Issue 208 Cycle of hate November 18, 2013

How does hatred become violence? Well, it is fairly complex, so Glen Beck (owner of the Blaze television network) had his staff assemble a team to analyze how hatred spreads and perpetuates it self. So here are his findings.

Event: An event is the start of the trigger. So something like slavery or a treaty between governments is the initial trigger. Anything can be a trigger. The 9/11 attacks are another easy example which is usable to create discord. This is where phase two comes in.

Seeds of discord: Phase two is when someone or a group begins to take advantage of an event that occurred and never let the wounds of the past heal. Something like slavery and the Jim Crow laws are one example. Those wounds never healed because people took advantage of the anger and frustration to spread more ill will. It was set up into an us versus them mentality between blacks and whites even though not all blacks and not all whites where involved. Another easy example is the conflict between Muslims and Jews. Propaganda is used to keep the hatred alive from thousands of years ago when select Jewish tribes betrayed Mohammad in a battle. Then all future problems where blamed on the Jewish community no matter how far apart or involved they were in the conflict. As such, the radicals who hate the people of Israel don't hate them out of actual wrong doing, but out of being taught and or convinced that the Jews are an evil force causing them or some one else in their community pain and suffering. This propaganda keeps the pain alive.

Real crisis: Here the haters who want conflict "never let a good crisis go to waste." So when an economic crisis, a war, a famine or other horrible event occurs, it will be blamed on the targeted group. If you remember, a large number of Muslims blamed the Jews as a cause for 9/11 with the purpose of drumming up not just more hate but violent backlash. Other similar events like when cops are accused of abusing Black Americans amplify the conflict here in the U.S. Not to say that some of these conflicts are not legitimate or illegitimate, but even the most innocent of situations can be turned into a larger more violent situation. This leads us toward the final result.

Actual Conflict: The cycle of hate always ends with actual violence. This means race riots and wars. And this is the ultimate goal for hate groups like the Neo-Nazi's, KKK, Black Panthers, Al Quada and other groups that seek violence. If the violence should fail in its intended goal, then the "event" becomes another sticking point toward future violence with it being used as another wedge towards the us verses them mentality.

Conclusion: Sad isn't it. People actually want conflict between races, ideologies, religions, and more. They always make it an us versus them conflict to further fan the flames of hate. Can it be stopped? Well yes it can. But it can only be stopped when people dismiss the us verses them mentality. It is not the collective Muslims that caused 9/11, but a specific group amongst their number. It is not all white people who perpetuated slavery, but a group of both blacks and whites who were slave owners. Not everyone is to blame for all conflicts, and they are not to blame for the situation you are in now. It is either yourself, or the immediate situation with those actually involved that put you in the situation you are in. This is how it really works. Stop always blaming others, when it just may be circumstances that even you yourself have no control over.

Issue 207 Un-school?! November 15, 2013

This is a unique type of school system that will be hard for many parents to grasp. I originally heard of it on John Stossel's program when he was talking about alternatives to traditional education. The school featured has been up and running since the 1960s (hippie inspired) but does not require an actual classroom. It will be a little difficult to explain so bare with me.

Un-School: This type of school does not have a set schedule. In fact, there really isn't a set of grade levels or tests. The featured school basically put a bunch of kids together of all ages together and just let them do what they want. Likewise, the home school version of the same thing is done in a similar manor. Students are given lots of power here, where they work out disputes amongst each other in mock trials. So the faculty is fairly redundant, save for managing money, keeping the place clean and taking attendance. And that is how it works. It really is just that, getting a bunch of students together and letting them go wild. But there is a little bit more to it than that.

What it does: In an un-school curriculum, the students are free to interact in a similar manor to how they would in a real life situation. So when a younger student is teaching an older student about something, the inferiority complex of being taught by a younger person is lost. Likewise, when a mock trial occurs to resolve a dispute a younger student may hold more sway over an older student, or vice versa. The result is that they are forced to accept this divesting, and loss of authority which they may encounter in the real world. As to actual learning, students are left to pursue their own passions. So a student who loves art will pursue art. Another may be interested in science and specifically pursue that. In order to gather further knowledge on their passions, they willingly force themselves to read so as to better understand there own passion. Some may like computers and focus on either making games or even repairing them. An Un-school removes the structure that the founders of the school felt restricted students and suppressed their passions. So they removed that what they thought stagnated the children. And apparently, the children do go to college. They decide when they feel they are ready. So when they are ready (and motivated) they hit the books, get all the knowledge they need and then go. In fact, the school featured had approximately 80% of their students going onto college. They do it themselves and acquire the knowledge at their own pace.

