Issue 201 Hate Crimes November 7, 2013

Hate crimes are terrible. They are done to people due to race, color, faith, physical trait and more. But are we degrading the overall crime. Is not assault an assault and a murder a murder?

Hate is a motivation: We have taken a motivation to harm another human being and turned it into a crime. Hate is a combination of thought and emotion. It is no more or less. Such hate is brought upon by societal circumstances, and is taught to the younger generations by their elders. As such, this is the reason hatred for Blacks, Jews, Christians, etc. still exists. Yes, every group has someone hating on them. And at some point in time, each group will make a victim out of the other group. It is an endless cycle.

Why make it a crime: This is only my opinion, but I believe that they made it a crime so that it would force hatred out of society. It co-insides with the idea of political correctness (developed by the early socialists to create a certain line of thought). I speculate that they made this a crime so that new generations of people would associate the very thought of hating another person as a crime. But, I do not believe that this has been successful. Hate overrides typical common sense reasoning. If a Jewish (or any person from a recognizable group) kid beats you every day all the way through high school, you will have a poor opinion of Jewish people. That is until someone who is Jewish (or a group of Jews) changes your mind with their own behavior toward you. But it will take time for the victim to think of the original perpetrator of their torment as an exception and not the norm. Unfortunately, fear plays a role in causing the victim who now hates Jews due to his torment to avoid members of the Jewish community. Propaganda feeds his/her fear to think that all Jews are bad. At the end all that is left is anger. By making it a crime to hate all you do is legitimize the hatred by recognizing it as the norm. You make it acceptable to a counter culture. Even then, the hatred will simply fall to the back ground and be talked about in secret. Those haters will no longer have an outlet to express themselves. As such they will seek out ways to express how they feel. This means evil acts like tormenting people, assaulting people and possibly committing murder.

The True crime: An assault is just that an assault. A murder is simply a murder. These are part of the obviously wrongful acts that mankind must not perpetuate against one another. Hate is simply a motivation and belongs in the realm of motive and opportunity. Punishing thought will never solve this issue. Giving greater punishments to those whose motivation is hatred for the crime will not stop the crime from occurring. Punish the deed, not the ramblings of fools.

Conclusion: If my opinion is correct, then they created the classification of hate crimes to make it so that society will view hatred as something evil. However, people already know this. There is also potential for abuse with crimes being elevated to hate crimes simply to get a person into a courtroom and even get a guilty verdict (depends on how each law is written). I see no reason as to why a murderer should get a lighter sentence than a person who murdered someone out of hate. They should be punished equally for with hate crimes, we are giving more value toward one victim over another. And I find that to be wrong.

Issue 200 Pure Democracy November 6, 2013

A pure democracy is where everyone participates. We as a people all vote for laws and actions to be carried out by government. The United States however is a Republic (a representative type of democracy). There is a reason for this which I will now make clear.

Mob Rule: The primary reason pure democracies fail is due to mob rule. In true democracies, the majority always wins regardless of the outcome of the action or its consequences. So a group can vote to install a bad law despite the wishes of the minority and even if that bad law would only serve to harm the country in the long run. Also, if the majority does not like the minority for any reason (skin color, faith, and ideology) they can make laws that could oppress that minority. Overall, having more people voting yes to a law or action does not mean it is what is best for the overall community.

Collapse: Once mob rule has taken hold, it becomes impossible to fix the problems that occur. Look at our own system with things like Social Security and Medicare. We as a Republic can barely discuss reform on those topics without being ostracized. Under mob rule, people will want to keep their benefits and what ever gives them an advantage in life. In essence, the population will vote to become free loaders. However, once this occurs, the vast wealth and resources vanish quickly. The result is a failed economy, no jobs, and a failed government. Once all is said and done, war will break out, and violence will be everywhere as everyone struggles to claim what they think is theirs. This is the absolute end to all nations that over extend on what they are capable of, total collapse.

