Issue 175 Company College October 2, 2013

College is expensive here in the United States. I have to say I was lucky to have my parents as I paid a year of college myself with the remaining three being paid off by my parents. As such I graduated with zero debt. But my fellow students at Hofstra and other universities were not so lucky. They owe in excess anywhere between $30,000 and $180,000. On top of this, colleges are not training students in the skills they need for the work place environment. Students often get retrained by their work place in the skills they need for them to be successful in the company. As such, companies want to cut out the middle man.

What Businesses are doing: Due to the lack of job skills coming out of colleges, companies are offering their own online degrees in the courses that they feel best prepare a person for a job. Well, the course prepares the person for work in their own company primarily. However, many of those skills transfer over to other related business disciplines and as such make an individual just as marketable as if they went through another company’s online college course. Yes that is correct; the courses offered are college level equivalent. As such you take a course online in the same way you would if you were taking an online college course. Plus the course is recognized to be at the college level. So it looks just as good on a resume as if you went to a traditional college. The only difference is that a company offered the course as opposed to a college who offering the course.

Advantages: For one, the primary advantage is that it is cheap. The cost of these company level courses is smaller in general to the traditional college courses offered. In addition, it is a company offering a course that is geared mainly for preparing you in skills to work in the field that the company is in. So a tech company will offer relevant tech courses based on what they need and projected future needs. This is the same for all disciplines of business who want people prepared to do the job as opposed to them having to waste their money retraining people with the skills they require. So there is less need to worry about no being able to do a job as the course has trained you to do it already. Also, the training helps you to prep to work in other businesses in the same field and as such you are not restricted to working for the business who originally offered the course.

Disadvantages: The main disadvantage is the lack of traditional networking that occurs on campus. Brick and mortar colleges allow for you to meet strangers who could possibly one day land you a job. No, your normal social life will not suffer as you create your own from home. But your networking, unless you use various forms of social networking, will be limited. As to other disadvantages, there are certain courses that can only be accomplished in person. Some interdisciplinary courses like art, literature and such may require an actual school. So you will need to seek one of those out to acquire such forms of study.

Conclusion: Online courses are the wave of the future. They will not remove the traditional schools from their position with respect to certain forms of study (like being a doctor), but schooling will most likely get cheaper. Businesses offering such courses though will mean more competition which will force colleges to either offer better courses or lower their prices to compete. This of course is a win for everyone either way. But this revolution also helps the people with a lower income level as college is now becoming that much more affordable. This means less loans will be needed and as such less burden upon the individual once they graduate.

Issue 174 Right to die?! October 1, 2013

Do we have a right to die? Well I am conflicted. As a libertarian I should be in favor of letting people commit suicide if they so choose or of having assisted suicide if they feel they can no longer live in pain or other circumstance. As a Catholic, I am opposed because you’re not supposed to die by any means save a natural death. So let us discuses both sides as best we can.

Those who say we have the right: For one, it is your own body. You are allowed to jump out of airplanes, dive down to the depths of the sea and even clime mountains. We do many dangerous things that risk our lives. So why is it that we are allowed to risk our lives doing such things but not allowed to take it? Then there is the fact that people are suffering from diseases that are terminal. Some of these unfortunate people are in severe pain. Do they not have the right to end their own suffering when all manor of medication fails? And what if they cannot kill themselves but need the life support turned off for them? Why can't they have a doctor flip the switch for them that will end their suffering? Some States have already passed laws allowing people to have assisted suicide. This of course is better than traditional as the other person can at least insure that this is what that individual really wants. There are even seniors who want to be euthanized because they feel they are nothing but a burden to their own families. Of course this is sad, but it is also their own bodies. Do we as individuals have a right to decide this? We are given that choice when we appoint health care proxies to determine if to attempt resuscitation or not. Of course this is a person dying on there own and it being determined if they still want a chance at living. But for some, there is very little difference between choosing to die by not being resuscitated and having some one help you.

