Issue 260 Radicalized by cop! January 29, 2014

This topic is controversial. Police officers and intelligence agencies have been contacting Muslims who seem to be sympathetic to the Al Quada's and similar group’s ideology. At this point, the police/intelligence official pretends to be a recruiter from a terrorist group and try to "recruit" the Muslim individual. Usually, they set up a fake meet up to buy bomb making materials. But here is the controversial part. If the police never made contact with that individual, would they have become radicalized in the first place?

Pros: Those in favor of this method of policing and capturing terrorists point out that the individual being targeted was sympathetic to the terrorist cause in the first place. Also, they claim that it was better that they made contact with the individual over an actual terrorist recruiter where they may have actually carried out a terrorist act. Overall, those in favor of this method believe they are protecting our nation.

Cons: People who are against this method say this is a form of entrapment. In other words, the police are setting the individual up to become a criminal in the first place. As such, those against this policy believe that the individual would never have needed to be arrested in the first place if the individual was not radicalized by the officer or intelligence official.

Fact: We cannot prove or disprove if the individual would have become radicalized on there own or not. If taken to the Supreme Court however, this policing method may be ruled as entrapment and thus mean the program will be put to a halt.

Conclusion: I personally do not care for how this program is being carried out. It is disturbing that the police are actually creating terrorists out of innocent people. What I feel that they should do is monitor the individual to see if they make contact with an actual terrorist recruiter. At this point examine the conversations and if it seems that the individual being monitored is being radicalized then replace the recruiter with an officer who will now play the roll of the recruiter. However, before setting up a situation that would allow for an arrest, the officer should make attempts to de-radicalize the subject in question. If successful, the suspect would be monitored for an adequate period of time to insure they are no threat to society. However, if this fails, then you go in and bust the suspect by finding out what they are doing to carry out the criminal act with the police playing the roll of the recruiter still, but at this point leading them to stores or facilities that can be monitored by the police and insure the plot fails if one should emerge. As to the actual recruiter, find him/her and remove there ability to radicalize other individuals. This in my opinion is how it should be done.

Issue 259 Too many Federal cops January 28, 2013

Have you noticed in the Federal government’s alphabet soup of agencies and departments, most of them are law officers? ATF, DEA, FBI, NSA, CIA, U.S. Marshals, ICE, TSA, and the list keeps going. We even have swat teams in both the EPA and the Department of Education. Is this a little ridiculous?

Overlap: For one, many of these police forces have overlapping responsibilities. ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire arms) deals with drugs, guns, and illegal selling of liqueur. But many States have police forces doing that exact same job. DEA (drug enforcement agency) plays a similar role in the battle against illegal drugs. But the FBI, ATF and TSA along with local police also deal with those same groups of criminals. Why all the overlap you ask? Simple, government has had one key problem that has always existed. That problem is where one group or agency seeks to gather as much power as possible to do all the jobs of the other groups. At that point it makes that particular agency more important than the others and thus money and power get concentrated in that agency. Other agencies see this and thus begin to do the same thing. Needless to say it wastes taxpayer money significantly.

What to cut and merge: In my opinion, the EPA, department of Education should not have any special police forces. In fact, no agency should have a police force with the exception of the FBI. This gives the FBI complete control over Federal law enforcement responsibilities. So if the EPA wants to use a SWAT team on "something" or some one (who knows why they need a SWAT team in the first place), they must go to the FBI. At this point, the FBI would justify if the act warrants the use of Federal law enforcement or if it would be better handled by local police or a lawyer. This hopefully would reduce the amount of unnecessary raids like those conducted by the DEA or ATF on people for "nickel bags" of weed or false reports of guns in the home of an individual. Also, intelligence agencies like the NSA, CIA and others should be merged as well. They already act as data hubs for information and work in the service of the country to protect us. Therefore combining them makes sense (especially as they did not share information with each other which could have stopped 9/11). In the end, only two key police agencies would exist, the FBI and a new form of the central intelligence agency. Likewise, we can just be rid of certain federal law enforcement that has no business existing (in this case, in instances where local police are better able to carry out the same task). Guarding our boarder can be done by the National Guard services which would probably be a more effective deterrent to cartels trying to sneak over the boarder. But this is all just an idea. However I believe you my dear reader get the point. We are wasting money doing things that are either better handled by local cops or merging groups together to get the job done more efficiently and effectively.

