Issue 375 What's an assault rifle? July 9, 2014

Assault rifle is a scary term.  In fact when you hear assault rifle you may think of the guns the U.S. military uses.  You would be correct to think of it as a military fire arm, but looks does not define an assault rifle as many lawmakers seem to think.  So allow me to define it for once based on my own personal knowledge of firearms.

What constitutes an assault rifle?:  Well the simplest way is to define it is that it shoots 3 or more rounds each time the trigger is pulled.  It may be equipped with a selector switch to enable the rifle to fire a single round at a time or to fire on full automatic like a machine gun (fires until it runs out of bullets or the trigger is released).  Also, it has to shoot rifle rounds.  So ammunition used in a pistol like a 9 mm, or a 45 ACP, do not count (though they would count for a sub-machine gun).  And that is it.  This is what actually constitutes an assault rifle.

Legalities:  However the law would have you believe that a rifle with a telescoping scope, an extra grip, or any other accessories added to the gun make it an assault weapon.  False, the accessories add to accuracy, or capability of the gun to either shoot in dusk or complete darkness and possibly at longer ranges.  That is all.  Collapsible stocks, extended magazines of ammunition and similar accessories serve to either make the gun easier to carry and to shoot, or in some cases for bragging rights.  However, the people in government think things with these accessories are scary and thus deem them to be deadly assault weapons.  Truth is you can have two M-16 rifles (standard issue for the U.S. army) but only one is considered an assault rifle.  The reason, because the civilian model one shoots one bullet at a time, while the military can shoot 3 or more.  So looks mean nothing.  It is all about capability.

Conclusion:  I hope this clears this all up.  While I own no guns, I support the second amendment and our right for self-protection.  My only grip is that they should stop blaming the gun and instead blame the shooter instead.

Issue 374 Real rich: buying power July 8, 2014

I feel as if I have discussed this before.  That people who have lots of money are not truly rich.  Instead it is about buying power.  But what is buying power?

What is it?:  Yes it has to do with money.  In this case it is about the amount of things you can buy with the smallest denomination of money.  So if you look at the American past, a movie used to cost ten cents, but now it can cost as much as $20 in some places.  As such, the buying power of an individual to go to the movies went down.  Same thing with respect to buying gas here in the United States.  A gallon of gas used to cost about $1.75 at most, but now it costs $3.50 or more.  This is a loss of buying power that reduces our ability to spend on other things that we may want to buy, whether that be necessities or on recreational items.   Those who can afford to spend more on other items whether that is due to better budgeting/saving or having more disposable income are and can be considered richer as they can afford to spend more without fear of possibly pinching pennies to get by.  So a person with a ton of money may not actually be rich as they may not have enough money to buy things outside of what they deem necessities based on their lifestyle or other mitigating factors. So no matter how much you have, you may never actually be rich.

What influences buying power?:  There are a few things.  The one you have the most control over is your budget.  With careful planning on expenses and taking opportunities to accumulate a more advantageous financial position, you can gain in buying power.  But if you spend on the non-essentials, or do not monitor your money properly, then you will decrease your buying power.

The cost of items also limit or enhance your buying power.  One influence is taxes on business, the shipping costs for their products, manufacturing costs, and any government regulations that are imposed on those items.  All this increases the cost of an item and makes it less affordable and can even limit salaries of those individuals working.  So people can be priced out of being able to afford a simple lough of bread.  You can also factor in the stock market as well, as like with oil, investors can cause an items price to rise or fall, or even remain stable in most cases depending on the situation.  Though the stock market typically acts as a stabilizing influence to prevent sharp price increases and thus protects buying power.

Inflation is another problematic factor.  This one is caused by government and its manipulation over the value of the currency in use in the country.  By printing more money, the value of the dollar goes down in the same way that an items price goes down if more supply is created.  So because the dollar is affected by the same supply and demand factors on the market as everything else, if the dollar’s value goes down, then prices of goods will naturally increase to accommodate the larger sums of money needed to make those goods and for businesses to get a return on their investment. As such, this is governments fault.

Conclusion:  I am sure my explanation could be more detailed in respect to examples, but this is the simplest and shortest way I can explain it without it becoming a total headache for you may dear reader.  So I hope you liked the issue and gained a better understanding on who the real rich really are, for it may even be you.

