Issue 236 Joining Hands December 26, 2013

I have always questioned why the faiths have not teamed up to tackle issue like poverty and world hunger. With all of their resources put together, the faiths could give for free the knowledge needed by the poor to get ahead in life and even the financial means if necessary. So why don't they?

Differences: One of the primary reasons faiths choose not to cooperate is because of the differences of belief that they have. They look at each other with skepticism and sometimes derision (like how Mormons are typically viewed by the rest of the Christian community). But I question this. Is this not being so petty as to not accept aid from your fellow man? It is silly to not accept each others help. The Mormons have a fantastic disaster relief network with them typically getting to the communities in trouble long before the government or even other charities arrive. Catholics have a world wide network which allows them to gather information quickly so as to know what is needed where. Muslims who use sharia law integrate charity into all of there transactions (it’s obligatory), and thus gather large sums of money quickly. However, because of differences in faith and belief, many of these faiths choose not to help each other out. As such, when trouble occurs each choose to continue to do things on there own in there own way. This to me is counter to what my Christian teaching tells me as a Catholic. We do not know who are Gods chosen people and associating with people of a different faith will not make us sinners. So I feel that getting the community of faiths together, even if it is just in your own town and making an emergency supply center/shelter that doubles as a food pantry could be a nice start to something bigger. Who knows, maybe these faiths can even team up to do other things like creating genealogy trees like some Mormon communities do, and maybe revive some of the more stagnant churches by copying some of the Baptist singing and rejoicing in the sermons. If the faiths just cooperate they may yet grow and renew themselves.

Government: The other reason that inhibits faiths from going further is do to the government getting involved with things like welfare. Welfare used to be done by the churches and other similar community groups, but government decided to step in during the Great Depression when it was felt that these churches and groups could not handle the sheer amount of poverty that occurred. It can be argued that the government perpetuated the depression though by slaughtering livestock and burning crops which raised the price of food (see book Grapes of Wrath), the same food that would have been much cheaper and affordable for the poor to buy if not for there interference. Add in price and wage controls and government made it impossible to feed the poor on the cheap. Now there is a way of thinking that the Charities cannot handle the poor if government was to step out of the picture for even a little bit (which I believe is false). This mindset has even infiltrated the churches and as such they have no incentive to go beyond the current services they are offering. Charity used to be local for a reason, to ensure that those who need help get help. But with government, anyone can become a freeloader.

Conclusion: Each of the faiths has much to offer by getting together. They can learn from each other, share resources and information and even set up interfaith networks to handle things like health care, education, the obvious welfare aid and maybe even sanitation if a community needs it. Together the faiths can do it; they can show that government is not needed to survive in the modern world. So start coming together, and start saving people the way God intended.

Issue 235 Merry Christmas December 25, 2013

Well every one, it is now Christmas day.  Time to say a prayer of thanks to Jesus and God and then exchange gifts with your loved ones (whether those gifts be physical or spiritual is up to you).  Thank you for reading today and every day as you all have given me a gift as well.  The gift that my words and ideas mean something to someone else.  So thank you from the bottom of my heart for reading my blog.

 

 

God Bless you all,

 

Merry Christmas

Issue 234 Christmas Means Decemeber 24, 2013

Christmas is short for Christ’s' Mass. It is a time we celebrate and honor the sacrifice that Jesus made for humanity so that we may obtain salvation. But, what is the salvation Jesus gave us and how best should we honor it.

Salvation: Unlike a good number of other religions, in Christianity the aid you give to the needy is voluntary. This is due to the salvation of the spirit being based on an individual bases. If some one else does something good, it bears no reflection on you. The same if you do something bad, it has no effect on the individuals around you because your sin is yours and yours alone. Jesus established a pathway for individual salvation for each and every one of us.

Giving: To honor Jesus' sacrifice we give gifts to those we care about or to strangers in need. But the gifts need not be in the physical form. Those gifts we give can be our kindness, or forgiveness, our hopes and our inspiration. Receiving something like a new PlayStation, car, or anything physical is nice and all, but the receiving is the least important thing. It is about the giving of oneself to another individual because you legitimately care. Not because someone tells you or because Jesus "asked" (key word here) us to give to those have nothing, but because you in your heart really do want to give aid and comfort to others.

Conclusion: This is the Christmas I know and cherish. I do not mind receiving nothing if it should ever come to that (although my mother always tries to get me whatever I want....I don't ask for anything because of that). For me, I am just happy to be surrounded by the family and friends I love and cherish. Being with them to celebrate together is all that I ever really want or ever need.

Issue 233 Faith and God December 23, 2013

There are so many faiths and segments of those faiths that exist in this world. But, what I wondered is why each says they have the right answer? Why does one say that they are right when the others say they are right as well? Let us look a little deeper.

