Issue 392 War: The Endless Waltz August 1, 2014

There is now a dismissed school of thought that believed that war was an integral part of humanity and that we as a species cannot escape it.  But, I believe that as unfortunate as it may be, war is an inevitable part of not only our past history as human beings, but our future history as well.  Let's discuss.

War is endless:  Unfortunately, war is going to continue to keep slapping humanity in the face time and time again.  Reason being is that war is fought for a multitude of reasons.  The most justifiable is typically self-defense.  But that requires an attacker.  As such, why would another nation attack another?  Nazi Germany did so out of revenge and the concept of uniting the Germanic peoples to rule over the others they deemed genetically inferior.  Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda seek to rid the world of the infidels (non-Muslims) and unite the world into a Caliphate.  So you have anger, religion, and race all as reasons for starting a war.  Others like the ancient Trojan War was fought over a queen who left her husband to be with the king of Troy.  Many of these are in truth trivial reasons to go to war and do battle.  But, religion, ethnicity, race, revenge, and fear are all common throughout human history.  Even the American Revolution was fought in part because of simple anger over abuses by the British Crown.  Add onto that the desire for one's voice to be heard in government and you have a recipe for a revolution.  However, there is one other type of war, the war for resources and territory.  This occurs when a country's resources like metals and other natural resources dwindle.  It can also occur when there is economic trouble.  But, the most common reason which results in the former is that the country’s population has grown so large that the economy of the country cannot hope to keep up.  From there excuses that defame the neighboring countries and make their peoples look less human occur to justify war.  So these are, but not limited to, the reasons for war.  Conflict is inevitable, but how far we take it is up to us.

Conclusion:  You can see why it is dismissed by most current historians, for this view means that you would have to believe that humanity is inherently violent.  Although, I do believe we are a violent species due to the natural aggression we have, I personally believe that we can rise above such things. War of course is typically started by our world leaders, not the basic populace.  So if we really want to make war part of ancient history and stop this Endless Waltz of blood and terror, we need to be careful in whom we elect as world leaders.  Then and only then we may have a chance to avert war. 

Issue 391 2nd Amendment and Militias July 31, 2014

If you have read the second Amendment of the United States Constitution, you will know that it mentions militias.  But the right to bear arms is not dependent on the right to form a militia, but instead certifies our right to organize into militias to defend the nation.  So how do we reconcile that the 2nd Amendment mentions militias and what do militias actually have to do with the 2nd Amendment.  

First and Foremost The 2nd Amendment: 

A well regulated Militia, 

being necessary to the security of a free State, 

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, 

shall not be infringed.

History:  As I understand, the mentioning of militias has to do with the States and localities and their right to organize militias.  The militias at the time were drawn up from the local population and could range in age (depending on what State or area you lived in) from as young as 15 to as old as 75.  However, the States, and especially local governments could not afford to secure equipment for these militias.  As such, it was up to the local population to secure their own guns and other weapons so that they could serve.

A militia man had many roles, they acted as a police force, a military force, hunting parties to kill dangerous wild animals and depending on the local government could act as fire fighters or in any capacity the locals needed.  However, local governments and State governments did set standards for equipment for the roles these militias had to play.  So it was up to the militia members to again gather and secure their own equipment.  But unlike today’s military, militias were not a standing army.  They could buy a gun for the short period of time needed to fight and then sell it.  They received only informal training at worst and but are not the equals to their full time counterparts (in terms of training and equipment).  So to think that militias are on the same terms with an organized military in nonsense and corrupts the purpose of a militia which is to simply fight and then disband as the need arose.

Rectifying the situation:  To say that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with militias is false.  But to say militias have the exclusive right to bear arms is utter nonsense.  States and local governments dictated the age and equipment levels needed to serve in a militia when people were called up.  It was a volunteer based system, but people could be compelled (drafted) if the situation dictated.  So, in order to ensure everyone at least had marginally the same equipment levels, people were essentially compelled to get a gun without actual force of law.  Also these militia members had to be ready to organize at any time.  So the right to bear arms is partially secured by the fact that people had to buy their own weapons in case they were called to fight.  So securing the right to bear arms allows people to form militias when and if needed.

