Issue 313 Make Your own Game April 14, 2014

Ok, last week we talked about games and their value. So I thought, why not ask you my readers to take the next step. Basically, see if you can make your own game. Here is some of what you need to do to make it work.

Mechanics: Basic game mechanics dictate how to play. For instance the cross word puzzle was invented to find people intelligent enough to break enemy codes during war. The way the words crisscross and the clues is the entire premise of the game mechanic. It is a simple game with a more complex level of skill based upon the pattern of the words that are to be used as answers and how obscure the questions are themselves. Even games like Simon Says and patty cake function on patterns and mimicry as the basic game mechanic. Basically, the mechanics dictate how the game is played and thus influence the rules.

Research: If you want a more complex game, say some something like a trivia game, or a game based on history like Historical Conquest, then more research into the game will be needed. You will need to get the facts correct and develop the questions to match. Things like monopoly can teach us about the free market system only because someone did their research on how to mimic basic everyday business practices in a game format. Chess and GO mimic different aspects of the battlefield in various forms of combat. Chess bases its form on open field combat, while its original progenitor was based on siege warfare. GO goes for the asymmetric warfare that still directly correlates with today's battlefield (like our battles against terrorism). Knowing how to translate these bits and pieces into game form is what the research is all about.

Game play: Once done with mechanics and research you have to test out your game. Basically play it with your friends and make sure all your rules and game mechanics function at each level of play. In other words figure out if the rules are too complex, if your players can easily understand/play the game and work out any bugs that would make the game less enjoyable. In short be willing to change how your game works in order to ensure everyone can enjoy it.

Conclusion: Yes, you can make your own game. You can give it meaning like teaching certain values or just plane mental exercises. Heck, you can even take an existing game and convert it into something else like how chess and checkers have three different versions of themselves (some based on different rules, some based on overall play itself). So the sky is the limit. Go ahead and enjoy making your own fun game.

Issue 312 The use of games April 11, 2014

So you know why games exist? What exactly are they for? Well it is more than just simple entertainment value, that is a given. So let me explain.

Games: A game is something that makes us think. It jogs our brain to help exercise it in different ways to aid us in every day activities and builds our ability to think on the fly. Thus, why the game "Brain Games" and its series of small puzzles were created. They are meant to exercises your brain. Modern games are typically like most children's games, they (from my perspective) are meant to entertain and help develop and maintain critical thinking skills. Angry Birds, the original Mario games, and more continue to give us entertainment while teaching us timing and develop our ability to make simple choices. Other smart phone app games do similar with puzzles and activities. All are designed to help us learn in a fun way.

Games of higher education: I am not saying that some games are superior to others, but the games I list here are for those who want more than just mental (or meaningless) brain exercise. Games like chess, checkers, risk and GO serve to aid the battlefield commanders in the theater of war. Those in the business world use these same games to take on rivals and close business deals. These are strategy games that serve the purpose of teaching and fostering strategic thinking on multiple levels. Modern takes on these games are things like Blizzard companies Star Craft, and the strategy version of World of War Craft. In these more modern versions which seem to be a computerized version of the game Allies and Axis's (though simpler) you gather resources, build up your forces and move on the enemy with various strategies in order to conquer the map.

Monopoly is another game that is on the higher end of the thinking scale. It teaches the values of the free market and teaches people on how to make business decisions. Scrabble and its variants/spin offs teach vocabulary and expand your knowledge of the written and spoken word. So, games that do not function in the realm of war can and will be used to support and aid us. Two such new games that I am looking into are "We the people fight tyranny” which focuses on teaching the constitution, and defining acts of tyranny, and "Historical Conquest" a card game that lets you battle with historical figures while using flavor text to teach and inspire children and their parents to learn about history. So games can and will remain an important learning tool.

Conclusion: Games act as a support system to our culture. Their continued development and use help us think, learn and develop into better more knowledgeable and intelligent people. So next time you think that games are just for little children, think hard on what is being taught by that game. Then maybe, just maybe you will decide it is worth playing despite your age.

Issue 311 Don't Stop reading April 10, 2014

Reading is one of the most essential skills. It is something that you need to get by in everyday life and to educate yourself further on what you need to accomplish your goals. So here is why you must never stop.

Every day: Reading is essential to your everyday living. By reading the ticker on the news bulletins, you can find out the events of the day. Newspapers update you on politics and other important events going on. But you would never know what’s happening if you could not read. You would be stuck not knowing about your favorite artist. Never have a favorite author or writer. The reason is because, if you cannot read then what can you do to learn about the wonders and happenings in the world.

Job: You always need to read when you are on the job. You cannot read a person a price and know what it means without the ability to read. You could not tell the word hamburger from French fries if you did not know how to read. In fact, you could not even read your paycheck without the ability to read. On top of that, how could you know what employee benefits you are entitled to if you could not read. You would not know your preferred doctor, what medications you are being prescribed (let alone covered) or even how often to take a medication. In fact, if you don't know how to read, in all likelihood you don't even know how to spell.

