Issue 360 Feared then Loved June 18, 2014

Here we analyze the other half of Niccolo Machiavelli's "loved then feared or feared then loved" question.  So is it better to be feared first before being loved?

Fear first: Here is where respect (unfortunately) is earned.  A leader must first be feared for their power and authority.  This makes negative influences in the populace less likely to react to a leaders actions.  Leaders command authority through that fear and thus, people tend to submit to them more readily. Of course this means they are also less likely to give you the truth or question you if you should make a wrong turn in your decision making.  Essentially, you have a series of yes men, ready to brown nose you in order not to be dismissed.  This works at the population level as well.  A strong leader has authority over the populace to sway them based on the actions the leader takes.  In short, they command authority through various levels of fear which can range, based on the leader, from denying privileges to outright violation of rights.  However, it is usually best in my opinion to use this on the level of governmental leadership to control your political allies and enemies.  On the population, the leader should avoid action unless it is necessary for the public good. 

The Love second:  In this case, once respect is garnered, whether by persona, decision or reputation, the leader can then begin acting benevolent.  So a little good here, a small pinch of benefit there.  It is all about getting the jobs done that need to be done first.  In the old days of Dark Age to Colonial politics, this would mean throwing a group or population a certain benefit, like trade privileges, or tax relief on occasion.  It could also mean aiding in farming through free labor to the farmer via workers paid by the government who are out of work.  Today, this could come in the form of political kickbacks, and access to key specific networking opportunities. In short, you give a little love toward those you want loyalty on an irregular bases to insure that "yes I am thinking about you, and I want your love returned."  The end result is loyalty.  But it may come at a price.  Some groups who do not benefit often enough, if at all, may feel like they are being left out.  In short, these groups will begin counting on their fingers who benefits more and how often then each other.  This scenario must be avoided, and as such, benefits given must be on a large scale in form like tax breaks to satiate the largest number of individuals possible. Slowly but surely the population will like you more as you open trade deals for cheaper goods, reduce taxes where possible, open up new opportunities for the people to benefit from various forms of research and aid the poor.  All of this is done flashily however, and the leader and his/her team must have the credit given to them to maintain the loyalty and the image that while fearsome, the leader is someone to be admired.

Conclusion: I would agree with Machiavelli that this is the better of the two options for it insures the safest and most likely chance for success for a ruler.  Presidents, and dictators both can learn from this example to succeed where their counterparts have failed.  So aside from a series of yes men who fear your wrath, and the population or group measuring each other up to see who may be favored more, I can find no determinable weaknesses to this method of leadership.  As such, this is the model to follow, rather than the loved then hated method which my government seems to prefer.

Issue 359 Loved Then Feared June 17, 2014

 Niccolo Machiavelli posed a question in his work known as The Prince.  That question was "is it better to be loved then feared, or feared then loved?"  Of course I'm paraphrasing a little bit here, but you get the idea.  In the case of this issue I will be focusing on the loved then feared component.  So let us analyze if it is better to be Loved then Feared?

The Love:  The advantage to this is that your people, whether it is in an organization or government, adore you for a time.  You lavish them with what they need and thus by making them love you more, they will do more to get more of you.  Essentially, this is a bribe. In order to perpetuate the love, more and more must be given.  Those on the receiving end will be insatiable and continue to want more even after you have nothing left to give.

The Fear:  After you begin to run short on resources and things to give, you will be forced to make those who receive your "gifts" fear you.  The purpose of this is so that they do not betray you.  Why would they betray you even when you give them so much?  Simple, these people who follow you follow for the benefits, not because they are loyal.  Thus, if someone comes offering greater rewards to them, they will follow the other person in their own selfishness.  Thus, the fear component.  Here, if any of these "followers" dissatisfy you, then you must make sure it is immediately known and punish them in some shape or form.  This could mean denying privileges or access to you (their money tree if you will).  This keeps them from getting out of line.  As such, a psychological battle will be constantly waged in order to maintain control over these individuals. Likewise, it is the same for a local populace.  One must control them in this scenario or they will rebel once the free ride is over.  

