Issue 249 Bio-crud January 14, 2014

A revolution in fuel is coming. And it is called bio-crud.

What is it: Bio-crud is synthetic oil made from plant matter. For years people have searched for alternative methods to getting a fuel equivalent to gasoline. However, the process to make it was long and expensive. But technology has progressed to where they can make it in an hour’s time.

How it works: Well, step one is taking algae (the plant like material that grows in water) and make it into a paste. Previously, the algae was dried up for the next step, but they decided to make a slurry instead which is 80% water. By doing this alone, the process was shortened. From there they place this slurry into a machine that mimics the heat and pressure of the earths crust (very similar to how they make artificial diamonds) to make it into crud. Needless to say, the process worked and a form of crud oil was the result.

It’s cheap: For one, this process has made making synthetic fuel cheaper. The byproduct of making the crud is water and other materials that can be reused to provide nutrients to further more algae growth. This recycling effect also aids in reducing the overall costs with respect to maintaining a steady stream of raw algae that can be turned into fuel. Also, the fact that it takes an hour as opposed to multiple hours or even days reduces the amount of time and effort to produce this product which again saves costs.

Future: At the moment, the scientists are looking to scale up the technology to make it suitable for mass production. Thankfully, as far as I gleamed from the article, traditional refining methods work on this bio-crud which makes the scientists job a little easier.

Conclusion: This is excellent in terms of preserving natural resources and making nation’s fuel independent. However, I believe this technology will face obstacles from environmental groups on account that burning the fuel puts the same kind of pollutants in the atmosphere as traditional fuels. But this can be rectified with perhaps genetically modified algae? Well, that is at the very least a possibility. What I would like though is for them to sell the technology on the open market so that people can make the bio-crud at home along with a micro refining system. Individuals would be able to make all the fuel they need maybe using things like bio-degradable garbage as well as algae. This effectively would reduce much of the garbage pick up situation and infrastructure. Also, people would not have to rely on a gas station and the by products from making the fuel are good for your own garden (which also makes it useful in landfills). If this technology spreads far enough, we may even be able to eliminate the need for oil rigs (or is this a pipe dream?). Basically, I want this technology scaled down, not up, so that a home owner can do this in the same space as their refrigerator and produce enough gas to last them into next week. Heck, if this happens the way I want it, the individual can sell their excess fuel to power plants or other people who need it in the same way people sell excess electricity from solar panels back to the power companies. Well I hope you agree with my idea, and also enjoyed this great news from the scientific community that is hopefully going to make fueling up and heating our homes that much cheaper.

Issue 248 Ad-hoc ideology January 13, 2014

Have you ever thought of why you sometimes sympathize with another ideologies or political party’s point of view? Well there is a reason for that. That reason is because ideology for the majority of people does not really exist.

What is ideology: Ideology is a lot like religion. It has a dogma and set rules. Institutions also exist to maintain a form of ideological purity by drowning out or suppressing other newer ideas. Thankfully, most people do not relegate themselves to a particular ideology. Best example is the constant battle of politics in the United States with the Republicans and Democrats. Large portions of the American population choose one party for simple reasons such as there family was a life long member of a particular party (my family is typically Democrat by this tradition). However, people do not vote for a party label such as Democrat and Republican in the United States. People here in the U.S. vote based on the individual themselves (as such my family has typically voted for members of the other party due in part to them not liking the current Democratic leadership and there ideas). The reason for this is due to people not really having a particular ideology. We are in fact a hodgepodge of beliefs and ideas.

The Ad-Hoc person: The reason people can vote for people who do not share their ideology is because for large segments of the population a set belief system through ideology does not exist. In fact with new bits of information on different issues like minimum wage and home ownership, a persons ideology or beliefs on a particular subject my change entirely. For instance, while in high school I was politically a Democrat. I believed in free education provided by the government and the same with anything else that the government could give us free. But as I entered college my beliefs became more aligned with the Republicans and their Conservative ideology as I grew into the reality that government cannot do everything as they would go bankrupt. By the time I left college, I became a libertarian as I realized that there are very select things government actually needs to do and the rest they are incapable of doing well. Thus, my political belief system is that of a libertarian who is also a constitutionalists (government limited to doing only what the Constitution allows for it to do). Despite this, I sometimes disagree with my fellow libertarians or Constitutionalists. Libertarian wise I disagree with abortion (based on both faith and science) and complete drug legalization (some completely legalized, others controlled and restricted without being totally illegal). On the Constitutionalists front, I disagree with the general welfare clause as people interpret it to allow the government to provide social welfare programs while as I understand (with respect to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers) that the United States government has zero authority on providing any form of welfare. Disagreements are a dime a dozen. As such, you as an individual have a set core of beliefs indicative specifically to you and you alone.