This means one thing when it comes to having a job. It means you will never have one. Without the ability to read, you cannot go to collage, let alone complete any form of schooling and cannot even right a resume to apply for one. Yes reading is that important.

Conclusion: Those without the ability to read will not be able to read this. However, you my dear readers can. What I say here is just the tip of a very large iceberg with respect to how important reading is. Can you imagine a person who cannot read trying to vote? Not only do the risk voting for a different candidate than they wanted, but they probably don't even know what their candidate has accomplished save what they heard through word of mouth. People who cannot read will be taken advantage of and thus become virtual slaves to those with more knowledge then themselves. Don't let this happen to someone you know who wants to give up on reading because it is hard. The very future of each individual child rests on the ability to read, don't let them fail. They cannot afford to do so.

Issue 310 51st State (Puerto Rico) April 9, 2014

Have you thought about Puerto Rico becoming the 51st State of the United States? I have and it seems like a really cool idea. Here are my thoughts on why I think Puerto Rico would make a great addition to the United States.

Advantages: Puerto Rico is currently a United States territory in the form of a commonwealth. This means that all citizens of Puerto Rico are United States citizens already, but with one problem. That problem is if they are residing in Puerto Rico then they cannot vote in Presidential elections. In short, they have no say over the countries leadership. By becoming a full fledged State they would rectify this problem.

Tourism is another great advantage to having Puerto Rico become an official U.S. State. It is a tropical island in the Caribbean with a rain forest. There are clear tropical waters and great beaches. So this would add a great amount of revenue to the countries treasury through taxation. Not to mention this would alter electoral maps and representation in Congress possibly changing the countries priorities. At current, Puerto Rico operates independently, but as a State it can gain advantages in the national government it has not had before.

Problems: Aside from the fact that 50% of Puerto Ricans vote no to State hood, this means more people to take care of. Currently as it stands, the federal government seems to enjoy spending our hard earned money on welfare. As such anyone in Puerto Rico who qualifies will be supported by the federal welfare system (though this may benefit the Puerto Rican welfare system). Puerto Ricans will also be taxed the same as regular Americans which means they would actually become poorer. They also have a lower minimum wage which would increase if entering the United States fully which puts businesses at risk of failure. All this is an impediment to Puerto Rico joining the United States as a full fledged State.

Conclusion: Economically, unless something changes with respect to the American tax code and welfare system, Puerto Rico should not become a State. But if the changes do occur and in such a way that is advantageous to the citizens of Puerto Rico, then the citizens of Puerto Rico would benefit greatly as full fledged member of the United States. So it is up to our national government to fix its spending problems, tax code and welfare before Puerto Rico should even look twice about officially becoming the 51st State.

Issue 309 51st State (D.C.)? April 8, 2014

I am completely against Washington D.C. from becoming the 51st State or even becoming a State to begin with. I have my reason and I will tell you them now.

Bad idea: One of the main reasons I do not want Washington D.C. as a State is because the founders said so. They reasoned that if the seat of government had a vote in the making of the law that corruption and tyranny would come from it. So making a law that would limit powers to the States or increase the power of the Federal government would become all that much more likely. In addition, my feelings are that the city itself probably should not be a State. I personally feel that the residents were never designed to have a vote in the first place. My belief is that the founders may have foresaw the politicians today living in D.C. rather than in their home districts and saw it as a method to prevent the politicians from living in D.C. permanently and thus avoid their constituents. Of course this has happened any way. But, having D.C. become a State and having a vote as the seat of government is the most compelling idea in preventing it from joining the other States in the United States

My solution: Washington D.C. is a gift from the State of Maryland. Land was partitioned from Virginia (since returned) and Maryland to create D.C. As such, is it not right to return the residential areas of D.C. to the State of Maryland? Is it not the State of Maryland's land they should give back so the residents of D.C. can have a proper vote in politics as per what is stipulated in the Constitution? Is this not the best solution so that these people in D.C. can have proper representation in congress as citizens of Maryland? Well of course it is a good idea. We can just leave very specific parts of the city as the seat of government. No longer would the people of D.C. want for representation for they will be Maryland citizens and thus benefit.

Conclusion: You cannot make D.C. a State as the government has no right to do so as it is gifted from Maryland to the country (a gift they can take back). I don't want to see government corruption increase either by letting the House of Representatives and the Senate gain votes in the form of D.C.'s representatives. So just give as much of it back as possible (though I think some D.C. residents may disagree) to Maryland. Problem solved.

Issue 308 Defense Vs. Libertarians April 7, 2014

Many people think libertarians are isolationist. The fact is we are not in any way shape or form an isolationist based group. We wish for open and free trade with every nation with little to no impediments at all. But we are here to rectify the issues of national defense. So here we go.

