Issue 331 Radical right on Immigration May 8, 2014

 The radical right has immigration confused with invasion, or at least some do.  Let us look into why they believe this notion.

Radical rightist view on immigration:  Here they believe immigrants steal the average American workers jobs (same in any country).  They also see a bunch of people unwilling to conform to the culture, learn the language or even embrace the same values as those already living in the country in the first place. But why believe this way.  Why should these people be rejected from working at businesses where they are legitimately hired and work?

Fear:  One reason they are rejected is fear.  Some people see them as a form of invader that corrupts the culture of the country.  They are used to people living in a certain way and when a person of another culture comes in, they experience a cultural clash which may make them question their own values.  People do not like feeling uncomfortable and so they reject these people.  Another reason is because of language.  There are those who automatically see an immigrant speaking in their mother tongue as scary for they cannot understand what is being said.  In essence the loss of that sense of security of knowing what the other person is saying makes others uncomfortable.  And finally the thing that makes people fear immigrants the most is reputation.  If they come from a crime ridden country or the people are from a country with a certain reputation, people will stereotype them and thus fear them based off of that stereotype.

Economic crunch:  Whenever times are ruff economically, people look for a scapegoat.  And the immigrant, legally here or not, is usually the one labeled the one responsible or as contributing to job losses.  Truth is they do not as they were hired in good times where there was plenty of jobs in the first place, but people who are angry and upset over losing their own jobs simply wish to vent.  (This can be characteristic of both the political left and right).

War time:  People also fear immigrants or those who look like them when in times of war.  So during WWII people feared the Japanese, the Germans, and to an extent the Italians in the country, which resulted in internment camps (concentration camps) to keep them away.  Similar fear and actions have happened again with respect to 9/11 and radical Muslims who turned to terrorism being responsible.  Again it all relates to fear. 

Goals:  The radical right does not really have an ideological component here with some leftists joining into their cause.  In this case it is all about alleviating the fears of the populace who feel this fear.  Though the only thing that makes it a political rightist radicalism is by it being usually being associated with them.  So they typically choose to alleviate the fears by getting "tough" on immigration and hope enough time passes until the fears and what caused it blow over.

  Conclusion:  Immigration is a complex issue with these fears having to be addressed regularly. They seek a balance between meeting the needs for new people (immigrants) to enter the population that will make our country better and making the newer voter base happy, while satisfying those irrational fears of those already here.  This is not to say that infiltrators cannot get in, but others should not be punished because of that. As such, the right typically sides with those who fear first as a knee jerk reaction and thus why they are usually blamed for being anti-immigrant.

Issue 330 Radical rightist religious fascism May 7, 2014

Even the rightist ideologies are not exempt from this stupidity.  In this case the radicals want a form of religious fascism that all should embrace. Let's go over their ideas.

On Gays:  The radicals here whether they be here in the United States or in another country do not like gays.  They see them as an abomination and in some cases either wish to see them dead or are willing to kill them.  All this anger and hatred over come from their belief in what the Koran, The Bible and similar with respect to "laying with another of the same sex".

Purity:  There are two forms of purity that this group like.  The first is racial/ethnic.  Some believe in the concept of chosen peoples who share some form of racial or ethnic background.  So it can be all white, all Italian, or some other silly example with others being exempt.  Here the purity is partly about genetics and having a clear chosen perfect people that God chose.  

On the other hand there is the religious purity group that believe one must believe in a certain way in order to get into heaven.  So those who deviate can be punished or even silenced by murder.  It is not uncommon for the most radical to completely exile an individual for questioning their authority and thus force a divorce from their spouses and cut off all contact with their families and the rest of the congregation.  The best example of this is from the Westboro Baptist Church where its leader preached hatred of those who did not believe the same and hatred of gays in general.    

It is important to note that the only difference between radical left and right on racial and ideological purity is that leftists have ideologies that take the place of religion.  Otherwise the basic concepts and radicalism is the same.  For instance, the Nazi's are considered fascists from the political right and Communists on the political left.  Russian Communists and German Nazi's in World War II had really one minor difference from each other, that the Nazi's killed millions based on race, while the Communists killed millions based on economic class (or perceived notions of class, such as the Jews being very rich or being from a rich region). So one prefers ideological purity and the other racial.  

Goals:  To impose upon the world (or just their country) a religious fascism that disregards those who disagree.  The best example is Iran with its fascistic State as it kills gays, and would make war with those who disagree with their Shiite version of Islam.  I cannot imagine America becoming the same as that country and I hope we never do, as some in the United States Congress seem to think they can change the Constitution to define marriage and other religious based sacraments to meet their own ends.  

Conclusion:  This form of radicalism is just as dangerous as any and can degrade into a cult.  Obviously not all people of faith (or non-faith) are like this, but people should still be aware of these segment of the population.

