Issue 74 Over Licensed May 10, 2013

            I was originally inspired by John Stossel to write this chapter.  I was watching his program on Fox Business Network and he was discussing how over regulated society is.  In this particular episode it was about licenses.  Licensing is a quality control device to ensure that a person is capable of performing a certain type of job or task such as a driver’s license or a plumber’s license.  According to Stossel licenses do more than protect us from bad plumbers, but also dead flowers!  That’s right, I said dead flowers.  Some States in the United States license florists to ensure the quality of the flowers you buy.  They license hair stylists and other occupations as well.  States will require these people to pay fees, sometimes in upwards of a thousand dollars or more, and job training just to be able to cut someone’s hair.  Some times they even have people get a license even if the training for that license has nothing to do with the job or service they wish to perform.  An example of this comes from Stossel’s episode where a woman wanted to provide a service in the form of Jamaican hair braiding.  She was forced to get a license and go to a class on how to cut hair and at no time was she ever instructed on how to braid hair.  In other words she had to get a license on a service she was never going to perform, hair cutting, just so she could braid hair.  Money and hours wasted.

The situation with licensing gets worse:  Imagine some kids who want to open a lemonade stand on a street corner or even right in front of there own home.  The government shuts them down because they did not get a license to open up a business (which is used for tax purposes).  Well it happened, and not just to kids with lemonade stands.  It happened to kids who wanted to sell pumpkins (compliments of their parents) and to kids trying to sell cookies.  Just search the internet and you’ll find this kind of foolishness everywhere.  It’s no wonder it’s so hard to open a business.

Why do governments license these things so excessively?:  Well I can only give my opinion, but I think its government greed.  For one the States get revenue when only licensed businesses sell there products and not from the untaxed street corner lemonade stand.  This is especially true when it can take over $1,000 just to get a license from the government, and that’s not including the training costs.  The other reason is to remove competition.  For instance a New York cabby can only get a medallion to own a cab by paying anywhere from $100,000 to $600,000 depending on what the New York City taxi and limousine commission decides.  It only takes $600, classes and a drug test to drive though.  It is a system designed to suppress the competition by pricing them out of the market, thus it is almost impossible to be an independent operator.  Lobbying at its best, government sponsored monopoly at its worst. 

 The Alternative: So rather than licensing people arbitrarily to protect people dead flowers (mind you, who would shop at a florist if there flowers are just going to die the very next day) lets be smart about it.  Let’s decide what is absolutely necessary to be licensed.  Police and Firefighters come to mind.  Doctor’s, plumbers, electricians, and architects are another.  No one wants a bad doctor, so let’s make sure they have a certificate confirming that they have been trained to heal the sick.  Plumbers and electricians need to be licensed to ensure our homes don’t become money pits.  Architects need a license to ensure buildings won’t fall down upon its occupants.  It should not stop a non-architect from designing a building; it will just need an architect to give it a pass before it is built.  So those jobs that provide specialized construction all need some form of license.

I can only think of only one other occupation, a trial lawyer. I do not mean law professionals in general, but only the lawyers who become advocates for the defense and prosecuting attorneys. A legal letter or other such services do not require a lawyer’s expertise as there is instructions to write such things on the internet and your write to defend yourself should not be infringed because you yourself are not a lawyer. I say this because some one was actually arrested for writing a legal letter on behalf of an elderly man who designed a church for his community which was built. The elderly gentleman did not have a license to be an architect, and to try and keep him out of jail a friend wrote a legal letter on his behalf. This friend was arrested for writing a legal letter without having a license to be a lawyer, in which he was incarcerated for a month until he apologized to the court. Take note that he could have been out sooner, but he was trying to maintain his rights as a citizen and that his incarceration was a court order and he was not convicted of a crime.

 

Conclusion: I question why it is a crime to help your fellow man and why government wishes to corrupt itself by maintaining monopolies on chosen businesses. By the way monopolies can only exist if governments let them. We have this at the federal level with health insurers having monopolies in particular States. So I say lets end the arbitrary corruption of government licensing. To learn more on this and other issues you may simply watch more of John Stossel on the Fox Business network.

Issue 73 Who should not have a gun May 9, 2013

As my post yesterday was about the people who want to and possibly need to own a gun I thought it appropriate to examine who should not have one. So here it goes.

Convicted Criminals: The most obvious are convicted criminals. We do not want or need these people being released just to return to a life of crime. However, not all criminals should be banned from owning guns. Those criminals who should never be allowed to own a gun in my opinion are rapists and child molesters. Additionally, people convicted of other violent crimes already involving a gun or deadly weapon such as a person who committed armed robbery or a murder. That sums of the list of who should not own a gun when it comes to criminals. People who have been in bar fights, petty theft are small time criminals who chose the least violent rout possible and thus should not be considered as dangerous upon release. Those who commit victimless crimes like insider trading also should be exempted from the ban. If they already own a gun (that was not used in the crime in question) obviously it should be seized, but it should be returned upon their release. Like I said earlier, those who commit violent criminal acts should never be allowed to own a gun again, but those who do not commit such acts should be allowed the trust of society once again. But if you want to be safe, repeat offenders will be banned from owning fire arms as well.

Mentally ill: People in this category also should not be allowed to own guns. Wait, forget what I said, some people in this category should not be allowed to own guns. You are probably thinking why on earth some people who are mentally ill should be allowed to own a gun. Well, it is very simple, members of both the police and the military are considered to be mentally ill. These members of law enforcement and our troops suffer from depression, anxiety, bi-polarism, extreme stress and other such mental disorders which would classify them as mentally ill. These men and women have access to some of the most powerful arsenals on earth, and you know what, we trust them. So people with mental illness should be allowed to own a gun, but who amongst people in this category should not.

Those in this category that should not be allowed to own a firearm are those who would seek to harm themselves or others. You will need a trained professional to diagnose such cases and even then exceptions can me made based on how severe someone’s condition is, i.e. a person who is prone to suicide due to post traumatic stress should not be allowed to own a gun. Even if these people are not allowed to own a gun in the short term, this should not prohibit them from owning a gun once their condition is under control. Just remember, if we just out right banned people with such disorders then we would be disarming almost everyone. Face it; we are all a little nuts.

Conclusion: Yes there are exceptions to every rule. Some of you may agree with me, while others may want even tighter restrictions and I welcome the conversation. However, I would like to bring to your attention a more pressing concern, the way mentally ill people in the U.S. are treated medically. There are instances where doctors are not allowed to take on there case if these people do not show any signs of wanting to harm themselves or others. As a result, these people go untreated. Before we really want to fix gun laws (let alone actually enforce ones that work) we have to fix the mental health care system so we can help to prevent things like school shootings. There are other little things we can do to prevent good citizens from becoming murderers to, like addressing issues with school bulling which can drive kids to kill their peers. We can address issues with criminality by adjusting laws to stop ruining peoples live in victimless crimes like abusing a drug, and even prevent repeat offenders by finding ways to show employers that these former criminals are trustworthy so they don't turn back to a life of crime. Laws can only react to a problem, but what I’m talking about here helps to reduce such issues from occurring, and that is all we can do.

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.