Conclusion: When did the federal government become so police oriented that we became the democratic equivalent of a police state. With all these laws on the books (many are either unenforceable or even not needed) it is no wonder we have all these police just trying to enforce these so called "laws". The old adage is too much is no good. You know what, if America keeps up this pace, America will stop being good.

Issue 258 Irresponsible Politics January 27, 2014

Well it has been a few weeks since the news broke on Governor Christies of New Jersey Bridge gate scandal. And months have passed since a number of the presidents scandals. But what I want to talk about here is not the scandals alone, but how irresponsible both have been and to use them as an example as to what not to do in a public office.

The Governor: Governor Christie is in charge of New Jersey. Anything that goes wrong is on him, so when members of his staff reduce the lanes on the George Washington Bridge to one in order to cause massive traffic in a ploy to get revenge on a mayor that did not endorse the Governor in the last race, then blame should fall right on the Governors shoulders. Needless to say, a senior citizen died on the way to the hospital due to traffic caused by this childish revenge scheme. I will not have any mercy for Governor Christie. It happened on his watch whether he orchestrated it or not. Your staff is your responsibility and thus the Governor must accept the consequences.

Another possible incident could have occurred during the 2012 election. This is pure speculation, but the Governor getting along well with President Obama after hurricane sandy and making the President look good at that time may have been a revenge play against Mitt Romney who passed over Governor Christie as a potential Vice Presidential candidate. Could we be seeing a pattern here or are we putting too much thought into this? I am not sure myself.

The President: President Obama has some scandals of his own. The first scandal is the program known as "Fast and Furious" (not the movie). Here the ATF had licensed gun dealers sell to known gun runners for the drug cartels so as to track where the weapons go. However, the entire program was a fiasco. Almost none of the guns were properly tracked and thus thousands of U.S. firearms were used in gang violence and mass murder over the border in Mexico. It is incalculable to tell how many innocents lost their lives as a result of this program.

Next is the IRS scandal where the IRS agents gave Tea Party and other conservative minded groups a hard time during the 2012 elections with respect to there tax exempt statuses. It was hoped by these agents to impede the conservative groups enough to protect key politicians on the Democratic and the Republican tickets. As such, many of the tea party challengers could not raise adequate funds to capture the Senate, let alone more seats in the House of Representatives.

Finally we have the Benghazi scandal. All people involved have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, save a few who decided to speak out regardless. In this scandal, four Americans (one of whom was a U.S. Ambassador) were killed by terrorists in Benghazi in Libya. The facility attacked was not adequately defended nor did it meet with proper security procedures. Also, the rescue team was delayed. Another stain on the White House, and President Obama's record.

Conclusion: In all three of these incidents, the President has been shielded from blame. News media covered these incidents lightly. The Governor on the other hand is being dragged through the mud. In both cases, regardless of knowledge, the leader is responsible for the whims of there staff. As such, President Obama and Governor Christie are to be held accountable for what their staff did. Is this a symptom of government being so big that even the leader of the Country (or State) cannot keep track of there staff? If the bridge was privatized in New Jersey, would this incident have happened? Getting rid of the ATF would certainly change things in the federal government and not taxing the equivalent of a business would have protected the Tea Party groups (and all other groups) from possible attacks and reprisals by various politicians. Benghazi should have never have happened in the first place. These scandals show the symptoms, in my belief, as to why the federal government and even the State governments are dysfunctional. Maybe it is time we cut the bull crap and make government work effectively by making it small.

Issue 257 Itelligent Hobbies January 24, 2014

Hobbies help to shape people with respect to their intelligence and ability to deal with problems they may face. I for one was also shaped by my hobbies as I am a dyslexic who has a hard time reading (I have compensated for whatever deficiencies it has caused me). But these hobbies helped me overcome my personal obstacles and I believe it can help you or your children in the same way. As such, here is some strategies that my parents used and what I would eventually use on myself.

Board games: One hobby is board games. Starting off small like shoots and ladders helped introduce me to strategic thinking and decision making skills. From there I would learn chess and checkers which expanded on the ability to think both strategically and ahead. It has helped me greatly with my decision making skills later in life and has spawned interest in other games like "GO", Shogi, variations of checkers, and many more types of games that require higher level thinking over luck based dice throwing. It keeps ones mind sharp and enables social activity (especially for children who are isolationist). Card games like poker and its variations are also skill based and also help with these skills.

