Issue 83 Sea Steading May 23, 2013

This concept was first brought to my attention on John Stossel’s show on Fox Business Network and again in the magazine Foreign Policy. It is a unique and a very innovative idea that I personally would like to see occur. But enough talk, here is what it is all about.

What is it?: Sea Steading is the idea to take an oil rig or a cruise ship and convert it into a tiny nation state. In essence it could have representation in the U.N. It works by dragging the oil rig or having the cruise ship in international waters. There, the people living on board would create a self sustaining society away from the corruption of the current governments around the globe. Due to the location in international waters, the people will also be immune to all laws created by other governments around the globe. But what is the goal?

The Goal: The goal is for each sea stead to create their own government. Each one would try out something different and see how it develops. In practice, the people aboard would dictate the type of government aboard each vessel and then compare notes with other members of the larger sea steading communities. From there it is all about developing the most effective form of government and economy whilst maintaining freedom. Basically it is a massive science experiment for designing the best government and economy. From there they hope that there land based counterparts will copy aspects of what works and then improve themselves. Also, if a sea steading community fails the people are either free to leave or change governments.

Worries: For one, the sea steading communities must be as self sustaining as possible. If they should have to tow themselves into another nations territorial waters then all the people there would be subject to those other countries laws. So either they make it so they never have to physically bring the community to land again, or they are fully recognized as an independent nation. Technology does allow for almost complete sustainability however with respect to recycling, fuel, and energy production. Food is a concern, but some form of farm or other form of food source must be created to make the system work.

The other worry is the weather. On land, the weather is less vicious than at sea. Ocean currents and strong waves can completely destroy a sea stead. They have designed oil rigs to withstand certain weather conditions closer to land, but at sea in open water the difficulty and the chances of survival if something does happen are very limited. Rescue is hundreds of miles off shore and so those people may be in for there own version of the "Poseidon Adventure" (it’s a movie for those who don't know). So hopefully these hurdles can be overcome in some way.

Conclusion: Conceptually, this is a fantastic idea. People want to use the scientific method to analyze and create the best form of government and economy. Heck, it might even be a precursor to orbiting colonies having there own self governments as well (those interviewed thought of this as well and are busy making plans). I do hope this idea comes to pass and that societies based on self determination develop that overcome humanities instincts to clamor for power and control. Would I live on one of these? Yes, but only if my country the United States finally collapses under its own weight.

Issue 82 Are we past race May 22, 2013

Short answer is no. We will never be passed race. While Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made great strides in removing the racism in our American culture, it has not disappeared. Rather race appears and disappears depending on what is going on.

How far have we come?: We are so much better than before. There is very little discrimination in respect to race itself in the negative sense. Instead, we are dealing with what has been coined as reverse racism. In this, we give people of certain races deference when it comes to employment such as Black Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans (this is known as affirmative action). They get hired sometimes even if a white individual is better qualified for a position simply due to skin color. Sometimes a black person will be hired over a Hispanic or an Asian person due to quotas. This happens a lot in government and even in the private sector because people fear looking racist. However, I question the logic behind these "reverse racism" practices as in truth it is out and out racism for you are basically saying that they can't achieve higher employment or education with out the white mans help. People add the word "reverse" in front just to make themselves feel better doing it. Many believe we are past this issue, but until such practices end, we will be caught in the death spiral of race based on color.

Racism is not just about color: Originally, racism was based around specific physical traits like skin color, but unfortunately Hitler changed that. He used the principles of eugenics (a defunct science) to deem people of the Jewish faith as an entirely different race. As a result over time religions and discrimination of people who worship in those faiths has become a form of racism. Eugenics has also played the same role in making it racist when people of a certain ethnic background are discriminated against. Overall, it is not about skin color any more, but about a common bond shared amongst a group of people that is being used to put them down in some way shape or form.