Commonality: All the faiths have a common theme against violence, namely murder in all its forms. Generally they make an exception for self defense and war. They are all anti thievery and each sets up both a moral and religious code. Usually, they say to respect your parents, and of course to respect God (or gods) as the case may be. Many also have a holy day along with parables and stories passed down in holy books to teach life and moral lessons to current and future initiates. In the end there are relatively minor differences especially when it comes to Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Differences: The differences generally stem from diverging aspects of belief. Jews do not believe that Jesus Christ was Gods son, let alone the Messiah. In Islam, Jesus is believed in as a prophet, but he has no divinity what so ever. Also, differences in how one view's the concept of marriage partners like how in Buddhism (or parts of it) do not even have the concept of marriage. Each faith has its own way of thinking that determines how they treat people and each other overall. But, which of these is the correct way of looking at faith? Which is the one to follow to find the salvation we seek? Well, you are not going to figure that out until you die and meet your maker. For the truth is we may all be doing it wrong.

Conclusion: Do not look down on another person because they follow a different faith than you. Never look down upon a person because they believe a little differently than you. The reason is because you, yourself, maybe doing it all wrong (or part of your worship is incorrect). It is much better to learn from each other and find that common ground so as to achieve understanding and knowledge than to fight it out, or tell them they are wrong and ignore a potential friendship. By interacting with each other, we not only share knowledge, but our faith. Some may develop new ideas on how to form a deeper stronger faith, while others may question their faith which could lead them down the path of a deeper more personal faith. So start listening to each other and what you all have to say, for we all may be right and we all may be wrong too. Let us form that personal relationship with God (or gods) that allows us to receive true salvation (which I hope and pray exists).

Issue 232 Track system of education December 20, 2013

The track system of education was designed in the age when production shifted to a factory based system. It was set up to give the top 10% of students the best education so that they would become business leaders and politicians. The next 10% was to be the primary support group for the top 10% with them serving as Secretaries and aids in multiple forms. As for the remaining 80%, they are regulated to the factory and to farm work. Today, the track system is still in place, but I feel that it is more corrosive to society than ever.

A dark deal: The idea was to insure that only the best, education wise, got into positions of power. This however left many other students to be subject to substandard education. As a result, education for the remaining 80% is stagnant. To make matters worse, the track system is still used with the hope of obtaining similar results with that bottom 80% doing the menial jobs in society. It is the opinion of this writer that this is purposeful.

My opinion: I believe they have kept the track system to insure that the majority of the populace remains, in general, uniformed save for what jobs they obtain. It inherently segments a society if your main source of education is what you are told by media, and taught in the work place. But that is exactly what is happening. By preventing the majority from having a coherent education with the ability to think for themselves the elites get a leg up in manipulating the masses into telling them what they can and cannot do. Not only that, the elite's get to decide what an individual needs and does not need. Before the track system, education was earned. If you search for test questions back prior to the industrial revolution you may find questions asking you to list all the kings and queens of the world, what countries they are from and their capitols. Yes, that is one whole question and there was no multiple choice. Students were at that time challenged by the education system so that they would be the most informed and educated in the world.

My other opinion is that the reason the track system is kept is due to the supply and demand principles of the job market. Just like goods and services, a person’s salary is determined by the demand for that person filling that job, and the supply of available people to choose from to fill it. Obviously the less people there are to choose from, the greater the pay. Lawyers and doctors (through various lobbying groups) already do this by making their degrees require a masters and a doctorate degree even if you can get the same quality of each profession if it was allowed to be studied as an undergraduate degree. The track system becomes another reassurance that most people do not make it to the intelligence level to be even able to be accepted into such programs. In essence the system is rigged against the remaining 80% so as to insure that the majority who cannot overcome the education (let alone financial) gap ever reach the higher level positions. As such, it again insures that only the elite not only gets those positions, but also that the pay remains high.

Conclusion: So basically, the track system tries to insure that a good portion of the American public stays below a certain education level. Education in America is so stagnant that test scores have not increased since the creation of the Department of Education in the Jimmy Carter Administration. But what you are not being told is that the tests have been continually dumbed down each and every year just to maintain the look of our nation maintaining its current level of smarts. I would bet anything that if you give a student a test from back in the 70s, let alone the late 1800s, they would fail miserably. Our students are being prepared to be mindless drones for employers to do with as they please, and for politicians to manipulate with ease. It is time to abandon the track system and give everyone a fair shot at the education they deserve.

Issue 231 Communism vs. Facism Decemeber 19, 2013

What are the differences between these two competing ideologies, and more importantly what is the same? Let's answer that question.

Differences: There are not that many differences between Communism and Fascism. In fact the only key difference is their overall approach toward reaching the same goal. Communism is primarily global. It seeks to impart its ideology on a global scale such that everyone becomes equal. Fascism is similar, but instead of everyone in the world being equal economically and socially, Fascism supports nationalism. In essence, Fascism has one group (ideology, religion or ethnicity or race) sitting at the top ruling over all others. In fact Fascism even embraces aspects of Capitalism as true equality is unattainable at both the social and economic levels. As such Fascism embraces some market mechanisms and nationalistic notions that cannot be stopped due to them being part of human nature (i.e. the need to work and do something of value which is why Nazi Germany embraced the ethnic form of Fascism). What is also important to note is that F.A. Hayek in "Road to Serfdom" explained that all Communist countries are doomed to fail as the ideas and concepts of equality fail in a communist system and give way to the nationalist based Fascism ideology. As such there really is only one true difference; one (communism) seeks world total social and economic equality while the other (Fascism) succumbs to the nationalistic notions where there are those greater than everyone else. However, the communist always in the end becomes a Fascist while calling themselves communist in name only.