Conclusion: This unstructured type of school obviously is not for everyone. And I think a majority of parents would look upon this with a lot of skepticism. But the fact is that it works for these kids. Un-school harnesses the passion of these children (grades 1 through 12) and lets them pursue it with all the passion that they have. And these kids really love going to school. I feel that I have not truly explained this concept of education to its fullest, but this is a good overall summary of what it is about. I hope you enjoyed the read, and who knows, maybe un-school is good for your child too.

Issue 205 Political Correctness Novmeber 14, 2013

Many of you have heard of the phrase political correctness. But you really do not know exactly what it is. Well here is a brief summary as to what it is, and why it is so stupid to even embrace.

History: Political correctness was invented by the socialists. Yes, that ideological group that sought the ultimate form of equality. So in order to achieve that dream, they felt that a system of thought had to be implemented. As such political correctness was invented. By altering what you can and cannot say, you force a certain way of thinking. This thinking was meant to bring people into the communist/socialist ideology, but it grew with a life of its own.

Today: The concept of political correctness evolved (in my opinion) by being co-opted by other political groups. Now it is used by these groups to force their own agenda. So when you cannot say something like "he is handicapped" because it is now perceived as an insult, it is you being used by a particular group. But this is exactly what it is. It prevents you from saying things in a certain way. It has become a weapon by politicians to demean their opponents and to bring corporations to their knees out of fear of being called racist.

How it works: It really is very simple. Back in the Victorian era, Black Americans were called the "N" word. It became an insult and so the name changed to black, and then African-American. Guess what? They all mean the exact thing. The only difference is that members of the Black community now take offense to these words. I can most certainly understand the "N" word because of how it is associated with oppression, but the others I don't quite get. Same thing with the word handicapped. We have started to call them Handy-capable so as to not insult them. But eventually, Handy-capable will become just as insulting. This is how political correctness works.

Conclusion: I find political correctness stupid. In fact, I believe it make us ignorant. When they took the "n" word out of "Adventures of Huckleberry Fin" I felt they were not only destroying a classic, but removing a piece of history. That word was kept in there for a reason. It was there to teach history, and it makes me wish they taught a class on how words evolve into being hateful. How actions are reinterpreted from being good, into something evil. Right now, political correctness prevents us from talking about the problems in the Black community, the poor, the disabled and more. It stops our free speech because it generates fear. My only solution is to question it, and refuse (when I can) to speak in a politically correct manor.

Issue 205 U.N.=Bad November 13, 2013

Yes the U.N., better known as the United Nations is bad. No, I am not saying this just because the United States provides over 40% of its budget, and that money can be better used to pay off the debt. There is a very practical reason for the U.N. being a bad place and us Americans abandoning it.

Dictators: What people may forget is that the U.N. is composed of a large body of countries. The problem with this is that a good portion of those countries are either dictatorships, or some other form of oppressive government (think Iran). As such, if the vote on an action ever goes to the general assembly (which is more for show) then America's interests and our allies would be out voted. On top of this, the Security Council is made up of the U.S., France, England, Russia, and China. The remaining members work on a rotational system. When voting on an actual action, China and Russia, who sell many goods to these dictatorships and oppressive governments, will vote against action that violates their interests. As such it is a bulwark against the Western Powers (Democracies) from taking action legally against these smaller, oppressive countries. So the U.N. does not represent democracy or peace for that matter. It is a place for smaller countries, dictatorships, and other oppressive regimes to siphon money from the richer governments in the world.

Corruption: If you thought dictators were bad, than feast your eyes on the fact that the U.N. is rife with corruption. No one really knows where all the money is going, but there have been cases of gun smuggling, drugs and prostitution. Non-governmental organizations have also infiltrated the U.N. to gather support for their own causes on the tax payers’ dime. We as Americans are giving money to a festive hive of scum and villainy. The only exception may be doctors without boarders, but that can be divorced from the U.N. and run separately if needed.

Treaties are law: One thing that many people do not know about is that treaties once singed are equivalent to the U.S. constitution. As such, if a treaty is signed in the U.N. the United States must abide by it. So when the gun ban treaty was signed, then the U.S. must abide by it. If a treaty on what is taught in our children's classrooms is signed, then we must abide by it. Of course, we may be one of the few countries that do as the dictators just don't care. As such, the only way to solve this is to have a constitutional amendment that makes it so that any treaty that violates our constitution is null and void, and that we can pick and choose which parts we wish to follow so long as it does not violate any U.S. law.