Racism is everywhere: Yes, we still suffer from racism in the U.S. This is a given due to government and private entities using things like affirmative action. It is also because we have hate groups on all sides as hate groups like the KKK, the Neo Nazis and even groups like the New Black Panthers preach some form of hate. But racism is also used to justify genocide even in the 21st century. No, I’m not talking about the Holocaust, but the genocide in Sudan. It is Arab Muslims who control the government killing African Muslims in the province of Darfur. They consider the African Muslims inferior to the Arab Muslims and have committed numerous atrocities in the name of cleansing the world of an inferior race. This as many would agree is out and out disgusting. But unfortunately simple differences in race are used to justify killing and discrimination all over the globe. This is not an isolated incident, but an epidemic of hate. No man should kill another for any reason save protecting themselves and there families from harm by another individual or group.

Conclusion: We all have work to do. Racism is a perversion of the world. It violates Gods teachings and I'm sure it violates the very principles of atheists as well. The tolerance policy by governments has done good. We tolerate each other as we attempt to co-exist, but tolerance is not enough. I do not want to just tolerate you being near me and working with me. It is time to take the next step, by accepting and finally understanding who we all are and what we have in common. Yes, two more steps, acceptance and understanding. We are all one race, the Human Race. We share so much in common and if we understood that, the disagreements will be pale in comparison. Our bond as a united people is in what we all share. We are human, we love freedom, we want to give ourselves and our families a happy healthy life, we all believe in something, and more. How can we all be right and yet all be so wrong at the same time? Surely we all have a role to play in destroying racism. Yes, people will be used as scapegoats when it comes to times of pain and torment, but we can and will get past this eventually. Just remember one thing, we have all been oppressed and we have all been an oppressor at one time or another in history and sometimes we are both at the same time. Once we understand that we are both victims and victimizers then maybe we can get past the hate passed from one generation to the next and move on to a brighter future.

Issue 81 Should College be Free May 21, 2013

I would say no. I have my reasons and they are simple and succinct. Maybe I am biased as I went to a private University (Hofstra), but for me, not everyone is cut out for the college life and we may be putting too much stock in this form of higher learning.

It is a privilege: For one education is a privilege. We have to pay for schools whether it is in the form of payments, or in the form of taxation. Thus, no form of schooling is truly free as you not only pay for yourself and your children, but with respect to government run education; you are paying for everyone else too. To go to school is not a right in any way, shape, or form. Some of you may disagree and I welcome that disagreement. However, take this into account; you can get the same knowledge for free at a library or on the internet. The role of college is not just about educating people, it is about recognizing that you have knowledge in the eyes of your first employer. After that, college becomes nothing but a tool to use to get around in social circles which may let you meet someone who may give you the "good word" and help you move to a higher paying job. In short, college enhances the "who you know factor". Learning on the other hand is a right as you do it every single day in every thing that you do. There is a difference.

Free Colleges: There is no such thing. If you still think that a college that says it is free is actually free, then look at how much you pay in taxes. I don't want to pay for someone’s free education. The idea is repulsive to me on account of the fact that I was once a college student my self. People went to college not to learn (at least a good portion of the people I went to college with) but to party. It was there parents paying for their kids to party for four straight years. As such, I would not hang out with that group as I wanted to devour all forms of knowledge at my finger tips. I studied Persian, Italian, Sign Language, Art history, Political Science (my major), religion, and more. I also read outside the class room just to stay ahead and also challenge the teacher at every turn. I questioned the status quo with boldness and thus I graduated with honors. But that is enough of me tooting my own horn; I’m here to say why we should not support other people’s quest for education (well at least certain people). Fact is that not every one should go to college and there are people who would have made more money if they never went to college in the first place. I know students who just never could fit in to the college class room and so they jumped from college to college getting a free ride off there parent’s money. I do not want to see the same thing happen with free colleges as those people are just free riders getting a good reputation off a college that they could care less about.

Who should get the help?: I know of only one group of people who should go to college and get a free ride. That is people who want to learn and strive academically. They care put there work first and thus their future first. It is not about fun and games at college as fun and games are a privilege saved for when all there work is complete. I am talking about the highly motivated students at all income and class levels that want to rise above themselves and set an example to their brothers and sisters and other members of their family. Here, they are to be idolized and they want to be praised for their hard work. It is these people who have made colleges look good for so long. Truth is however; if these people never went to college and just went into the private sector first, they would still be well off as their motivation is what pulls them to greater heights. The work becomes its own reward.

