplanes have for a long time now used electronic signal systems and fiber optic cables to enhance performance while shedding weight to reduce fuel costs. By doing the same in cars we get rid of the drive train, and all other mechanical parts save the wheel and the engine. As a result, cars will be run mostly by computer and thus allow for more performance out of your car. The main hurdle is people’s fear of driving a rolling computer. However, if a car company can effectively demonstrate how safe and reliable it is by showing how they are used in airplanes then the future of this technology is assured.

Robot cars: This form of science fiction is now science fact. One problem, the computers need to learn to drive. Currently, robot cars are being tested in California and other places. All tests so far have been successful. The problem is two fold however. One, an infrastructure must be put in place from which the cars can receive uninterrupted GPS data. While on board sensors work to prevent collisions, without GPS (let alone up to date GPS data) the cars will not know where to go. The other problem is people placing trust in their vehicles to get them where they want to go. People will fear a robot car thinking it will drive them and their family into a wall. So in this instance it is a trust issue.

The Road itself: Here is not so much an innovation in cars, but innovations in the road itself. There has been discussion of altering how roads are constructed and what they are capable of. I was first informed of this in a Popular Mechanics Magazine article and in it they discussed how wires in the road could supply power to cars. Yes, the road itself would essentially act like railroad tracks, but not be limited to just the tracks. This would allow the removal of bulky engines from cars and busses to reduce pollution. Another innovation was having sensors in the road produce warnings about road conditions. If the sensors saw it was getting cold then they would project snow flakes on the road surface and perhaps activate a heating element to prevent black ice. Also, in the summer a cooling element could be activated to reduce the heat produced by the road that invariably increases the heat of the surrounding area. In short, a smart road would need less maintenance and would attempt to reduce accidents.

Green machines....and roads: For cars, micro wind turbines and solar panels can be attached (and still look hip) to generate its own electricity. This would allow cars to power themselves when running low on fuel (if we are still even using fuel). Likewise, wind turbines can be set along the side of roads to take advantage of the wind produced by speeding cars. Thus even the road can generate its own electricity and not have to rely on power plants (this is the same concept as putting solar panels on street lamps). But another interesting idea is using the sensors to turn on and off lights when cars are passing by. The idea is, if a light is on and no one is around to take advantage of it, then why have it on in the first place. Thus, lights will only turn on for when a car is passing through the area and then turn off saving more electricity and money.

Conclusion: While the flying car is probably the futurists dream they are not a reality until mechanical issues balancing flight and driving are worked out. In the meantime you all will have to settle with some of the innovations and ideas above. Sure we will get new fuels, and maybe a giant bus that uses the road as a track to transport a 1,000 people like a train with cars driving underneath (see the Chinese for this idea), but these ideas are all concepts. We are still innovating with new ideas and concepts. New materials and fuels are a guarantee to be coming out at some point. It is all really a matter of what the consumer will find acceptable. So keep dreaming innovators and sci-fi fans, the cool stuff is still coming down the pipe.

Issue 68 EU and Turkey May 2, 2013

We are not talking about dinner; we are talking about the country known as Turkey. It has applied for membership for the European Union (EU) and wishes to join the rest of the European community. But there are road blocks.

Religious road block: As many know, Turkey is a Muslim Country. Despite it being secular members of the EU like Frances government fear letting Turkey join due to a possible influx of Turkish migrants into their communities. France and Germany particularly are hesitant due to their inability to bring their Muslim populations into the mainstream of their societies. The results are small ghettos with their own micro governments, languages, and culture that are hostile to outsiders. Hate crimes and violence due occur and the governments feel helpless. As a result, they hope to avoid compounding the problem by preventing Turkey from joining. The only problem with that logic is that the opposite may happen. For every new entrant into the EU, its member countries feared an influx of migrants. However, most of these populations actually went home due to their feelings of isolation in the larger European community. What blocks these people from going home is a lack of money and the other legal and financial hurdles of trying to go home. In other words, Turkey joining will provide a chance for these people to find a place to fit in and finally feel at home.

