Issue 152 Postal Booze August 28, 2013

As the post office is running out of money, they are looking for creative solutions to gaining revenue. This idea was brought to my attention via the Huffington post from CNBC ("U.S. Postal Service Alcohol Delivery Idea Criticized by Merchants").

The idea: The premise is simple, let the post office be able to deliver alcohol and other spirits via the mail. It is a sound idea that I endorse completely. U.S. Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe wants the post office to be able to ship cases of 2, 4, or 6 bottles of booze at a flat rate price. Upon delivery it would have to be signed for by a person over the age of 21 (as proposed in a bill by the U.S. Senate).

Benefits: Money is to be made from this idea. For one, it allows the post office to finally be able to mail alcohol which it was originally banned from doing (they asked people to cover any labels or logos that pertain to alcohol if they reuse a box of spirits). As it stands now the post office lost $740 million in the third quarter of 2013. However, this may help make up for their losses and fund the retirement and health pensions that have become so burdensome to its business.

Consumers are also helped by this as they now have the option to mail beer, wine and others to their friends and neighbors across the entire continental U.S. Let us face it, America likes its spirits and having the option (especially during holiday season) would be worth it to consumers and some sellers. Likewise brewers and wineries would gain the ability to ship their product throughout the U.S. and thus bump up sales. It gives small brewers a chance to be recognized beyond their town boarders, and wineries the chance to attract more people to their brand. Basically you can have your favorite wine shipped directly to your house from the winery rather than go to the store only to find out they do not sell that particular brand. Flexibility becomes key which allows people the freedom of choice (in their glass that is). Many craft brewers already ship through licensed distributors, but this allows them to cut out the middle man.

Problems: Even though it can be done, there is one big problem. State and local laws have to be complied with. A dry county (a district where the sale of alcohol is prohibited to patrons) may prohibit mail order booze. State laws may interfere with times of delivery, or even the type and amount of alcohol that may be mailed and delivered at a given time. Also, it may not be worth the cost to some brewers who may need to hire extra staff just to pack up the boxes and maintain order just to mail the booze in the first place. Beer is "heavy, fragile and perishable" so shipping may actually become a nightmare. Let us also not forget that local liquor stores don't like the idea of mail order booze cutting into their bottom line as it adds more competition. Of course State and local laws may try to protect those local stores from losing money as well.

Conclusion: The Colorado based Brewers Association, which represents 1,797 U.S. craft and larger beer makers has said that certain small brewers with "specialty beers would have an interests in the USPS option." So the idea does have traction and as such will generate revenue for all involved. I can imagine battles in court however over the legality of dry counties and similar laws which may infringe on "interstate commerce." All I can say is that freedom of choice is essential. As such the freedom to buy and sell goods must have no restrictions (excluding prohibited items) to help maintain that freedom. Therefore as a libertarian, I see this as a step in the right direction for the country. Yes I do understand that much of the domestic violence and spousal abuse is due to alcohol and that teens may drive while under the influence, but that is all about personal responsibility. Domestic violence would happen with alcohol regardless and teens driving while intoxicated also will not change as far as I can see. I also endorse reducing the age restrictions on the purchase of alcohol as it has been shown that the younger you are exposed to spirits in general, the less likely you are to drive intoxicated, or drink in excess. So let us loosen up the system and mail some booze.

Issue 151 Principles of peoples war August 27, 2013

I may not like Mao and what he did to his people in China to implement his version of communism, but he did have one thing right and that is the principles of people’s war. Here is how it works.

1. Public relations/propaganda: Here the organization or groups seeking control (terrorist, freedom fighter or both) needs aid by the masses. So they try to make themselves look good through certain actions and deeds. Hamas in the Middle East builds hospitals and schools for people. At the same time they launch propaganda stating that Israel is the root cause for all their problems that their people face. Obviously they won control based on how they now have control of both governments in Gaza and The West Bank. But simple acts like helping the sick or making your enemy look like a monster through information campaigns are effective. Even the U.S. military uses propaganda and public relations techniques to try to get populations to sympathies with them and ally themselves with the U.S. against common enemies even if that is their own government.

2. Guerrilla warfare: In step 2 small raids are carried out on specific targets. These raids are to show that the government is incapable of defending itself and thus put pressure on them. More importantly it is to show that the government cannot protect the people themselves and the peoples fear along with their reaction to it place enormous pressure on the government to do something, including surrendering at times. Basically, the enemy’s power and political will must be reduced as much as possible to make them look and feel helpless. The enemy is therefore forced to react to show their strength. However, as the violence escalates so does the enemy government’s reactions. From there more people side with the terrorists/freedom fighters as they become isolated or become victims themselves of government oppression.