Libertarians ask themselves these very questions. They wonder about how many rights I personally hold over myself the individual. As such, because it is my body and I am not hurting anyone else "physically" then it is ok.

Those opposed: The people opposed to such things remember what it is like to loose a loved one. They hated that feeling with a passion. As such, a friend or family member choosing to die of their own free will is foreign to them. Sure they will praise the soldier who jumped on the hand grenade as a hero. But that is because the suicide had some sort of meaning. It was not senseless to die to save others. However, choosing to die for selfish reasons (no matter how benign) just turns many people’s stomachs like mine. I do not want to loose any of my friends and family in such a way. I love them all dearly irrespective of how often I get to see them or feel about them. With regards to faith, suicide is like spitting in the face of God because you are murdering yourself. You have taken Gods only other role in your life (deciding when it is your time) and finished yourself off. Then there is the emotional content. What of the people you leave behind. Do they not have a say because they love you? Then with respect to assisted suicide, doctors are supposed to save lives not take them. How does that meet with the Hippocratic Oath and come out on top?

These are the reasons people who cannot see suicide as anything but a cowardly act feel. It is also how people of faith feel when confronted with such an issue. As such there is no easy answer as we really do not know how we will confront the issue when we are faced with it.

Conclusion: It is a hard topic to right about. I myself have only thought about suicide in the concept of what it would be like without me. What would happen to my parents, my family and my friends? What would my death do to them? Would it make one of them commit suicide, or break up the family? What ways could it be done? I have access to knives and guns, and when I really got creative I found that there is an infinite number of ways to just kill yourself off. It actually scared me how detailed I had gotten in thinking about it. But after that time I never really thought of it again. I wanted to confront the world’s problems that were put in my path with every ounce of strength and vigor I can muster. Am I afraid to die? Yes I am. But I prefer a natural death to one that I impose on myself. As such I personally am against suicide. I hate the very idea of it all. However, I cannot speak for everyone. As such I have to come down the middle road on this and say that I would allow for assisted suicide for people on their death bed. But that is all especially as you cannot stop a healthy person from killing themselves if they really wanted to die. So this is how I feel. Again thanks for reading and I hope you get something good out of this too.

Issue 173 Ted Cruz September 30, 2013

Have you heard of the name Texas Senator Ted Cruz? Well he is the man that is leading the fight to defund the affordable care act, better known as Obama care. He recently spoke on Tuesday into Wednesday for a full 21 hours in a filibuster on the Senate floor. He beat out Senator Rand Paul's filibuster by a whole 10 hours. By why did he do it? What was the point of blocking all progress in the Senate?

The Reason: Senator Cruz wanted to bring attention back to an issue that some people seem to have either forgotten or have given up on. That issue of course is Obama care. In the recent budget legislation there is a provision that will defund Obama care completely and thus end its current and future harm to the United States and our health care system. It has already been shown that about sixty plus percent of Americans want it gone. So Cruz felt that the filibuster will force attention back on to the issue so that it would make it harder for the Democrats and Republicans to vote against it. Basically he wanted them to know that the American people will be watching.

Current effects of Obama Care: At this point many people have already seen a rise in health insurance coasts with some experiencing a 20 to 60 percent increase in premiums. Some families are expected to see a whole $7,000 increase to their yearly health care costs. There have been insurance blackouts which is where insurance companies refuse to cover anyone in a given area. This has already occurred in Louisiana and a few other states. Co-pays for doctor visits and some medications have increased. At current the law stipulates that if a doctor gives too many tests or too little number of tests the doctor will be penalized financially even if the cause of the ailment has already been found on the first test. In addition, the law taxes medical devices including their use. As such the price of health care is rising even higher. What else is in Obama care has yet to be seen as the legislation is so long and the regulations (some of which are still being written) are so big that no one knows how badly our health care system will be affected. All we know is that the most expensive health care in the world is only going to go up in cost. This is what Ted Cruz wishes to stop.