Issue 329 Radical leftist Environmentalism May 6, 2014

Part 2 of the radical leftist segment is on the radical environmentalists.  Here we look into what these people want to happen to accommodate their cause.

Population Control:  Like yesterday, many of these radical leftists believe in the same overpopulation problem as their counterparts.  Some in this category are willing to go just as far to reduce the human population and its "detrimental" impact on the environment.

Animals before People:  Here people are not as important as the animals existing in this world.  So if a farmer who has been farming for generations on land he/she owns happens to share that land with an endangered species, the radicals will attempt to force the farmer off the land (some through legalities, and others through force).  This also includes anything that would disrupt their perceived notions of the "perfect" untouched environment.  So if a rail road that would be built, a factory or anything that would provide jobs, and bring the costs of goods down, the environmentalists would reject it if it goes through untouched lands.  They would prefer ejecting people from their homes than harming nature.  So much so that some of their supporters in government are pushing for laws that would allow people to sue on behalf of rocks, trees and of course the animals themselves. 

Fuels:  Well, environmentalists where opposed to oil so they went to natural gas as an alternative.  Then when they did not like that they switched to ethanol, and then strictly to solar and wind.  Basically, so long as it protects the environment from emissions then they are for it (unless it is nuclear which they fear due to radiation and disposal of waste material).  However, while they favor these emission free methods of power generation, they refuse to accept temporary alternatives like natural gas to help transition over to them over time.  They want immediate results which does not work.   

Global warming: They believe wholeheartedly in the global warming agenda and that people caused it.  So much so that some have openly advocated arresting people who disagree with them (some even more radical than them have called for murder).  They have blamed decreases in populations of animals like the polar bear, turtles having more sex and animal over population, people being depressed and more all on global warming.  At this point anything can be blamed on global warming and they may just believe it. 

Goals:  Their agenda is to create a perfect society that has no environmental impact at all. As such, some are trying to force vegan-ism (eating only plants and no meat) on the population by having legislatures tax the methane that cows fart (yes I am being serious).  They do this because it increases meat prices causing vegetables to be the more affordable option.  In addition they advocate urban farming (something I am not opposed to), but they want this so they can move the entire population into mega cities so that all rural farm land can be given back to nature.  As such they wish to do away with cars, and embrace more public transportation and other forms of mass transit.  Anything that would mean people living in the city and nature having all the rest of the planet is something they will always be in favor of. 

Conclusion:  Like the previous, this does not list all of what this portion of the radicals believe in.  Also, it does not categorize all who believe in global warming as a radical (some are quite nice and do not want to use force or any silliness at all).  But, there are those who are so radical that they overshadow the good people who just want a cleaner and better environment for the next generation.

Issue 328 Radical left: Population Control May 5, 2014

In this week I will go over some of the radicals in both political parties in the United States.  Today's is about the radicals who believe in population control due to their belief that the Earth cannot maintain its current population growth.  So let's discuss.

The why:  This group of leftists think that due to the population growth of humanity that the food and other resources will dry up and we will go extinct.  Problem with this is that an equilibrium will always establish itself regardless and the population will stabilize just like any other animal species.  But, they don't want to hear that and thus continue with crazy ideas to keep the population at acceptable life sustaining levels.  So I guess it is time to talk about their solutions to this "problem".

Their solution number 1:  They see the nationalized healthcare system (single payer system where the government handles all coverage for medical benefits) as a means to an end.  To use this system to meet their ends of population control they will implement what is known as the complete lives system.  In this system those useful to society such as workers between a certain ages will be given financial and preferential treatment in terms of healthcare.  However, this means that people deemed useless to the benefit of the overall country and its prosperity will receive less help if any at all.  So the terminally ill, invalids (unless they prove useful in other ways), newborns and children under a certain age, and people over a certain age will receive less care and attention than their healthier and more useful counterparts.  Young children as they age of course would get better and better care into adult hood, almost like earning the States confidence that they will be useful to society.  Those reaching their twilight years will have benefits decrees over time as they are deemed useless.  And guess what, this is taking place in places like Canada and other countries that use single payer (to varying degrees).  In Canada, there are terminally ill people who the government will not treat because they are deemed a lost cause as in the case of "baby Michel” who was dying and could have lived an extra 3 months if an operation was performed.  The Canadian system refused to cover it and so the parents thankfully whisked their child off to the United States where he did receive the operation and did live those extra few months before unfortunately dying.  Even here in the United States, where people use the States version of healthcare (Medicaid which is another form of single payer) a woman was denied cancer fighting drug coverage.  In this case, the pharmaceutical company that made that particular drug heard that the woman was denied coverage by the State of Oregon, and provided the medication to her free of charge which allowed her to live an extra six months (the cost of that drug was over $1,000 a pill).  So as you can see it will be like what Charles Bernard Shaw (the play-write and Fabian Socialist) envisioned where people go before a committee to justify their own existence and where if they could not they would be killed. A.K.A. DEATH PANELS!!!!