Conclusion: The United Nations was supposed to be a peace making body. It was to be a place for countries to gather to cooperate to make treaties and resolve disputes. But the fact is that it has failed. Just like with any man made system, the greed and corruption has taken hold and perverted it. So there are two solutions to this problem. Either we back out of the U.N. completely, or we force the dictators out.

Issue 204 Kill the debt November 12, 2013

We talked yesterday on how the national debt keeps increasing. But we haven't talked in a while on how to shrink that debt. So here are a few ideas.

Money sent overseas: The United States sends money to a number of foreign governments. This includes China, North Korea, Vietnam, and more. This money is used in an attempt to buy influence. It is the usual you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. One problem. The money we send to these countries does not buy influence at all. All the countries receiving it, save a few exceptions like Israel, do not vote our way in the United Nations, or side with us in international treaties. In other words, we are throwing millions of dollars away for no reason to countries that may even hate us. Further, we are giving money to China, and others whom we owe money to. But not a single penny of this additional money is used to pay off the debt. Instead, just like before, it is being used to try to gain political favors in that country. And like before, we end up throwing away that money. So the solution to solving this issue and shrinking the debt is to just stop giving money to countries with the sole exception to our allies where it counts.

Pork Barrel spending: We said this was one of the reasons for our growing national debt in yesterday’s issue, but what are we going to do about it. Well, there is only one way to decrease this problem and be rid of a majority of lobbyists at the same time. That solution is term limits. Cap the number of years a person may serve in the House of Representatives to 12 years. For additional protection, make it so that the terms of office can not be consecutive. Likewise, if we are not going to revert the Senate back to how it used to be, (a block against unfunded mandates on the States and the taking of their power) then they too should be limited to 12 years as a Senator. It will solve a majority of the overall problem.

Other spending: As you know, there is numerous instances of government overlap, special exceptions for members of congress and waste in every department and agency. So how do we solve this? For one, an amendment that forces all laws at the federal level to be applied to all citizens and non-citizens alike (including members of Congress). This means that Congress will have to think twice about making a law as it will also affect them (currently all federal employees and certain businesses and groups are exempted from Obama Care). Next we will need a "sun set" committee. This committee will look at all old spending and laws to see what is no longer needed. Once they find such spending, law or provision of a law, it will go to Congress for a vote to remove it on case by case bases. Also, this same sun set committee will review the budget for automatic spending and be able to block it from being voted on so that it may simply be defunded. Another step further would be a line item veto and a line reduction veto. These would enable the President to reduce or eliminate spending on a program when money is being allocated. Thankfully these vetos are specific to spending and each can be overturned by a traditional 2/3rds vote in Congress. This may allow horse trading but it is worth the savings.

Conclusion: There are a number of other solutions, from debt bonds, bans on certain forms of federal spending, consolidation of different departments, and even eliminating whole swaths of the federal bureaucracy itself. There are even proposals for constitutional amendments for balanced budgets. However, there are three things that will be most effective. One; all debts owed on that year are paid first before all spending is to occur. This insures that we pay our debts first and foremost. Two; limit the number of days Congress can meet to a specified number of days per year. This will limit what they vote on to things that are important first (this mimics Texas law which stipulates that there legislature can only meet once every 2 years). And finally three; a balanced budget amendment which restricts borrowing to a certain percentage of the federal governments yearly income. This will be done in such a way that it will severely curtail all forms of borrowing that would only make a bad situation worse. I do not use the stipulation that borrowing should be limited to a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) because the federal government makes that formula. So by limiting how much they can borrow based on how much they take in via our tax dollars helps to remove corruption. Of course, I would add fail safes, like if the federal government fails to pay off the debt for that year, or Congress breaks the law, then all spending and laws for that entire year will be rendered null and void. In short, none of them will count. This fail safe will insure that they do not break the law. We all have a lot of work to do, and it will be hard. Step one is term limits and deciding how that would look. Yes, we can do it, but we just have to continue pushing forward to make it there.

 

Issue 203 Spending what we don't have November 11, 2013

Yes, we are spending money we don't have. Whose money you ask? The tax payers’ money of course. But why and how are doing this?

