Issue 228 Why cities are liberal December 16, 2013

So, why are cities left leaning in the first place? Well, thanks to a Rabbi (who works for the Blaze network), we may just have that answer. Let's get started.

Cities: A city itself is necessary for a healthy economy. It is a place that people go to buy and sell goods. Without one, countries can descend into poverty like Somalia. Basically, cities do not need the countryside or factories, but they need the cities as a place for commerce to occur. As such a great number of people gather in cities and share ideas. In order to accommodate those people, the cities governing body maintains the roads, provides water and even electricity. All that is necessary to life in this modern era is taken care of in a city by its government. Now this creates the mindset that makes people in cities lean left.

The mindset: With most of the basic needs being taken care of by a government in cities, people look upon this as an example of how government can take care of everything. In essence, the people see this and that being taken care of by government and thus when a problem arises, an issue needs to be solved or a new service is to begin, people look to the cities government. This mentality is then scaled up to the national level as when the people in cities see how there government takes care of things, they immediately think that the national government can just as easily solve the problem. These notions are completely different to the self reliance model of the people outside of cities as they have no government to rely on. People outside of these cities have no choice to take life as it comes and solve it all themselves. As such, the mindset of dependence upon government evolves based upon where you live.

Conclusion: It is not the cities fault that people become liberal. It is the mentality people get by living in one. Is it bad to be liberal minded, no, but it is bad to become solely reliant on a government especially if they are going to simply compound the problem. Cities unfortunately dominate any election on the national scale due to the sheer number of people who live there. As such, there is not counterbalance to their people’s ideology. Thus, ideas of self reliance are shut out, the same ideas that allow people to become independent. What can we do about this is a question I have yet to find an answer for.

Issue 227 Bullet control!? December 13, 2013

Many people fear guns. That is a given as they can kill you if misused (duh). However technology has progressed to the point that traditional bans and restrictions on all forms of firearms will be rendered totally redundant (my pro-gun self is cheering right now). But, there needs to be a limit on who can carry a gun (at least that is what the anti-gun people say). So here is another one of my proposals for the public at large to satisfy both sides of the argument, bullet control.

The idea: Currently, people can make a gun in their own home using 3d printer technology. Truth is however, is that most people could make a gun even without a 3d printer as well, but the 3d printer simply made the process easier. As it currently stands people fear guns due to changes in cultural attitudes. In the United States, gun safety was once taught in schools and people respected guns and the power they had. But we will not be going back in time anytime soon and getting rid of gun control as a whole (even though gun control is entirely unenforceable). As such I propose an alternative. Rather than limit the type of gun and who can own one, limit the ammunition instead. That's right, only limit the ammunition, the bullet itself, and let everyone else own whatever gun they want. The concept is simple, a gun without ammo is only good for intimidation (or show and tell) and nothing more (but the criminals don't know if you're loaded or not).

How it works: The process is simple; abandon all current forms of gun control save limiting the sale of fire arms to semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) and the criminal background check. From there certain types of ammunition used by the most commonly used guns in crimes and murders will be limited to be purchased by those with a license. So a 9mm round for a pistol would require a license to buy. Basically, it switches the mechanisms of gun control over to the ammunition. Some forms of ammunition will not need to be licensed as some bullets are so small that they do less damage than a BB gun. So ammo that is used for non-lethal purposes like a bean bag round, pellet guns and the like would be totally unregulated. Bullets that fall into the less than lethal category like small palm guns would also become unregulated as the bullet is not just too small to overtly kill someone (save with a lucky shot), but the gun usually has to be reloaded every time it is fired. Outmoded ammunition, which can only be fired by guns that are no longer made, is so hard to come by that there would be no need to regulate them. Musket and other classical firearms have no need to have there ammunition regulated either. As such, only bullets fired out of handguns and some rifles need the limitations.

