Issue 365 Belief June 25, 2014

What is belief?  Is it spiritual, mental or something else?  Is it a product of faith, or a construct of thought?  So what is belief to me?

My definition:  Belief to me is something that transcends faith.  My belief in God comes from an understanding that I am a small aspect of the universe trying to leave my mark.  It gives me strength and perseverance.  So to me, belief is the understanding that something greater than one self exists, and that it has the potential to influence all of us.  In this case that belief is in God.  

My thought process:  Why do I believe?  The reason is because I have reached an understanding.  I understand that me as a human being is but a small part of this universe.  That something created us and at times sees fit to try and guide us down the right path.  God allows for questions that in my case has deepened my faith further.  Each time I come to a conclusion I feel like in some way God is there aiding me.  While my values do not always match with my peers, I understand that as we are all the creations of God.  That we were all made to be a little different so as to achieve a better understanding that we are all individuals, not just clones of God created in his image.   As such I embrace individuality, and God's message through man is that we desire cooperation and that we fight over faith and the small things like ideology because we as human beings are imperfect.  It is those imperfections where we as human beings compensate for each other’s weaknesses that allows us to deepen ourselves and our experiences as we pass on our knowledge to the next generation.  

Conclusion:  I am Catholic, but I am my own variety of Catholic.  I freely admit that I question the pope and his authority over the Catholic Church.  I also do not believe that only one faith is right while the others are wrong.  This is because they may also be right.  We have our core tenets in the Ten Commandments and actions of Jesus Christ.  So I will continue to believe, question and deepen my faith in my own way.  I hope that you too can do the same. 

Issue 364 National Parks and Government June 24, 2014

So here I ask the question, should the parks be State run rather than federally run?  There are a number of Federal parks in the country, but they exist in State territory. Since when can the Federal government use land in the States without their permission for the purpose of a park?

Federally Unconstitutional: This issue came up back when the government shut down occurred last year.  It is already known that the Federal government has zero authority to run national parks.  Reason being is that nowhere in the United States Constitution does it allow for the Federal government to run a national park, let alone mention the word park in the first place. As such, despite the parks costing very little to no money in many cases to run, the Federal government continues to operate them and even use them as a political bargaining chip (as was the case with the government shut down).  So why do we not return these parks and the monuments that exist inside some of them to the States?  

The return:  Well, it is because of two reasons that the parks have not been given back to the States.  The first and most obvious was revenue.  These parks are a tourist traps and have gift shops that the Federal government (in the same manner as the State governments with their parks) get revenue.  The more people come to spend money the more profit is to be had.  

The other reason is fear.  We have naysayers claiming that the State governments will close the parks or harm the monuments.  Essentially the argument is that only the Federal government can protect and maintain these parks.  But, if you know your history, economics, or government, you know this is a bogus argument that inspires fear only in the less informed.  In truth, the States will get the money from these parks instead of the Federal government and to keep people coming the parks will be maintained by them.  No State government wants to destroy a money generating source, nor do they want to be known as the State that closed down a historic landmark.

Conclusion:  So yes, we can return this land to the States so that the States can profit from them and we the people can continue to enjoy them.  No more will we have to worry about these parks being shut down artificially by the Federal government to sway public opinion or the Unconstitutionality of it.  As such, give the States their land back, the Federal government has no right to it.

Issue 363 The Goat/sheep mower June 23, 2014

You remember my Issue 357 on using pigs to aid in recycling garbage?  Well here is another idea straight out of history.  Using Goats or Sheep to mow the lawn.  Let's talk.

Animal Mowers:  In the past, the White House did not have gardeners.  They instead had sheep and goat herders on the White House lawn eat the excess grass.  Why did they do this?  Well, for one, we were more of an agrarian economy, and the goats/sheep kept the lawn looking nice.  When the White House could finally pay to have gardeners, there were times, like in war where none could pay them.  So the sheep and the goats were brought in to keep the White House lawn looking nice.  Thus the inspiration.  Could we use these fuzzy animals to keep our national parks looking nice?

Idea:  So the Sheep and goats would be brought in to feed on the ever growing grass around our monuments and some of our national parks.  This means no need to spend on fuel to power lawn mowers or maintain machines.  The expense would simply come down to housing the animals at night, as the grass they feed on during the day would feed them most if not all of their nutrition.  On top of this, the wool of the sheep and the milk from the goats could be collected to be sold off.  This will help pay to offset the costs of caring for the animals.  So basically, the national parks and monuments get their grass trimmed, the animals help pay for themselves and we get a more natural way to mow the lawn.

Negatives:  The smell.  These animals poo often.  This problem can be offset by attaching poo bags to collect their feces to be sold later as fertilizer.  But, just as people complain about the smell of the lawn mower (the gas and the pollen it throws into the air), they will complain about the smell of poo.  