Party Reaction: The Democrats do not have to do anything to stop Senator Cruz. They don't have to because the Republican Party leadership is annoyed with the way Senator Cruz is handling the Obama care situation. Cruz has as of now become a house hold name, and the party leadership doesn’t like that because it gives him credibility if he was to run for a higher office. Let us not forget that Cruz has only been a Senator for eight months and there is a seniority system in congress. Basically, the party leaders are supposed to tell you to jump and you say "how high?" Cruz and other Senators like Rand Paul prefer to ignore such childishness. But this has not stopped the Republican leadership from bashing Cruz every chance they get.

Conclusion: It is simple, if you want Obama care gone melt the phones in Washington D.C. Protest your congressmen and Senators declaring that if you do not vote in favor of defunding Obama care then we are voting you out. This also means you will stand behind Ted Cruz who at current still holds onto the reason he went into office, to do the right thing. The party leadership on both sides is all about control and maintaining power. But if we vote the losers out and replace them with more Rand Paul's and Ted Cruz's we may even stand a chance of forcing term limits on Congress. So let us get behind reform that gets the government monkey off our backs. Let's support Ted Cruz and his efforts to stop Obama care.

Issue 172 Libertarians part 2 September 27, 2013

Even libertarians have their disagreements. There are in fact two major disagreements in the libertarian club. They are the entitlements and abortion. These issues have and will continue to divide libertarians into the Democrat and Republican Party's. So let us go over these big disagreements.

The Entitlements: Many libertarians want a smaller government. For members of the libertarian crowd that means eliminating Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (and in many cases all other welfare as well). The reason libertarians feel that the entitlements can be removed is because charities would take up the mantel left behind to help these people. And this is true, charities used to do this job back before the existence of welfare or any of the entitlements. Charities later shrank due to their job being taken over by welfare. Whenever welfare and entitlements fail, then charities are there to pick up the pieces. At one point, charities had a system that kind of acted like an insurance policy. You would donate every month to the charity (usually a church or temple) and then if you ever fell into poverty that money would be used to help you. These charities also were able to distinguish between those who needed the most help and those who needed none (or needed to be cut off). Government cannot make such distinctions as it can only follow a one size fits all approach. If it were not for the fact that approximately 75% of welfare helps the rich, then libertarians would probably have a different opinion.

As to those who fear losing the entitlements. They are those libertarians who feel that it is needed. They are willing to break with the libertarian ideology to protect what they see as an essential safety net. For them, charities are welcome, but are not seen as having the ability to save everyone, let alone help everyone. It comes down to morality, do I cut off an imperfect system that is working, or do I go back to a system that I never grew up with or know how to operate. As such it is also part fear. Thankfully, this debate between libertarians is largely respectful and if proof can be provided as to a viable alternative that would ease their fears, and then they would embrace it.

Abortion: This is a major issue for everyone. Debates on this issue date back to before the founding of the United States. For libertarians who believe that people have the right to do what they want to do with their own body they generally are in favor of abortion. If a woman carrying a child wants to abort during the legal length of time (the first trimester) then they embrace it. However, libertarians like Ron Paul want abortion aborted. They want a society free of abortion if possible. The reason is because the pro-lifers in the libertarian circles view that killing a child at any stage of development as infringing upon the right to life of another human being. As such they share the Church's and Conservative scientist’s point of view that life begins the moment the egg is fertilized. This debate will of course always be heated, because it is the rights of one human being having to be put up against another’s (the as yet to be born). As such, when it comes to coming to common ground, they will agree on abortions in the cases of rape, incest and the mother’s life being in danger. But this is only the case when cooler heads prevail. As such, this debate is usually kept on the back burner until the issue comes to the forefront of politics once again. I personally do not believe in abortion. I will accept it in the case of a mother’s life being in danger so long as all other options have been exhausted. I will also regrettably accept it in the case of rape, but I would prefer the rapist getting aborted first (I know four victims of rape so please understand where I am coming from). Incest I'm iffy about even though the whole child born of two relatives is more than likely to end up with some sort of genetic defect. It is still a life in my eyes. Well as I said, the libertarians are as divided on this issue as anyone else. Everyone has an opinion; I just hope everyone is willing to listen to each others.