Geographic road block: Another problem also has to due with Islam and its Muslim followers. In this instance it is Turkey’s neighbors. Europeans fear that by allowing Turkey to join, it will open up the rest of Europe to the hostile Middle East and the Jihadist element that exists there. In short, they don't want Iraq as their neighbor. But in truth, Turkey as a bastion of culture and peace would act as a buffer. While many countries in the Middle East are in turmoil, Turkey has a solid foundation and is very powerful militarily. Not many countries would dare mess with the Turks. Also, Turkey and its people can be used to demonstrate how western ideals and Muslim ideals can co-exist. Essentially show that a harmony can be achieved and thus ease the fears of possible future radicals, thus shrinking the potential terrorist threat we all face.

Internal road block: The last obstacle to Turkey joining is human rights issues. At current, Turkey enforces its secular society with force. It has to stop that and fast. Banning the head scarf and other religious garb will only create resentment. Basically let people act and dress how they wish so long as no one is harmed. Turkey can enforce the secular mindset by ensuring people understand they can have religion and let it run their own personal life, but it must never be forced on others.

There is one other internal problem and that is the Kurds. They want a nation of their own and they want it now. This is something I as an American can respect. However, Turkey is now dealing with Kurdish separatists and the result has been terrorism. To compound the issue, the Kurds in Iraq have a section all to themselves and the Kurds in Syria have seized upon the havoc and taken over cities and towns to cement their dream of self rule. Turkey has come to the negotiation table and results look promising, but there is a long struggle ahead and Europe fears another situation like the Israelis and Palestinians. Turkey must find a happy medium with respect to the Kurds who have the power to make or break the Turks and it aspirations.

Conclusions: Turkey I believe should be allowed to join. It is a strong and vibrant country with much to offer to the rest of Europe. The religious and geographic road blocks are easily dismissed if Turkey just provides the right incentives and some really good arguments. On the internal front, the secular enforcement is also changing and Turkey is making head way there as well. It is just the issue with the Kurds that remains. Probably the best solution would be Turkey and the rest of Europe bringing all the Kurds from Iraq and Syria into Turkey and giving them some form of economic and governmental independence. It would be a country within a country if you will. But, these details and how smoothly something like that will go depends on all the actors involved and Turkey can still be allowed to join regardless if the other EU countries make an exception. From here it is up to the Turks to decide if they still wish to join. They must decide through their elections if joining is still worth the effort. So I say to the Turks, use your right to self determination to decide for your selves if it is worth your governments Europe or bust path.

Issue 67 EU success or failure May 1, 2013

The European Union (EU) is a collection of over 27 different countries in Europe united by a single currency (money) and other institutions. However, today its members face financial trouble. Greece's debt may cause the EU's destruction by taking the other members with it through a domino effect that will cause another economic collapse similar to what the world saw in 2008.

History: The EU was birthed after WWII with the idea to prevent any and all future wars in Europe. To do this, countries began linking industries that were directly linked to the war industry such as mining for minerals to produce weapons. France and Germany were the first and soon others followed. As it became more advantageous to link together in a free market more countries joined and they created an environment from which people, goods and services could move about freely. Soon, to further the cause, they created a single currency (not all nations have the currency known as the EURO yet). Governments of the EU used this new currency to unite the nations further together. Overall, peace through trade was assured.

Current: There are still countries attempting to join the European Union. They seek access to markets and trade that the EU countries have access to. Mostly, former soviet block countries are attempting to join. However, the EU or precisely the countries in the EU are facing economic trouble. With the market crash of 2008 it revealed a weakness in the united currency the EURO. Countries like Greece, Italy and Spain made sweat heart deals with their government workers, paying them very generously in retirement. But when the market crashed the governments lost money and could not afford to pay them. Riots ensued in some of the EU countries (some of which continue to occur). Greece has received multiple bail outs with really no expectations of being able to pay back any of their debt. The debt these countries are accumulating, not just through their having to pay for their workers, but their populations various welfare and old age benefits are causing strife.

