Issue 369 Characteristics of the wise July 1, 2014

What are the key characteristics of the wise?  I think I know what they are.  So let's discuss.

On thought:  When a wise person obtains new information, they listen.  It is the unwise that ignore information or outright dismiss it.  In short, the unwise will choose to remain ignorant.  However, the wise man/woman will say to themselves "I have never thought of it that way before."  The wise man/women seeks knowledge and understanding as they believe that they are right, but know still that they could be wrong on those issues, facts or opinions.  So they open their minds to all information, process it and then see if they come to the same conclusion they had previous, or if their opinion has changed.  Wise people do not regret having the wrong opinion either as they are instead great full that they were able to gather the information to improve upon themselves.

On Intentions:  A wise person can also see through others intentions.  In essence they can perceive the motivations behind what people say and do.  This is something that comes with a wise men/woman's ability to accept and process new information.  If the wise man/woman is incapable of absorbing new information even if it is counter to their own, then they will not have the ability to judge why and how people present certain information and opinion in a specific way.  As such, once a person absorbs information they can then gain the ability to make judgment calls based on how and why people talk and act a certain way.  In fact they may even be able to see why, over time, those other people’s opinions change based on how society itself changes. Interesting right?

Conclusion:  I hope that I am a wise man.  Though I think that I like debate more so I have my doubts.  But I enjoy learning and I know, depending on the subject and how it is presented, you all do too.  So all that knowledge that you accumulate throughout your life, no matter how small, means something.  You, one day, can be wiser and you will be.  It’s just that some people limit themselves which makes it a much slower process.

Issue 368 Backing Money without Gold? June 30, 2014

You have all heard of the arguments to go back to the Gold Standard. But you probably do not know what that actually means or that there is an alternative to the Gold Standard as well.  Let's discuss.

Backing Money:  When they say they want to go back to the Gold Standard, they mean financially backing the currency by giving it an almost one for one value with gold.  The most simplistic way to describe how this works is that a government cannot print more money than the amount of gold in the government’s possession. This keeps the value of the currency from decreasing and thus prevents inflation.  At one point the United States looked at the Silver Standard which would have allowed the United States to print more money to pay its debts (along with people already indebted as more money at less value is much more easily earned to pay off debts in the first place).  As such, the United States does not have to rely solely on the Gold Standard.

Other backers:  Anything that holds value can be used to back money so long as it can be monetized. So this means coal, platinum, uranium, and other valuable items can be used to back the dollar or any currency for that matter.  Interestingly enough, Omar Qaddafi the now dead dictator of Libya wanted to create an international currency for Africa backed by its oil resources.  This meant that if a country wanted to pay back their debts to Libya or any other country using this African currency, they would be forced to possibly pay it back in barrels worth of oil. As such, depending on what you use to back your money, you can control the world economy.  The reason why Gold is typically used is because there is such a limited supply that its value can only go up.  It has been actually said on the show "Americas Book of Secretes" on History Channel that the total amount of Gold in the world is equivalent to a regulation size tennis court and about three stories tall.  Thus you can see why there is a search for alternatives to Gold. 

Conclusion:  We may need an alternative to Gold to get us out of the financial distress our country is in.  So the question is, is it actually worth it?  I think so, as the floating dollar we have now is too unstable for it to survive.

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.