What we do not want: Libertarians do not believe in permanent alliances. Reason being is that they tie us as a nation to countries that are very likely to go to war and thus drains us of both men and material. If joining in a war, then it must have a direct impact on the nation (us being or going to be attacked). If at all possible libertarians would like to remain neutral at all times so as to trade with all. Wars and alliances may prohibit this. If the war is won libertarians will not engage in any form of nation building or similar actions. It is not the place of our country to dictate what happens in another country. As such, overseas bases would not be allowed and all soldiers brought home. Basically, the entire concept is to mind our own business.

Defense: This does not mean libertarians are against a strong and formidable military. In fact libertarians like I seek a military so strong that only the foolish would dare strike against us. The reason is because libertarians understand that standing above conflict and seeking neutrality needs to be backed by powerful arms and armor. As such, the stronger the military the better.

How do we want it: While we want a strong military we want things done in a very specific way. We want the military dedicated to national defense with the ability to take the fight overseas if and only if necessary. Thus, no overseas bases. While limiting the speed to react, is not an impediment as we do not seek war with any country if at all possible. So we can have all our troops stationed here in he United States, but without the cost of renting property overseas. Also, let us not forget nuclear weapons. Libertarians are (while not unanimous) agree that such weapons are a potent tool in deterring enemy attack. So they do not violate libertarian values at all.

Conclusion: Our military is strong, but libertarians like myself feel they are being abused for political gain and foolishness. Libertarians seek to avoid sending troops into harms way by fighting only when we are forced. Others like the republicans and democrats want to send troops out to fight for their agendas. I ask you to try the libertarian method of policy, neutrality with a strong and formidable military. This policy is know as "separatism" and was inspired by George Washington's warnings to our nation in his farewell address upon his retirement. So let's head this warning and follow the libertarian separatist method of national defense.

Issue 307 EPA Vs. Libertarians April 4, 2014

Like the FDA, libertarians have some issues with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While libertarians like what it is designed to do, we do not feel that it is being done properly or that it is not without corruption. So here is what we libertarians would like to see.

The changes: At current, the EPA is supposed to protect the environment, but libertarians feel it is being used by politicians to support agendas. One such area is the promotion of green energy, which is a worthy cause, is not meant to be supported by the EPA. Another is global warming which for the skeptics like me is not a complete science and promoting it while restricting and fining people in the pursuit of that agenda is corruption. The EPA that libertarians want is similar to what we want to change in the FDA. We want activities of choice unregulated, a negative reinforcement approach and to get the politicians and their agendas out.

National body: Like the alterations to the FDA from yesterday, we libertarians want an EPA that is as separated from politics as possible. So teaming up with universities, museums and the like would do well to get the politics out. Also, the more involved various governments at the local level and in part the State level would also decrease the politics as banning based on consensus would be the best solution to preventing corruption. Keeping it local and having the EPA essentially be a large community of scientist and engineers from various fields will aid in keeping thought diverse and thus prevent group think as well. With no single body, but a multitude of governments watching (and thus the people) corruption can more easily be routed out.

Forbidden: This body will not have the ability to support any candidate for elected office. Also, staff during work hours will not be allowed to participate in any political campaign or activity. Any fines for violating rules set by this body will be set in court where the accused violators may defend themselves with the EPA having to prove any and all wrongdoing. There shall be no prohibitions on any acts that do not have an environmental impact. The sole purpose of the EPA will be to prevent all man made products, bi-products and materials that would harm the environment from be inappropriately disposed of and stored. Fines collected will go strictly to supporting research and funding the EPA's activities. Any and all salaries will be set to the market so as to ensure no member is overpaid and that most of the money is used for the research into protecting the environment. Therefore, this body will be exclusively a non-profit organization. There will be no bank accounts or accumulation of money save a small fund for an exclusive use to aid in environmental clean up after a disaster (each branch office will have a small dedicated fund for this exclusive purpose). Government enforcement of these rules set by the EPA will be voluntary, but the EPA will be allowed (once proven in court) to publish information on any violators of their mandates with respect to who they are, what activity (or part of) they are doing that violates those rules and what they should do as an alternative. This is to shame the individual into taking action if they have ignored the courts rulings, or have not taken voluntary action. If the party in question that violated the rules takes voluntary action to clean up or change their practices, then there will be no court proceedings so as to prevent any harm to the companies (or individuals) reputation, and instead with their permission the EPA can publish a document commending the company or individual for taking swift action with a suitable award of some variety. (These ideas and rules extend to yesterdays article on the FDA)

Conclusion: In this I outlined what libertarians would like to see. An institution insulated from politics as much as possible and geared solely toward the goal of protecting the environment and by de facto "us". Hope you enjoyed today's and yesterdays articles and that they inspire you to think of other ways to accomplish what needs to be done without the use of government.