Suggested solutions: It has been suggested in such publications like the Economist, and The New York Times that these nations must unite further to solve this problem. One idea was combining the total welfare and benefits apparatus of all the members into a single body. Thus, the EU governing body is responsible for taking care of all payments for the elderly freeing up money in the local governments and communities to pay for other needed expenses. Another more risk adverse idea is uniting all the countries together with a single banking and monetary system. While most of the countries use the same currency there is no leading body protecting its monetary value, nor is there a body that works like Americas Federal Reserve system to protect, maintain, print and back loans using the EURO. Essentially, there is a call for a true bank of Europe. This idea is not as likely to happen though as all nations in the EU must agree and they are fearful of giving up more of their nation’s individual power. The final most extravagant idea is the united EU government taking on all the collective debt from all the countries in Europe. This would make all of the countries debt free and make it easier to pay the debt through a single party. The idea was used by America in its founding to pay off the debt incurred when the nation was founded. However, just as it was unfair to the Southern States in America who had paid almost all of their debt, it would be unfair to countries like Germany who have little to no debt. It will have the big more stable countries paying off the debt of the foolish less fiscally responsible countries.

Conclusion: The European Union is ultimately a success. War in Europe is almost non existent with most countries scaling back their militaries. They have eliminated trade barriers and provided opportunity to their citizens. Only one negative has set them back and that is their national debts that they allowed to go out of control. Pros are out weighing the cons and Europe has a few solutions to solve this problem, if and only if they can get to the negotiation table long enough to fix the issue and make the hard choices.

Issue 66 Tacit Consent April 30, 2013

Tacit consent means implied consent. This term is used to describe when a person lives under a government’s rule of law. By merely living in that Country, that province, that community you are giving your consent to live under the laws made there.

What does Tacit Consent do?: its role, in respect to the relationship between the government and the governed, is to show that the governed is giving the government consent to rule them. This is why when you commit a crime in the United States you are subject to U.S. law and not laws of your home country. Without this basic principle a government could not function as people from outside the country coming in would not be subject to the law of the country they are visiting. Rather the visiting person would be subject to the laws of their own country making it very hard for law to be enforced. Thus, tacit consent eliminates such chaos and allows order to be maintained.

Exceptions: In certain circumstances laws may be bent thereby ignoring tacit consent. We normally see such a bending of the law when a very harsh punishment is going to be enacted upon a citizen of another country. For example, a person from America picks someone’s pocket in Saudi Arabia with the punishment in Saudi Arabia being the hand being chopped off. American officials can ask that an alternate punishment be enacted, which will usually be granted, as a show of respect between the two nations. Usually this bending is only for harsh punishments like the aforementioned example or death, but it is also sometimes used in minor circumstances when a high level official or that official’s child is in some sort of legal trouble in another country. More than likely in this case an apology is given and a restriction of travel or even the issue being swept under the proverbial rug.

Diplomatic Immunity: I list this separate from the other exceptions to the tacit consent rule as it is only for a special class of people. In this case diplomats have special immunity from very specific laws and there punishments. The rules and exceptions vary with time but usually minor infractions are ignored like parking tickets. High crimes like murder are usually prosecuted, but that is if you can catch the person before they return to their home country (which of course will protect them).

You may change your consent: Tacit consent is movable. If say you no longer like your own government and feel it has become oppressive, then you may leave. By leaving you leave your home countries laws and rules behind (save a few exceptions if you are still considered a citizen) and then subject yourself to the laws of an entirely new country. John Locke (the political philosopher) also explained that tacit consent interacts with the concept of "consent of the governed." Consent of the governed is when you give government permission to rule over you with its laws in the same way as tacit consent, but with one difference. If you do not wish to leave your country, cannot leave (whether willingly or un-willingly) and the government has become abusive, then you have the right to rebel. Yes you may strike down the tyrannical government and reform/restore it to its pre oppressive days or change it all together.

Conclusion: Our entire political system is based on the concept of tacit consent. It is what binds us to government and what allows us to the government (whether it is you moving somewhere else or the government being altered). Because of this, many globalists (those believing in one international community have seized upon the idea as a way grant citizenship in another country. In effect you would have to live in another country for a specified number of days; from there you are granted full citizenship and all the rights that come with it while extinguishing your previous citizenship. To a large degree this same concept is used in America when a person moves from one State to another, in this case it determines if and when the person will be allowed to vote in an election. It is most certainly a concept of government that is embraced each and every day, but is taken for granted. Even the concept of self determination (the right to choose how you are to be governed) comes from this principle. Without tacit consent we would have no enforceable laws that protect our rights as citizens and thus there would be only chaos.