The Founders Knew: Our founding members of government like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton all realized that man is self corrupting. They created this Republic in such a way where competing powers would seek to control each other, but could not as there where both checks and balances on each level of government (some of which have eroded today in modern times). By having these groups competing, it ensured that their ambitions would clash and a compromise would develop. But it also ensured that bad ideas would die on the vine first and foremost. In short, the founders applauded grid lock to the effect that it was encouraged (i.e. the filibuster in the Senate and for a brief time in the House of Representatives). We must thank them for saving us from mob rule.

Conclusion: Ideas for a pure electoral college or for referendums come out of the naive trust we have for our fellow man. But so long as people can be scammed out of their money or advertising can sell us what we do not need, then a pure democracy will be unattainable. It is a given that we would seek to get a free ride from the first presidential candidate that promises it. So say no to a pure democracy for despite the twisted system we have now, it is far better than the tyranny of the mob.

 

Issue 199 Pro-life alternative November 5, 2013

What if there was an alternative to abortion? Would that solve our countries problem of killing babies before they are born? As you can guess, I am pro-life and that I feel the pro-choice people are in the wrong. But I will not say they are pro-death even though that is what abortion is. So allow me to explain.

Why not pro-death: The reason I would not call people who support abortion rights pro-death is because that is not what they are thinking about. What they are thinking about is the lives of the mothers. Those moms, who wish to escape being a mother used to go to back ally doctors or even use coat hangers to try and be rid of an unwanted child. However, the results are widely considered disastrous. Many of those women where the abortion was performed poorly died. As such, people like my own mother support abortion only because it is the only alternative to these back ally abortions.

My proposal: In order to get people like my mother on the pro-life side (she would limit abortions to specific circumstances though) is to have an alternative to abortion. Currently, adoption is not enough as it is still asking for the mother to have her unwanted child. This is where I believe science should come in. Scientists should develop a way to transfer an unborn child, no matter the age, to another mother. Basically, a baby transplant. They are already able to transfer a fertilized embryo into a mother, so why can't they find a way to take one out. The procedure would have to be as simple and quick as a traditional abortion otherwise it will not catch on as an alternative like adoption services. But, there will be obstacles.

The Obstacles: This is all just my opinion, but the first thing to be overcome would have to be the ability to remove a fertilized embryo from a mother without killing the child. When the child is still developing at the early stages, then it may be a little easier to do, but like I said, it must be done without killing the child. We would also need a way to keep the child alive long enough to be transferred to the new mother. Finding a suitable mother would also be a challenge as some women will need to be primed prior so their bodies don't reject the child being implanted. The procedure would get more and more difficult based on the stages of development and even where in the uterus the child is developing. All these issues will need to be worked out. Thankfully, animal experimentation is prime and ready with lab rats who are willing to eat their own young (sucks to be a lab rat). From there it is all about funding the science and training enough doctors to make this type of procedure a viable alternative. So, from here it is about the money to even get started.

Conclusion: I do not want women who are desperate to have to go to some back ally doctor for an abortion. But I don't want dead children on their conscience either. So we need a new and viable alternative. Thus, my proposal for a baby transplant. Who knows if it will work or not, or if from the research we develop an artificial womb to place the baby in instead. Science may be the key to our pro-life answer to being pro-abortion.

Issue 198 World Police November 4, 2013

Are you sick of the United States acting as the world police man? Well I sure am. We give and give, and all the other countries do is take and take. Then, when we finally ask for some form of help, they spit in our face. But this is not necessarily because we are the world police men.

Who asked you?: The role of world police came out of the fires of WW II and the cold war. America was one of only two superpowers seeking control as a world hegemony. However, to achieve that role and maintain it, we had to be the protectors of Europe from the Soviet Union. America would fight proxy wars to stop the spread of Communism and its derivatives. But, the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia and its Satellite countries democratized to varying degrees. As such the United States became the sole super power on this planet. There was a catch though. The results of the U.S. becoming the sole superpower imposed responsibilities on the United States that it never asked for. We were forced to police the world.