Abortion:  Their solution number two is abortion.  Here they envision population control in various methods.  For one, they encourage abortion as a means to an end (such as getting rid of undesirables). In fact this is partly how it was envisioned by Margret Sanger who sought to use abortion in a coerced genocide scheme against Black Americans as well as her solution to her ideas that pregnancy was nothing more than a disease.  In this case those undesirables are the poor and if they have children, they become a burden that requires more money from the State to support.  So abortion is a solution for them to relive a financial burden on the State and be rid of useless people.  Some however are really radical and want the ability to abort children even after they have already been born and even up to certain ages.  In Belgium, you can actually kill a child as young as two years old if they meet a certain level of mental or physical disability as it is seen as being humane to that child.  Disgusting is it not.

Their third and final solution?:  It seems that these radicals like the one child policy in China and wish to implement it here in the United States and elsewhere.  To enforce it, they will resort to forced sterilizations of women and men to support their goals.  Also, some want couples to have to go before a panel before they can get "permission" to have a child.  There are those who have gone even further to suggest that sterilizing agents be introduced into the water supply of communities to sterilize people in mass.  Sick is it not?

Conclusion:  These are the most common ideas that I have heard in my research and through news outlets.  I will not say people who believe the overpopulation rhetoric are bad as not all of them wish to implement such horrible and evil solutions, but instead endorse peaceful means that require nobody dying.  So if you must judge them, judge them based on their words and deeds, and reject those who would endorse the forced and coerced killing of millions on what I believe is a bogus idea that has been proven wrong time and again throughout history (it was proposed in the early 1900's well into the 21st century). 

Issue 327 Market Retrain May 2, 2014

I have in the past talked about technology replacing workers in the dull, the boring and the dangerous jobs in America.  As such, some have predicted that if this trend continues unchecked that it could result in 60% unemployment.  So how, and who should retrain the American populace to counteract this potential problem?

Employers:  The ones in the best position to retrain people are the employers themselves.  They will need high tech skills, mechanics and programmers to fix any problems that may arise from issues with the machines/programs they will be using.  However, colleges and trade schools can only get a worker so far as they usually lack experience in the field and often students must be retrained to gain the skills that students should have gotten at these colleges.  Usually this is not a problem for trade schools that teach welding, metal work and farming, but traditional college classes like law, and business cannot keep up with the way the world is advancing.  So the employer, or business itself has taken it upon themselves to train individuals for the skills they need.  By using a combination of computer learning and on the job training, an individual can become whatever the business needs them to be.  This is already being done by some businesses to address their need for skilled workers without the cost of needing their workers to go to college or pay for someone else to teach them the skills they need for the job they will be doing.  On top of this, if the technology changes in some way, the job can simply provide supplemental classes and on the job training to accommodate.  As such, no need to hire new workers to replace old ones, as the old ones who the business has invested so much money in can be kept and can continue to take advantage of their experience.

 Trade Schools:  While traditional colleges are facing a battle for survival against online education, trade schools are going strong, but are not emphasized by the Federal leadership.  Men and women will always be needed to repair cars, machines, farm, and operate equipment and the like.  Trade schools offer this knowledge that is recession proof and is almost always likely going to have a job.  Electricians, carpenters and Construction workers in general will never ever go away. Basically, these jobs will always be in demand. 

Government:  The Government will try and help as well.  However, they are even less adaptable than the colleges that we pay thousands to each year.  Sure they can hire private companies to teach people jobs, but that is no guarantee of getting that job, let alone them knowing which job is really needed in the overall American Community.  Typically the government will pay a group to train people in a job that fits their agenda (like the so called green jobs) but they usually waste their money as these trainees either have no access to a job that fits their training in the local area or lack the equipment to take advantage of it.  But they will try anyway (much to my chagrin).

Conclusion:  We are looking at a two tired economy here in America.  On the one side we will have highly educated computer programmers, designers, and architects while on the other we will have the back bone of America who build what the highly educated only dream of.  It is going to be an interesting future for the future of America.

Issue 326 Native American Representation May 1, 2014

Did you know that Native Americans are not truly represented in the United States by the U.S. Congress?  In fact they have what is known as observer status (for Reservations only) where they are allowed to voice their opinion, but not vote on any issues related to the Federal government and its dealings.  But what if there was a solution to this little issue.  I have an idea, so let's talk about it.