On the other hand, animals are not as efficient to doing a task, and need to rest every once in a while.  Also, while we can offset the costs of taking care of the animals, they take a larger amount of space to care for as well.  Thus, the sheep/goat idea is more for the national parks where people don't want to hear a lawn mower in the background, but the natural views and animals they may see.  So unleashing these animals in the parks may provide a lovely tourist attraction and reduce maintenance costs (especially if you prefer the let them loose as wild animals rather than domesticated and that's if there is more food than they can actually consume and be naturally replenished).  So basically, if you want to have a less human footprint, this is the better option.

Conclusion:  Yes, this idea, while historically supported, may not be the best idea.  In fact, most national parks require almost no maintenance in the first place.  So this idea can be for those key areas of the country, or when there is another government shutdown.  Heck, some people can offer it as a service for suburban and rural communities.  Free lawn mowing and fertilizer, compliments of the goats/sheep. It's at best something to consider.

Issue 362 Is Gambling Income? June 20, 2014

I say it is not. Gambling is a game of chance, and depending on the circumstances a game of skill too.  However, the Federal and State governments don't agree.  They see it as income so as to collect all that tax revenue.  So here I make my case as to why they, the government, is wrong.

Not earned:  For one, income is earned.  So you actually have to work for it.  In the case of gambling, you are simply playing some game or betting on an outcome.  As such, you expend a zero amount of physical labor to procure your winnings, and that is assuming that you win anything in the first place.  However, you may have to think (them gamblers loose so many calories by thinking right?).  By expending thought, are you expending labor?  Again I say no.  You think on a constant basis in all forms of decision making.  As such, thinking is not an act of labor but an action that occurs in everyday life.  Thus reason one as to why gambling winnings is not earned.

Not earned 2:  On the flip side, the government will seek to gather whatever money it can wherever it can.  As such, the government considers gambling winnings income.  However, I would argue that they are using a definition from the more "progressive" side of politics (this is not the good form of progressive thinking).  They view acquiring a certain amount of money income based on the fact that it may be unfair that the other people do not earn as much in a set amount of time.  In short, they want to punish you for achieving a victory against the "literal" odds.  Case in point is when you are taxed for receiving a set amount of money as inheritance or as a gift.  In the case of New York, if you receive anything in the value of $10,000 or more (not just as money, but the equivalent or greater value in property) you are then taxed on it. Likewise, the Federal government does the same with its Estate Tax, which is better known as the "death tax."  In the Federal government’s case, the taxed value is money received in excess of about $5 million. So this unfair advantage mentality is what drives them to consider money won by gambling the same way they do with getting free money from the death of a family member.  In short, it comes down to the foolish notions of fairness.

Conclusion:  So we have the fact that money won by gambling is not income based upon zero labor being used to "earn" it. Also, we have that the government is expressing the foolish notions of people complaining that someone has got more money than them "almost" for free.  My response is this, government, stay out of gamblers pockets.  It was never earned so you should not even remotely think that you can steal it from them.  Also, you people who think the world is unfair because someone got free money, try minding your own business.  Focus on what you have, not what others have for a change.

Issue 361 Reading the Founding Documents June 18, 2014

I re-read the United States Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence at least once a year.  And now I'm going to explain why.

Reason 1:  It is the Founding documents of my country.  The United States Constitution is the document that defines how the government is to run, what rights are to be protected and how the government is to interact with the people.  In short, it refreshes the memory on what government can do and cannot do for you.  It allows for people to know when the government goes too far and how often it may interfere in our daily lives.  In short, you know your rights, privileges and familiarize yourself with government.  The Declaration of Independence is similar in this respect, but defines the tyranny that America suffered and why we separated from Great Briton.  Knowledge of this also is important so that we can recognize tyranny in the modern age.

Reason 2:  The intention of the founders is also ever present in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  By understanding the intent it also gives a window into the history and culture of the America that once was.  It also, allows us access to the values that are important to the American Republic as well as helping to perpetuate those values.  These values I feel must be maintained in order to perpetuate a free and just society into any age.  

Conclusion:  So yes I re-read these documents ever year so as to refresh and preserve my knowledge of what my country is all about, Freedom.  You must remember that knowledge is power and those who know more about the rights and privileges that we as individuals have means they have power over you.  This of course invites tyranny, not just on the governmental level, but on the person to person level as well.  As such, so as not to be fooled by false promises and be controlled by others, I want to know more and understand better than those who would misuse the power of knowledge.  I also seek to extend and apply my understanding of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to my everyday life.  For this I watch, listen and learn about different points of view and government actions and make judgments based on my knowledge of the founding documents so I know what is allowed by government and what belongs to the people respectively.  This is my reasoning to re-read the most important documents ever to be written in the history of the United States of America.  Maybe you should re-read them too.   

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.