Conclusion: After showing you my example of myself, you can compare your own ideological progression and know that it is ok to change your mind or have differing beliefs from your other ideological compatriots. You have an ideology of one (or maybe even none), and you have the right to enforce or remove aspects of it at will. We all have an Ad-Hoc ideology as we all have the freedom of thought. Never let yourself be put down because you believe differently, not now or ever.

Issue 247 Video game violence January 10, 2014

Do video games cause more violence? Are they responsible for the increasingly violent culture of America’s youth? Here is my opinion.

Video games: Violent video games are not a direct cause to the overall violence we all face. Video games I believe are like the gladiatorial games of the past. They serve as a form of entertainment minus the actual violence. So you can literally kill off your favorite bad guy or best friend over and over again without it happening in reality. But this does not cause the out right violence of young men going out and killing people without cause. What is wrong with some of these video games is that they may be too graphic and close to reality. As such, they desensitize the players to the graphic violence and thus violence in the real world as a whole.

So video games support violent crime?: It has that potential to do so. With desensitization comes a lack of forethought about ones actions. Thus, people may not think twice about a crime until after the act has been committed. The video games themselves can be argued to be a form of advertising, but rather than compel people to buy something they compel them to do something. In this case violent video games purport violence (though the creators want this done in their game and not in real life). It works exactly the same way as traditional advertising and that can also be one of the causes of the problem making violence to the youth more acceptable.

What I personally think: I do believe video games do contribute, but I find this is the case because kids are lacking in moral and ethical responsibility. If they had some sort of moral or honor code, then maybe (like in past generations) they would be less prone to awful acts like the knockout game or theft. So by imparting moral and ethical teachings, even if the games desensitize those individuals playing them, will act as an inhibitor to violent acts. Of course this will not stop all the incidents that occur do to some people wanting the game to be their reality. Why they wish it for their reality can be something as twisted as them being a very cruel person or that they feel they are heroic in the game rather than real life. So what needs to be insured is that the games reality does not take over the individuals.

Conclusion: People will always be subjected to violence and bloodshed. Games offer us an outlet for those who desire as such without actually committing the real act. Yes it will desensitize and yes it does make you want to perpetuate the acts themselves (though they intend for it to be done in the games themselves so you buy more). But by having a kind of code and a way to remind oneself that the video game reality is false you can hopefully limit violence linked to the games from occurring. As to whether you should buy such games or not depends on you or your parents. I will not say to buy them or not as I play Star Wars video games where I hack up Storm Troopers. So at best I can caution you when you buy and when you play.

Issue 246 Guns save lives January 9, 2014

Yes, guns can and do save lives here in the United States. But there is a reason that this is true for the United States.

How they save lives: There are two key examples of guns saving lives that are important to know about. The first happened back I believe around 2003 (not sure the exact year). A vice principle had his hand gun hidden in his car on the school premises. On that day a student came to school and began firing upon his fellow students out of revenge for bulling (if I remember correctly). This caused the vice principle to run to his car and retrieve his gun. He was the first armed individual to approach the shooter and held the culprit at gun point long enough for the police to arrive. Now it is unknown how many lives where saved because of his actions, but it shows guns save lives.

Another incident at a different school happened just this year and is very similar to the first. The shooter came to school with a shot gun and began shooting students (two were injured with one still considered critical). A security staff member who was armed confronted the shooter with his own firearm (a hand gun). With the shooter trapped, the shooter turned his shotgun on himself. Again lives were saved thanks to a gun. There are many more incidents similar to these that demonstrate that guns save lives.