Internal politics: Currently we have the same Democrats and Republicans in Congress and in the halls of Washington D.C. who served during the cold war. They never lost the taste for power that the other countries gave America as their protector. So the idea was hatched to continue the role of world police. But it also included the foolish concept that we could export democracy (under the assumption that democracies don't fight each other). Started in President Bush seniors’ administration and continued all the way through to the current Obama administration, we have gone to war one too many times in the name of peace. Though the result is just more death and conflict. These old guard members are your Neo-Conservatives and your progressive liberals. Both agree with the idea that "we" Americans have a duty to save the world from itself. A modern "white mans burden" if you will. They want us to interfere with anything they deem wrong, from human rights issues to lawlessness. The problem is America's values and the worlds values don't necessarily match up.

World reaction: At this point in time, the world is pissed off. We have been caught spying on our allies. This includes wire tapping the phones of allied world leaders. Our Navy is being stretched thin to serve as an interdiction force to pirates and to fend off a possible threat from China (who is economically dependant on us). Then we get bashed for our tactics in the war on terror. The government listens to those critics, changes tactics and then when more of our troops get hurt, they change them again. In short, the world complains, then we adjust, and then we either sacrifice blood and treasure or are excoriated again.

Conclusion: We are wasting our time. The Navy should project power, but not as some police force. Our Army is not cannon fodder for others wars. And some of these people really should not even get our help. Syria has Al Quada on one side and a dictator on the other. Yet we help Al Quada because they call themselves rebels. Yup, the same group who carried out the 9/11 attacks is receiving aid from our own government. All this is my opinion, but let’s stop dealing with the bull crap. Stop giving money to countries and people who plan only to make our lives miserable. Stop giving money to dictatorships and groups that want America out of the picture. If we should go to war, or to fight in general, it should be a war of defense and defense alone. Let other nations with foolish ideas of being a world power deal with the messes and see where it gets them.

Issue 197 Bullies November 1, 2013

A bully is the child version of an adult who harasses another person either verbally or physically. Or at least that is my definition. These bullies want power and authority over others. Bullies want control over their victims and thus others flock to them for protection and join in the ridicule out of fear of becoming a victim themselves. So how should you deal with a bully?

Verbal Bullies: The best method is to ignore them. These types of bullies are negligible compared to other types. Yes their words may sting, but they are all bark and no bite. This type wants attention, and in some cases knows no other way to interact with others. So they bully others in hopes of making friends through sheer reputation. Of course they don't actually have friends, but that is their problem. Ignoring this type makes them loose all power over you, and thus they will eventually leave you alone.

There is a scenario where this does not work. That is when it is a large group of bullies. Ignoring them may risk further harassment as they encourage each other to do more things to you. In this case, you confront them. You have to fight back in some way shape or form. Usually the best way is to isolate them and then strike back at them then. This can be done by catching them alone or bullying the bully in front of the group. In this method they will realize how small their existence really is. Rare will it be for it to come to violence, but if it does make sure that you are defending yourself and not the attacker.

Physical bullies: For these types who are committing assault against you, there are two options. Options one is the first one you must take and that is tell someone in an authority position. This means a school administrator, your parents or even the police. You must show a history of being targeted by that individual to prevent yourself from becoming a victim of the same punishment they will receive. Once this is done, you may be ignored by the bully or face reprisal by the bully. In short, they will try to beat you harder. Here is where option two comes in. As many people know, most times a bully will not listen to an authority figure and thus continue their assaults. So this is where the last resort comes in, punch them right in the nose. Yes, you heard me, fight back. Let them throw the first punch, and then hit them in the face. This will stun them, and that is where your second strike to the stomach comes in. They must be made aware that you are not to be trifled with. A bully is like a predatory animal, if they see that they will be harmed by messing with you, then they are most likely going to avoid you. The only reason you do not use this option first is because violence is meant to be a last resort. Using it first puts you at risk at being the one punished while the bully gets off free.