Issue 373 Boarder crossing July 7, 2014

Sergeant Tahmooressi has been imprisoned by the Mexican authorities for well over 2 and a half months.  He was imprisoned for missing an exit on the American and Mexican border in which he claimed his guns were in the vehicle when stopped by the police down in Mexico (thus following the law).  The Mexican authorities then for some unknown reason imprisoned the Marine and has since been in fear of his life from the gang elements that run Mexico's jails.  We have no idea when the Sergeant will be released.  Hopefully by the time of this issues publican however this issue will be resolved.  Yet, no matter what, have to show a firmer hand with respect to border crossers, and I'm not talking about illegal migrants.  Allow me to explain.

The other border crossers:  Apparently numerous people accidentally cross the U.S. Mexican border each day.  When caught by the members of the U.S. border patrol, they are simply escorted back over the boarder after about three hours’ worth of paperwork (source: discussion on "Real News" on the Blaze Network which airs at 6 pm each week day).  Sometimes these individuals who have crossed have drug paraphernalia and even guns of their own.  These illegal crossings range from basic civilians to even Mexican military personnel.  Sometimes the line between drug dealer and Mexican police/military is ultra-thin.  So here is my proposal based on what happened to Sergeant Tahmooressi.

Proposal:  When a person crosses the United States and Mexican border illegally and are then caught, any and all drug paraphernalia should be confiscated immediately.  Any weapons that are non-Mexican police/Military with the exception of personnel who are caught with some form of illegal drugs will also be confiscated.  Then and only then will we send them back over the border.  This is to send a message to those corrupt officials in Mexico who, I would guess, want to hurt us, or follow the orders of the cartels.  On top of this I think it is stupid that we don't confiscate the drugs and weapons that they accidentally cross over with in the first place.  I mean, why are we not trying to hurt the cartels financially by taking more from them and taking the guns that result in deaths on both sides of the U.S. Mexican border.

We can also profit a little off of this.  Those drugs being confiscated can be tested for their purity and usability in either legal marijuana or for conversion to medicinal/medical purposes.  Once tested, they can be sold off to the highest bidder to either drug companies, universities doing drug research, or basic distributes that sell medical/recreational marijuana.  This money can then be used to fund the border police in further operations or other purposes they deem permissible via congress or through the State governments to secure the U.S. Mexican border.  The guns on the other hand can also be checked out, this time to see if they were used in a crime.  If used in a crime, they can be used to bring up charges on cartel members in Mexico or here in the United States to put them in jail.  If not used in a crime (or cannot be proven to be used in a crime) the gun can be stripped of its parts and sold as scrap or be sold as a whole to gun enthusiasts or licensed gun dealers for resale. Again, the border patrol gains more money to fund operations in this scenario.  

Conclusion:  So what do you all think of my idea as a reaction to what happened to Sergeant Tahmooressi?  Is this a good idea?  Will it really aid in or striking back at the cartels?  I really do not know, but what I do know is this, it is dumb to just let these illegal crosser's go back with drugs and guns untouched.

Issue 372 4th of July July 4, 2014

Today is America's Independence Day.  

We celebrate our countries birth, the sacrifices made to make it and then hold it together.  

We honor our soldiers who sacrifice for us and those who made this nation great.  

Yes America has gone through sever trials and tribulations, but we always come through and we always seek to correct our mistakes.

Today we celebrate our founding and our principles that made our nation so strong and resilient.

We will continue to grow, stumble and then set ourselves back in the right direction.  

However, we can only do this through the people who call America home.

It is the American people who make up our nation and to whom we owe a debt of gratitude to for our continued perseverance.

So God Bless the people of the United States for you are what makes this country strong.

Happy Fourth of July.

Issue 371 Computerized Education is Feared?! July 3, 2014

Why computer is based learning feared by teachers?  Well it is simple, it revolutionizes teaching so much that it may make a lot of teachers lose their jobs.