Borrowing: The federal government continues to borrow hand over fist from other countries. So much so that it adds at least another trillion dollars per year onto our national debt. This is more than what the Bush administration added in its entire eight years in service to the country. Do not get me wrong, President Obama is trying to help the American people, but I believe he is doing it the wrong way. Especially as he is just adding onto the national debt which our future generations will have to deal with. That means my nieces and nephews; your children and even their own children will be left with a multi-trillion dollar debt burden.

Why do we borrow?: Unfortunately, the leadership of both parties wants to use that money for their own gain. 17% of the federal budget is considered pork barrel spending. That means it is wasteful and unneeded spending that can be done by the State and local governments or the private sector. Borrowed money is also used to pay for unfunded mandates. These are spending that have yet to occur because the federal government had run out of money for that year to pay for it. So once the money is freed up from other areas of the federal government, the project or spending will be paid for. Although, there is a problem with this. The project or need for that money may disappear by the time money is available. As such, the politicians use the borrowed money to acquire additional revenue to insure there pet project is paid for on time. But this is not just pet projects. It is also loans out to big corporations that do not need it, and bridges to no where. So, that 17% is actually a lot bigger than it actually appears.

Can we do something: One thing that we can do is force our local politicians to stop accepting federal money. We can do that through petitions and voting. If a large enough group of us speaks out, then we can change our situation at the local level. If said voice is strong enough we may be able to do the same at the State and Federal levels of government. But it will take time. Until then, we must pay close attention to the faults within government and embarrass the politicians into stopping their spending sprees. Of course, voting helps further by voting in people who will share your values when your current representative fails to represent the changes and thoughts in your overall community.

Conclusion: There is a lot of waste in the federal government, and it is growing. Politicians wrongly believe that the federal government can solve all the problems in the world and they bribe our loyalty through bad programs. It is time we change this. In fact we must change this soon as we will not be able to pay off the nations debts which will result in anarchy. The debt ceiling that is so often talked about limits how much debt the federal government is allowed to take on. Deficits are the debt tacked on to the national debt when we need to pay for something with money we do not have. As such, we need a way to cap the total debt permanently, and limiting spending to only what money the government acquires through taxes exclusively.

Issue 202 Rating schools November 8, 2013

An idea has been touted, that rating schools in their overall excellence is a good thing. Well, I do not necessarily think it is a bad thing either. So let’s debate the pros and cons.

Pros: What is good about rating schools is that you can compare and contrast amongst the schools in your area, and the country as a whole. It means you can clearly see which school is the best. You will know all the teachers are good by just looking at the rating the school gets. It will help you decide which area in the country you will want to move to if you should decide to raise a family.

Children who go to these high rated schools will be looked at more closely by colleges as they will have high expectations of these students. Businesses and foundations may see them as recruiting grounds for potential investments in the future of their companies and groups. Basically, the free market looks for only the best and the brightest and a school with a high rating stands out the most. As such, children associated with that school (the same way as adults are associated with their colleges) will gain a certain level of reputation in society.

Cons: For all that is good about a rating system it will cause a certain level of damage. Teachers looking for a job will seek out employment in these top schools rather than the lower tier schools. . Many of the poorer classes of society may be forced into these low tier schools and be left behind by neglect due to the focus on the higher rated schools. Overall, a lack of resources will also cause many of those in these lower rated schools to run away from that school. (While it can be a good thing under certain circumstances, it can be as equally as bad). These children will be looked at last, because they are in the lower tier schools. In fact, the lower rated schools may make the children, by sheer reputation, appear dull witted.

In addition, schools themselves may corrupt the overall academic achievement of their students to acquire a higher rating. There is such a thing as curving grades so as to bring up the score of all the lower performers. Thus, it manipulates the grade point average and the overall success of the students and their teachers. Other forms of corruption may also develop, such as schemes for cheating on tests, and bribery may also result.

Conclusion: Schools being rated should be a byproduct of the overall academic achievement of each individual student. As such, individual students should be rated and compared first and foremost. From there, the population can look at where these top performers come from to decide what schools would be best for their children. Also, parents should be able to rate the schools that their children attend or have attended so that other parents can view these ratings to help decide where to have their kids educated. In essence an "Angie's list" for schools. The government is not capable of properly monitoring and rating schools. It simply, I feel, is a waste of time and money. We can do it ourselves, for free through the internet and to a certain extent it has already begun. So go ahead and Google your schools. While no official rating system exists, there is at the very least an informal one on schools, and teachers.