Issue 367 Bug Vaccines!!! June 27, 2014

Did you ever think there would be a day that you want to be bit by a blood sucking mosquito?  Well that day may be coming.  Here is why. (Compliments of Popular Science Magazine).

They are a delivery system:  Scientists have been discussing ways to use mosquitos as a delivery system for vaccinations directly to people with little to no expense.  Right now, vaccines cost a lot of money to not only produce, but to store, and then inject into people.  By using an animal based delivery system, it will allow for cheap effective delivery.  But how does it work.

Varying Methods:  One method is to place a weaker form of the disease into the animal (mosquito) for it to infect a person with so that the body can build up a natural immune response on its own.  Another is to place a bacteria, or special proteins inside the animal which when delivered to the person will have already attached themselves to the disease, but because of these bacteria or proteins it will make it easier for the body to detect and destroy.  Finally, you have retro viruses that boost the immune system, or add another element in the body that will attack the disease for the body, before the body itself reacts and destroys the retrovirus.  All these are feasible with today's technology and expertise.  

Conclusion:  This is a very interesting way to fight off things like malaria, and other pervasive pathogens.  It would be especially effective in Africa to fight off dengue fever and possibly in other countries to fight off polio and other diseases we have eradicated here in the United States.  So are you willing to be bit?

Issue 366 Island Prisons June 26, 2014

Let us talk about an old classical way of imprisoning the worst of the worst, an island prison or penal colony.  Why have we not brought this concept back to protect society from the worst of the worst?

Advantages:  In an island prison, the worst elements of society are stuck.  They have no escape save by boat.  As such, there is no need for walls, just obstacles to prevent landing by those who would try to get these people off the island.  Also, guards will not be needed for the prison is an island, there is literally no escape especially if its location is undisclosed.  At most, a patrol boat from a craft stationed off shore to prevent vessels from approaching would be optimal.  Well, this isolationist version is for condemned prisoners who the State does not want back into society.

The penal colony version of this is similar to the aforementioned, save that the prisoners work.  In this case, they will be made to grow their own food, with the excess being sold to businesses for them to sell.  Prisoners would also do factory work that is typically needed for the State, such as making photo identification, license plates and other unique tools and equipment that the government requires to be given out or used. In short, prisoners become cheap labor.  On top of this, it keeps the prisoners busy with work over fighting each other. It prevents them from banning together into cohesive groups as much as possible (if well designed) preventing the deepening of the gang and terrorist recruitment that now happens in jails today.

Negatives:  In the island prison version, you are essentially killing the prisoner off without actually physically killing them.  Instead, if they do not farm/harvest their own food they will die.  Also, they will be subject to the whims of their fellow inmates, which means many are likely to die harsh deaths.  

For the penal colony version, you essentially have slave labor. Slavery of course is forbidden in the United States under the Thirteenth Amendment with the sole exception of being a punishment for a crime (hence community service and prisoners being put to work in prisons).  However, we must be careful to maintain humane treatment, or we will be as bad as those who once oppressed people on the plantation, or sell children as sex slaves today.

Conclusion:  I want the prisoners to be put to work.  They need job skills in the first place.  Teaching them agriculture, factory work and other jobs can be useful once they finally get out of prison (depending on their sentence).  However, we must not give way to slavery like in the past.  We are supposed to have surpassed our failings.  On the other hand, an island prison to put terrorists, and condemned prisoners is appealing as we would give them what they need to survive by having them farm for themselves and slaughter animals, while also being able to maintain and build shelter.  This out of site self-sufficient island prison is an idea that will only be stopped by the guilty conscience of those who put them there.  So what do you think?  Are these classical forms of prisons updated for modern times worth it?

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.