3. All out war: This is the final push. To overthrow the government in "people’s war", it comes down to a swift and violent assault. If the regime is not overthrown then the terrorists/freedom fighters lost. But, that does not mean that the rebellion is over. If the all out war step fails to overthrow the regime, the terrorists/freedom fighters simply go back to steps 1 and 2. Basically, the process is repeated over and over until there is a decided victor. Meanwhile the government in control is either left in a better or worse position than when the conflict first began.

Conclusion: Understanding why and how people fight is essential to figuring out ways to stop violence all together. Thus, today's issue just shows the basic steps that revolutionaries and even terrorists follow to achieve an overthrow of the ruling government. People from George Washington to Mao (who explained/demonstrated the concept in its entirety) have used these steps to get the results they wanted. These steps are a tool so as to achieve a means to an end, but the moral values and the methods and reasons behind it are what determine if the person using the people’s war steps is good or evil.

Issue 150 Evolution of language August 26, 2013

I base today's issue on "What Language Is" by John McWhorter (2011, Gotham books New York) and a science channel special on language. Here we will discuss the possibilities of how language may evolve (with a focus on English as that is my native language). So let's get started.

Evolution: The science channel special performed an experiment to show how language evolves over time. For the experiment they provided a series of pictures featuring colors, and objects and gave them made up names. Then they had an individual look at each picture, try to memorize the name and then after about 15 minutes of memorization try to look at the picture and say the memorized name. Of course most of what they said may have been wrong, but this experiment was to demonstrate on an accelerated scale how language evolves. So the next subject had to do the same thing in the experiment except for one difference. The mistakes on the names that the first person made became the new names. This process was repeated over and over until the names could be remembered by each following subject. What the experiment proved was that language over time simplifies itself through the errors that the language speakers make.

Using capitols: What if a language got rid of all of its silent letters. An example is "bite" with the silent "e" acting as a modifier to make the "i" say its name. But when we capitalize a letter it also says its name, and as such bite can be spelled "bIt" with the capitol "I" saying its name. That is one example, but how about another. "Bait", as in shark bait. Instead of the "i" acting as a modifier it would look like this "bAt" as "A" would say its name and thus make a similar sound compared to the existing word. It would not be confused with "bat" as the "a" here does not say its name (and is not capitalized to do so). Of course capitol letters may be removed entirely as well, so "bite" may turn into "bi`t" instead with the accent mark making the "i" say its name instead. Interesting right.

Removing silent letters and unneeded letters: "Quite" has a silent "u". So what if we got rid of the "u"? It would look like this "qite". It would still mean the same thing only because "q" comes from the sound that "kw" makes together. Of course "kwite" could also result as "q" comes from the combination of "kw". Thus there would no longer be a need for the letter "q". Likewise the letter "c" or "k" may disappear as they make similar sounds. So our language may remove two of them and just keep the one. Or it may even reassign the letter "c" to making the sound that "ch" makes together as another possibility making words like "channel" become "cannel".

Letters that make sounds they should not: Have you ever wondered why the "ti" in nation sounds similar to the sound of "sh". Well what if we did this: "nashon" instead. Or how about replacing the "gh" and "ph" in words where they make the sound that "f" makes with an actual "f". Part of the reason that English is so hard to learn is that different letters in combination make the same sounds as other letters. So you can spell "fish" as "ghoti" with "gh" the "f" sound from "enough", the "o" sounding like "i" from "women" and the "ti" the "sh" sound from "nation". Basically some people may just make the language more phonetic.

Word replacement: Some times we have words that are spelt the same or even spelt different but ultimately sound the same. So let us use the words "see" and "sea" and "bear and bear". It is possible to substitute words in English with words from other cultures like Spanish or Japanese. The reason is that English is very flexible when it comes to adopting new terms like "ghetto" or the name "Sean" as our culture takes in not just the immigrant but their language as well. So we may for example have bear (for grizzly bear) spelt as "kuma" which is Japanese for bear, while leaving the word bear to mean something along the lines of "bear skin". Likewise "sea" could be called something else entirely or just be replaced by the word "ocean". Though most languages tend to simplify words and thus smaller easier to say words take hold more often when describing something.