Conclusion: These are the two prime disagreements in the libertarian club. Those who share the ideology also face a few other disagreements like the right to die, or if the department for environmental protection should even exist. However, those others usually pale in comparison to debates on entitlements and abortion. All I can do now is thank you for reading and I hope you get something out of today’s issue. So thank you for keeping an open mind and reading my blog. Thank you for hearing me out.

Issue 171 Libertarians Part 1 September 26, 2013

What is a libertarian? Many people really do not know what it means to be a libertarian at all. In fact some even confuse them for Liberals who are associated with the Democratic Party in the United States. In truth the name Liberal was stolen from today's libertarians by the progressives during the early 1900s so as to gain more support and thus become the Liberals of today. But who are these libertarians?

We want smaller government: Libertarians’ believe that government is inherently corrupt and has a penchant for becoming totalitarian. So any government expansion is looked at with close scrutiny. As libertarians see government as an ever encroaching blob that destroys people’s rights, we libertarians feel that government should stay within the confines of written law. Thus, when it comes to the federal government’s powers in the United States, it is believed that the government cannot do anything that is not expressly granted to it by the Constitution. Likewise the States and local governments should also be limited to their specific roles in society as a whole. So things like education stay at the community level, while things like war and peace stay at the federal level. From there it comes down to respecting the boundaries between the different levels of government in order to maintain balance and prevent government over reach.

Mind your own Business: One of the key features of libertarianism is the motto "mind your own business." It was in actuality the first motto of the United States. And libertarians in general follow its principles. No one should know what you’re doing and when except for the people you want to know. That means no government looking at your bank account. It means no State officials dictating the healthcare you want. If you want someone to know something then you will tell them or let people find out.

As long as it does not harm others: Another key feature of libertarians is that if your actions would intentionally (and in some cases unintentionally) harm others, then you will not be allowed to do that. So things like drugs and alcohol are allowed. Gun ownership is ok. All the way up to religious rites that involve sacrifices. The only time this stops is when an act that would harm another occurs like murder, rape, theft, assault, and the like. Morality does play a role, but your own morality is yours and belongs to you. You are allowed to raise your children to share that same morality, but don't expect others to entirely agree with you. Libertarians value a society of freedom and choice above all else. Just don't infringe upon the rights of another and then you will fit right in.

Free Markets: Libertarians want an open and free market with as few rules as possible. They want unrestricted trade with other nations. In addition, they want a society where anyone can start a business at any time with equal chances of success and failure. In other words, if the owner screws up then he loses his business. If the owner is successful, then the business prospers. No too big to fail garbage. It is all about people being able to succeed when and where they want to.

Conclusion: To achieve these ends libertarians stand for the basic rights that allow people to defend their liberties. Those rights are the freedom of speech and the press, the freedom of association, the freedom of religion, the freedom of expression, and the freedom to live a life of your own choosing. Some of the examples may look extreme and may portray libertarians as wanting a libertine society. However, libertarians want a society with the freedom of choice and free from tyrants (or potential tyrants as the case may be). You can see examples of libertarianism in places like Sweden and Switzerland with respect to economics and drug laws. Basically it’s about freedom to try, buy, succeed or fail. This is a libertarian in a nut shell and I am one of them.

Issue 170 Pay College Sports Stars September 25, 2013

Some people think a college sports star must make a lot of money. Well that would be the case if they are picked up to play professionally. In truth, to my knowledge, no person playing on any college team is paid. I think this should change.

Status Quo: At current, a college sports star and the rest of the members of a college team are not paid to play. They at most get a few perks and a free ride via a sports scholarship to attend college. Some think it is OK not to pay these men and women because they are getting a break on having to pay for school. But what some people do not realize is that some of these college athletes cannot even afford to pay for a ticket to let their own mothers to come watch them perform.