Why it's feared:  Computer based education does not require numerous teachers to be trained and employed.  In fact, the smallest number of teachers needed is one.  That is right, one teacher who is really good at presenting information can teach the entire country via computer.  While realities of competition will mean there will be more than one and that children may learn better with one teacher based on teaching method than another, there will be much less need for teachers to even exist.  You see, that same teacher who is teaching a video can end up teaching for 100 years or more without the need to be replaced even after they die.  Let's face it, if a teacher is that good at teaching via computer, then why hire someone else to take their place.  So what happens to all those other teacher's?

The other teachers may never see a classroom. Reason being is that there will be no need.  While the teacher teaching via the computer can sit back after doing one single lecture which will be viewed by millions while they reap the copyright benefits, the other teachers will be relegated to a support role.  They will have two key roles, grading essays and providing one on one sessions for those who have questions on the material.  A teacher will never have to grade a multiple choice test ever again as that can all be done via computer.  They will never have to issue report cards and progress reports, or tell where the student is having trouble as the computer is easily able to pinpoint that.  So when it comes to something a computer cannot do, it means these supporting teachers will be grading essays and other documents written by students.  The other job they will do is be there like a tech support person to answer questions and troubleshoot where a student gets stuck on a part of the material they are studying.  So these one on one trouble shooting sessions will be these teachers niche roll, possibly with a rating system so that even these individuals can be in demand and receive special privileges like their video teacher counterparts.

Unions:  In this future where students learn at their own pace, unions will lose lots of money as there will be very little teachers left to represent, and even then, the teachers they do represent may not need them as they will be contracting directly with parents and students rather than government bodies or private institutions.  Basically, you will have private tutor capable of teaching a million kids at once and be paid for it.  So why would a teacher subject themselves to union dues and rules?  The fact is that they will not.  And as such, the teachers unions and its supporting bodies will cease to exist as we know them.

Conclusion:  The future of education is looking bright for our children and our wallets, but is dismal for the profession of teaching.  This is not a bad thing though as those horrible teachers that give other teachers a bad name will be completely pushed out, and the teachers who are better at grading (being tough on students written work) will be able to focus on that to insure students become better at reading and writing in general through tests.  Also, who knows how much education will evolve in the future once teaching becomes almost exclusive to computer based learning.  The sky is the limit and we may even see a resurgence of a new form of teacher instead of the near extinction of the ones we have now.

Issue 370 Stay at home Representatives July 2, 2014

 It has been debated and discussed since computers and the internet have become so reliable and world changing.  That debate centered on seeing if our representatives can vote via the internet so that they may be closer to us the people they represent.  So what are the arguments for and against?

For:  One of the key reasons that some want their elected Representatives closer to home is because they are typically unreachable.  Many stay in Washington for most of the year and thus the only way for a constituent to reach them is by phone, via a home office staffed by interns and employees who may not forward your message or to spend large sums to go to Washington D.C.  When a Representative is far away they lose touch with the wants and needs of their constituents and are thus more susceptible to special interests.

Right now it is easier for special interest groups like lobbyists and others who want their causes funded or supported by government to manipulate and bribe our elected officials.  It is easy because the Representatives that make law and dictate where money is spent are all concentrated in one place.  Thus, they only need to rent an office to lobby on the cheap.  If Representatives where to vote from home, it would be much less feasible for these special interest groups to meet up and bribe our politicians.  Also, cause they will be at home, we the people will know who outside of the community is meeting up with our Representatives and when.  Thus, it makes it harder to bribe politicians by keeping them in their home districts and keeping them decentralized.

This decentralized approach has another advantage.  It protects our politicians from terrorist attacks.  If a terrorist wants to attack our government, they have only to attack while congress is in session.  But if all the Representatives are voting from home, then there is no centralized target to attack.   

Against:  The biggest fear is hacking or some form of disruption of the voting process.  Voting by proxy of computer has the same issues as voting using a messenger or by mail.  It can either be intercepted or changed, or not arrive in time due to some other form of disruption.  So Meeting in person is much more secure with respect to keeping such corruption from occurring.

Conclusion:  While I am in favor of Representatives being home more often, I am not in favor of computer based voting by our lawmakers.  While voting for a representative is much more easily fixed if the constituents vote via computer, the idea that a law can be easily fixed after it has been corrupted is not.  So I am open to other alternatives that are more secure.

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.