Simple Idea:  In the same way that districts are made for Congressional Representatives in the House, we can include the native populations of these Reservations (which act almost like independent States but on a limited scale) in Congressional Districts for purposes of representation.   This will allow for Congressional Representatives to speak on behalf of the Native American Community as per the fact that these Native Americans will be allowed to vote for their own Congressmen.  This thus eliminates the need for an observer for the members of the Native American tribes but at the same time empowering them with actual voting power.

Issues: The main issue that may result from this is some Reservations have very tiny populations.  As such, placing them in the same district as a Congressmen who represents a city, or large swath of non-native Americans can result in the voice of these peoples being drowned out.  Therefore, there can be only one solution to this problem, ensure that they either have their own independent representative or are paired up with an equally small or smaller of non-native Americans in their district.  This thus solves that problem.

Issue 2:  Another issue is that those Native Americans who hold observer status may not want to give up their power or the Federal Bureaucracy that governs over Native American land as they may see their authority being diminished. This may not be an actual issue though as those already electing native tribesmen to hold observer status or are appointed may be put into the role of Congressional representative in the first place.  In addition, the bodies in government that govern Native American land will not disappear but are more likely to be used as a power base to gain additional advantages for the Native American communities in Reservations.  So plenty of payoffs and power brokering to go around.  

Issue 3:  There is one very big negative to this however.  The Native tribes may feel a loss of independence if this is done.  Fact of the matter is that once power is handed to a Congressional Representative (where the Natives Tribesmen's Representative is outnumbered) to represent the Native Americans it may result in a loss of independence which they scarcely have in the first place.  At current, depending on the State or Territory that the Tribal Reservation is in, there are restrictions on if they can build Casinos or other facilities.  Therefore, in my opinion, I believe that the States and the Federal Government may be trying to absorb the smaller Reservations so as to gain access to the tax revenue that can be gained from tourism, gambling and other enterprises that exist on the Reservations.  So a legitimate Congressional Representative may aid in protecting against this, but if the Natives choose poorly, they may get a Representative that will go along with shrinking the Reservations and their independence.

Solving Issue 3:  In my opinion, the suggestion I make for this idea can be replicated at the State legislative level.  This will inhibit any power and land grabs by State and Federal Governments as there will be Representation in both bodies to ensure that voting mostly goes in favor of the Native American populace. Keep in mind that States must voluntarily give up power and territory to create and maintain these Reservations, so having Representatives in Federal and State law making bodies will serve well in keeping things in the best interest of the original American populace.

Conclusion:  So what do you think?  Native American will finally get legitimate representation in Congress if this idea is carried out.  Will it be beneficial, or negative to the Natives of our country remains to be determined for we cannot predict how this change will impact the overall American community?  So for now it is just a thought experiment.  Hope you enjoyed the article. 

Issue 325 Debate April 30, 2014

Argumentation and debate are skills that can keep the mind sharp and allow you to hold a well informed and informative conversation.  Here today I am going to explain why it is important to debate people and do it in a fun way.

Debate itself:  Some think debate is all about winning against your opponent and defeating them.  This is not always the case.  Debate itself is a discussion that follows a conversation while holding to a specific topic.  So you can be discussing economics, the final four in a sports contest or more and it can be considered a debate or even a form of argumentation.  In fact you are allowed to agree and disagree in a debate as it is nothing more than a form of discussion. Thus it can be fun and interesting and you will not even realize you are doing it.

It's important:  The reason it is important is due to how information is being transferred from one person to another.  When I was in political science class, they always said that things must be discussed so that the sea of lies will give way to the final truth.  In a debate the truth can arise from these forms of discussion.  As such this form of information transfer is essential to acquiring and advancing knowledge.  

Mind set:  For one, people just don't spontaneously want to have a discussion on world politics, sports and other serious topics.  Thus, some of these conversations are left for when the mood is good and proper. However you are never limited to serious topics.  People will always want to discuss the topics they are most interested in and usually they want to reply to any arguments you will make with their own.  As such being armed with actual facts and the ability to know how people came to those conclusions in the first place are key to continuing the debate and ascertaining the truth (this is part of the fun and can be enjoyable).  It is important to remember that in a debate there is usually no winners or losers as the two (or more) having the discussion are usually on their own without an audience.  So you should not try to win against your company, but dig deeper into their knowledge to gain more for yourself even if your side may in fact be wrong.  It is ok to be on the wrong side and it is ok to ask questions. A real debate is all about the gathering and sifting through knowledge.  This acquiring of knowledge is what makes debate and conversation satisfying and because of this any form of discussion can be exhilarating and satisfying.

Conclusion:  Debate is a good thing.  It gives us a window into other people’s thoughts, ideas and knowledge which can enhance our own.  So continue to have conversations on various topics for you have nothing to lose and only plenty to gain.