Conclusion: Stuff like slang terms from different cultures and groups of people may become common terms like "floordrobe" which has been added to the dictionary (found this out through national geographic magazine). Language is a communication tool that evolves to meet peoples every day challenges, but that is because mistakes made, like spelling "cat" as "kat" may become the new way to spell things. Even letters like "A" may loose its horizontal line in the middle or "K" loosing its vertical line to look like this "<" may occur. We really do not know what the future of our language is or how other languages may evolve along side it (or even fuse together for that matter). All I can say is that the possibilities are as endless as they are fascinating.

Issue 149 Gangs August 23, 2013

A gang is a group of individuals who come together for a common purpose. Or at least that is the least strict in terms of definitions. But what is a gang about, and why do they exist?

Safety: Some gangs form so that they can protect each other. As most gangs sell drugs and extort businesses, they need to protect their area from rival dealers, gangs and the police. So groups of drug dealers and hustlers come together with the common goal of mutual protection. A hierarchy typically develops with some one or a group of individuals giving direction to the rest. That individual or group is now responsible for the safety of the rest and directs how the rest of the gang in how it is to protect itself.

Initiation: Some gangs don't start out as gangs. They start as individuals being friends. A person may be friends with another and thus that friend slowly pulls them into the gang by introducing them to the other members. And this friend who was originally not part of the gang begins hanging out there while trying to get a sense of belonging. Then this individual goes through some sort of initiation. Initiations range from just being accepted, to petty theft, to murder and rape. For some gangs like the Crips, their initiation is to kill a member of their rival gang the Bloods. Though the California Crips and Bloods have generally made peace, initiation rights vary from region to region and from gang to gang.

One other form of initiation is putting the person in debt with the gang. The recruiter will buy them gifts, but then finally have the recruited individual pay them back in some way. Usually this is done by selling drugs, but can include killing and/or kidnapping some one. Once the job is done they are either let go to be arrested by the police or make it so that the only place to turn is the gang itself. From there they become a new member who will do the gangs bidding.

It is all about money: Gangs do not really care about their members. In fact most are expendable foot soldiers that are easily replaced. Not even the other leaders are safe as the gang members are corrupted by greed. Remember that gangs exist to fend off rival gangs and in some instances take territory from other gangs by force. Money is to be made through extortion, drugs, sex slavery and even sometimes an assassination business. Comradely is fictional as long as money is in the picture. Remember, they do not care who you are, for if you are in the way of their money making business they will remove you.

They help the terrorists: Yes these gangs that sell drugs may be involved with terrorist groups. They may be involved with Al Quada, or even government sponsored gangs like MS 13 which is supported by the Venezuelan government. Gangs do not care where they get their product from, they just want the cash. So they will buy and sell for these terrorists to make a profit, while terrorists get money from this partnership to fund their operations. Very scary isn't it.

Conclusion: Gangs are the modern day mafia. They can be as powerful as the drug cartels in Latin America, to as lowly as a street gang. Some are peaceful like the anti-drug groups like "strait edge", but they are an exception not the rule. The only thing they have in common is a desire for money. Members are recruited regularly to carry out new crimes and to act as drug mules. In some cases, if you do not comply you are killed. This is a problem facing every country all over the globe as these gangs no matter there origin corrupt the young and turn them into criminals. Sure we can fight back by legalizing Weed, (60% of the drug cartels revenue comes from "pot") or trying out new policing techniques. However, the only sure fire strategy is to improve education and opportunity. If there is no alternative to the gang that is more appealing, then the members will stay in the gang. We can take our cities and our countries children back from criminality and turn peaceful examples of gangs like "strait edge" into the norm.

Issue 148 Future of Pharmacy August 22, 2013

With how technology is progressing, the pharmaceutical industry is changing. Most particularly, how medicine is made and where it is sold will change. Let's get started.

Doctors, the pharmacist?: With the advent of 3D printers, along with other devices, doctors may try to cut out the middle man in their patient’s life. Some doctors will start producing medicine in their offices and selling it there. 3D printers can print pills customized toward individual patients on demand. Same with liquid medications, they can be produced on demand if the appropriate chemicals are available. This will mean that doctors will be getting raw materials for making pills and liquid solutions to their offices so they can make the medications as needed. What is interesting is that this will reduce or eliminate the need for many forms of prescription drug insurance as the medical portion of the insurance that covers doctors will also cover the cost of the drugs being bought (if made in the office). What is also good about this is that those drugs will be cheaper as they no longer have to factor in the cost of manufacturing the drug itself, just the cost of the chemicals, shipping cost, and the cost of the power used to make the medication.