Who could buy these restricted bullets: Special dispensation will be given to all military, law enforcement and public servants (both active and retired) along with there families to be able to purchase bullets that fall into the restricted class. The only limitation would be the same limitation that normal people would have, if they committed a violent crime. My version would instead put a limitation to a violent crime within the last 20 years after they have finished serving their sentence with a total ban on anyone who has committed the act of rape and/or murder. Other people who would require special dispensation are people in the witness protection program or other people who need some form of protection like celebrities, people being stalked and people in high crime neighborhoods. Finally hunters would be given special dispensation as well as they perform a service in controlling the populations of animals. Applications for licenses would be categorized as personal defense, hunting and enthusiast, with enthusiast being competition and recreational shooters in general.

Conclusion: Well this is the overall idea. Limit the bullets and not the guns. Sure a large number of people will now be eligible to own a gun as traditional gun control is replaced with bullet control. This is the medium I have come up with that keeps people out of jail for simply making a component that can potentially be used in assembling a firearm. Restricting that control to bullets that are used in common guns used in crimes also ensures more practicality in respect to lessening violence. However, while my idea may have some merit to you my dear reader, it too will be outmoded one day do to technology. As people become more and more able to make goods in their own homes, bullets too will be able to made in the home just as easily as guns are being made today (both in the factory and in the home). Gun control in truth is a loosing battle with bullet control simply staving off the inevitable as bullet control will give way to gun powder control which would limit all forms of manufacture and purchase of explosive powders used in ammunition. So is there a true solution to solve this problem? Yes, there is, and that solution is to bring back the classes to schools teaching kids how to use firearms, teaching people that guns are not simply a weapon of attack, but a tool of defense and to hunt game. We need to show that firing a gun at the range is the same as playing a round of golf with family and friends. To have a society that respects guns and there use, American culture needs to change so that it does not reject guns, but once again embraces them. This is the undeniable truth that we must bear until guns themselves get replaced by newer and more lethal weapons and firearms.

Issue 226 Mix it up Baseball December 12, 2013

Here is a concept, mix it up baseball. In this idea, we do mixed martial arts (MMA) style competition, but rather than seeing which martial art can defeat which, we see which type of baseball can defeat which. So we have baseball, softball, stickball, cricket, and probably more that I can't remember or have never even heard of before. So how would it all work?

How it would work: Obviously you set up the field like normal with 3 bases and a home plate. You have the standard configuration of a man guarding each base and a pitcher. What would need to be confirmed is how far apart each base is going to be in comparison to the other sports that are similar to baseball. I do not know for certain if stick balls bases are closer of farther apart, and things like cricket have different variations of itself. So a standard, with a happy medium between all the sports involved, will need to be developed.

Bat wise, the player gets to choose which bat they will want to hit the ball with. So they can choose a cricket bat, baseball bat of any make and model, a stick ball bat or even a classical bat from the history of these sports. This will cause the pitcher on the other team to change balls accordingly to suit the bat (for the sake of fairness). However, the pitcher may throw the ball in any way he/she pleases. So a pitcher can throw a curve ball, a fast ball, or even an underarm swing like in softball. Basically this is to counterbalance the batters choice on which bat they are allowed to use.

The number of players will also have to be decided. Some variations of these sports have more players than a typical baseball or softball team. Others may have fewer players. So another medium will be needed to decide which is best for the overall competition. My guess is that a regulation size team from softball or baseball should fit the bill however.

Why play like this?: Well it comes down to the why not scenario. MMA was an informal way of looking if a karate guy could defeat a sambo guy, a kick boxer, or a military martial artist. Here it is the same deal, but with respect to baseball. It's all about that "what if" this type of team, went up against that type of team. We could even have exhibition matches as a test with using the most similar of these sports to see who would win in a head to head battle using these modified rules. From there it is all about the fun of seeing which group would win against which in a fun and surprising ways as a player chooses a cricket bat, while the pitcher throws him off with a typical curve ball from baseball. It is this kind of what if that is fun and exciting to watch.

Conclusion: These kinds of what ifs are fun an exciting. It causes debate and fervor as the different teams go head to head and maybe even learn from each other. Sportsmanship from each team and traditions from each sport will intermingle and these unpredictable scenarios become exciting. Some may be asking, why, just why would you suggest this kind of idea? Well my answer to you is why not?

Issue 225 Women and baseball December 11, 2013

Did you know that women have played professional baseball? No not soft ball, I mean in the minors, in exhibition matches for the MLB and in leagues dedicated toward women in general. So why not have women be allowed to play with the boys (contracts for women have been banned in the MLB since the 1950s).