The same: Almost everything else these two ideologies have in common is exactly the same. They are both based off of the Marxist ideas as portrayed in the Communist Manifesto and Capitilo 1 and 2. Capitalism to both ideologies is the source of all evils. Both look to create some form national government to govern the entire world. Both seek equality amongst the people as much as possible whether it has to be engineered or coerced. As such, all societies that embrace these ideologies have a national education system, a command economy, and either a single ruler or set of rulers at the top deciding what people can and cannot do. The roots of Marxist socialism run deep as people who spout these ideologies typically advocate violence to create their "ideal" societies. Each will have a national retirement system and a method of controlling public information. The list literally goes on forever. Aside from the aforementioned differences, both are almost exactly the same thing.

Conclusion: These are the Communism and Fascism compared. They are in fact parts of the same ideology, the Marxist ideology. There counterparts are Socialism and Progressivism. The ideology of Socialism in its most modern form rejects the idea of ethnic or racial control, but advocates for a benevolent group or individual leading the world over (they look toward the U.N. as that body). It too however still resorts to violence when needed. Progressives are the most advanced model in the modern era and advocate a peaceful transition toward their goal of economic and social equality, but they do this by infiltrating governments and manipulating laws until they get their way. Otherwise these two along with Communism and Fascism are also the exact same as they seek one unified world with social and economic equality. Of course, both in their youth embraced ethnic and racial purity like Fascism, though communism for a time did as well. In the modern era, these labels are really just for show (at least from my point of view). Communist China has fully embraced the same economic system of Nazi Germany, where production is generally allowed to continue so long as the government allows it or approves of it. Nazi Germany was in fact ruled by the National Socialists (this is what Nazi means). So when it comes down to the dirty little details the differences between each are none at all. Some groups want violence to achieve their ends, while others will infiltrate government and transform it slowly into their ideal utopia regardless of who may suffer in the end. Gone is the racial, ethnic and religious purity unless you are talking about small groups like the Neo Nazi's, and other small segmented breakaway groups in each. However, nationalism still comes to the forefront which will always morph the ideology and the government into a Fascist one (though they may be loath to call themselves that). As to the competition between these groups, it has nothing to do with differences in ideology as they both want the same thing. However, the reason why they compete is something more primal, the lust for power (which is why the communist French sided with the Nazi's in WW II, and then later competed against them for control). So in the end you can really just call them what they really are Marxist.

Issue 230 Drug war and the Cartels December 18, 2013

Who started the drug war? Well in the opinion of this author, it was the governments of the world, not the cartels who sell the drugs. Allow me to explain.

History lesson: One of the biggest bans on drugs was during prohibition. That drug of course was alcohol. Before the ban, the mafia and the gangs largely existed as petty thieves, extortionists and ran other illegal enterprises like gambling. However, these groups were tiny, and had relatively no impact on people outside of there area of influence. Prohibition changed this. With the banning of alcohol prices skyrocketed. Former small time crooks became big time crime bosses. Honest men saw the money to be made and went over into the illegal booze business. Soon, rival gangs fought for territory and control which killed many. Cops who sought to suppress the crime bosses were targets of assassination. But when prohibition ended, the mob largely disappeared due to their primary source of income gone. As such they either went into alternate illegal enterprises, legitimate business or simply changed jobs.

Parallels: The parallels of prohibition with the bans on illegal drugs like "weed" and "crack" are striking. Currently in Mexico all drugs are actually legal to take, but the violence stems from it being illegal in the United States as the cartels (in the same way as the mob) saw economic opportunity to sell illegal drugs for a profit and thus fight for territory and control. Basically, everything is the same except that the banned substance is drugs instead of alcohol.

What to do: Our only option is to legalize each drug in the same way as many European countries do. Start with personal use laws and clinics (who dispense an individual’s drug of choice at market cost) that require the person to go to a doctor to prove they are addicted. This keeps the addicts away from illegal drug dealers and the money making it back to the cartels. This also insures that the strength of the drug can be controlled so that if and when the person wishes to get off the drug, they have an alternative to doing it "cold turkey." At this point you make the least lethal of drugs legal (like weed as no one has ever died from smoking it) bit by bit. With these drugs legal and the money dried up, the cartels have to either switch to a completely different illegal enterprise or go into a legitimate business.

Conclusion: I am not saying that this solution is the perfect one, but the fact is that prohibitions on things create an illegal market for people to buy and sell illegal substances and goods. By legalizing it in the long run, drug use will decrease (as it has in European countries that have done legalization). History has proven a good ally in telling us what needs to be done to end the bloodshed on the U.S. Mexican boarder and the drug war as a whole.