Cyber Bullies: These types are much more dangerous than traditional bullies. Unlike traditional bullies where you are safe once you reach home, cyber bullies can follow you. Cyber bullies use things like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter to attack you publicly and as often as they want. Some even call their victims on their cell phones or text them horrible and insulting messages. There is no safe place from the torment. So what can you do to save yourself? One idea is to cut your self off from all social media. This means getting off Facebook and twitter entirely. It also means exchanging your cell number for a new one which only your most "trusted" friends and family have the number to. If these bullies find out about the new number, they will try to get it, and they have even been known to use computer programs to hide the fact that they are the ones sending the messages in the first place. So you may even want to forget about a cell phone all together. Second options is creating a new Facebook or twitter account with an alternative name for yourself and have it devoid of pictures of yourself. By doing this, it becomes that much harder for the bullies to track you down. Your friends who have access to your page must be only your most trusted friends who will not rat you out to the bully or give any hint that the new page belongs to you. If worse comes to worse, then only family members will and should have access to your Facebook or other social media site. Basically, you must find a way to shut them out, as traditional methods to stop bulling will not work here. You cannot confront a cyber bully as they feel invincible on the net.

Conclusion: I know from experience what it is like to be bullied. But I have only ever faced the first two types of bullies, but never a cyber bully. However, I understand how painful it is, and how much you must want to find a way to hurt them as much as they hurt you. You are allowed to fight back. But when you do, do it on your terms. Do not let the bully provoke you, but make sure that when you strike back, that you have control of the situation. Start with verbal and tell authority figures. It may seem useless, but it sets the bully up to take the fall. It gets them on record for being a bully. Once known, you may strike back with your hands as the last resort to defend yourself. Never use a weapon on a bully, but if the bully has one, then you run and call the cops. If a bully is assaulting you that badly, call the cops and charge them with assault. There is no excuse not to call on their aid when you are being abused. As to the cyber bully threat, if you know who they are in real life then the strategies for verbal and physical bullies may work. Or again call the cops and tell them you are being harassed. For those incapable of fighting back on your own, find help. Get your friends together and become like a pack of wolfs or a pride of lions. Safety does come from numbers. Bullies on the web can also be attacked back by you and your friends. Use their weapon against them if you can (but again as a last resort). You have the power to overcome them and stop being a victim. There are numerous ways to fight back; you just have to choose the right method and timing to do so.

I dedicate this Issue to all those who have been bullied and the families of those parents who lost children due to a bully’s abuse. I would like nothing more than to put those bullies before a jury as an adult and send them to prison for what they did. Know this, you the parents and your children who are bullied are not alone in this fight.

Issue 196 School Breakfast and Lunch October 31, 2013

Currently we have a school lunch program in the United States and it has expanded to breakfast as well. The goal is to provide some of the poorer families with the means to feed their children on the cheap without harming the parents’ pocket book. But I have a question or two.

First Question: Why are we using our tax dollars going to the federal government to pay for this? Our property taxes should already be more than enough to pay for a free lunch for all the students in a given public school, let alone a breakfast. So why on earth are we all paying for that again? It makes no sense that we as citizens have to pay twice for the same thing. On top of that, where the heck is the money that is supposed to be going toward our nations children? It is obviously not going to them. That is because it is going towards the ever growing bureaucracy for public education. Our money is spent more on crap and waste then on the school children themselves. Just look at the school parking lot and you can see how well the administrators are paid based on the number of luxury cars in the lot. We have a major problem in our schools and it is not about the schools getting enough money.