Ladies: Much of the arguments against women playing in baseball is that they are not athletic enough, don’t have long enough legs, big enough hearts, can't run fast enough....blah, blah, blah. Well I say that is all bunk. I have way too many women who deserve to be called Amazons for how athletic they are (and beautiful on top of that). The fact is that girls can be and are in some cases more athletic than boys. Sure girls and boys can and will have diverging interests, but allow these women at least a shot to smash that ball out of the ball park.

Why should they be allowed to play: It is silly not to. Baseball is a male dominated sport. Basically it is a boys club. Thus the only true reason to not at least let the ladies try out is because the MLB wants to protect their investment in the men who play. If these ladies get in on the action, then they may even show up big stars like Derrick Jeter or Alex Rodriguez. The fact of the matter is there is absolutely no legitimist reason that I can come up with as to why the girls should not be allowed to play the game.

Conclusion: Yes I am in favor of Baseball letting the girls get in on the fun. In fact, I feel that baseball has become boring as of late due to it (for me at least) becoming stagnant. So letting the ladies play ball should shake things up a bit. Baseball is America's pass time, and women have been involved in baseball since the beginning (Jackie Mitchell, a woman, even struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig). So if a woman player can take down those all stars, imagine what would happen in today’s game if women were allowed to play. So batter up girls, and play ball.

If it is to your liking my readers, we can turn this Issue into a petition. Just comment yes in the comments section if you want to see women play in the MLB.

Issue 224 Donation to the debt December 10, 2013

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has a special part of its website which allows people to donate their tax dollars toward the federal government. Now, not many people want to give any more money that they already do in taxes toward this hated government agency (no one likes paying taxes). So what about an alternative idea? An idea where the money is tax deductible and goes immediately to pay off the national debt.

The idea: It would work by first making the donation go toward paying off the debt owed by the United States. So any donation would go to pay off the massive debt that the government has now. To incentivize more people to donate, the donations would be tax deductible. So you are still paying the government, but in this case you are using that money to pay off the debt exclusively.

How it works: For one, these donations would not pay the interest on the debt. The money to pay the interest on the debt would come out of the Federal government first before all other spending. This insures Congress and the President do not cause our nation to shirk its responsibilities. Also, the money that gets donated will be used immediately to pay off parts of our national debt. So at no time will it ever be held in an account. This will ensure that the Congress does not get any funny ideas about borrowing from the fund like they do with Social Security and Medicare. The fact that it act as a charitable donation helps to relieve people of parts of their tax burden like a traditional charitable donation, but the twist is that it helps them as the government will have to spend much less to pay off the debt the next time around. As such, potentially we will be able to lower taxes because we will have less to pay toward the national debt.

Conclusion: Again, this is an idea. It takes an existing program and tweaks it to help solve a social ill. In this case the worst ill of all, the national debt. I would personally put the treasury in charge of all of this (if I were in charge that is) as they would subtract the yearly interest payments on the debt before all other spending and would also insure that the money donated goes to pay off the debt as soon as it comes in. Let's face it; if we leave it to the politicians our debt will just continue to grow. In fact, if you add the unfunded liabilities (money we know that we owe in the future) our 17 trillion in debt skyrockets to 112 trillion dollars. America, we have a lot of work to do. Let’s pay off the debt and do it now.

Issue 223 Pay for organs!!! December 9, 2013

Did you know that in the United States people can sell for money their bone marrow, blood, sperm and eggs? Well, now you do. But what about our other organs like a kidney? Should we be able to sell one of the two of them? Let's discuss.

Selling organs: Iran is the only country in the world that allows people to sell a kidney legally. And guess what, they do not have a waiting list for recipients like in the rest in the world. In fact, there list is made up of people who want to donate there organs. Can you imagine a diabetes patient not having to wait months on dialysis just to get a new kidney? Think of it, Iran has probably one of the most tyrannical governments in the world and yet they found a way to save all these people who in other countries would probably have given up by now. This is the result of selling organs; people have a chance to live.

