Issue 253 Heterofascism January 20, 2014

Here is a unique topic that I learned about a month ago. I did not feel comfortable writing about it until now thanks impart to my getting enough information to write about it and doing so in a responsible way. So let us begin.

What is it: Heterofascism is a kind of fascism that puts down all other forms of sexual relations save traditional man and woman relationships. However, it does not just put them down, but sponsors hatred and disgust against all non-strait individuals.

What brought this topic up?: Well, when I first heard of this topic it was in relation to a Russian comedian (who was not being comedic at the time) advocating the extermination of all "Gay" individuals. There was no outrage by the Russian people in general and the man claims to be Catholic despite this advocating of death going completely against Catholic teachings.

Is this truly a problem?: Yes it is because hardly anyone reacted in Russia. There was no boycott of the comedian, no condemnation, no nothing as far as I can ascertain. Apparently the extermination of an entire group of people is acceptable based on this comedians comments and the Russian community’s reaction to those comments. It is a dangerous line of thought that can spread and thus create another Holocaust or Holodomor.

Conclusion: On that depressing note, I ask you to speak out against such heinous ideas. This kind of thinking is what lead to the Nazi's final solution in the first place. I don't care if you believe in gay marriage or sexual relations between people of the same sex, but in the end what people do in the bedroom is not your business. What is your business is protecting your neighbor from bodily harm because of their beliefs (so long as they are not harming someone else). Remember, if they can go after the gays, they may eventually go after you too. Stop Heterofascism in its tracks by speaking out now.

Issue 252 Helping Africa part 2 January 17, 2014

We discussed yesterday on what changes can be done to change how we give charity to the people of Africa. But today we are looking at the African governments themselves and what needs to be done to improve Africa so that it no longer needs to rely on any countries for aid.

Step 1: Create a true economic union. Yes, creating a union of all the African economies will aid in helping the African people. This means a unified currency (or currencies) with a stable value is essential to giving the people of the African continent buying power. Also, basic trade rules that are simple and easy to understand work to protect and ease trade between different countries in Africa. Basically, the African continent needs a unified banking and trade system with stable currencies and a form of free trade for goods, services, capitol (businesses) and labor (people). Once accomplished, a business once inside of the African continent can sell to anyone in any part of Africa. Also, if this is done, people can move from one country to another unhindered on the African Continent to find both work and to get away from conflict. Overall, a union of this type if applied correctly will help the people of Africa greatly with Africa having an advantage over its European Union neighbors in seeing where the EU went wrong and thus not making the same mistakes.

Step 2: Infrastructure is crucial to the future of business. As such, the continued expansion of the cell phone networks and internet will further Africa towards a better future. What’s more, the African continent needs better road networks alone the lines of the United States' interstate highways and rail networks. This would improve logistics with respect to the shipping of goods and the movement of people in the African continent. Not to mention, an advanced infrastructure attracts businesses from other countries to an area which of course means more jobs.

Who is to accomplish this: The ones who should do this is the African Union (AU) which is similar to the EU, but is made up of the member States of Africa. They would need to empower this intergovernmental body with enough money and authority to accomplish these tasks. By giving this responsibility to this multi-governmental body it also ensures that all of the countries in Africa are represented along with all their interests. Thus, by the AU doing the job, it prevents centralization of power and thus avoids conflict between Africa's diverse countries.

Conclusion: These are very basic things that must be accomplished for the overall success of the continent of Africa. I only assign the job to the AU because it is less likely to be corrupted by external governments and there interests (China, U.S., EU, Russia etc.). While none of this will stop the ideological and territorial conflicts still going on, it will allow for people to escape poverty and thus escape from ideologies attempting to recruit the ignorant and impoverished. So in essence, we solve poverty while denying terrorists and other violent groups a recruitment base at the exact same time. What is not to like about helping Africa. Long story short, this is what I feel is needed to help Africa in both the short and long term, but this is by no means a cure all. It is simply my opinion on what could and maybe should be done as a means to an end. That end being a prosperous Africa.

Issue 251 Helping Africa part 1 January 16, 2014

The first step in helping the people of the African continent is changing how we give them aid. The current model is meant to help, but is also breeds dependency. As such some minor tweaks to the aid based system will help in removing this problem.

Step 1: Stop giving money to the African governments. The reason that you should not give money to these governments is not just due to corruption, but because they all take a cut of the aid to give out the aid in the first place. Yes, that is correct; the aid we give is not all being used to help the people of Africa, but to line the pockets of government officials. Unfortunately, this problem does not reside in Africa alone, but here in countries like the United States where government takes a cut of the money as well. So who do we give the money too?