Why do they save lives?: Like the incidents described above, guns can offer a threat to those who take advantage of a guns level of power. So the simple thought by a criminal that his targeted victim may in fact be armed and much more dangerous tends to make them shy away from their original intended target. Basically it is the psychology of the hunter versus the hunted at work. A predator (the criminal) goes after the weakest individual so as to increase the chances of success. No criminal goes after the strongest most fortified of individuals to rob unless they are capable of making those strengths redundant. A gun insures that a criminal will think twice, and maybe abandon their target. We cannot even begin to know how many lives have been potentially saved thanks to the increasing level of gun ownership in the United States. Currently the U.S. has enough guns so that each individual can have at least one sure is impressive. Not to mention with this increased gun ownership the level of violent crime has shrunk at almost equal measure. If this is directly related or the result of gun ownership in combination with better policing still places the numbers in favor of allowing more gun ownership.

Conclusion: Guns don't kill people, the people using them do. Criminals are predators seeking easy prey, but guns equalize the situation making the prey not worth the effort. As such, guns deter and reduce crime as gun ownership and the fear of reprisal grows. Many people are in areas where it takes at least 15 minutes to an hour for police to arrive. In these communities guns are needed in the home more than they need a law officer due to the length of time it takes for the police to arrive. The gun puts the literal fear of God into criminals and can stop an incident before it starts. This is part of the American gun culture and thus why in America, guns save lives.

Issue 245 Guns and mental illness January 8, 2013

Guns have come under attack lately due to the mass shootings that have occurred in both 2012 and 2013. But the guns themselves are not the problem, but the person wielding them. In this case the mentally ill have become the primary culprit in a number of these shootings. So what is up with these people even being able to get there hands on a gun in the first place?

The Problem: It cannot be denied that criminals will get their hands on guns and other weapons whether we make them illegal for everyone else to use or not. Because lets face it, they're criminals and they don't obey any laws. In fact, they could even set up there own weapons factories like the Taliban did in the Afghanistan mountains (yes you can make a gun at home even though it is illegal to do so). So it becomes about limiting guns getting into the hands of individuals that are a clear risk to themselves and those around them. In this case that group of people is the mentally ill which have currently zero restrictions on being able to get a firearm.

Why is this so?: Mainly the reason people with mental illness can even be able to acquire a gun is impart due to the mental health system in America. Currently, a mentally ill patient cannot get any sort of special treatment until they pose a clear threat to themselves or those around them. As such, if the person suffers from a disorder, their family cannot have them get help because they have not demonstrated a threat to anyone. So this needs to change.

What needs to be done: For one, the mentally ill need to have the law amended to allow them to receive help before they intend to hurt themselves or others. That is as simple as this change will get. Following this, the mentally ill will need to be registered in a data base defining their risk to others. This dictates if they can or cannot own a gun.

Why not ban all the mentally ill from owning a gun?: The main reason not to ban all people with mental illnesses is that not all of them are a danger to society and to make them all out to be a danger is a stereotype that boarders on full out negative discrimination. In fact studies have been done that show a good portion of our military suffers from some form of mental illness or another both while serving or developing while serving (PTSD is the main culprit). As such, defining who is a danger or not must be done on a case by case basis as some members of the mentally ill community may need guns for self protection.

Conclusion: You will never keep guns out of the hands of non-law abiding citizens and even if you try to prevent a mentally ill patient from acquiring a gun, it does not stop someone from buying one for them. However, we can reduce the problem considerably by changing the rules to allow the mentally ill to get the help they deserve, not when others feel they need it.

Issue 244 City States January 7, 2014

We had discussed the idea of changing the ideology of people in cities to counter their need for dependence on a government yesterday. However, there is one other alternative modeled on the ancient city States of ancient Greece. Here is the idea.

The idea: Cities currently have populations that rival the size of many small countries and as such need to be represented in any form of democratic government. However, the ideology of dependency is strong within these cities and may in fact be unstoppable. But there is a solution. At different points in history the idea has been thrown around to allow cities to become independent States (New York City had pushed for Independence at one point). As such we can push for such ideas again. City populations typically outnumber rural populations and thus often lean the elections toward a particular candidate with a certain ideology. To counter that ideology on a national scale, we let that city become an independent State. This confines the people who believe a certain way into one group while giving the rural communities surrounding the city a bigger voice in an election. Fairly easy to understand right?