The Pharmacist: The role of a pharmacist will generally not change. Only hospitals and doctors who have a licenses to make their own medicines (and if they can afford the cost of the equipment) will make custom medication in house. As such, the pharmacist (especially retail pharmacists) will have the 3D printers, and solution mixtures to make custom medications. They will inevitably sell custom drugs along side traditional prescriptions made by pharmaceutical companies. Even then the pharmacist may just have to input data into a computer, to make and dispense medications. They then have to simply know drug interactions so as to avoid any negative effects that a patient may suffer.

Heck, they may even do this through a video phone, but that remains to be seen.

Pharmacy staff: As some one who works as a technician in a pharmacy, I know I will be replaced by a robot. That robot will act in the same way as an Automated Teller Machine (ATM). All you do is put some form of identification in the machine to find your medication (or the medication of the person your picking up for) and then pay for it. Insurance will be scanned with bar codes or radio frequency identification chips (RFID chips) to bill the insurance companies. From there it will tell you your co-payment. As to whether the insurance will cover your medication or not is another matter. From there you pay and take your medicine home.

More freedom: Currently (or at least in NY) pharmacy staff cannot give a person an equivalent drug to a patient if they are out of stock, or the insurance does not cover the medication. The patient needs to get a new prescription to get the other drug. Thus, future pharmacies will be able to dispense such medications if they are the exact formula or in the same class of medication. More so if the insurance will cover the other medication more and the patient is not allergic to it. In fact, insurance data bases, doctor’s medical files and patient drug files may become linked so that everyone at every level of the health care system can see what is going on with the patient. So we at the pharmacy will finally be able to answer the question as to if a certain drug is covered by their insurance. Not to mention pharmacists will be able to ensure that there will be no negative drug reactions as they currently cannot see if you the patient filled at a different pharmacy or not, and what medications you are getting at that other pharmacy.

Home made: Some medicines may be allowed to be produced at home. 3D printers and similar devices may become as ubiquitous as the cell phone. As such, those devices may be allowed to be used to make medications at home. This means more people can self medicate themselves more. There may even be a function that allows you to scan your prescription and input the chemicals into the hopper to make your medications right there and then. It is more convenient, but certain regulatory hurdles will still have to be overcome (not to mention those who will use the technology for illegal purposes).

Conclusion: Most of this is hypothetical. How medicine evolves is really up in the air. Regulations may prevent the spread of the technology. Fear of a computer glitch causing the medicine being made turning into a poison may be too strong and thus shut down the idea completely for a period of time. Also, many businesses prefer to have people working for them at registers and filling prescriptions because of that human element. As such, people will be removed from the positions of insurance billing, and selling the medication if the costs of paying an individual, and other burdens become overwhelming. No one knows what the future really holds, and the field of medicine is slow to adopt changes in practices out of fear of other portions being outmoded. It remains to be seen how our medical field evolves, but when it does it will usually be for the better.

Issue 147 The Tricorder August 21, 2013

If you have ever watched Star Trek then you will know of the tricorder. For those who do not know, the tricorder is a futuristic device meant to take readings on various phenomena. So it could be used to scan for people and other life forms in an area, radioactive material, various minerals and elements along with energy signatures. But the most important version was the medical tricorder. And you know what? The medical tricorder may just become reality.

Behind the scenes: The "X Prize" program has set up another one of their contests to make the tricorder real. "X Prize" is a foundation where a person or business puts up money as a prize for creating a successful invention. In this case a tricorder. The contest rules dictate that the "tricorder" must be able to perform 3 medical functions. With the contest open toward everyone, ideas were a plenty. In fact the successes at the contest have led to interesting innovations.

Results: Some of the tricorder designs were not tricorders in looks of Star Trek, but smart phones with additional functions. One version had an attachment that allowed it to perform a sonogram. Another was able to monitor for a person's vital signs like their heart beat. There was even one that could monitor a person’s blood sugar for diabetes patients (it had a mechanism that allowed the test strips to be inserted). This got many people thinking about how the smart phone can be a true to life tricorder. Other types spawned from the ideas of the "X Prize" teams were an App that acted in the same way as Web MD allowing you to help diagnose your own medical issues. Currently in Africa, a smart phone equipped with a blood sample reader can test for malaria and a few other diseases like dengue fever. Smart phones are becoming a common tool for people to help themselves diagnose themselves or doctors to have access to cheap alternatives to medical equipment. The perfect example of this is the sonogram function which costs $300 as opposed to the one thousand plus dollar pieces of equipment already in service. Also in the works is a smart phone that not only monitors vitals, but has a test tube you spit in. This tube has test strips to test for certain chemicals which only show up when you are sick. So the device will also be able to test for a multitude of deceases at the same time. The result may be a true tricorder.