Conclusion:  The people are allowed to fight for their country whether that enemy is foreign or domestic, a national government or a terrorist organization or other possible enemy.  Guns play a smaller role today than in the past where people needed them to hunt with and maintain a livelihood in many instances (though in some parts of the country this still holds true).  The idea that a person who volunteers or the potential to volunteer for a militia aids in the proof that we have the right to bear arms.  They had to buy their own guns and so even if they were not in an actual militia yet, they knew they may (by circumstances) be forced into one at some point in time.  As such they need the right to bear arms to be ready to take action.  

Issue 390 Advantages of hunting July 30, 2014

Hunting, a practice that I have yet to partake in save in the form of fishing (if that counts), has very distinct advantages over traditional store bought food.  It also aids us in everyday life.  Read on to find out how.

Chemical free:  Yes that is right, hunting for food means acquiring game without all the additives and chemicals.  So no hormones, antibiotics or any similar possibly negative chemicals.  As such, you have a more natural and arguably more organic meal.

Empowers women:  Women who hunt are supposedly more confident, and capable of handling stressful situations.  They, having a gun or other hunting tool, gives them the same power as that of a man holding a gun in effect equalizing them.  These women are also more independent as well.  This however, is not based on scientific study, but let the girls play too.

Learning:  Hunting imparts lessons in patience, discipline and teaches survival skills.  The survival skills aid in everyday life by making the person more self-aware and likely to look into their environment to seek the tools they need to accomplish whatever task is put before them.  Discipline comes from the fact the hunter must keep cool and maintain a level head even in the most stressful of situations.  And finally patience comes from the ability to wait for the target to come to them.  So every aspect of hunting in fact becomes a tool to further oneself.

Conclusion:  I may not be 100% right in my assessment.  In fact, I expect a few hunters to maybe yell at me for not getting this all correct or leaving something out.  However, despite my never having gone hunting in the woods, I recognize this activity (survival for some) as something unique and special.   

Issue 389 ASAP-P vs. As long as it takes Prayer July 29, 2014

"As soon as possible prayer" versus "As long as it takes prayer."  This is the two forms of prayer we as human beings who have religion do in times of trouble, when we are week, and when we wish to help others.  But which is the correct way?  Let's discuss.

As soon as possible prayer: As soon as possible prayer (ASAP-P) is the prayer we say when we want something done immediately.  It is all about seeing it done right away because we demand that God exercises his power on our behalf.  But, it is selfish for this to occur.  Or at least I think it is selfish.  God works when the time is right, not when we wish him too.  So no, God will not get you a girlfriend, or a new car or any of the like.  Then in times of hardship we ask God to save us or others, but God only helps those who help themselves.  So if you just want God to solve all your problems, then it probably will not happen.  This is at least how I see it.

As long as it takes prayer:  For the "as long as it takes prayer", it seems to me that this is the correct way to pray.  It essentially is asking God for guidance to achieve the goals you wish.  God does want us to be happy, but his job is not providing the happiness to us.  Instead he whispers in our ear and our heart to make the right choices to make ourselves happy through our own effort and strength.  Sure God is helping in this scenario, but he is not doing the task for you.  Then there are those emergency situations like a loved one’s life is in danger.  This is where things get hairy.  Yes God probably can simply mend all the wounds, broken bones, and the trauma, but why doesn't he?  My guess is that it becomes a test.  A test on one’s faith, hope and love.  That the people injured need time to heal for a reason, and thus cannot be healed right away, while at the same time you the person praying is healing in a different way.  This is my guess as to why this form of prayer is the right way.

Conclusion:  Truth is, I do not know which form of prayer is right or wrong.  I just have a feeling that between these two, the "As long as it takes prayer" makes the most sense and fits with what I have learned in my own faith.  So what do you think?  Do you do the ASAP-P type?  Do you think you are being selfish if you do?  Or are there situations that justify selfishness (if it is selfish in the first place)?  I cannot answer these questions for you.  I personally think I would be selfish if I did the ASAP-P type and thus violate all I believe with respect to my faith.  So I will learn to be patient and continue to be patient for the goals I myself have in mind.  I believe God is within us all, whispering to us to go down the right path.  Being patient and earning everything is just some of those whispers.  It just takes some effort for us to listen.  

Issue 388 Health and Nano-machines July 28, 2014

Here I will go over the potential problems with injecting microscopic machines into the human body.  Here we go.

Dependency: In the future our bodies may become dependent on these machines to actively fight diseases.  As such, our immune systems may actually become weaker and make us more susceptible to disease. 

Kidneys:  What is to say that as our kidneys remove the nano-machines from our bodies that they do not scrape and scratch them from the inside of our bodies.  This could result in irreparable damage to the kidneys and force us on dialysis.  