Advantages: The advantages are as follows. First Rural communities gain a larger voice in government because they no longer have to deal with the overwhelming populations that exist in cities. In fact, if you look at electoral maps of New York and Florida for instance, you will see that the majority of the counties in those States voted for Mitt Romney in the last Presidential election. However, President Obama won those States due to the major cities that overwhelmingly voted for him as they contained the most electoral districts based on population size. So this will eliminate that problem.

In addition, cities have typically consumed sub-urban and rural communities that surround them as they continue to expand outwards. This means that people close to cities may become enveloped by them and be subject to their taxes and fees for mass transit. By making these cities States, it would forcefully limit the cities size preventing development beyond its boundary line. As such, communities surrounding cities can rest assured that they will not become engulfed by the city next door. Also, it forces cities to innovate with respect to their size and scope. Cities will have to build vertically both up and down to accommodate all the people who live in them. This may also force some groups of people out of the cities which force them into other communities exposing them to other ideas of how to live outside of cities. Therefore cities can either become factory cities for middle class workers, playgrounds for the rich, of bastions of hope for the poor depending on how the city States government intends to have the city develop further.

Is it feasible: Yes, but it will be very hard to do. In the United States, the States themselves must agree to allow parts of themselves independence followed by the federal government allowing them into the union. If neither of those things occurs then the plan falls short. Elections will also be much more interesting as the city State has its own voice and the rural and sub-urban having theirs. Politicians may fear that one side will gain too much of an advantage ideologically and politically to allow this to occur. So politicking is a problem to this ideas implementation.

Conclusion: This is simply an idea. I doubt that something like these will ever occur, let alone in my lifetime. However, the advantages are clear with respect to defining a city's limits and the rural communities’ limits which may in fact benefit both communities as politicians who have both within there influence no longer have to meet competing interests. Thanks again for reading one of my (hopefully) interesting ideas.

Issue 143 City Counter balance January 6, 2014

We had previously talked about why cities were very liberal, but we did not discuss how to counter this growing ideology of dependency of government. So here it goes.

Self reliance: The first method, or part of the method, is to replace the dependency mindset with one of self reliance. This means implementing an education program in urban schools that empower students to rely on themselves and their abilities. As such, students are given the mental courage to say, I can succeed. From there they are taught how to seek out and obtain the resources they need to learn on their own without relying on a teacher. In essence it will be a curriculum that teaches independence. This approach will filter to parents and other adults through these kids. At this point the mentality is changed to a degree that erodes the dependency mindset. Psychologically dependence will disappear, but the people will still be reliant on certain services provided by the government. This is where part two comes in.

Part 2: What the green movement does not realize is that the technology they are pushing is also pushing for independence from government. If a building for instance comes completely off the grid (electrically and also with respect to water supply) it will change attitudes of these individuals in the cities. Right now, people rely on the basics of city life from the government, but if things like solar power, wind power, and city roof water collection and gardening become more and more mainstream then the government will loose its value. So, green technology will give landlords and other businesses in cities independence as well. Again this, once it becomes public knowledge, removes the idea from peoples heads that the government can provide the essentials for city living and by de-facto, can solve everything.

The 3rd; Faith: One of the other components of cities is the lack of faith. Many religions have abandoned the idea of expanding into the cities further than what they have currently. But if the faiths begin to offer services that are superior to welfare, to the cities marriage services and to even provide an alternative for an old age pension system like social security, then people will completely look away from government. By offering these services, the people will realize that they have the power to help through an institution outside of government. Also, by expanding the faith based communities in cities, you empower individuals further and provide a more moral foundation for individuals in cities rather than the liberal concept of the ends justifying the means.

Conclusion: Some of these are practical like the things described in the section on the green technology and on faith. The education one will be much harder as it can only be easily implemented in private schools and home schooling, while public education will still be controlled by the State and thus can deliver whatever message it wants. It really comes down to the fact that government is only needed for key specific things like law enforcement and lawmaking and even then private groups once laws are written can be hired to do the same job. Over half the fire departments in the United States are volunteer or run privately (no government needed). New York's original subway system was done by private corporations until the city government took it all over to gain that revenue for themselves. So if these things can be done privately, then nearly everything can without any loss for the individuals using these services. As such, the liberal mindset is a false promise with respect to government being the provider of all the needs of the individual. The truth is that government is needed very little and the sooner we realize that the better.