What to expect: The technology is actually in its infancy. As computers get smarter and are able to store more memory along with processing power they will be able to do more. It will not be surprising to find a doctor taking out his smart phone to help diagnose his/her patients. On top of that, the doctor will be able to send prescriptions based on the diagnosis (which may be aided by, or even done by the smart phone itself). Already doctors are using digitized records with ipads and tablet PCs to save on cost and also to email prescriptions, but with a "tricorder" it may become a whole lot easier to do. For instance doctors do not always know of what new drugs are on the market. But with the "tricorder" they will have access to all the information on all the drugs that will help heal their patient. In fact, they will be able to see which drugs and treatments will be covered by their patients insurance and at what cost. However, patients may take on a greater role in treating themselves for minor things like small colds and fevers. This will disturb some doctors, but that has become the goal for some of the innovators behind real life tricorders. These people want individuals to save time and money by being able to treat themselves when and where they can. Mean while doctors are hesitant about being replaced by a computer. Yes the tricorder will be capable of doing much more with far little cost, but development and approval by agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are slow. So our neighbors in Africa and other nations with not so strict regulations will get to use this technology first.

Conclusion: Tricorders, or tricked out smart phones, are going to be the future of medicine. The goal of creating the ultimate medical muti-tool as seen on Star Trek is just too tempting to pass up given all its advantages. So the real question is how long it will be before your doctor is using one. As a matter of fact, it is a question of how long until you can buy one for your self.

Issue 146 What is a Theocracy? August 20, 2013

 
Well a theocracy is a government that is "blessed" by God. Its rules and conduct are shaped by the religion in which it emerges from. So countries like Iran have Islam (their version) acting as the basis for their right to rule and how the people should act. By what are the qualities of a theocracy?

First Quality: It must have a religion. Without a religion it would not be a theocracy. For within the faith are the rules upon which people are to act. So the religious rules of the faith are then enforced by the government. So if the faith says a persons hand must be chopped off for stealing, then it is chopped off. If you convert to a different faith, but the rules in the theocracy say you can't then you will suffer the penalty. Basically all religious law becomes legal law.

Second Quality: For situations in which the faith says nothing, such as a circumstance not mentioned in the holy books, religious leaders or the head of the religious faith are turned to. So let us say the faith says nothing on how to deal with the punishment of a group of religious adherents who differ slightly from the faith in terms of worship. The religious leaders will then have to decide based on the already established rules if such conduct is allowed, followed by an appropriate punishment. Although, the conduct may itself be ignored.

Final Quality: Typically, a theocracy is a type of dictatorship. The faith and its rulers control people’s lives with an iron fist. Toleration of certain behavior is approved only in the interest of maintaining stability as they slowly remove elements they do not approve of. Basically, those who control the faith control the populace and thus use faith to bend them to their will.

Who rules: There is two methods of government upon which theocracy's are run. They can be run like Iran's government. In Iran they have a religious council that maintains the integrity of the faith and advises how the government should act. The government portion is a false democracy with elected leaders manipulated into power through the religious councils influence. However the government portion will seek greater power.  As such, the government and the religious institution will fight for power and control.

However, the alternative is that the head of State: the president, king, or equivalent is the head of the faith. A good example is the old kings and queens of England who were head of the Protestant Church. Usually, this gave legitimacy to the government as being run by a person directly endorsed by God. Also, these rulers typically could do whatever they wanted in the name of God with all those who disagreed forced to comply or face harsh consequences.

Conclusion: A theocracy is by far not a perfect government. In fact, the morality of faith is ignored by those in charge. The faith is not at fault for the conduct of the rulers, but the perversion of the faith is caused by those rulers. In the United States, the Federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or make rules/ perform actions favorable to one faith or another. This is enshrined in the 1st Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Our founding fathers saw how faith was used as a tool of tyranny over in Europe and decided enough was enough. They would not allow the Judeo-Christian values be tainted by the corruption of government power. As such, no theocracy is safe from corruption and self destruction, in the same way no government is safe from collapsing under its own weight.