Modern Day:  This idea plays out in American politics where both the Republicans and Democrats promise people and businesses certain benefits to garner their support.  Typically, the Republicans play up to the business owners and those industries under attack by Democratic supporters due to ideals of the environment and other causes.  Democrats play to the race, ethnic and economically less well-off groups by promising them more benefits.  Of course this will fail on both sides as they will run out of money to give these people (as we can plainly see based on Americas' national debt).  They fear imparting fear by cutting these individuals and groups off less they lose their support.  This same token is why Machiavelli said this was the least favorable option, as those not satisfied or denied their "presents" will rebel.

Conclusion:  Loved then feared is a dangerous game.  It risks disloyalty, treachery, and even open rebellion.  The leaders’ reaction is to clamp down on the populace or your circle of "allies" through some form of force and control makes you more akin to a tyrant than a leader.  In the end, it will result in the pain and suffering of either the leader, or a people ready to rebel at the first available opportunity.    

Issue 358 Medical Titles June 16, 2014

As you have seen, the medical field is changing in America.  New laws and regulations have left the medical industry scrambling to make things cheap and effective while the number of doctors shrink.  Here I share my opinion on who will be treating who based on their titles that they will have earned after they have gone through their medical training and what I believe the future landscape of Americas medical institutions will look like.

Nurses:  The basic nurse will have the roll of the grunt.  They will do every task imaginable save actual diagnosis.  So they will take blood, do basic readings of a person’s life signs and then feed all that information to the doctor.

Lead Nurse/ Nurse Technician:  While this title may vary, this group will be a step above regular nurses.  They will be in the lab determining results for the test results and even in some cases performing the tests themselves.  They may even lead a group of nurses in the tasks for testing blood for pathogens or other anomalies.  Other technicians will also perform the task of performing x-rays and other similarly more complex tasks where a higher level of training is required.

Note: the aforementioned I believe was already occurring, it is the following that I believe is the recent development due to Obama Care (or at least was accelerated by it).

Nurse Practitioner:  This is the replacement for the Doctor at your most basic level.  They receive all the same training that doctors do (with certain exceptions) to allow them to diagnose diseases like a regular doctor.  They, like doctors, will have the same struggle to acquire hands on experience which will determine if they are good quality like a traditional doctor with the title or not.  Also, they will handle writing all the prescriptions and offer medical advice based on your medical condition.  In fact they may even forward you to a specialist (those with the title of doctor) for cases that are beyond the level of the general practitioner (the Nurse Practitioner).

Doctor:  Here is where doctors become ultra-special.  Most doctors are already shifting to the more specialized fields as this is where they will make the most money.  As such, the title of doctor I believe will eventually become synonymous with the word specialist.  It will become very rare to see a doctor acting as a general practitioner in the future in my opinion.

Conclusion:  I could be wrong, but I also could be right.  Medical titles like money are subject to inflation (making them sound more important than what they really are). But due to changes in medicine and movements toward cheaper healthcare to cut costs without sacrificing quality, we may see new forms of doctors and nurses take up the mantel of the general practitioner or specialist.  What and who treats our injuries and diseases is, in my opinion, up in the air (for it may even be us diagnosing ourselves).

Issue 357 Pig Recycling June 13, 2014

Let's end the week with something a little fun (at least for me).  The idea is to use pigs to recycle the organic waste in garbage as landfills are filling up and finding places for new ones is getting harder.  This idea is not new, but it has merits.

Idea:  The Coptic Christians in Egypt and some farmers in the United States use pigs to recycle garbage.  In Egypt, the pigs feed in/on the food and organic waste in landfills which reduces their size as the people harvest the trash for goods they can refurbish and sell.  Farmers in the United States take food and other waste from restaurants in the cities and towns to feed their pigs (and sometimes other animals as well). So this is basically using the pig to help reduce organic waste rather than burn it, or use some other expensive process to recycle and take care of garbage.

Benefits: This reduces the amount of food waste that ends up in landfills which makes them less likely to be a hot bed for diseases and bacteria from rotting food.  Not to mention that food waste produces noxious gases that once concentrated can harm the environment around them, which may even be cities and towns nearby.  In addition, Rodent problems are also reduced as they have less to feed on as well.  Pigs in this case eat the organic matter in landfills and similar dumps which these rodents normally would feed upon.  If you study biology, more food means higher populations of animals, while less food means lower populations.  So cities/towns with rodent problems could possibly see a reduction of the rodent population.   