Conclusion: I don't like free riders. Also, I don't like what colleges have become. They are less about learning and more about recreation (at least here in America). I don't know how it is in other countries, but I would hope they kick students out who do not perform up to a strict set of criteria. In addition, colleges in the U.S. have become corrupt and are part of the crony capitalist culture by snuffing out jobs. They do this by making certain jobs require a college level education which enhances pay for those who manage to get into the field, but leaves people who are just as capable unable to afford the cost and other regulatory hurdles. In essence colleges support the over licensed culture of the job market. Since when do we need a college classroom to study how to make pottery, let alone get a license to make one for sale? The myth of college and free schooling is over. Thanks to the internet and people who fight for us in places like the Supreme Court our freedoms are slowly being returned even as others are confiscated. The power to learn and surpass yourself is in your own hands. What you need to succeed has always been within your grasp. You are motivated to succeed and because of that, you will through effort and the seizing of opportunities that are presented to you rise above your peers. You will separate yourself from the rest of the masses to lead rather than follow. College is a tool to do that, this is true. But ask yourself, is going there for four years worth the cost.

Issue 80 The air powered car May 20, 2013

Yes, as the title says we are going to talk about an air powered car. This is not in any way science fiction and some are already on the market. So let us begin.

What is it?: The air powered car is a vehicle with an engine designed to use compressed air to drive the motor. It works on the same principle as a traditional engine, but the compressed air pushes the pistons rather than a controlled explosion. These engines generally require no lubricants of any sort as the air itself provides a barrier to any sort of friction in the engine. In tests, the air powered car has gone over a 120 miles without fueling and the goal is to have a car that can go from New York to Nevada on a single tank of compressed air.

Safety first: Safety wise, compressed air is volatile. If say a traditional metal tank cracks, it will shatter like a large hand grenade. Engineers have solved this problem by making the air tanks out of carbon fiber which are designed to split open in case of a breach. Also, to address concerns that a breach in the tank will cause the car to launch like a rocket, safety release valves are place on the sides to prevent such an occurrence.

Is it truly fuel free?: Not entirely. You still need a compressor to compress the air in the tank. Filling such a tank could take as long as 2 hours. But, fueling stations will have technology that will solve that issue. Also, on board air compressors can and will be used to help refuel. While fueling stations can compress air off the energy grid, or even use solar and wind power to generate more electricity to compress air, the car will still need fuel. In this case, an 8 gallon gas tank will be used. However, while not 100% fuel free (yet), they produce less pollution than even a hybrid. The fuel will only be used to re-compress the tank and while at higher speeds than 35 miles per hour to generate more power. Future technology may see solar panels, and small wind turbines to charge batteries that will air in replacing the on board fuel supply.

Conclusion: These vehicles are the future if the public catches on to them. They provide a cleaner alternative to gas powered vehicles and are actually lighter and thus more fuel efficient. The only emissions while running on compressed air is well "air". Compressed air also has the ability to cool the environment which will be great for roads in summer as heat can damage them. Can you imagine how much we all can save in road work costs if cars cool the road as they drive preventing them from buckling and deteriorating due to heat? Also, as the air powered car is at most a ton in weight, this will provide less wear on the roads as well. There is another source of potential savings. Costs at the pump impact food prices and the price of all other goods as well. There will be trucks powered by air on the cheap. While normal trucks may need over $100 in fuel, an air powered version may on spend about $20 (based on the estimate that you only need $2 to fill up a passenger version). This will mean the price of goods will decrease dramatically. Welcome to a cleaner future where air, the most abundant resource on earth can be used to power your car for less than $2 worth of electricity.

To find out more check out the How Stuff Works web site here :
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/vehicles/air-car.htm

Issue 79 Stem Cells: A god send? May 17, 2013

Stem cells are the basic building block from which all our cells develop to become our organs, bones, etc. There are many different varieties of stem cells with embryonic being the most controversial. It has already been proven that all stem cells where ever they are derived work to help improve and heal our physical condition. So is this the best thing to happen to medicine since penicillin?