Model building, art and music: Yes I build models (though not as often as I like). Here it helps with a person’s patience and creativity. Whether it is plastic models with snap together fit or clay modeling to make pottery, it helps a person to express themselves. Obviously Music and art do the same thing in different ways (I did more art than music). At the same time the child's or the persons thoughts and emotions are expressed allowing for an outlet to the individuals frustrations (I was frustrated, I admit it).

Drawing and writing: Drawing and writing are key for helping people express themselves when they do not have access to things like models, paints or instruments. It helps the parent understand what is going on in their child's head by examining their drawings and writings while again promoting creativity. This of course also allows for the writer or artist to think out of the box which allows them to have an advantage later on in life with respect to problem solving and accomplishing tasks. It has certainly helped me with respect to my own creativity and has helped me with writing this blog.

Collectibles: Some may wonder why collectibles make this list. Well it is because collectible card games like Pokémon and later Yugioh got me to read. I hated reading because I was always behind the class. I felt inadequate. My mother did not want to buy the cards for me, but she knew that I was actually reading them and understanding them. As such she funded the hobby to the point that I finally was able to read longer and larger articles and later books. In addition, these card games can also aid in strategic thinking skills which also proved useful. Of course, this depends on the collectibles themselves as well.

Conclusion: These things helped me to progress beyond whatever handicaps I have and not only overcome them, but turn them to my advantage when opportunity presents itself. These little things made me appreciate what I can and cannot do. It has overall made me a much better person with respect to my ability to think, act, and overcome obstacles in my life. I will always appreciate the money my mother and father have spent not only on my education, but on these small (ok not always small) investments that helped me develop into the adult that I am now. In fact, I still practice these hobbies from time to time to refresh my self and I always end up learning something new either about the game or about myself. While not a comprehensive list see if these hobbies will work for you and your children.

Issue 256 Snow plow alternative January 23, 2014

Well it is winter here in New York (where I live) and the snow plows are pushing that snow around and dumping salt. But there is a problem, and this idea may just solve it.

Problem: Snow plows in New York dump ice melt (typically salt) onto roads to help melt the ice. However, that same salt ends up in the soil, our sewers, and even our oceans. As such, it harms the environment. Also, when the plow comes through, it simply pushes the snow aside and creates piles of mini icebergs which in some cases bury cars in more snow. Is there a way to solve these problems during the winter time?

The idea: Well, my idea is to instead harvest the snow. When water freezes it expands, so the plow instead of pushing the snow aside and dropping salt will harvest the snow and drop it into a tank in the vehicles. This tank will then proceed to melt the snow (which reduces its volume). At this point the crew of the vehicle has two options. One is to super heat the water inside the vehicle to spray on the pavement to melt the snow they did not collect which in turn would instantly evaporate the snow itself. In this case the sprayer will be just behind the collection plow and the superheated water vapors from the melting snow can then be recollected via a vacuum in the middle and aft of the vehicles. The other option is to take the tank of now heated water, pull up to a sewer drain, and then pump the heated water directly into the sewer. This will allow the drains to be cleared of any frozen material, clean out the sewer system and at the same time prevent the pipes in the sewer from freezing. All this combined would solve both issues all at once without the use of salt or other chemicals and without dumping snow all over the place creating large piles that take forever to melt.

Is it feasible?: Yes it is feasible, because we have the same kind of systems used for agricultural farm work. The only difference is the tank on the back which would act as a kind of oven for the melting snow so that it becomes super heated.

Problem: The only way to make the system work properly is to ensure the snow that becomes the water pumped out is super heated. If the water being pumped out does not evaporate the other snow completely, it will simply freeze. Also, a fuel source for the vehicle will be needed as that is a lot of weight to carry around. Thus, a hydrogen powered engine that performs electrolysis to harvest fuel from the heated snow it takes in would be the best option in this instance. As such, once the initial fuel (water) is added, the truck can go on perpetually simply by melting more snow.

Conclusion: This is another one of my ideas that I hope inspire someone to solve the aforementioned problems. Winter in the United States (especially in northern States like New York) can be very sever and even deadly. So solving the environmental problem and the issue of these man made ice bergs would do much to help clear the streets making it safe for drivers during winter.

Issue 255 Kill spending January 22, 2014

Yes, that is right. Spending must be killed. But how do we convince people that certain spending must be abolished in the first place? Simple, put a target on its back.