Further damage:  What is also to say that these machines will cause other damage to the rest of the body as well?  These machines can accidentally damage the heart, liver, lungs and other organs.  Imagine the bacteria they are meant to fight is in our lungs.  Now imagine a horde of small robots converging on our lungs to kill the bacteria.  We still do not know how that will affect our lungs as a whole.  The same goes for our heart.  The plaque that builds up in our bodies has pockets of bacteria in them.  If the nano-machines burrow through the plaque, that plaque will flake off and cause a blood clot.  So you can see that there are many problems here.

Differentiating:  As mentioned in the previous article, the machines cannot distinguish between good bacteria or bad.  This also means they cannot tell a bacteria from a regular human cell yet.  So this could be as bad as getting chemo therapy or worse.  As such, we can end up injecting the nano-machines just for them to rip apart our own bodies if we are not careful.  

White blood cells:  Now there is also the issue of white blood cells attacking these machines.  Will these machines defend themselves and thus weaken our immune systems by killing the white blood cells too.  Also, will these machines distract the body’s immune system from the real problem, such as bacteria or a virus?  Again another question to be asked, and hopefully answered.

Conclusion:  These possibilities are not the end to the research that needs to be done.  We must ask these questions so that our miracle cure does not become a curse.  However, if we can solve these issues, we potentially can create a superior fighter against a whole host of diseases.  Good luck scientists, and God's speed.

Issue 387 Solution to super-bugs July 25, 2014

We talked already about bacteria immune to antibiotics, but there is a possible solution.  This solution is microscopic robots called nano-machines.

How they work:  Nano-machines are microscopic robots built in factories or born from various biological methods (as in the case of DNA robots).  These robots can be programmed to hunt down and kill the bacteria.  All it needs is the right programming.  Basically, you build it, give it a task, and then inject it so it carries out that task.

Benefits:  Super-bugs as far as we know cannot fight them.  Robots are not something bacteria can get immune too (we think).  So the robots can doggedly carry out their task to rid the body of all enemy bacteria.

To make it work:  The only issue is to program the machines to go after bacteria that causes the human body harm, not the beneficial bacteria.  Also, if one of the good bacteria overwhelms the body and becomes detrimental, what instructions are we to give to these robots.  So we will have to figure this out and categorize each bacteria into categories and have a way to monitor their populations in the body.

Conclusion:  Nano-machines are a step in the right direction, but in no way mean that we cannot be vigilant.  Truth is, we have never actually pitted a machine against bacteria (to my knowledge), so more research needs to be done.  Also, we still do not know the potential side effects of these microscopic machines will have on our bodies.  We have much to learn, but little time to do it.

Issue 386 The antibiotic problem July 24, 2014

Antibiotics are a tool to fight off bacterial infections.  However, through our own negligence, and insecurities have caused mutated bacteria to thrive and be almost entirely resistant to modern medicines such as antibiotics.  Let's discuss.

We caused the problem:  The problem is caused by overuse of antibiotics.  There are cases when doctors prescribe antibiotics to a patient despite the patient not having a bacterial infection in the first place.  Also, doctors will give antibiotics to patients that are disproportionately stronger than needed to fight the infection.  The result is that bacteria immune to that antibiotic surviving and without competition living on to become a problem for the human host.  But this is only a small portion of this problem.  

The biggest problem:  What is hurting us the most in the battle against bacterial diseases is not doctors, but farmers.  Farmers use about 80% of all antibiotics on the market on their livestock to keep them from getting sick.  However, this has the same issue as it does on people, leaving behind immune bacterial stains.  On top of this, those antibiotics end up in our food, which in turn we take in and compound the problem further.  

Solution:  Less antibiotics is the only real way to solve this problem.  Doctors have to prescribe only the weakest antibiotics that are equal to the job, leaving the more powerful ones for later if and only if needed.  They also cannot just prescribe drugs to patients when it has no bearing on their condition.  

We also have to get farmers to stop using all these antibiotics on their livestock, the food we eat.  It is becoming detrimental to the health of all of us if we create a bacteria that cannot be cured.  Simply by not giving these animals antibiotics unless they are sick is the only real method to stopping the super bug problem.

Conclusion:  Antibiotics already do harm to the body in the form of killing good bacteria and ruining the small intestines.  But to top it off we can be creating the next black plague.  So can we be responsible and fix this problem before it is too late.