Yes it is: Stem cells are being experimented with to help heal heart disease, cure cancers and even repair and correct physical and mental conditions. In the show Beyond Tomorrow that was airing on the Science Channel, they injected healthy stem cells from one part of an elderly gentleman’s heart into the part of his heart that was failing. The result was that the mans heart was repaired by those stem cells and was shown to actually make the part of the heart younger. Well not necessarily younger, but health wise it was younger. This is just the beginning.

Stem cells from other animals: Some stem cells don't come from the human body. All animals have them and they are being experimented with too. In the case of the military they are making a kind of dust from pig stem cells. They use this dust by sprinkling it on the stubs of amputees to stimulate the human bodies own stem cells to grow the limb back. So far there has been some progress as some of the soldiers limbs have started growing back, albeit slowly and only in cases of small limbs like fingers. The technology is still developing but there is a hope that we will soon be able to grow peoples limbs back completely.

The types of stem cells: There are stem cells that already exist in the human body. They exist in our blood stream, in our organs, and even in our bones. With these stem cells, it is simply a matter of re-activating them to help heal the sick. As aforementioned, there are animals with stem cells that can be of use to us. These will be used to make other sorts of medicines to allow our bodies to heal themselves, and eventually help to heal our pets. Another type of stem cell is in the umbilical cord. This type exists in umbilical fluid and has greater potential to help heal more serious diseases like Parkinson’s and cancers, at least if our own dormant stem cells prove to be not up to the task.

The most controversial is embryonic. These stem cells exist in undeveloped babies. These are believed to have the greatest potential to save lives, but there is one problem. You will have to kill the unborn child in the fetal stage to harvest the cells. Such a practice is currently outlawed in the U.S. save Jonathon Swifts Modest Proposal becoming a reality. I do not support the research using the unborn stem cells for both moral and ethical reasons as I can see the unborn as nothing but a human life. As such, I will not sacrifice one life for another’s in this scenario.

Conclusion: The discovery and use of stem cells is fantastic. It will allow us to move away from potent and potentially harmful medications and procedures that cause more stress to the body. So this truly is a God send to the medical community and to the world. Now we just have to explore the possibilities.

Issue 78 Should we play God?: extinct species May 16, 2013

I'm sure you have heard about or even read the article in National Geographic about bringing extinct species back from the grave. Most of the animals they intend on bringing back are birds, but they also want to see if they can bring back a mastodon, a woolly mammoth and a saber tooth tiger. I question if we should actually bring these amazing animals back to the world?

Worry number 1: These animals died out within the last couple of thousand of years (they can't bring back dinosaurs due to their DNA being un-recoverable). Some were hunted to extinction while others died due to environmental changes. If we choose to bring these animals back are we dooming them to death once again? Think about it. We are not 100% sure as to why certain species of animals died out. They think the mastodon can come back because the plant life in the arctic tundra is coming back to what it is believed it was like those hundreds of years ago. But, scientists cannot be sure. By breading these animals we could end up poisoning them with current plants and animal life. Morally thinking, I advise against any attempt to release these animals into the wild unless it is provable that they can live and flourish outside a lab.

Worry number 2: Another issue is what happens to the animals that took there place in the wild once they became extinct. The animal kingdom is full of niche animal species. Each one thriving in that role until natural selection occurs once again, such as favoring shorter winged birds over longer winged birds in an urban environment (it allows them to better avoid being hit bay cars). We may regain one species of animal, just to kill off another species through competition with the animal brought back. This is another issue that will have to be taken into account.

The process: What they intend to bring back are not exactly the original animal that went extinct. What is being brought into the world is a representation of the animal that went extinct. To bring such creatures back, scientist map the genome of the extinct animal from DNA that has been recovered. From there, they fill in the missing pieces of DNA with what they believe to be accurate representations of the original animal. From this point the same process used in cloning takes place. They manipulate the eggs of an animal whose DNA is as close a match as possible (Elephant to mastodon for example) and substitute the altered DNA parts with the originals. The result is a hybrid of the original animal and the extinct species. At this point the process is repeated until the animal looks like the extinct species they wanted to bring back. Problem, the animal is not necessarily the extinct species; they are just making another animal look like it. In addition, you cannot study it as the extinct species as we are not 100% sure how the original behaves, thus you are just studying a man made representation and the ways they adapt to the environment they are in (assuming they live).