Examples on what to cut: Right now the United States subsidizes prostitutes. Yes that is correct; they give them tax breaks for breast implants, and other "equipment" and more. These tax breaks are indicative to an industry that probably should not receive any incentives in the first place. Other industries have the same kind of breaks like Mohair producers having a tax break since the civil war. Others like the singer Bon Jovi have a tax break on their property taxes because they have a farm on their property (aka a small bee farm or tiny dairy farm). As such these celebrities’ pay less in property taxes than there middle and lower class counter parts. You see, each tax break and subsidy has a face that can be put behind it. As such, outrage can be sponsored to remove such breaks from our tax code and government spending. So where am I going with this?

Target on their back: Basically by isolating a specific industry that gets these breaks libertarians (and other political groups against big government wasting our money) can garner public opinion to embarrass politicians into cutting these forms of waste out of the tax code and our federal (and even our State) budget. It is the same methods used by propagandists, but in reverse. In this case it advocates the government stopping doing something rather than doing something.

Is this moral?: That is a hard question to answer. I am sure you would agree that the aforementioned examples are all forms of wasteful spending. However, some other forms of spending like subsidizing the building of nuclear power plants, tax cuts for other types of farming and the like may be considered worthwhile to some. As such, we must examine each form of spending and see if it is actually worth the cost in comparison to cutting spending and cutting taxes as a whole. As a libertarian and other members of the community who are opposed to wasteful spending, we must be responsible in our attack on these kinds of spending. Target the most wasteful, the most useless and the most unfair first and then move on from there. So we must take our time and form our arguments more carefully when we touch such things as agricultural subsidies that go to help the poor in Africa or to aid in disaster relief as in the case of Super Storm Sandy. We have to present viable alternatives to the status quo to be successful and be on the right side of the moral high ground.

Conclusion: Yes, government spending and tax cuts for things like breast implants are bad. If we focus on them one at a time, we can eliminate them one by one by garnering community support to sponsor a protest. But, as always, we must be responsible in making such spending a target as it is key, for we must not destroy the reputations of the businesses receiving the money. Also, we must present an alternative to the tax cut or subsidy for some businesses can only continue to exist due to these government benefits (welfare). Be cautious, but be responsible in putting a target on a piece of spendings back.

Issue 254 Responsible Boycott January 21, 2014

A boycott is a protest that avoids the buying of a good or service and or the business that makes that good or service. But one must do this responsibly or the rules of unintended consequences will occur. So what can you do to avoid harming people unrelated to the boycott? How can one do this responsibly?

Step 1 Research: If you are intending to boycott a product, make sure you know why you are doing so. Is it because the chemicals in the product are causing cancer, harming the environment, or because the individuals manufacturing it are doing harm to their workers or other people. In short, know why you are going to boycott the product/service and or the business. If you do not, how can you make the boycott grow so that others will take up your cause?

Step 2 Talking points: Once research is done, you may have to make statements to the media, or more importantly potential supporters. No one wants to hear a long drawn out answer as to why you’re boycotting let alone your passion as that may turn people off. Instead, draft talking points that are short and succinct that can be told in less than 30 seconds along with follow up statements that can be used to answer questions that require more details.

Step 3 Start the boycott: Basically you need a start date to begin and a written statement handed to the business in question as to the reason why you are boycotting them. Otherwise how will they know why you are forming a picket line in front of there store or as to why your group is no longer buying what they are selling. At this point it is all a waiting game in which you try to gain support to continue the boycott further so as to force the business to change what they are selling, how they are selling it, or their business practices.

What you do not boycott: You do not boycott unrelated industries or people simply because they support the product or business you are boycotting. Keep it limited to your target otherwise you look vindictive and hateful (this will make you loose your support). Also, you do not boycott a business at people’s homes or anyplace beyond where the product is being sold. There is no reason to invade a person’s privacy to get your way. Also, if you are against a business practice such as a business resisting unionizing, make sure that it was the workers decision not to unionize because if it is then it was there choice, not the business. With that in mind, if it is not the businesses fault and your beliefs (for example: all businesses should be unionized) should not be imposed on others. If you are boycotting a specific product or service, then keep it limited to that alone even if the business sells other products of services. The reason for this is to prevent people from loosing there jobs unnecessarily do to a business cutting or stopping production of a product. In other words, you stick to your target so as to not do any unnecessary harm.

Conclusion: Always be respectful and maintain composure. Be respectful to the other businesses next to and around the business you are boycotting as you may be doing harm to them too. As such be responsive to their needs as well. You are there to boycott for a reason and to do so in a way that does not intend to harm a business, but to stop a product from being sold or to end a specific business practice. This is what it means to be responsible when conducting a boycott.