Step 2: The money must be given directly to the African people for this to work. People in Africa know exactly what they need to survive and to thrive. As such, giving the money directly in some fashion would be the most efficient method to ensure that all the aid actually gets to those in need. However, giving that money as pure cash is not always the best method. So using the money to pay for the schooling of an African child, the health care, or as a cash prize for completing there education would be the best method. Limiting the number of times they would get aid is also crucial so that dependency does not develop. In fact there is a charity which is at the website "givedirect.org" that gives people one time donations of $1000 and a cell phone to keep track of how they are doing. They cited that just giving these people an education may not be enough and that they may need some sort of money to start their business or improve there lives. One of the people they helped bought a motorcycle and uses it as a taxi, while another used the money to buy welding equipment as he was taught how to weld but lacked the means to buy the equipment himself. Others use the money to buy tin roofs as opposed to the thatched roofs that can have animals living in them (this has cut down on diseases). So direct charity and done in a responsible way is essential to success.

Step 3: Do not donate clothing to the people of Africa. Yes, I sound like a tyrant here, but there is a very important reason. When you donate cloths to the African people they get them for free and you think you just helped someone. Problem is that you have actually killed off a business which creates jobs and gets people out of poverty. That business you killed off is Africa's clothing businesses. By giving cloths, you are actually impoverishing these businesses and perpetuating unemployment. If you stopped giving cloths, and instead used the money to buy cloths from the clothing businesses in Africa, then and only then would that be actually helping the African people. This is because, by buying direct, you allow that business to grow and prosper which means they hire more people to make the cloths and man the store fronts. Get it. By buying goods from the African people to help them, you will eventually not need to provide future aid because the economy in Africa will be so improved that they will be able to care for their own poor by themselves.

Step 4: Like with clothing, food is also a problem. When we ship food over, we take away businesses from the local farmers (not to mention get it stolen by pirates like those in Somalia). As such, these farmers loose revenue and stop farming. So like with step 3, buy the local food to feed the poor. This enriches the local farmers and allows them to expand there businesses which in turn creates more jobs.

Step 5: What should not change is the doctors without boarders help to these people and the education programs that directly aid in job training. These will prove essential to the future of the African economy with respect to entrepreneurs taking advantage of theirs and other people’s skills to create new businesses. Of course, I would like the $1000 cash prize and cell phone to be given upon completion of the education course as per the "givedirect.org" model. Some may be wondering what’s up with the cell phone? Well, in Africa, as infrastructure is almost non-existent, cell phones can be used to transfer money to individuals rather than traditional cash. This enables people to protect themselves from thieves as they don't have to carry cash and the phone acts as a tool for communication for both personal and business calls. In short, the cell phone and the ever expanding cell phone and internet infrastructure have become integral to the future of Africa's prosperity.

Conclusion: These steps are designed to change how we give aid to the African people. I firmly believe that the current aid system is not designed to help Africa, but to make the countries there a neo-colony for exploitation of goods and services. Lobbying groups like the farm lobby make big money off shipping food from the U.S. to Africa via the Federal Government, with some of Africa's governments taking that food and giving it only to loyal supporters. As such, the current methods must end. These changes on how we give charity are key to helping Africa become independent and wealthy and thus are sorely needed. Stay tuned for part 2 tomorrow which examines what I think should happen to Africa at the governmental level for it to achieve prosperity.

Issue 250 Clean car/Carbon capture January 15, 2014

Well ladies and gentlemen; it is time for another of my zany ideas. In this case it is retrofitting cars with different forms of carbon capture technology.

The idea: In recent years, scientists have found ways to capture carbon from the atmosphere (though why they cannot use the same tech to make cheap materials from that carbon yet is beyond me). As such, why not hook something up to the muffler of a car to capture all that raw carbon and remove it before it enters the air. Also, the military was looking into making water from burned fuels as well (one of the byproducts of burning certain fuels like gasoline is water). As such, the system the military was experimenting with provides drinkable water at the end of the process. But the one with the most potential is the ones used on some power plants out in the western United States. Here, algae is placed tanks near a power plant. The smoke stack is capped and redirected into the tanks for the algae to eat. That is right, the things that come out of the smoke stacks (water, sulfur, carbon dioxide etc) is healthy for plant growth (though the algae turns black as a result, though it is later used as fuel for the power plant as well). So we can cap that muffler and cut a cars emissions to zero.

How it works: Basically, we cap the muffler or even remove the exhaust system all together and redirect it into a system that captures raw materials from the smoke produced and makes it into a disposable or recyclable material. Water can be easily dumped (unless you want a feature that collects it for survival purposes) and the rest held in a holding tank. This byproduct can then be removed and dumped later as soot (like a chimneys). Other more advanced models would be able to separate carbon atoms and other raw materials that can be used as fertilizers, or raw materials that can be picked up for industrial uses (like butane, sulfur and the like). Basically, we need a technology that harvests what is useful from the burned fuel or makes some useful solids out of it.

Conclusion: Again, I give you one of my ideas hoping beyond hope that someone can take it somewhere beyond a concept. I will take no compensation, and I invite anyone to use the idea. Fact is that we are wasting some very useful materials when we burn fuels. Some of the fuel being burned is not burned completely and some gases produced are burnable as well. Compounds can be produced from burnt fuel which is the reason we can get drinkable water from burnt fuels when the right technology is installed. So the sky is the limit. We can make cars zero emission vehicles even without changing the fuel source. We just have start trying to do things in different and more innovative ways.

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.