Issue 333 Control (fuel) May 12, 2014

Fuels like oil and its derivatives are very important to industrialized countries around the world.  It allows us to heat our homes, generates electricity, and of course fuels our vehicles (cars, trucks, boats, planes etc.).  But what happens if that fuel was to be cut off.  This is the threat the United States and Europe face and I'll explain why.

Russian Control:  Russia controls much of the fuel in Europe.  In fact the closer a country is to Russia the more dependent they are on Russian oil.  This is because many of these countries either lack the resources for an alternative source of energy or do not have industries built to access their natural resources.  Therefor Russia becomes very powerful in deciding what they can and cannot do in the region.  Still scratching your head?  I will make it simple, Russia can force any country that relies on its oil to do what it wants by threatening to cut the oil off.  This is how oil is used as an element of control in Europe.  Russia has sway over the entire region due to their monopoly on oil there.  

OPEC:  Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is a menace to the United States.  Unlike Russia who holds sway over Europe, OPEC has sway over the United States in a different way.  OPEC can artificially raise the price of oil to influence United States policy.  While the United States gets most of its oil from Mexico and Canada, OPEC holds sway over the stock market when it comes to oil.  So if they hold back on production they can disrupt the market and cause prices to rise to whatever level they see fit.  As such they can make a nice profit or suppress policies in a country like the United States that would disrupt their profits.

Why fuel is important:  Oil is very important to commerce in general.  No train, or plane could run without it in our current energy environment.  We need it to fuel our cars and heat our homes.  So what would happen if the fuel ran out?  Nuclear power is limited due to the number of reactors, solar and wind are nowhere near energy efficient enough, and dams have a limited amount of power they can supply too. In short coal and oil fired plants produce most of the electricity per market share.  If fuel prices go higher it can causes businesses to fail, prices of goods will rise pricing people out of being able to afford food and medicine. Hospitals may be forced to close as they too will not have enough money or power to stay open.  Think of it, if you are diabetic, or are dependent on some form of technology for survival, how are you going to survive if the power goes out for an extended period of time.  The answer is that you won’t.  The elderly and the sickly will die first.  People who need blood transfusions or other treatments will also die because how can we store blood without power.  We will not be able to diagnose cancer patients due to the inability to use the machines we relied upon to diagnose.  Riots over food and other goods will create more havoc as all goods will become so scarce that bread alone may well be worth $100 or more.  It is a nightmare scenario that all nations fear.  If you were alive during the 70's you may remember the long lines for gas and the rationing that went on in the United States.  Well that will be the tip of the iceberg of trouble we all will have to face if fuel becomes too costly or inaccessible.

Conclusion:  Fuel is a tool that helps us get around, get to our jobs, to get things where we want them to go.  It is essential to commerce and our survival.  So far there is no replacement to fuels like oil and so we are currently dependent on oil for most of our needs like plastics and other products which are a byproduct.  So we have to account for this in all future needs of the County and the world. There is a reason why I like green technology.  One is that we reduce waste and our impact on the environment.  The other is that we no longer have to pay the power company money to keep our homes and businesses warm and cozy for we can hopefully begin to make solar, wind or even nuclear viable in the home itself.  In short, be reliant upon no one but yourself.

Issue 332 Joint Radicals May 9, 2014

If you have noticed, certain elements on both sides of the political isle want to limit your choices.  This ranges from who you can be with/friends with (gays vs. strait/people vs organizations), to even what you can eat.  It is these elements of the political right and left that share another form of radicalism.  That radicalism is them believing that they know best over the masses as a whole.  So here are some examples of this radicalism.

Food Choice:  Throughout the country both the political right and left have this notion that they must protect us from ourselves.  This includes food.  In New York City salt is banned from restaurant tables because of its apparent link to heart disease.  But is that not a conscious decision by each individual to add more salt to their food? 

 Republicans and Democrats also limit the choices on school lunch menus by their advocating healthier options.  However those "healthier" options are either not filling enough or do not taste good to the school children.  Some schools have even denied second helpings to students based on this health fascism culture on both sides of the political aisle.  As such there has been instances of children fainting in class due to a lack of food or nutrition. 

 Trans-fats and other food items or ingredients, because of their perceived unhealthiness (which is usually due to them being overeaten) have also become banned or restricted in both restaurants and from consumer products. However, is not the better solution to keep consumers informed of what they are eating?  Well even this can go overboard as places like restaurants would have to be forced to put calorie count, grams of fat and other information about the food they make on the menu.  Problem is that it takes money (lots of it) to do which may force struggling businesses out of business.  Those information boxes on food already are misleading as a high calorie count is not necessarily a bad thing as some people need that amount of calories, fat or sugars just to stay healthy.  Sure it is nice to know what you are eating, but having it pushed in your face or being used as a deterrent by government to steer you away from certain foods is downright dumb.       

Item choices:  In this case the tax system limits choices you make.  States, municipalities, and the Federal government itself tax foods, alcohol, restaurants and other items you buy to push you away from using them.  These are called sin taxes.  So you may pay an extra five to 45 cents just to buy a particular item.  For instance plastic bottles in the United States have an extra five cents tacked on each bottle you buy because the government does not want you to buy things like soda or things contained in plastic.  Tobacco products are also taxed highly despite people on the right, left and center of politics wanting to completely un-ban marijuana and its associated products.  Hypocrisy is the name of the game here.

Health choices:  The government also seeks to protect us from our own selves by controlling our health choices.  Obama-care (the Affordable Healthcare Act) forces people to buy healthcare from insurance companies or otherwise pay a penalty.  Basically, the government saw fit to decide that we cannot choose for ourselves if and when we needed health insurance and decided to force us all to get it.  Think this was strictly an idea from the political left, then think again as a similar idea by the Republicans was proposed back in the 1990's.  So now you may be forced to buy healthcare that either is un-affordable, violates your beliefs (as they may cover euthanasia or contraceptives which violates religious or moral beliefs), or very simply violates your choices as a whole. 

Conclusion:  These are some of the many small to big things that impact our lives with this radicalism of big brother knows best. We are forced to subsidize with our money planned parenthood, big oil, green technology, corporate welfare, and other items that the Federal government has no business spending our money on. If we want to give money to a green business or oil then we will simply buy their product.  If we want to spend or donate to Planned Parenthood or a charity of some sort then we will give our money to them by our own choice.  But government gets in the way and say that they decide who is worthy and thus our money goes to whomever they want and not what we want.  This radicalism has to end and to do it, we must elect people who do not have this radical notion of believing they know better than everyone else and elect people who will refuse to spend our money save for what the Constitution allows. 

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.