Second Question: Why is the federal government involved in this in the first place? As I have already stated, the money going toward the schools are more than enough to pay for kids lunches and breakfasts. On top of this, local governments should be able to take care of the citizen’s welfare within their own districts. Yet the federal government comes waltzing in with their one size fits all standards to make a mess of things. Not to mention the school lunch program is already a mess with it suffering over a million dollars worth of fraud this year alone. If the feds are getting involved would it not be better to say, if you enroll in this program that you as a school need to reform. If the money is going directly to the parents, would it not be more appropriate to have this be included in the welfare package as local governments and the schools in our country are too incompetent to manage their money effectively?

Conclusion: I am making this issue short because this program is a load of bull. How can you run this program and not tell these people to manage their money properly in the schools so that parents will not have to worry about feeding their kids at school. Hell, if public schools were managed correctly then there would be no need to sign up for this ridicules program that is wasting our tax dollars due to both fraud and mismanagement at the federal and local levels of government. We don't need more government, what we need is a government that actually works.

Issue 195 You've been had! October 30, 2013

Wondering what I mean by the title? Well, the reason that you have been had is because the politicians are limiting our choices and we do not even realize it. Let’s go over a few examples.

Candidates: Political parties nominate candidates and then we are supposed to vote for which one to run in the general election. Problem, those candidates are generally chosen by the party leadership. So when you had Ron Paul on stage with Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and the like, you did not realize that there were other viable candidates running within the same party. For instance have you heard of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson? He, like Ron Paul is a libertarian. But unlike Ron Paul, he believes in abortion and the full legalization of drugs. However, we could not hear him speak as he was shut out of the debates because the Republican leadership did not like him and his ideas. It had nothing to do with the electorate within the Republican Party saying they did not want him, but the party leaders. It happens at the local level to. Those in charge restrict those who are running to a select few and make rules that hinder or prevent other candidates from running for office. This was the case with Democrat Jack Mcloy in my district. The Democrats wanted Mrs. Currian over him, and prevented him from running by bringing him all the way up to the New York State of Appeals Court. He was disallowed to run because his petition to run and compete in the primary against Currian was not stapled in the way stipulated by law. Yes, a simple error in where to place the staple is what kept him from running for office. This is how choice is limited in politics.

Food: We are being limited here too. They took salt off the tables in New York City even though only 30% of the people in NYC should not ingest salt. Everyone else was fine. Trans fats were removed even though the majority of people health wise were unaffected by it. Genetically modified crops are banned in some places, but should it not be up to the individual to choose if they should eat a GMO crop or not. Heck they arrest people for eating and selling raw milk even though the risk of any sort of bacterial infection is negligible. People have the right to choose what they want to eat.

Products: Again we become limited by government. In this case, products like toys, games and such face bans for silly things. One silly thing is lead on the drive shaft of an ATV. One problem, the reason it was banned was because they feared people ingesting the lead. If you or your kid was liking a drive shaft from an ATV or any product in general then you may have a problem. What’s more, patent laws also hinder our choices. Do not get me wrong, I am all for patents, but not when they are abused. They let companies like Mattel or Hasbro take out patents, but when a competitor with a similar product comes out they get to sue and shut that company down. The products may be similar, but they are not the same, nor do they have the same brand. Again, choices become limited.

Licensing: Here too choices are limited. By having to be licensed to be a florist, a framer or other job, it limits the market of competitors. Thus it secures the positions of those already in the business with higher pay by making it near impossible to get a job in the field you want (and that's just framing pictures). Same goes for law and medical schools. Instead of being an undergraduate degree, it is a masters or a doctorates degree which is obviously much more money. As such it shuts out many talented students who would excel in those fields if it the education was more affordable.

Conclusion: Choice is one of our essential freedoms, but everything government and their crony capitalist buddies do limits those choices. There is a point in which we are over protected (such as from a florist who sells you a dead plant). Change is needed to be rid of many of our useless and harmful laws that do nothing but harm us. Time to change the system and stop having our freedoms reduced.