This also aids in recycling other materials.  By letting the pigs eat their fill, it becomes a little easier for machines/people to pick out the other recyclable materials such as metals, plastics and rubbers.  On top of this, pigs feces can then be used as fertilizer for crops and even used as part of the landfill to cover up the items that could not be recycled or are better off covered (feces properly dried does not smell, or generate new bacteria making it safer than rotting food).  Also, let us not forget, pigs getting fat means more bacon for us. :)

Conclusion:  This is a more natural means of cleansing food and other organic waste from trash.  It immediately gets recycled and it benefits farmers because they then have access to cheap food for their animals (namely the pig).  An already useful idea, it can be expanded to other animals depending on the waste collected and spring up a brand new industry of refuse sorting (because pigs are not allowed to eat bacon for obvious reasons).  A cheap method to a growing problem of not knowing where to dump all our garbage.

Issue 356 Intolerance June 12, 2014

Intolerance is pretty much a bad thing.  It means that, from the standpoint of an individual, that the person will not tolerate something.  Many of the Liberal and Conservative members of the American community however, preach tolerance.  In short, they ask why we don't we all just get along with one another.  However, judgments are made by people on what they see as tolerant or in tolerant.  So this judgment call is what I will discuss today.

Example:  An example of intolerance can come from racial groups like the KKK and the Neo Nazi's.  They do not like Black Americans or anyone whose skin is darker than themselves.  So KKK members will burn crosses on Black Americans' lawns, Neo Nazi's will assault people, and both overall will attempt to make life as uncomfortable as possible for those of another "race." This is an obvious example of intolerance.

Now a different example.  A person who is a Black American, has a prescription from a doctor for narcotics.  However, that prescription comes from a doctor who works in an area where both legal and illegal drugs are abused.  On top of this, the individual in question is filling at a different pharmacy in a completely different town.  Is refusing the script while just knowing these details racist/intolerant?  Well it depends on who you ask.  Some may say that it is due to the individual with the prescription being Black.  But if you take the skin color angle out, would that influence your decision toward filling a prescription that is suspect?  This is actually a real life scenario that happened to a pharmacist I know and as to the rest of what happened in this case I cannot tell you, but this is actually an example of tolerance.  If the script was rejected merely because the person filling was black, that would be both racist and intolerant, however the other details that were checked and factored in (regardless of the race of the individual) make it tolerant.  Long story short, we don't care about your skin color, if it’s a legitimate prescription, get it from a legitimate doctor.

Example 2:  There is a major issue of gay marriage currently going on in America currently (or at least it is being hyped up).  But there are people like the KKK, and other intolerant groups who assault gays and other same sex couples.  Obviously this is intolerant.  But what about the Churches rejection of gay marriage.  Is this intolerant?  In this case it is fully tolerant.  The Churches (at least the majority I know of) do not ban gays from their Churches, do not make them uncomfortable, and the clergy and congregation have gay friends.  So they are in fact 100% tolerant (with few exceptions).  But why no gay marriage?  Simple, their faith does not believe in marriage between two people of the same sex, because God does not permit it as per the Bible and you cannot create a child the natural way (i.e. the miracle of life).  This is the reason why.  It has nothing to do with the church hating gays, but that faith says no to gay marriage.  In short, due to these reasons the Church is tolerant.  However, there are those who disagree and say it is not tolerant.  Thus my point, that people make judgment calls.  Thus while people are in general tolerant, they are intolerant of that which they perceive as going against their values and that which does not to conform to those values.

Conclusion:  Intolerance is a curse we live with.  We tolerate what we want and shun the rest due to not conforming to our values and predetermined notions of what life should be like. This is because intolerance, I believe, comes from fear of change.  That is why every group, race, religion and all in between have been subject to intolerance.  It is the fear of what will be different.  Once we recognize this, and accept (not just tolerate) change, we can move forward together. 

Issue 355 War theft 2 June 11, 2014

Here I am going to discuss a different type of war theft.  In this case it is not soldiers raiding the homes of abandon homes due to battles, but of governments at war raiding each other’s money.  Allow me to explain.