Conclusion: I know I sound critical, and that is because I am. There is no way that I don't think it is cool that these new versions of extinct species could walk the earth, but morally I'm troubled. Should we bring such animals back, just to see them die, or cause other animals to die as well? Conservation efforts don't exactly work out as planned. Some animals died out anyway, while others became too successful and have to be hunted regularly to avoid over population. In this instance, I would just use this science to test if it is possible to bring animals back. I would not release them out in the wild, but rather seek to design animals that could exist as domesticated versions in zoos. We could create more versions of life stock for leather, and meat to help end world hunger. Or we can even use the technology to aid in our government's mission to colonize Mars (you know they want the credit) by creating animals that can survive the harsh conditions. There will be many issues with this technology and the creations it produces as the animals must survive here on earth, exposed to many of the same diseases that may have wiped out there originals. Can we play God? Yes, but it is not exactly the most advisable thing to do (think the movie Planet of the Apes and the lesson it was trying to impart).

Issue 77 Tenure: Is it really needed? May 15, 2013

                    

  Tenure was designed as a way to protect teachers from being fired for expressing their opinions.  That is what it was supposed to do in summary.  It was originally conceived to protect college professors from being fired for discussing controversial topics, fill in controversial topic here.  Tenure in college was awarded to college professors after many years and under very strict standards with most professors never getting tenured.  Today is different.  Every teacher gets tenure through contract for a certain number of years of service and approval by some official in the education bureaucracy.  This even includes administrators as well.  The very same administrators who make up the education bureaucracy that creates massive redundancies and red tape.  Overall what is up with such a policy that just allows everybody to get job security even from the most heinous of infractions?

  Why the wall?:  That is right; I am asking why do they get a wall against being fired? It is impossible to get ride of bad teachers who are then placed in a firing process which could take years to be rid of them whilst they continue being paid.  They sit in places like New York States “rubber rooms” where they sit around all day raking in or tax dollars that are meant for educating America’s children. Tenure was not intended to protect bad teachers, but unfortunately it does.  It was also not intended to have good non-tenured teachers fired in their place.  Gives new meaning to last hired, first fired.

 Shouldn't it be a reward?:  What I don’t get is why tenure is necessary at all.  Should it not be rewarded like it used to be at colleges where who receives tenure is so strict that it is almost impossible to get.  Primary and secondary education teachers don’t even need tenure in the first place for they should not be talking about controversial topics to young students in the first place.  Not to mention that tenure gives them the license to turn their classroom into a bully pulpit to advocate certain ideologies to young impressionable children.  Other teachers may become lazy due to the job security tenure provides.  School officials are not teachers, so why have it for them even if they might have used to be teachers themselves.  Well I can only think that in the case of administrators having tenure is that it allows them to be whistle blowers on corruption, but we have whistle blower laws for that.  Let’s face it; a poor performing teacher should be fired.  It does not matter if that teacher is popular; popularity is no excuse for a lack of performance.

Conclusion:  Tenure belongs in college with strict requirements, not primary and secondary education where the only cheep option to get rid of a bad teacher is to transfer them and hope the new teacher is better than the last one.  It is so hard to fire a teacher, so expensive, that they transfer them hoping that the swap with the other school gives them a better teacher than the last.  The school does not want to pay bed teachers to sit for years while they go through the firing process.  It is hard to believe they transfer teachers because it’s cheaper.  A risk that schools take hoping that they did not sign a death warrant for the education of the class the new teacher will be teaching.  It is time to make schools cheaper, improve teacher quality by cutting off the minority bad teacher’s free ride.  Let us eliminate tenure, so we do not end up sending America’s children into a classroom that will negatively impact their future.