Benefits: Out side of the obvious people lining up to donate, there are other benefits as well. Iran's program has an adoption style system for the donor and recipient to get to know each other. What normally may have been a faceless transaction has become a way to create friends and extend families irrespective of blood relations. According to the "expert" on the show "Stossel" many of these people form family like bonds after the procedure. They invite people over for dinner, family parties and more as they now share a kind of bond. However, the donor has the option to remain anonymous.

Another benefit is that the people donating get money for their wants and needs. Some have used that money to pay for weddings, expand their businesses, add new additions on their houses, or even to just buy a car. So these people who are donating are in no way victims as they reap many benefits. Is there anything not to love about this?

Not loving it: Those who are opposed to such ideas see nothing but victims. The reason is due to the black market selling of such organs. They feel that the donors become victims (not true thanks to the Iran example), that it is faceless (again Iran defeats this senseless argument) and that it would create a larger black market. Well I have my doubts on the larger black market idea. A black market for things like drugs, prostitution and organ selling exist because of those practices being illegal. A system of organ donation works the same way as the current one with the only difference being that the donor gets paid.  This for the most part eliminates the possibility of a bad organ being given to a patient that needs it (especially one that is stolen from someone as you actually get to meet the donor before the operation). So these arguments are mostly baseless as the black market for such organs will shrink and become less profitable as the paid donor program progresses (if it were to be allowed in a country like the United States that is).

Conclusion: I myself was once against selling organs. I did not like the idea as it felt kind of like prostitution, except you were selling more then just sex. But, what I have found is that this is a voluntary transaction that takes place and allows people to profit off their generosity. So at least let the world experiment with the idea. Let's not have Iran be the only country that saves people from dead or dying kidneys.

Issue 222 Innovation/cash December 6, 2013

How does a person make money off a product? Well the only way to do that is to innovate. So how do we apply this in every day life?

Something New: The first way is to come up with something entirely new. This means something like the old slip and slide or a cell phone. Basically something that will be copied by others. So you can create a brand new way to buy goods like with electronic currency (Bitcoin), or a new way to use a computer like Google glass (the wearable computer). My idea for putting small water turbines into your plumbing systems to generate electricity is another of these concepts. Basically come up with something brand new that no one has thought of yet.

Make it better: Another way is to improve on something. Our cell phones are improved on constantly because we now have touch screens rather than key pads. Eventually we may just use our eyes to manipulate our phones in the same way Google glass uses peoples eyes to manipulate their computer screens. A person can innovate on cars like with the current 3 wheeled car concept or the "car tilt" technology that allows a car to shift its weight like a motor cycle for tighter turning radius and performance. But such innovation is not restricted to technology...how about food. Ever hear of an adult milk shake. Well I fist did on food network on the Show "Rachel Versus Guy" where they had celebrities compete for being the best cook. One of those celebrities made an adult milk shake (a milkshake with alcohol in it). I would later find another such type of milk shake at the restaurant Red Robin during their October fest celebration where my Uncle had a vanilla milk shake with drizzled caramel and Samuel Adams Boston Lager mixed together. It was yummy. I want to try mixing a little Vodka into a raspberry milk shake my self. Then there is the "Luther" a cheese burger that replaces the bun with two glazed donuts. No I have not tried it yet (but I want too so bad). So technology and food can be innovated with, not to mention clothing. If you’re already in a company, improve on an already proven product like a Dairy Queen Blizzard soft drink, the apple IPhone, or even proven computer software like Microsoft's operating systems. Never be satisfied with what is, you must want something greater out of the product to make it better.

Conclusion: Your probably wondering where the money comes in. Well that comes from selling your product(s). If it is your own invention, get a patent fast. From there you can have someone sell it for you or sell all your rights to that product for cash. Right now there is a 17 year old kid that created new apps for smart phones, and the companies are lining up to buy the programs he made. So you can do this too. If your already in a company, this could mean a promotion or at the very least a raise (beer companies seem to do this kind of innovation often). Start innovating and never stop. It comes down to the old adage, "if you build it they will come." So what are you standing around for, get to work, your not going to be the next bill gates by just twiddling your thumbs. Good Luck and Gods speed.