What should be: The men and women in a college sport are professionals. Every time they perform they are making the college money. Some of these colleges like Notre Dame make millions every game. College football alone is a multimillion dollar industry. Basically, if you compare the scholarships some of these athletes have to how much money the college makes off them; it becomes clear how the students are being robbed of their efforts. It is true that these college sportsmen and women get that proverbial free ride, but after they graduate they may end up poor. That is right, despite the degree that they receive, they may still have to desperately look for work. As I stated in the "status quo" section, some of these college sports stars cannot even afford to pay for their mothers to see them play. As such, why bother with a scholarship when the college should be giving the athletes a cut of the profits coming from their hard work. Only a select few sports stars make it to the big leagues and thus the big money. But if these college professionals get paid for their efforts they at least get a much better head start than they would have with a free education.

Conclusion: Some may be thinking that the almost free college experience is worth it. That getting money for their performance on the sports field pales in comparison to the over all college experience. I may even hear from some of you that they don't deserve to be paid for doing a "college sport." Well I'll tell you this. You have no right to tell anyone how to spend their money. If they choose to put their money else were then let them. Charge them for going to college like a normal student, but pay them a professional salary for their performances on the field like they deserve. The college will get the money back with respect to tuition, and the students who play the sports will get a better head start in life. It comes down to paying the college athlete their fare share like they do in the professional leagues likes the NFL, NHL, MLB, and NBA. Those professionals in the big leagues get paid to perform. It is only right that college athletes get paid to perform in the same way.

Issue 169 Tools a Jury needs Sptember 24, 2013

There are certain tools and practices a jury has in some States within the U.S. that others do not. I feel that three such procedures would benefit the process of seeking the truth in the court room.

Let the Juror's ask questions: This is a practice done in Arizona. Jurors at specified times in the trial may ask questions to clarify information. I remember when I was a juror on a case that I desperately wanted to ask a question of one of the witnesses. However I was blocked by New York law. I felt it was unfair as I felt that I could not properly make a judgment on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Likewise, many of my fellow jurors felt the same. Sure, it may slow down the court some by the jury being able to ask questions themselves, but in order to ensure the jury properly understands the facts they need certain questions answered. In the case I served on, we came to the conclusion reluctantly that the defendant was guilty. We only found out later that he was a big time drug lord which was the sole reason that made us all feel better. So why not give the jury a chance to go into the deliberation room and come up with a few questions that they can ask the witnesses?

A Juror should be allowed to take notes: Another issue I found in New York's jury system was that we jurors could not take notes on the case. So we would forget facts and events that occurred in the case which could have potentially lead to an innocent man going to jail. Sure we had access to all the evidence, but we were left to try and figure it out at the end on what event took place and when. Thankfully my fellow jurors had really good memories or we would have gotten lost with all the different evidence that was just dumped on us. By not taking notes we could not spot inconsistencies in different testimonies or get a handle on the different events and how the evidence flowed together. Jurors can be easily instructed on how they should take notes so as to avoid confusing themselves and the different testimonies if that is needed. So let them take notes.

A smaller Jury: I like how Florida has a smaller number of jurors. In Florida there are six jurors and two alternates. In New York there were 12 of us and two alternates. Is it really that necessary to have that many people serving on a single jury? Would it change the chances of a person being declared guilty or innocent? I think not. After serving my self I can say that the result would generally have been the same whether we were six jurors or 44. The reason I say this is because of the evidence. If evidence is collected properly and presented to the jury in a clear and concise manor, then there should be nothing to cause any justice seeking individual cause for alarm. Also, a smaller juror means a faster jury selection speeding up the trial a bit. It would also save the courts some money as well.

Conclusion: These are what I feel would aid in making it easier for a juror to do their duty. I still believe that a professional jury is best, but with these tools and practices it should be easier for a juror to do their job.