Concept:  Once war is declared, countries try to defeat each other.  But this does not mean it has to include violence, or the minimization thereof.  One of the growing concepts of war is to attack the financial means of the enemy country to weaken it so that can be rendered powerless or at least less powerful.  So why do we not take money directly from the enemy countries treasury.  In short, the attacking country uses electronic means to hack into the enemy countries bank account and steals all their money to help fund their own war efforts.  And if not done by financial means, then soldiers would be sent in to directly take money from the enemy’s banks in the opposing country.  Also, if say we are fighting terrorists and their supporters, why not do the same to them and take the money that they have as well to fund war and defense efforts, and even pay off national debts.

Advantages:  For one, no country or terrorist group can survive without money to fund its operations.  By finding and taking their money, you can effectively shut down the enemy government or organization for an extended period of time.  This is especially effective against governments as they will have to be careful not to print more money least they cause inflation which could cause prices to rise within their country and increase poverty.  In short, taking the money can be devastating.

On the flip side, the country doing the taking can now use that taken money to fund their war efforts instead of using tax payer dollars.  Also, money taken that is not spent on war efforts may go toward the public debt, or fund other projects like roads and hospitals.  So the money can be put to a good cause.

In practice:  With the recent Russian annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, the international community has frozen the assets of many power brokers and government officials in Russia.  However, this only affected those who had assets outside of Russia.  However, if the Ukrainian government instead took their money via hackers on both the individual level and the governmental (like the money in the Russian military budget), the Russians may not have been so quick to annex Crimea, let alone be reluctant to give it back.

Conclusion:  Unlike individual war theft, this form has some moral ground as to defeat an opponent, possibly before shots ever having to be fired.  Money really does make the world go round and by removing the enemy countries financial assets, it creates major repercussions that they cannot hope to face without aid of an ally.  In addition, if the money of the enemy country is taken away and your country is the victor, your country can then replace their currency with a different one your country will control.  Thus, your country can adjust its value at will making the enemy now dependent on you once victory is assured.  So the only obstacle now is finding some really good hackers, and finding a way into the enemies banking systems.

Issue 354 War Theft 1 June 10, 2014

War theft is the act of stealing during a time of war.  We know this to be a wrongful act, but some consider it justice for the trouble of being forced to fight in the first place.  Let's discuss.

Against:  Those who see theft of a person’s property during war see it from the traditional standpoint of stealing.  There is no justification for stooping down to the level of a criminal.  Usually though, this form of theft is committed by soldiers in the field who see no reason to let go of a battle souvenir.  Others see it as a way to get rich off of rare and valuable items.  But again that is still thievery and has no justification and is highly dishonorable.  In the same fashion as the Nazi's, a soldier stealing from civilians in war time is just as wrong as what the Nazi's did in stealing from the Jews.

For:  In this case there are those who do favor it as a means to pay for the war.  In this case, soldiers who are paid low wages to fight are allowed to take items they deem valuable to make up for the costs to them and their families.  In short, they may even act like treasure hunters or even pirates, taking the valuables of people whose homes have been abandoned due to the fighting.  This may even include valuable works in history like art pieces and rare historical specimens, which the soldiers can either keep or sell to give themselves a monetary boost.  Let's face it, soldiers are paid meager wages and deserve better to make up the money they should be making.

Pragmatic:  Instead of just letting soldiers just take goods home with them, there can be battlefield salvage rules.  If there are items that are left abandoned in a home after a battle, soldiers can lay claim.  However, they will only be allowed to keep them if no one comes to claim the items after one year.  In this instance, a special note will be left behind for the original occupants to aid them in finding their lost wears.  In the meantime, items claimed by soldiers will be held at a holding facility in country until the time limit comes up or the items are claimed.  This also protects items from being stolen by other individuals or soldiers we are fighting to fund their own war efforts.

Conclusion:  The only two that come remotely close to being moral are those "against" and the "pragmatic" views.  War theft that is unregulated can lead to many problems, not least including law suits.  However, I am personally against this form of war theft, as it is immoral to me on the societal and religious level.  Taking what is not yours is a crime and thus I am against it.